Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 2

Lead Image
So per MOS:LEADIMAGE, a lead image "should be of least shock value", and the example given is opting for images of Holocaust victims being deported rather than images of them being abused or their dead bodies. Currently, the lead image is one of Arbery falling to the ground after being shot, and I personally feel this is too shocking for the lead image. I realize this is an article about a shooting and the image won't be pleasant, however, a screencap of the confrontation when Arbery is still alive accomplishes the same thing (visualizing the interaction) and does not subject readers to the image of a falling body. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 00:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * After seeing your comment and then another by on the file's talk page, I've gone ahead and switched the image to one that shows a screen capture of when the struggle was still taking place as opposed to just after the kill shot.  If other editors disagree with this (or support this), please join in with your comments here so that the issue can be aired out.  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The details of what happened during the struggle itself are also unclear as much occurs outside the video's frame.--KasiaNL (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree also. The original uploader reverted AzureCitizen but I reverted them and asked them to see the discussion here.  Note that when you do this it shows the wrong image in the thumbnail unless you reload the page.   D r e a m Focus  09:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting reports on theft from homeowner
Currently in the "Surveillance video" section there is a quote from a Washington Post article. The source states: Larry English, the man who owns the house under construction, told The Washington Post that the structure was not robbed. “That’s completely wrong. I’ve never had a police report or anything stolen from my property, or any kind of robbery,” he said. English, 50, said he was about 90 miles away in Douglas, Ga., where he lives with his wife and two children, when Arbery was killed. He said he is severely ill and is building the waterfront home as part of his bucket list. But he said it’s now unlikely his family will ever move into the Brunswick home because he’s faced death threats and his wife is too afraid. As far as I'm aware, that Washington Post article is the only source to state that. But numerous other articles conflict with that: One was a theft of $2,500 worth of fishing equipment from English’s property, which he said he didn’t report to police but confirmed to The Daily Beast.

The owner of a home under construction near the scene of Arbery's February 23 shooting, listed as a victim in the police report, said his surveillance system captured a man who appeared to be Arbery "coming onto his property" on that day. The homeowner, who declined to share the clips with CNN, said there were previous videos on other occasions showing a man entering the property and stealing fishing tackle but he could not identify the man and he did not file a police report. Police have yet to clarify whether Arbery is accused of any crime at the unfinished home. Given the obvious contradictions, and the fact that no publications are reporting on the conflicting statements, it seems unwise to include either assertion. Any objection to removing it? Tambourine60 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The difference is that one is referring to a theft of Fishing gear from an unknown date. The other statement is from English relating to the date Arbery was identified. There is no conflict, they are two different incidents. Koncorde (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if multiple statements from English conflict, the ones that are notable and from reliable sources should be included in the article. Right now both statements meet that criteria and the best we can do is to include all those statements and any commentary that other reliable sources have made on their potential inconsistencies. It seems that the issue here is the specification of dates (if they are known) rather than a contradiction. The two sources may be reconcilable and what, if anything, was stolen from the property is notable and has received consistent attention from RS. Perhaps when English said he "never had...anything stolen" he is colloquially saying that he didn't have anything stolen on the date of the shooting incident specifically? Or perhaps the theft of the fishing tackle did happen but was so long ago that English doesn't associate the two incidents? Has any date been provided for the theft of the fishing tackle? Just some ideas about why it would be premature to remove either quote. 104.13.110.123 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, no. NO. This is all just hot air for now, never more than in "the two sources may be reconcilable". Are you going to sit around here and interpret someone's words? And are you really saying that as long as we don't know what something means or whether it is correct we should not remove it?, we're living in the upside down. Also upside down: an edit summary for an edit I just reverted: "remove WP:SYNTHESIS. Sources which pre-date the events of this article and do not mention this event cannot, by definition, be used as background to it." In other words, events from the past cannot be background. Wut? Drmies (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to what you reverted, to my knowledge, no one in this topic is involved in it and it doesn't seem to be directly related to this topic, so this probably isn't the place to discuss it. In regards to your other point, I really don't see any reason for mystification. There are many places in human life where the same person makes multiple conflicting (or seemingly conflicting) statements and sometimes Wikipedia records them. Take statements of politicians, for example. If a politician says "I don't support this war" and the next day they say "I do support this war", should both statements be removed from Wikipedia because we don't know which one is "correct"? Clearly that's not what happens and the eventual solution is usually to include both statements (assuming that they are notable, etc.) but with some note that they conflict or including people's reactions to that inconsistency. The answer is that things are included based on notability, from reliable sources, and given due weight. If the things which meet those criteria to be included in the encyclopedia are still conflicting or confusing, special care is needed to avoid confusion but the proper recourse is not to just remove the entire topic. Here's an example: "On Monday, the politician said X [source] but on Tuesday the politician said Y [source]. He has not clarified the relationship between these two statements." Doesn't seem that upside down to me. I feel that your fourth sentence distorts the issue greatly by ignoring why things are included in Wikipedia in the first place, which this topic meets (in my opinion). Finally, "Are you going to sit around here and interpret someone's words?" Your implication that English's statements could never be de-conflicted or explained is also an "interpretation of his words". Everyone interprets the sources, we just have to do it with good judgment. Including both statements and noting the inconsistency is, in fact, the least "interpretive" way of presenting the relevant material. 104.13.110.123 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see you are an admin with a long history on Wikipedia. I apologize for my previous comment, which may have come across as pedantic to you because I am sure you are very well-versed in Wikipedia policy and have much more experience than many on this page. Nonetheless I stand by the conclusions of my argument and I hope we can have a constructive conversation. 104.13.110.123 (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in Background section
I've tagged the Background section as containing WP:SYNTH after my removal of the material was reverted. MAny sources and claims in this section pre-date the events of this article and do not mention these events. This means that it is Wikipedia editors - not the sources - which are claiming this is background. To make a silly comparison - if I found an article from 3 years ago that said the streets in this area were being re-paved, that would not be proper Background on this event unless a recent source about this event also mentioned the re-paving as a factor -- in which case we would use that newer source and not the older one. This section needs to remove this extraneous information, otherwise it is misleading, unverifiable, and off-topic for this article. -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's only prohibited original synthesis if the connection is made by Wikipedia editors and not reliable sources. The New York Times article makes the connection - that's a reliable source, and thus it's not original synthesis. If there is anything in that section which is not mentioned in the NYT article or similar contemporary reports, I would agree that those particular incidents should be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT source is fine. The others (WTOC, AJCx2) are not. They do not mention Arbery. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not SYNTH. It's about the PD, and the history of the PD is relevant, per the NYT: "Georgia Killing Puts Spotlight on a Police Force’s Troubled History". This is a short summary of the PD's history and of course it's going to discuss matters other than the primary topic of the article. Guy (help!) 20:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy: Sure, but which specific aspects of the PD are relevant is being chosen solely by the whims of Wikipedia editors - and I'll note that the particular factoids included are only those putting the PD in a negative light. The only way to be sure that any particular factoid about the PD is relevant background is for recent sources about the Arbery event to specifically mention them as background. The only source in that section that does so is the NYT May 8. What I suggest instead is you move the irrelevant ones to Glynn County Police Department. Readers who want more information not directly-related to the Arbery event can go there for it. -- Netoholic @ 21:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that has no bearing on synthesis. You may view it as giving undue weight to specific facts, but there is no synthesis here, the sources are reliable and accurately represented. Guy (help!) 21:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be both. The SYNTH is the concern that a conclusion about the state of the PD is being drawn by pulling in multiple negative stories about the PD on a page which is supposed to be about an event, not the PD itself. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , what fact or claim is included in the text that is not included in the sources? Be specific. And by specific, I mean do not engage in novel synthesis of a claim that does not exist in the text. Guy (help!) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , this does not appear to be SYNTH. Please remove the tag. You said "one other editor" agrees with you. Who? I don't see anyone agreeing with you here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu - NorthBySouthBaranof agrees that "If there is anything in that section which is not mentioned in the NYT article or similar contemporary reports, I would agree that those particular incidents should be removed". A specific example is the shooting of Caroline Small which is NOT mentioned in the NYT article as background to this article's topic. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you familiar with the law of holes at all? I cannot say this clearly enough: there is no synthesis. No claim or fact is adduced in the article which is not supported, 100%, buy reputable sources.
 * What you're actually saying is that in your opinion inclusion of the historical problem with the force is WP:UNDUE,. That is completely different.
 * OK?
 * SYNTH is an objective matter and in this case DOES NOT exist. UNDUE is subjective. And in this case, I think also does not exist, but that would be an ecumenical matter. Guy (help!) 21:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the text cited to articles that don't mention Arbery with text cited to articles that explicitly make the connection. Does that resolve the dispute? Thanks, Neutralitytalk 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutrality - Your edit removed the wikilink to Glynn County Police Department. Please restore it. I'd also suggest that now the length of that section is too long and goes into UNDUE detail about the PD, and that most of that material can be easily moved to the Glynn County Police Department article and better summarized here in 2-3 sentences in a single paragraph. I'd also like to see the section heading returned to just "Background" as is pretty standard for our articles. That also allows other things like Arbery's prior involvement with the police (and McMichael's as investigator) to be included as Background. -- Netoholic @ 21:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the link. Before getting into the weight issue, can you please confirm whether you view the SYNTH issue as resolved? Neutralitytalk 21:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think we should be careful not to let Netoholic leave with the impression that his claim of SYNTH was "resolved" when in fact it was incorrect. This level of drama can happen again if people don't learn where they went wrong. Guy (help!) 21:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no doubt you can provide sources that make the explicit claim that McMichael targeted Arbery due to his prior history wioth Arbery as investigator? Otherwise it would be - what's the word? Oh yes.... Guy (help!) 21:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP issues
A number of editors here are sailing very close to BLP violations with what they are writing. Please be very careful not to do that. If there are any further examples I will not hesitate to remove those editors from this talk page. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - in the interests of fair warning and transparency, shouldn't you point to the examples?  starship .paint  (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain what the "L" stands for in BLP. I must be confused.118.208.20.226 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 118, WP:BDP (covering the recently dead) is part of WP:BLP.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.118.208.20.226 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For one, we certainly don't need WP:UNDUE laundry lists of people trying to attempt to paint Arbery in a bad light for previous issues that are irrelevant to his shooting; some have been removed today. Basically, if you're going down that route, it's best not to post. Black Kite (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If enough reliable sources cover it, I don't think it would be UNDUE. But well, I believe that will be left to an RFC to decide. As will "jogging" versus "running", if people don't accept my simple removal.  starship .paint  (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources cover it in a biography then that may not be UNDUE, however this isn't a biography, it's about a single event. We aren't going to point out that the victim had a conviction for a minor offence X years ago, because it's not relevant. And I think we know the direction from which most of the (mostly new) accounts who are pushing to add this stuff are coming from. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Criminal record

 * If the reliable sources cover this, if the first DA to take the case mentioned his criminal record as relevant to his mental state, then it should be discussed here. Its whitewashing otherwise.  District attorney George E. Barnhill stated: “Arbery’s mental health records and prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.”  He is referring to the time he was caught at a high school football game with a gun, and they had to struggle with him, two police officers injured in the process, one treated for a fractured hand. https://www.news4jax.com/news/2013/12/09/police-man-brought-gun-to-high-school-basketball-game/ Now how about we discuss this information and if it should be added to the article, without any edit warring of erasing the information.  I believe it is relevant.   D r e a m Focus  16:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are very close if not over the line of a BLP vio. O3000 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the comment above? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the McMichaels had a criminal record would you expect it to be reported? Or doesn't BLP apply there? Here is the news story about Ahmaud bringing a handgun to school in 2013 from News4Jax... so from a reliable source. One of the quotes from the police in the story :

"A quick acting police officer in Brunswick stopped a teenager with a loaded gun from entering a high school basketball game Tuesday night. Police arrested 19-year-old Ahmaud Marquez Avery (pictured below), who is not a student at Brunswick. "The man ran through the parking lot. I tried to get him to stop as well. He would not stop for us," said Glynn County Schools Chief of Police, Rod Ellis. "We ended up chasing him to the back of the school were other officers helped us apprehend him."" Sounds relevant to me.118.208.20.226 (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't "charged with two felonies, possession of a weapon on school property and obstruction of an officer with violence" be relevant? Topcat777(talk) 01:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Priors again
Honestly this inaccuracy demonstrates the overt political bias of wikipedia power editors. Fix it or examples like this will continue to be used to undermine wikipedia's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.122.220 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously.... I'm ready to bring this to the attention to some real investigative journalists. Neutrality is one of the five pillars to Wikipedia. This article has serious Neutrality issues, and I think it's a systemic problem. Wikipedia is becoming the inverse mirror image of Conservapedia. – appears to be a major part of the problem - in this article at least. I put up a "Neutrality disputed" tag and  immediately deleted it. I think I'm going to bring this to the attention to some real investigative journalists. Arbery's priors were deleted (despite being extremely relevant to the controversy) but the fact that He was a linebacker on the school's football team and had dreams of becoming an electrician is somehow relevant. Make no mistake - this is a complete and utter whitewashing. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and we're citing sources like "Vox." Some of these power users are so biased that they don't even realize it their lack of Neutrality. – Chrisvacc (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources don't tend to treat the priors as relevant; they occurred several years ago for fairly minor crimes not involving violence. Last year 4,000+ people illegally carried a gun into an airport security checkpoint; that also wouldn't likely be relevant to one of those people being shot in a city street while entirely unarmed eight years later. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Back in 2013, Arbery was charged with two felonies- possession of a weapon on school property and obstruction of an officer with violence. Topcat777(talk) 16:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Was he convicted? Is it connected to his being killed? Is there a reason you are posting this here? O3000 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. He was placed on a five year probation as a first offender.  The DA report saw a connection:

"Arbery s mental health records & prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man." Topcat777(talk) 17:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we change the archive period to 1 or 2 days?
Can we change the archive period to 1 or 2 days? This talk page is close to 200 kB. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I archived some threads that looked spent to try and reduce the size, but most of the rest have comments in the last 24-48 hours. Hard to shrink the window down much more than 2 days, as it doesn't give a lot of time to editors who might not return till the next day to mark replies and comments.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

William Bryan
He recently gave 1 or 2 interviews. In my opinion there are still questions left open though. One that is important is whether he had a firearm in his car on that day. From what I could gathered, his answer was not absolutely clear on this either way (the lawyer intercepted the question). This should be added to the article when it is found out either way, at a later time. (Right now this is a bit pointless to speculate, without a court trial.) 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Jogging versus running
The word jogging should be kept in the article where it is presented as a claim: because his family said he was out jogging. However, the word jogging should not be used in an encyclopedia entry elsewhere: because it is possible he was not on a jog, but was running from his presence at a house site that he does not own. Jogging is a narrative provided by the family, and that should stay in the article, but as a claim and not in the objective framing of the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jogging should be the word used here. "Running" implies he wasn't exercising and has a negative connotation especially when describing people of color in a case like this. "Running" also sounds too definitive when there is a clear difference between running and jogging. We should go by the family's claim as most news articles are doing. Having "Running" in the sentence is immediately taking a stance against the family. Besides that, an overwhelming amount of news media outlets refer to him as jogging or a jogger. This includes CNN, CBS News, Washington Post, Fox News, The Hill, MSNBC, The Guardian, NPR, ABC News, BBC News, Vox, USA Today, Vice and Buzzfeed News. Miss HollyJ (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Running – jogging implies a POV interpretation of what he was doing – i.e., that he was out getting some exercise and was not in a hurry. Per the Jogging article, "Jogging is a form of trotting or running at a slow or leisurely pace. The main intention is to increase physical fitness with less stress on the body than from faster running but more than walking, ..." Jogging can be referred to as running, but running implies an interpretation of the intention and pace of the activity that may be unwarranted here. Of course it is OK to say that someone said he was jogging. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the term jogging is perfectly appropriate here. It is not the fault of the wikipedia users if the accused or people in favour of them wishing to use specific other terms. I consider it a colloquial term for mid-load exercise. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether it was for 'exercise' or not is at the heart of the matter. Wikipedia should not attempt to explain why he was running, and jogging is a form of running. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Simply using "running" is too vague. Jogging is more specific. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Jogging is more specific" – yes, but in a non-neutral way. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Running" is not neutral. It implies something negative in this case. Miss HollyJ (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To those pretending there isn't a negative connotation to "running" in this context, do you agree there is a different framing in saying those accused of shooting were "driving" or "pursuing" or "chasing"? They were objectively driving, but to use that word gives a different narrative. The preponderance of sources state he was jogging. Until there is clear evidence, reported in the media, that he was "fleeing" or "running away from", the reported narrative is that he was jogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.37.140.139 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, he was jogging during quarantine on private property away from the place of burglary and from the pursuit. Let's make sure the wording is definitely positive, disregarding everything the defense has to say. 93.159.149.134 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are aware this video took place in February? Besides, a street for everyday traffic is not private property. Miss HollyJ (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Both – It's currently both with a note. That's what we know so far. When more details come out, we will fix the lede accordingly. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 00:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jogging per CNN: "Ahmaud Arbery, 25, was jogging in a neighborhood outside Brunswick on February 23 when a former police officer and his son chased him down, authorities said ." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 03:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Having both is misleading. And no, there is video footage of him literally running in a steady pace. "Running" gives into the notion that he was fleeing from a scene of a crime. In fact, no burglaries had even been reported during that time according to the police lieutenant. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can not make claims based on your own personal assumptions. "there is video footage of him literally running in a steady pace" is your intepretation. Since you mentioned sources above, there's multiple that use running:
 * ABC News: "More than two months after a black man was shot to death while running through a Georgia neighborhood..."
 * The New York Times: "Public pressure for an arrest intensified on Tuesday with the release of the video that showed Mr. Arbery running toward a truck..."
 * The Washington Post "By now you may have seen the horrific — but sadly, these days, no-longer-shocking — video of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery running down a Georgia street in broad daylight..."
 * Using the word jogging pushes the family's point of view. Let's be neutral and use both. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 01:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You just proved my point for me that overwhelming amounts of credible news media outlets are referring to him as jogging and not running. And no because there is no video evidence of him running from the scene of a crime. Not my interpretation. He is clearly jogging in the video. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My point isn't about the amount of sources using "jogging", it's the fact that other reliable sources (especially NYT/WaPo) have used "running". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 02:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Jogging that's what all reliable sources that I am aware of are saying.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it inherently biased to describe what he was doing as jogging rather than running? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.206.57 (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is. Jogging is a leisurely form of running, so if we say he was jogging, we are saying he was not trying to escape from people who were chasing him. That is not something we are in a position to conclude for ourselves. And most of the sources that I have seen have said only that his family said he was jogging. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Who are you to say he was trying to escape from people who were chasing him? And why do we have to disprove that when that's not even what's shown in the video? You don't have proof that he was fleeing from a crime scene. We do have proof that he was jogging. Miss HollyJ (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the proof he was jogging...? If you're going to say the video, that would be based of your own personal interpretation. Arbery's family says jogging, the McMichaels say running away. It's words against words. Keep it as both until the investigation is over. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 01:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. He is clearly jogging. There is no neutrality in this case. Until you can find evidence that he is intentionally running from the scene of a crime, we go by what the video footage shows. As of now, nothing supports your argument. Even the sources you provided above contradict the agenda you're trying to push. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Calm down with your personal attacks, I'm not pushing any agenda. Currently, the article says he was running, not running away or running from. The current phrasing does not imply anything. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 02:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You literally said Ahmaud Arbery jogging was just my interpretation of the video. Miss HollyJ (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did not say he was trying to escape from people who were chasing him (although, if it were me that was being chased by people with guns, I will admit that I might personally try to run away). Please try to pay closer attention to exactly what is being said. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

He didn't even live in the area. He'd have had to cross a huge bridge without a sidewalk to get into the area. So if we was doing a "Sunday jog," as his family claimed, then he'd have had to drive about 10 miles from where he lived, across a bridge and then started jogging.....63.155.99.218 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Our article claims 2 miles with a source. If you have a source for some other distance please provide it, so we can see if we need to change the article. Nil Einne (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

At no point was he "jogging" He was running and walking. He walked in front of and then into the house and then ran down the street after exiting the house after being spotted by a neighbour from across the road calling 911. How do we know this? Because real news networks are showing the CCTV from across the street. And yes I have a cite from a real news networks, watch the truth for yourself. 118.208.20.226 (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Jogging, as that is what most reliable sources are using. WWGB (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Reliable Sources". The police reports say he was running. The Two 911 witnesses said he was running. The CCTV video SHOWS he was running (CCTV doesn't lie but Fake News does). The only people who are claiming he was "jogging" was his family who weren't even there. If the "reliable sources" claimed tomorrow the sky was Green is Wikipedia policy to accept their reality unopposed? Well I do challenge it. The "jogging" part is fake news 118.208.20.226 (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Running is not the opposite of jogging. It's a synonym. Most reliable sources say that he was jogging. The defendants are not saying he wasn't jogging. Unless you have got reliable sources saying that "he wasn't jogging" we will not take what you are saying seriously. We don't do original research here.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the problem – we genuinely don't know if he was jogging or fleeing the scene. More things will come out as time goes on. Right now "His family said he was jogging" is a more factual claim than "he was jogging." There's surveillance video of him entering the building under construction. https://www.ajc.com/news/surveillance-video/itEEj5ftMXkbkKeXrCFBTK/ He was jogging and just so happened to go into a building during his jog? Last time I went jogging I didn't enter any buildings. We need to be a reliable outlet so if new facts come out during the case people don't say "Wikipedia is unreliable." State the facts. Fact: "family said he was jogging." Disputed fact: "he was jogging." CNN is hardly a reliable source anymore. It's basically the leftist version of Fox News. The "innocent man jogging" is a left-leaning narrative that has yet to be proven. https://www.allsides.com/news/2020-05-07-1947/two-men-charged-murder-death-ahmaud-arbery It may be true. We just don't know yet. For right now, we need to be journalists and start undisputed facts. "He was reportedly jogging" is an undisputed fact. "He was jogging" is something that will come out in time. Chrisvacc (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are multiple narratives here. Wikipedia should not subscribe to either. We should simply state the facts. The Right Wing narrative which is "He was entering the house and those guys were just trying to protect their community" and the Left Wing narrative "innocent black man jogging gets gunned down" both trying to support their worldview. We do not know what happened. It could have been that he told his family "Hey I'm going for a jog" then wanted to go see if there was anything in the building. I mean he's not going to tell his family "hey I'm looking for stuff to steal" if that's what he was doing - he would have made some excuse to go out. It could have been that he was simply jogging. We don't know. There is CCTV footage of him going into the building. To factually claim he was jogging is disingenuous. The fact is his family said he was jogging. We state undisputed facts. Not disputed ones as if they're undisputed. Chrisvacc (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a bit more information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwVuRJnvgc in the video you can see he was walking before he entered the house he did not own, and afterwards you can see him running quite fast. It is not clear yet that he was out for jog--do jogs usually entail walking to a house, trespassing and going into the house, being noticed, and then running out quite fast? Aussiewikilady (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My jogs certainly don't. I don't know what exercise "caught on camera going into a construction building" is. I wonder how many calories it burns. But if you're trying to push a narrative of racism "innocent black man HUNTED just for being black.. see how racist the USA is!" then "he was just jogging" is great wording. But Wikipedia is supposed to be the gold standard of objectivity not narrative pushing. We do not have sufficient evidence to say "he was jogging" we do have sufficient evidence to say "his family said he was jogging" Chrisvacc (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the fourth time, it is a time lapse video. Look at the clock in the video. O3000 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How would time lapse video mistakenly show him entering the building????? Chrisvacc (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the time lapse video is sped up on his exit to give the effect of him running away. And for me, going for a "run" is as neutral as going for a "jog", however running away from people chasing you is very different to jogging away, just as running from the scene of a crime has a very different insinuation. Koncorde (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about him running from the scene. I said he entered the building. Chrisvacc (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And furthermore.... I actually checked it out... it does appear that he's running. YouTube allows you so slow down the footage in the bottom right corner and if you slow it down to .25 it puts the video in real time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwVuRJnvgc&t=45 Chrisvacc (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea actually - he's almost definitely running. You can see it most clearly in this video at 1:03 where you see him run out of the door on the right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igThcykZsZk&feature=youtu.be&t=63 Chrisvacc (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but wikipedia is not for left wing or right wing narrative pushing. Wikipedia for me personally, is an Oasis in an internet of biased gobbildy-gook. The left wing narrative says "jogging" the right wing narrative says "running" – I say we stay out of that game and just report the facts. "Said to have been jogging" is more indisputable than "he was jogging." Chrisvacc (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the left wing narrative says he was killed by summary execution following being pursued by vigilantes who believe that he was guilty of a crime that they felt the need to take action for.
 * The right wing narrative is that he was running in a neighbourhood that wasn't his own and he deserved to be shot for not acquiescing to the demands of fine upstanding pillars of the community exercising their rights.
 * Whether he was jogging, running, had entered a premises, or was indeed fleeing the scene of a crime is not left or right wing - how people seek to mitigate the actions of McMichaels however is very much politically motivated. In contrast, being "left wing" for thinking someone probably shouldn't be dead right now is a stretch, but shows you how far people are willing to place common decency and humanity waaaaaaay down their list of priorities when the news doesn't suit them. Koncorde (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. Of course no one deserves to die even if he was burglarizing the place. But here's the point: "suspected burglary suspect shot" produces say 5 units of outrage. "Innocent unarmed jogger shot" produces 10 units of outrage. The reality is that we don't know if he was just jogging or attempting to burglarize a house. But Leftist media wants to produce as many units of outrage as possible to further their grand ethos of racism in America. I don't care either way - I'm a political centrist. But if Wikipedia wants to be a biased source furthering the agenda of CNN then they can be but if you want Neutrality better to just report facts. I say we use the term "reportedly jogging" as this's an undisputed fact. Chrisvacc (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Watch this security footage and tell me that "he was just out for a jog and some fresh air" is an appropriate narrative" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNwVuRJnvgc&t=45 Chrisvacc (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is exactly zero evidence that he was burglarizing anything. I've walked into numerous construction sites when younger because of simple curiosity. That's not a "left-wing narrative". O3000 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And there is exactly zero evidence that he was just out for a peaceful jog. Going into someone's 'under construction' home is not consistent with going for a jog. Also Arbery had been previously arrested for theft and carrying a gun into a High School as an adult. All I'm saying is that as a Neutral outlet we should present both sides of a controversial story rather than jumping on narrative bandwagons and trying to emotionally pull heartstrings. Chrisvacc (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutrality expressly does not mean we take a "view from nowhere" position. On Wikipedia, NPOV means adhering to what mainstream reliable sources say about a topic. In addition, it means we treat living and recently dead people with fairness, especially toward claims of wrongdoing. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing here more significant than brief trespassing - the punishment for which in no modern liberal democracy is summary execution by shotgun in a city street. That he had prior convictions for minor crimes is not relevant, because it cannot even lessen, much less excuse, killing an unarmed person who is not threatening anyone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm more than a tad skeptical that a "political centrist" would be spouting talking points like "the agenda of CNN," "leftist media," and "grand ethos of racism in America." Nobody had any probable cause to believe a burglary occurred, and even if they did, summary execution is not a legitimate or lawful response to suspecting someone is a burglar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CNN is no longer a legitimate news outlet, nor is Fox. They're both propaganda machines of their respective parties. Reuter's is objective. AP is Objective. ABC is objective. CNN and Fox are not, and if you believe CNN or Fox are objective - you're part of the problem. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings Chrisvacc (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "summary execution" ... oh yea, now I'm seeing all the Neutral editors in this article. Dude it's clear in the video the kid grabbed his gun. That's what you define as summary execution? This Talk page is making me lose respect for the credibility of Wikipedia - and it's something I rely on for factual information... a practice I may have to rethink. Chrisvacc (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As the sources note, and as our article states, It appears from the video that a gunshot is heard before Arbery and Travis struggle with each other in front of the truck. A shot was fired at the victim before the struggle began. By the way, if you attack me with a shotgun, I have every right to defend myself and attempt to take the gun away from you and stop you from killing me with it in the middle of a city street. Arbery, an unarmed person attempting to get away from two armed men, was threatened with a gun, and you think he was wrong to attempt to fight back after being shot or shot at? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest if the editor doesn't agree with the idea that we go by the weight of reliable sources and significant view points, that he go to one of the noticeboards and raise his concerns there. At the moment he is just pontificating about what sources he considers reliable ignoring the fact that it is almost unanimous that Arbery is reported as jogging. Nobody has presented an alternative other than in their fever dreams of righteously smiting black criminals.
 * No there is another alternative. The other alternative is this it was simply a string of bad decisions on both parties (The Rednecks and Arbery) parts that got completely out of hand and led to a tragedy. But you're probably right. It was probably just some hillbillies out huntin' jogging black folk. Chrisvacc (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * At a time when more information is available. When any evidence is established to suggest otherwise, we can review the statements, but at present the suggestion that he was "claimed" to be jogging or otherwise is a blatant attempt to use weasel words and insinuation. We don't have to believe the reports. We just cover the reliable sources and summarise what they say. Koncorde (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're actually right. If it were up to me, I would have stricter rules regarding dubious sources like Fox or CNN or the New York Post and would stick with credible apolitical sources like AP / Reuters / ABC / Al Jazeera / NPR. But you're absolutely right. He was clearly 'jogging' away from the alleged (don't want to use 'weasel words') 'unauthorized entering' scene. I'm screenshooting all this because I guarantee when all the facts come out of this case Wikipedia is going to look ridiculous. Chrisvacc (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you retract your statement above about the alleged events - no source has stated that there was any "break-in" anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay perhaps not a break in, but he was certainly in the building. Chrisvacc (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely no idea if he broke any law. I've never heard of any state making it illegal to walk through a construction site that wasn't posted. You need to stop these speculations as they are serious BLP violations. O3000 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think he broke any laws, but we do know he was inside the building. These aren't speculations. there's literally video of it, lol. https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/crime/new-video-appears-to-show-ahmaud-arbery-enter-home-under-construction-before-being-killed/77-c35447bd-75d6-43c8-afc0-bce0247bdddf Chrisvacc (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also screenshot this page 👉WP:No original research.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: A third opinion was requested for this dispute. It has been declined due to more than two editors being involved. You might want to try either a request for comment or alternate dispute resolution options. Thank you. --   LuK3      (Talk)   23:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I put a dispute in and a neutrality tag. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved. Chrisvacc (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , none of the sources claim that he was not jogging. Also, I have not closed any discussion here. An admin closed the above discussion, not me.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, I can't tell if you're joking or not
 * "none of the sources claim that he was not jogging."
 * You: "the cup was blue"
 * Me: -posts source saying the cup was red-
 * You: "yea but.. none of the sources said it was not blue!"
 * I feel like I just rewound to grade school. I feel like I should respond "none of the sources claim that he was not not jogging." – Chrisvacc (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. You should have reasonable argument for that tag. All you have been saying here is absurd original research. You have provided no reliable source to support what you saying.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not original research. It's our fault you don't pay attention to news:
 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shooting-georgia/georgia-grand-jury-to-consider-charges-in-shooting-of-unarmed-black-man-idUSKBN22I02R
 * "According to a police report obtained by the New York Times, Gregory McMichael, a former police officer and district attorney’s investigator, told investigators the incident began when he spotted Arbery from his front yard “hauling ass” down the street."
 * From Reuters, the single most credible news source in the United States. Reuters and Associated Press is where these outlets like CNN BUY their stories from before they put their spin on them.
 * https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200506/shooting-death-of-ahmaud-arbery-in-brunswick-what-we-know-about-video-grand-jury-and-arrests
 * " “the suspect from the break-ins ‘hauling ass’ down the street.”
 * https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/ahmaud-arbery-killing-man-called-911-report-black-male-running-shooting
 * Ahmaud Arbery killing: man called 911 to report 'black male running' prior to shooting	
 * Also for the dispute User:SharabSalam keeps inappropriately closing conversations she/he doesn't agree with. We were discussing the Running vs jogging controversy and she/he puts up absurd tags saying it's discussing the purpose of wikipedia when 90% of the conversation was in regards to the run/jog controversy. Chrisvacc (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're literally using a quote from one of the killers' statements to police to depict what Arbery was doing. You think we can just take what Gregory McMichael says as gospel truth? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're literally using a quote from his mom's (who wasn't present) statements to police to depict what Arbery was doing. You think we can just take what his mom says as gospel truth? Chrisvacc (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. I'm using, for example, The Guardian source you cited, which states as fact, Ahmaud Arbery was shot dead by two white men while jogging through a neighborhood just outside Brunswick, Georgia. Reliable sources say he was jogging, therefore so will we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are. The jogging thing is based solely off his mother's testimony. There are plenty of other reliable sources referring to it as "running"
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/sports/Ahmaud-Arbery-running.html
 * And I'm not even suggesting we refer to it as 'running' as 'running' has too much of a connotation of guilt. But so does 'jogging' which has a too much connotation of innocence. We don't know if he was jogging or running from the scene. But you can clearly see in the multiple videos that he was running. From what? We don't know. He could have just been running because people were after him. But it's clear that he's running. But that's 'original research.' Okay, then Reliable sources also say 'running,' but you cherrypick which reliable sources to fit your argument. The only reason we have to believe the jogging narrative is from his mothers testimony, who has an obvious horse in this game. Many many many reliable sources say "running." I'm acting as an arbitrator between the people saying "running" and "jogging" and as I compromise I suggest adding one freaking word, "reportedly" and you can't even make a compromise with all the other editors. You just want things your way or the highway because apparently Wikipedia is a dictatorship and not a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. Chrisvacc (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per below, "reportedly" is a loaded statement. "Running" is neutral depending on the context it is used. Jogging is what the significant majority of reliable sources use to describe his activity, yes, even the ones you don't like. Just because some people think we should use running instead of jogging does not mean that we should change what is stated by the significant weight of reliable sources. That is not a dictatorship, it's a very basic principle. Koncorde (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to follow a norm that makes the article less accurate then be may guest.
 * Ignore all rules - If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
 * Five pillars - Wikipedia has no firm rules
 * Wikipedia has no rules. Wikipedia has guidelines and suggestions to make articles better. In this case stating that he was 'jogging' simply makes the article less accurate. Stating that he was "reportedly jogging" makes it more accurate.
 * Articles may or may not say "jogging" but it's clear he's not jogging. The three videotapes support the hypothesis that he was "hauling ass"
 * You can clearly see him running from the construction building, especially at the end. He was most likely running from the guys in the truck, but he was absolutely positively 1000% running.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igThcykZsZk
 * The jogging narrative is a fairytale.
 * You don't start jogging from inside the building.
 * "No original research" ... if the Washington Post told you that the Erie Canal was made of hershey's cocoa would you cite it? The sources are obviously wrong here. Chrisvacc (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about anymore? It's clear from your "leftists pushing rednecks hunting blackfolk story" comment above that you have a personal agenda here. We're not detectives and we're not the police. We know just as much as news media outlets like ABC, CNN, Fox News, Washington Post etc. do. It's not our job to solve the case. Nearly every news headline is referring to him as jogging and unless new information comes out contradicting that, I say we leave it alone. Who are we to push our own narrative on Wikipedia? And don't bring up that useless surveillance footage that practically shows nothing. Not even a "burglary" is shown and the homeowner has come out and said that nothing was taken. We can update later if new information is released. Also, what is the point of bringing up Ahmaud Arbery's past criminal offenses? Just doing that raises suspicions about your intentions here. Miss HollyJ (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You see the dilemma here? I'm not even stating he was running. I put in an edit to say "reportedly" jogging and you reversed it? 01:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvacc (talk • contribs)
 * You don't see the issue with using the words "reportedly jogging"? To quote the definition: "according to what some say (used to express the speaker's belief that the information given is not necessarily true)". Do you see an issue with us stating that we, the speaker, do not believe the reliable sources? There is editorialising and then there is being utterly misrepresentative. Koncorde (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "according to what some say (used to express the speaker's belief that the information given is not necessarily true)"
 * Bingo. The word 'reportedly' adds skepticism to the claim. And in this case - the skepticism is justified. There is not a shred of actual evidence that he was jogging. Only the mother's testimony. And the evidence actually points in the opposite direction
 * We don't know what happened yet. It's controversial. It's more likely that he was running away from the three assholes who were chasing him.
 * But regardless some of the reliable sources say jogging. Some say running. Liberal ones tend to say jogging, conservative ones say running. Both are appeals to emotion in order to paint a narrative. As they always do. I think an encyclopedia should stay out of that.
 * To be clear - I'm personally on the side of Arbery. These rednecks had no business playing police - ESPECIALLY With guns. But It's not our job to presume guilt or innocence and both jogging and running are clear attempts to paint innocence or guilt. It's our job to present a factual account of what happened.
 * "He was Jogging" is not a fact. "His mother said he was jogging" is a fact. In this case, that 'weasel word' is entirely appropriate.
 * So since this jogging/running a issue of contention and reliable sources disagree I say Just watch. the tape.
 * But then the answer to that is "No original research".... and I say WP:IAR. If WaPo said that the moon is made of cheese would you out that in an article? There are no rules to Wikipedia. Only guidelines and heuristics meant to help editors write good articles. If those guidelines lead you to write a clearly incorrect statement then ignore it. This is one of those cases. Following those guidelines leads you to write something that appears to be patently false.
 * This is an encyclopedia. But this Ahmaud Arbery article has a clear bias that comes from cherry-picking sources.
 * They deleted the section his priors but left and entire section related to his 'hopes and dreams of going to college and becoming an electrician.' :::::::You don't think in a case like this people would want to know about priors? But talking about 'hopes and dreams' pulls at your heartstrings which is exactly why it's included.
 * Reliable sources is fine, but people cherrypick which 'reliable sources' to side with. Places like the New York Times or Vox with overt political agendas. The same Media Outlets (New York Times, Vox) that posted 90,000 "Donald Trump is a Nazi" 'news' stories. And again - to be clear I personally despise Trump, and I've never voted for a Republican candidate in my life, but that's not the point. These are sources who have clear political agendas. It's not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
 * I come to wikipedia to get apolitical factual information so I can make up my own mind on things. It's the only reason I'm outraged over this article. I don't want to be spoon-fed an agenda. This is outrage-inducing because I, and many other people, rely on Wikipedia to get unbiased information. I come to encyclopedias for factual information, and when I want opinions I go to editorializing site. The "Jogging" narrative is editorializing. That narrative is not a neutral point of view. He's being chased. The rednecks were following him for a while. It's clear he was running away from them. And this will come out a the case progresses and it will look even worse when it's found people tried to hide it. So it's really a matter of if Wikipedia wants to be part of this whitewashing or not. But if Wikipedia tries to hide information and spin things I will absolutely do an investigative journalism piece on it. I like Wikipedia and I would much rather it stick to Neutrality.
 * Again let me make this clear. I am completely on the side of Arbery. But I've come to that conclusion after reading all the available facts about the case. I, and other people, need a place where we can read all the facts about a situation and come to our own conclusions. Not be spoon-feed a certain POV, even if you can find "Reliable Sources" that conform to that POV. – Chrisvacc (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This problem is possibly a Gordian Knot, which I have attempted to solve by removing the word altogether:. For your comments and response.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Good solution. I think that works fine.  And, also, solves the problem of "running" versus "jogging".  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)