Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

WP:NOTNEWS and article as mouthpiece for attorneys

There seems to be an enormous amount of material in here about what the attorneys claim:

• The attorneys representing the Arbery family reacted: "This video is consistent with the evidence already known to us. Ahmaud Arbery was out for a jog. He stopped by a property under construction where he engaged in no illegal activity and remained for only a brief period. Ahmaud did not take anything from the construction site. He did not cause any damage to the property. He remained for a brief period of time and was not instructed by anyone to leave but rather left on his own accord to continue his jog. Ahmaud's actions at this empty home under construction were in no way a felony under Georgia law. This video confirms Mr. Arbery's murder was not justified, meaning the actions of the men who pursued him and ambushed him were unjustified."
• On 15 May, the attorney for the owner of the home that was under construction said that the person who was shown in the videos might have been looking for water and that there were "frequently people on the construction site both day and night,... Ahmaud Arbery seems to be the only one who was presumed to be a criminal and ultimately the only one murdered based on that assumption." The homeowner released videos which showed numerous people, including children with bicycles, walking through the unfinished home.[62]
• On May 15, Laura Hogue, a criminal defense attorney retained by Gregory McMichael, stated that "There is more than one video of the incident", that "The video (the one uploaded on May 5) may not be the only video that becomes important in this case." Her husband and law partner, Franklin Hogue, stated that new information would be disclosed at the future (as yet unscheduled) preliminary hearing on the case.[79]
• On May 15, Franklin Hogue, one of Gregory McMichael's defense attorneys, said new information would be disclosed at a future preliminary hearing that "tells a very different story, both about Greg, his son Travis and about Ahmaud Arbery."[79]

This sort of stuff—"might have been looking for water" and claims that "new information would be disclosed" at a preliminary hearing (twice!), along with the lengthy quoted statement by an Arbery family attorney — while in RS, would all seem to fall under WP:NOTNEWS (and no doubt other categories). I'm new to this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong! Tambourine60 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't rush to include every statement released by the various attorneys in this case. This is called WP:RECENTISM - Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we shouldn't be including a day-to-day regurgitation of what the 24/7 news cycle is reporting about this case. And what often happens, as seen in bullet point 2 above, it's not even accurate. There were several attorneys quoted in that source, the first part of the sentence was a quote from the attorney for the homeowner, and the second half of the sentence beginning with there were "frequently people on the construction site both day and night,... Ahmaud Arbery seems to be the only one who was presumed to be a criminal and ultimately the only one murdered based on that assumption" is a quote from attorneys for Arbery’s parents, so it's a misleading sentence. And furthermore, the source clearly states It is not known if Arbery is the person shown in any of the videos. I would support removing all the above material per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) AzureCitizen (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery → Killing of Ahmaud Arbery – Arbery was not only shot but was killed. Also per COMMONNAME, "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" has only ~131 results on Google while "Killing of Ahmaud Arbery" has ~160 results on Google. Also some of the Google results for "Shooting..." are actually "fatal shooting..." or "deadly shooting..." which are simply another way of saying "killing". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I believe using the word "shooting" is the norm until such time as the motive for death is ascertained. e.g. "Shooting of Michael Brown. Koncorde (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Google search for context of the many similar articles using the words "shooting of". Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Koncorde, killing does not imply motive. I kill chicken to eat them. I can kill people in self defense. "Shooting" is a euphemism for what occurred. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Shooting is not a euphemism for being shot to death, and certainly not being used to mitigate or minimalise the concept of "killing" being too severe or direct. Per other examples of articles using the same term, "Shooting" (or means of death) is generally the term used until a motive is ascribed. If you search you will find no articles titled "Killing of". Koncorde (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  On the contrary, there are many articles named Killing of ... Not surprising however, that when the victim is a black male in the U.S., we insist on "Shooting of ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I must have misspelled my search. Koncorde (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Just a small point but the original DA who recused himself determined that the death was "justifiable homicide" within 24 hours of the killing. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  A justifiable homicide is still a "killing" --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Killing is defined as "an act in which someone is deliberately killed".[1] At this time, it is unknown whether there was any intention to kill Arbery. That he was shot is clear, whether he was "deliberately killed" is not. WWGB (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, they shot him three times but didn't mean to kill him. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone has disputed that it was deliberate. The only questions are murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide. Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Actually that is the definition of murder. Killing is defined as "to deprive of life : cause the death of". You could accidentally kill someone - this is a phrase we hear all the time. To intentionally kill, is to murder. Colinmcdermott (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you can intentionally kill without it being murder. Otherwise, all police shootings would be murder. O3000 (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as a net improvement in accuracy. Death of... is also appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Similar incidents are referred to as "Shooting of" example - Shooting of Trayvon Martin. If you move one, you'd have to move them all. – Chrisvacc (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Actually that's not the case. While I sympathize with the instinctive desire for consistency, no such consistency currently exists – there are plenty of articles about fatal shootings that are titled with the word "Killing". One could just as easily argue that this article must be moved to "Killing" to be consistent with those titles – or that those articles must be moved to "Shooting" to be consistent with this one and Trayvon Martin – and either argument would be equally incorrect. Unless and until there is a documented community consensus one way or the other, any such cross-article consistency arguments are without merit, and we treat each article title independently from the rest. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The alledged are "charged" not "convicted". This title change would convict and is a huge departure from NPOV.--MONGO (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So you think there is some basis to believe that the men in the video did not kill Mr. Arbery, whether justified or not? Dumuzid (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The standard naming convictions for this sort of thing is "shooting of". Dream Focus 16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support If someone falls off a bridge and dies when they hit the rocks 200 feet below then they were killed on impact. Killing doesn't have to be a deliberate act. The subject was definitely shot but you can be shot without being killed. I was once shot in the heel with a slug gun. It didn't even break the skin. Shooting seems an inadequate term given that the subject is dead. "Killing" therefore seems far more appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Saying "shooting" is both too specific -- does it actually matter how he was killed? -- and missing the point -- he was killed. We can't call it a murder, because that hasn't yet been determined by the courts, but he was clearly killed and many sources use precisely this term. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per similar articles using this naming and WP:NPOV as it changes the tone from one of regretful outcome to intentional act prior to any conviction. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - While the supporters make valid points (and in furtherance of their points... what if he died by brunt force trauma... what would we call it then?), the point made by WWGB about the deliberative nature of a killing (even if it seems that way) and the points made about the norms of calling this a shooting similar to other major incidents of this nature cited by Koncorde and Chrisvacc, edge it out. Digihoe (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"brunt force trauma" would be death by Ferengi. ;) Killing doesn't have to be deliberate (see my post). --AussieLegend (✉) 08:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but major dictionaries assert that killing IS deliberate.[2] [3] WWGB (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

You have to use a little bit of common sense here. If someone accidentally falls off a bridge and dies when they hit the rocks 200 feet below are they killed or not? And if not, then what are they? Here's another one: Reversing down my driveway one day I accidentally ran over my father's cat. After he died I took him to be creMated and his ashes are now buried next to my father's. Did I kill the cat or is he still alive? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a valid point. However, the word "killing" is still more deliberate than being "killed" and implies more. That is, with the analogy of the cat... if you set up a facebook page or message and called it "the killing of the cat", it is more deliberate and implies more than if you said "the cat was killed" (I realize you wouldn't use either! just an example to cite the point). A lot of what is in this discussion ignores the subtle distinction of being "killed" versus causing that via "killing" (and the associated deliberative connotations seen in the cat analogy). Digihoe (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a totally unrealistic situation. I would NEVER setup a Facebook page of any sort. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 05:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I support Death of Ahmaud Arbery. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  "Death" suggests it could be from natural causes, like, say, the death of David Bowie. The title needs to clearly emphasize that it was not natural causes. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Killing seems to be the best word here. There was death and the death was due to direct agency, with or without culpability (which "killing" does not prejudge either way). Guy (help!) 20:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Move to Death of Ahmaud Arbery. We don't yet know how the legal proceedings will play out and what all the evidence will show, so it is premature to title it "Murder of" or "Killing of". And the current title doesn't convey that he died, as someone can be shot but live. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Rreagan007, we don't need to. He was killed. Whether lawfully or not really doesn't matter, it's just a question of whether "fatal shooting" is better represented by "shooting" or "killing". The word does not imply anything about culpability. Guy (help!) 21:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

It's still within the realm of possibility that his death will be ruled an accident, and we don't usually use the term "killed" for an accidental death. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I looked up the verb "killing" in various dictionaries. It is often described as meaning the deliberate taking of one's life. This has not been established by a court of law (yet). WP:BLPCRIME. --MrClog (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the nomination doesn't make a strong case that either form of the title is massively more common than the other. In any case, both are easily recognizable per WP:COMMONNAME, which is just one of the five naming criteria. The existing title is more consistent with the titles of other similar articles, so the article need not be moved. VQuakr (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – See Shooting of Trayvon Martin. No reason to rename this article. A precedent has been set. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  That's a cherry-picked precedent, a very bad practice. See my earlier comment. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As there is already a precedent and also the fact that he died as a result of being shot, "shooting of" seems to be the best option right now to me. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. English Wikipedia has numerous main title headers under five forms — "Murder of..." [following conviction and sentence], "Killing of..." [homicide, other than by shooting, with or without conviction and sentence], "Shooting of..." [usually, but not exclusively, fatal], "Assassination of..." [killing (primarily premeditated murder) of a public figure] and "Death of..." [all other deaths]. Thus, Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery continues to remain as the most aptly descriptive main header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  Roman Spinner, the autopsy has already ruled it a homicide.[4] Why just because he was shot can we not use "Killing of..."? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the current prosecutors have ruled it a homicide and are thus prosecuting the case as a murder. But previous prosecutors who looked at the case ruled it to be sell-defense. In our legal system, prosecutors don't get to determine guilt or innocence, and you are presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial. Thus, we must presume that the defendants are innocent until either found guilty at trial or they plead guilty. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. No matter how you slice it he was killed, not just shot. Whether he was murdered or just killed is what a trial will determine. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

He certainly died, but as others have pointed out, "killed" usually has a connotation of intentional killing. I think renaming this article "Killing of" would be permissible under Wikipedia naming policy, just not ideal in the current situation. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, since this talk page has an earlier thread under section header "Move to "Lynching of Ahmaud Arbery"" (at 05:54, 7 May 2020), I should amend my statement above (at 03:28, 13 May 2020) that, "English Wikipedia has numerous main title headers under five forms", to state "...under six forms", since there are also numerous "Lynching of..." main headers.

However, as far as I could determine, all of those concern historical events from decades ago, with the last mob act of a public hanging occurring in the 1930s, although racially motivated murders, committed by one or more individuals who were not part of a public mob, such as those of Emmett Till in 1955 or Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner in 1964 have been also included as examples of lynching.

As far as "Shooting of..." vs. "Killing of..." titling is concerned, this main header is not unique. Various contributors feel that for greater impact of titling or specificity, some, most or all "Shooting of..." main headers should be moved to "Killing of...", such as in the case of Shooting of Terence Crutcher → ? (Talk:Shooting of Terence Crutcher#Requested move 23 November 2019), Killing of Patrick Harmon → Shooting of Patrick Harmon (Talk:Shooting of Patrick Harmon#Requested move 24 November 2019) or Killing of Atatiana Jefferson → Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson (Killing of Atatiana Jefferson#Requested move 24 November 2019, where one "Oppose" vote resulted in "No consensus" and the main header remaining at "Killing of..."). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As for precedent: Duncan Lemp killing. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Shooting is NPOV. We really don't know who pulled the trigger on the gun. Also, a person who grabs a shotgun might activate the trigger by moving the gun vs the finger of the other person who originally had the gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacePeace (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, because shooting is more widely used now.--KasiaNL (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  KasiaNL, that is a trap that Wikipedia has fallen into and can't manage to get itself out. RS more commonly refer to it as "Killing of Ahmaud Arbery".[5][6] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support Killing. He was killed. Killing does not imply motive, or intention. It is merely noting that Arbery was killed and that is what the article is about. I would oppose say "murder" because that would imply guilt and motive/intention. But killing is just reflective of the facts. 2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:E (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's already a lot of precedent for these kinds of articles. Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Markeis McGlockton, etc. The article can be renamed appropriately if and when the McMichaels are convicted of murder, e.g. Murder of Botham Jean. Love of Corey (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Shooting of" is the typical phrasing of such titles on Wikipedia, and it seems less sensationalistic. See Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States. That has 44 × "Shooting of" and only 2 × "Killing of", all of those people were killed by shooting. For the two outliers, I just opened an RM discussion at Talk:Killing of Atatiana Jefferson. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Without knowing the motive, shooting is a more neutral term (WP:NPOV), There are other articles in which people were killed, such as Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Michael Brown which use the term shooting. There are many more articles with the prefix "Shooting of" that involve fatal shootings. Rgb1110 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Killing of or my preference "Death of". Shooting is inaccurate for a title because it leads the reader to think that the person is possible still alive. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• ”Death of” would be my preference as well. ~ HAL333 02:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. ~ HAL333 16:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - "Shooting" is in agreement with neutral wording, per wp:Pov Naming. I think "killing" is sensationalistic and might be useful only as clickbait. As an aside, since it has been mentioned, and only speaking for myself, I feel that I know what the motive is - behind killing this young person. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: the manner of death was ruled a homicide, so the "killing" is not in dispute. See NYT for example: "Autopsy Shows Ahmaud Arbery Was Shot Twice in the Chest": "According to the autopsy, the manner of death was homicide." --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Shooting is more WP:PRECISE than Killing, which could mean killing by stabbing, ramming, strangling etc. We don't usually have articles about people who were shot at and lived, because their killing and its aftermath is usually what makes them notable, so Shooting is virtually synonymous with Killing. Both terms have the benefit of not prejudging the case, since both Shooting and Killing can be intentional or by accident, as in "he was killed in a hunting/work/car accident," and firearms can be accidentally discharged, but Shooting is the more descriptive of the two. StonyBrook (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I lean against "shooting" because I'm unsure that the means of the killing is the most relevant fact here. The killing is what's truly important enough to be mentioned in the title, but the specific means is more peripheral. "Death of..." is also good. YUEdits (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - that he was killed is not disputed, but 'shooting' is more informative IMO. Contrary to what has been said by others, I believe the chasing after while carrying guns, is very pertinent and the mere act of carrying guns, risked the outcome that occurred - which may well turn out to have a mixture of intent and "situation running out of control" to it. Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per NPOV. Shooting of is the neutral way to go, which we are here for as Wikipedians. Death of is even more neutral. There is a strong difference in meaning between "killing" and "shooting". There is nothing known yet; nothing proven one way or the other. I trust our readers can draw their own conclusions from reading the article and viewing the linked video – we don't have to hold their hands. If things are proven otherwise in the future, then we can revisit as seems appropriate. This is not the place for knee-jerk reactions or righting great wrongs. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Nate 2169 ^Talk
  _{Contributions} 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Facts (dictionary defintion) versus "sources"

"From the camera's perspective, Arbery is seen jogging on the left side of the road when he encounters a white pickup truck that has stopped in the right lane."

Does it matter if one or a thousand sources say something if what is said is contrafactual? Arbery is seen running in the approximate *middle* of the road. That is, to the left of the *truck*. That is a fact, not an opinion. It cannot be debated based on the contents of the video. If 100,000 sources stated otherwise, it would still be contrafactual.

May any statement be included in a Wikipedia article so long as sources are found for the statement? Is "up is down" or "night is day" acceptable so long as a source for it is found?

If that is the case, then is Wikipedia a relevant or minimally credible source of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.63.96 (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Initial hatting comment by User:Isaidnoway:

Not a forum-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the "hatting" of that comment that labeled it as inappropriate forum chat. The comment appears to be a criticism of article content based on sources, not off-topic general forum commentary. It is also my opinion that the video itself, especially when posted on the website of a reliable news organization, is a cited reliable source. (Please do not, however, interpret my comment as supporting the perspective expressed by the IP editor – only as supporting their right to say it here on the article Talk page and to have the question discussed so that the article can potentially be improved in response to the comment.) —BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

BarrelProof - I didn't see any reliable sources used by the IP to support any of his claims about "facts versus sources", or that the sources used in this article had been contradicted by his interpretation of the "facts". It clearly states at the top of this talk page - This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery article, and again, I didn't see any discussion by the IP that would improve this article. And lastly, I'm guessing the last 3 questions asked by the IP were rhetorical in nature. But if you think a discussion with this IP and/or other editor's about the topics he raised will improve the article, then feel free to undo my hatting. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it is arguable that the video itself is a reliable source. I also suspect that if we think we see something in the video and search further, we can probably find other sources that discuss that interpretation – since a lot of people have commented about that video and it is only 36 seconds long, so every frame of it has been studied. If the IP editor's comment is correct, it could lead to an improvement of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was forumy, and worse, WP:OR. No, we cannot trust the video as a reliable source. Videos can be modified, and it's only one perspective. As far as left vs. right, images are often reversed. Parallax can also make distances and sizes misleading. In any case, we should not interpret an image or video. O3000 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor's comment is not correct, and this discussion will not lead to an improvement of the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum to publish your own thoughts and your own facts believes. We rely on what reliable sources are saying. There is no reason to believe your interpretation of the video. Also, I don't see anything that the sources have said that is contrary what we saw in the video.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The video can't be a reliable source because it is primary by any definition. Any video could have easily been doctored or edited in a certain way. Also, perspective in the video may be hard to discern. But I am not saying it was doctored or edited in a certain way. The point is, a video is a primary source that needs to be, at the least, backed up by secondary, reliable sourcing. The IP seems to be trying to discount the coverage in secondary reliable sourcing and make a claim the video trumps all. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows use of primary sources, although it generally prefers secondary and tertiary sources. The policy is that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The video in question was distributed by a qualified attorney and has been posted on the websites of numerous reliable news organizations, and I believe some use of it is allowable on Wikipedia. The policy states that "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I believe that observing whether someone is on the left side of a road or in the middle of it might constitute a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact. It says "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". I think that an observation of whether someone is in the middle of a road or on the left side of it may not be an analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis – it may be a simple observation of fact. I have not gone back and re-watched the video to confirm whether the IP editor said. I'm just saying it is not a problem to say something like that in principle. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but if it's so obvious, then why can't you find a secondary source that notes this fact? FollowTheSources (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Too many words. No, you cannot examine the video yourself and come to a conclusion that affects what we will include in an article here. Stick to reliable secondary sources. Particularly in a BLP and a recent event. And, there's too damn much WP:RECENTISM in this article. O3000 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

So out of curiosity, I decided to watch the video again. There is no center line on the road, but he does appear to be jogging to the left of the center of the road, which could be said as either jogging on the left side of the road or in the left lane. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Somewhat to the left, I think – perhaps roughly in the middle of the oncoming lane, which is of course the left side of the road. AP News said the video "shows a black man running at a jogging pace on the left side of a road". There is a center line on the road – a yellow line that starts out as a dashed line at the beginning and later seems to become two solid lines. It's kind of hard to see where he is at the very beginning, since the road is curved and the camera perspective is initially relatively far away from Arbery. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Freeze-frame image of the struggle between Ahmaud Arbery and Travis McMichael

After noting that the image of the struggle between Arbery and McMichael had been removed for NPOV concerns, I went ahead and put a placeholder image into the infobox that shows the location of Glynn County in Georgia instead, similar to the way the infoboxes are styled at Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Michael Brown. I've been thinking for some time now that instead of having that freeze-frame image in the lead, it would probably be better if it was in the "Video of the shooting" section. But rather than just add it there, I figure it would be better to get input first. For editors who feel the image does not appear to pass NPOV, can you voice your concerns here? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to have as the lede image. It would also be nice if we could get the whole video in a later section, but the copyright might not be solid. ~ HAL333 05:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

See infobox at Shooting of Walter Scott for something similar. For any article, no image is more suitable for the infobox than a depiction of the subject itself. This article's subject is a shooting, not the state of Georgia or Glynn County Georgia, and the struggle preceding the actual shooting by a matter of seconds can be considered part of the subject event. But,

• The image quality is so poor that I question whether it belongs anywhere in the article.
• I would like to hear more about the NPOV concerns, perhaps with compare-and-contrast to the Scott article. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The image at Shooting of Walter Scott shows both subjects at the instant of the shooting and is an informative depiction of the event. It was also a widely published image. The freeze-frame here looks like this is about a struggle between two men. In fact, the article is about two armed men chasing down an unarmed man. The image didn’t even include the shooter. So, it is a misleading depiction of the event. O3000 (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the Scott image is just a screenshot of the bystander video chosen by an editor. While it obviously resembles other screenshots that were published at the time, that doesn't make it a widely-published image. In that respect it's no different from this image. That said, I don't feel it would add much reader value and I have no problem with omitting it from the article completely. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The image didn’t even include the shooter. Are you talking about the image for this article? The caption said Travis McMichael (left) and Ahmaud Arbery struggle during a confrontation, and he was the shooter. I agree as well it's not the best quality, but am neutral on whether it should be included. I will note that it is a non-free file and not presently being used on any page in WP, so eventually it will be nominated for deletion if it's not used. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Security videos

@Isaidnoway:@NorthBySouthBaranof: Friendly heads-up: I see that there's a running dispute about whether prior security videos are of Arbery and/or relevant. Just want to note that a neighbor seems to have identified Arbery as the man who was on the property February 11, as well as on prior videos. I've redacted the name: "[Redacted] said he recognized Arbery as the man they had confronted earlier… 'All we knew about him was that he was the guy who kept showing up on our cameras,' [redacted] said… [Redacted] said he saw the man again on Feb. 23, this time motionless. Arbery lay dead on the pavement." Further, a local reporter reports that Arbery's family IDed him as the man in prior videos, dating back to 2019: "The property owner shared numerous videos of what all appear to be the same man walking through the home that date as far back as October 2019… The GBI, the homeowner and Arbery’s attorney have yet to confirm that the man in the above videos is indeed Arbery. Arbery’s family has said it is him." And I personally haven't seen any RS saying that the person in the prior videos is not Arbery. Hope this will help clarify things a bit! Tambourine60 (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Per what I said above, this is exactly why we should always wait, and not rush to include every single news report - it's WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not a newspaper that documents breaking news reports and controversy as it happens. Let the sources do their job. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Now we know that it is indeed relevant to the shooting on February 23 and can be included with the additional material. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the same man, then that's also the same man shown in the videos released by the homeowner. You can't have it both ways - you can't claim he's identified in one set of videos and not in the other, just because one of those tends to be exculpatory. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh? I don't believe I claimed any such thing. And what do you mean by "exculpatory"? For whom? Surely not Auhmed Arbery, who stands accused of no crime. I don't understand the concern about whether anything "tends to be" anything — isn't the issue here the relevancy to the article subject? Tambourine60 (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is the difference in the sources, the USA Today source (which was being used before) states - It is not known if Arbery is the person shown in any of the videos taken prior to Feb. 23, when the shooting occurred. Now these additional sources are more specific - The property owner shared numerous videos of what all appear to be the same man walking through the home that date as far back as October 2019...Arbery’s family has said it is him. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the cited sources - none of them made explicit connections to Aubrey, so by this standard, they all need to stay out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not getting it, NorthBySouthBaranof. Obviously I'm not suggesting it was Arbery on ANY video—video can be manipulated or it could be someone in an Auhmed-Arbery mask—but per the above RS articles, his family and a neighbor have stated it was him on the videos and/or in a confrontation with Travis McMichael on February 11. Additional RS here: "One of Ahmaud Arbery's alleged killers had a confrontation with him 2 weeks before his death, neighbor says." That information is obviously relevant and has proper RS. Other RSes may or may not conclude Arbery WAS on X video or in Y confrontation—but in no way does that absence of conclusion contradict the RS that state his family and/or a neighbor have IDed him. You get that stating "it's not proven to be Arbery" and "his family says it was Arbery" are not mutually exclusive, right? Indeed, both appear to be completely true. Tambourine60 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Tambourine60, @Black Kite: just unblocked you because you said you would be more careful on this article. Here, you are calling insider.com RS for evidence in a murder case, when it is basically a lifestyle site. And, as far as I can see, you are claiming their source, an anonymous neighbor, is a valid source for evidence in a murder case. This is still a BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not. You're making obviously false statements: I have never claimed anything was "valid evidence in a murder case". And I'm pretty sure we're not litigating or providing "evidence in a murder case" on Wikipedia, but rather citing RS to build an encyclopedia together. All I wrote was that RS (The Atlanta Journal Constitution, which you will note is also the report cited in Insider), claimed that a neighbor, whose name I clearly redacted due to privacy concerns (not an "anonymous neighbor" as you absurdly claim, revealing that you didn't even read the RS I provided), "seems to have identified Arbery as the man who was on the property February 11, as well as on prior videos". Reread the quote above. It's 100% true. I'm not evaluating the validity of what the neighbor said (that would be you, apparently—and so you may be interested to know that, according to local news, he is "listed as a witness in the Arbery case") but simply wrote that RS wrote what he claimed. The NY Post and NY Daily News have reported approximately the same information. What I wrote was 100% true and you will note I quoted directly from the AJC, not Insider. I sincerely apologized and learned my lesson from being blocked and have been scrupulously careful to cite everything from RS. I want to believe you are acting WP:IGF but do not understand why you are claiming I wrote something I obviously didn't, and pinging the user who blocked me before. Everything is in black and white above. I have no idea why you're continuing to harass me; perhaps it's because you didn't like the question I asked above on 04:01, 17 May 2020, which I note you have failed to address? Tambourine60 (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no policy-based reason to redact the name of someone who is publicly and voluntarily talking to the media to accuse Arbery of a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any RS that claims the neighbor "accused Arbery of a crime"—and was (perhaps mistakenly – I'm sure you'll be the first to let me know!) under the impression that the neighbor might be covered by WP:BLP restrictions, so I thought I'd err on the side of caution. But I appreciate your advice very much and of course you're free to write his/her name here if you like. Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tambourine60: please do not accuse productive editors of "...patently false allegations and harassment" in you edit summary [7]. This is considered casting aspersions wp:aspersions for which you can be blocked. Also, aspersions are often the path that disruptive editors (wp:de) go down, and I hope you are not going to walk down this path yourself. Focus on content not editors. That is a good rule of thumb to go by. Also, this is a contentious editing area, and if comments are being taken too personally, then maybe editing in a less contentious or emotional area would be a better fit. Just saying... ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)\

I greatly appreciate your sage advice, but in fairness, I don't believe I'm being contentious or emotional by being a "productive editor" myself while contributing properly sourced and relevant material — and I certainly don't believe I'm being in any way disruptive by correcting a blatant misrepresentation of what I wrote. I made it crystal clear that I want to assume WP:IGF. But since you're far more experienced than I, will you please tell me how you would characterize misrepresenting what I wrote and pinging the user who blocked me before? Is that a good example of "productive editing"? Thanks in advance! Tambourine60 (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think those are low quality sources being cited by Tambourine60. I think two of them tend to delve into sensationalism, i.e., The New York Post, and the New York Daily news. After looking at the AJC as pertains to this article, I am not really impressed with that as a source either. I think it goes under the heading of low quality source, from what I am seeing. We have much higher quality sources available and I think those are the ones that we should choose over these. And this is in agreement with WP:BLP anyway. Also, The Insider apparently publishing content from the AJC seems to also be a good indicator on how to rate the AJC. I think as a group we should stay away from these low quality sources, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying about the AJC. Please note that it is the only major daily newspaper of record in the largest metropolitan area in Georgia, the state where the incident occurred, and it has a history that goes back more than 150 years. The fact that someone else republishes some of its content is an indication that others value that content. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I would really have to defer to your expertise, Steve Quinn – so what do you recommend we do about the other 15 references to the AJC in the article? Tambourine60 (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's not jump the gun just yet, regarding 15 other AJC sources in the article. There are a number of other editors involved in editing this article. Usually, with a source that might be considered low quality, it depends on what information is being sourced. The other way to make it work is to add a high quality source in conjunction with the low quality source. (Note: Tamborine60 posted in the middle of my post here). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly don't want to be disruptive! Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "after looking at the AJC as pertains to this article, I am not really impressed with that as a source either"? I thought you meant that you weren't impressed with the AJC as a source for this article. Tambourine60 (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you did misunderstand. There is a difference between simply saying AJC is a low quality source and saying that while removing all those sources from the article. That would be disruptive - in fact quite disruptive.---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition, BarrelProof is addressing what I was wondering about regarding the AJC - that it is the only major newspaper of record in Atlanta. So, I don't know. Maybe take a look over at the Reliable sources noticeboard and see if there has been any commentary over there on this.

Also, of course, I'm hoping other editors chime in here. Tambourine60 thanks for asking, and BarrelProof thanks for answering my question without me having to ask :>) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Ramsquire says "I don't think anyone would argue that the AJC and E and P are not reliable sources, but there is legitimate dispute about whether that translates over to their respective blogs." And I certainly don't see anyone other than you arguing that the AJC isn't—but maybe you can explain the basis of your opinion that it's a "low quality source"? Also, FYI I see that RS List says: "Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines." Tambourine60 (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying AJC isn't a reliable source. I'm saying, in my opinion, it is a low quality source. In contrast, a blog isn't a reliable source unless it is written by an acknowledged expert which is supported by RS. The New York Daily News tends to be a tabloid style newspaper. I guess the best way to describe this is that it goes for readership more than quality, in my opinion. I have to admit you moved rather fast on this one, as I haven't had the chance to go over the noticeboard myself. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So, apparently one reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN) discussion and one editor has been discovered by Tambourine 60 in the above post. In addition, I have discovered several RSN discussions that seem to at least somewhat discuss the AJC. I will just link to the search page here. Scrolling through editors can see which ones contain some discussion on the AJC. I can't vouch for the amount of content in each discussion - but if anyone wants to do some reading, well, there it is. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by low quality? Do you believe the AJC is WP:QUESTIONABLE? You also said up above that - The Insider apparently publishing content from the AJC seems to also be a good indicator on how to rate the AJC. In this Insider article, they published content from Reuters, Associated Press, The New York Times, NBC News, ABC News, should that be used as a good indicator on how to rate those news organizations? I'm not seeing any issue with the AJC being used as a reliable source for this article and WP:BLP content as well, and don't judge the AJC to be low quality. That's my opinion, while respectfully disagreeing with your opinion about the AJC. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly dislike indulging in RECENTISM; but never win that battle. If we are to do so, sources must be top quality. I consider AJC a good source in most cases. I don’t know if a controversial current event like this is one of those cases. The fact that it is in Georgia may be a negative, not a positive. The Insider itself I wouldn’t use, and the cite to it really didn't mirror the AJC article. The NY Daily News is not a terrible source, but shouldn’t be used for something this controversial. The New York Post I wouldn’t use to wrap fish. It is mostly the case that if something is important enough to include in a highly publicized subject, it can be found in a high quality source. If it’s not, you have to wonder why. O3000 (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I said, I think of AJC as a low quality source, that's my opinion. There are better sources available. I didn't say it isn't a reliable source. Pertaining to "Insider" - this is the first time I have heard that Insider is some sort of aggregate news source. I haven't, before this, seen where they have published content from Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, NBC News, ABC News and so on. Well, I see Insider is cobbling together bits and pieces from other news sources via your link. I like the coverage in this particular article, but my view of Insider overall is that it is a lifestyle fluff magazine. The web may have changed things for it. So, I misspoke about low quality being connected between the AJC and Insider. The quality in this Insider article seems to be good. I didn't realize Insider has a different format on the web. Still, I think there are better sources than the AJC. Sorry if you're offended by this - but it is what it is. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

And I don't think we need to be using "Insider" as a source if it's simply a news aggregator or lifestyle fluff. The news stories the magazine links to can be used as sources unto themselves. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

On second thought. It might be better to take "Insider" articles on a case by case basis. Like the one linked to above, seems to be acceptable for good sourcing. And aggregating news from other reputable places for an article doesn't seem to be a bad idea. IMHO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

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

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

Created by Colinmcdermott (talk) and Starship.paint (talk). Nominated by Starship.paint (talk) at 05:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

• This strikes me as in somewhat poor taste — "became a viral video" make it sound like it's "The Hampsterdance Song". I see what it's trying to say, but the tone is wrong. (The linked source does have that issue in the headline, too, but it doesn't come off that way quite as strongly with the headline's wording, to me anyway.) Just my 2¢. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 21:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that although the people involved in the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery were immediately identified by police, arrests were only made 74 days later, after a video of the shooting was publicized? Sources: WaPo and AJC

@Goldenshimmer: - how about the above? starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Resolves my concern, looks good to me! Thanks starship.paint. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 04:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Goldenshimmer - thank you. Do you have concerns about the article itself? starship.paint (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

starship.paint: As an article it seems solid, and while I'm certainly no DYK expert, it seems to meet the guidelines. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

(←) Needs full review - prior tick did not address the criteria. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(If it's any help, I did go through the list at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria and it appeared to meet all the points, in case that wasn't clear from my earlier comment. Of course, if I missed something or otherwise did it wrong, never mind, and sorry for the trouble! First time commenting on one of these, so I'm not used to the procedure...) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 21:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Goldenshimmer No big deal. It was everyone's first DYK review some time. All you need to do is list out that each criteria is met. I've pasted the checklist below. Just put a y in all of the fields that apply, and the review will be good to go. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy Thanks! I've filled it in (hope you don't mind I replaced your signature in the template, since I didn't want to inadvertently "forge" it!) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Sourcing: while I'd consider WGXA and The Daily Beast aren't the best sources — former's part of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which hasn't a stellar reputation, and the latter's quite tabloidy — the first is used in conjunction with other sources, and the latter is attributed when used alone, so I think it's fine. Note that aside from the hook and a couple other things I checked, I'm mostly taking it on faith that the citations provided support the text. Plagiarism-free: to the best of my knowledge — I don't see anything where the text "smells" like plagiarism, anyway. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Review looks good now. Thanks Goldenshimmer and sorry for all the hoop-jumping. This project loves its bureaucracy sometimes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Far right groups

"Far-right groups are spreading racist, false claims about shooting victim Ahmaud Arbery, analysts say" [8]

Conveniently, this highlights some of the lies, helping us avoid them. It also allows us to put the story in context, in terms of how it's being used. FollowTheSources (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks promising, but it's behind a paywall. Any chance there's a web archive version available somewhere? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The paywall can be bypassed by opening the link in an Incognito window (or your browser's equivalent). FollowTheSources (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Or try this.[9] FollowTheSources (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that worked. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad. For what it's worth, what I did was to Google the title, in quotes, and that's what turned up mirrors. FollowTheSources (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup, same thing happened to Trayvon Martin by the same people, they went so far as to hack his email account and FB account to smear him. For the most part, we kept it out of the shooting article, but when I wrote Martin's bio article, I detailed it there. On another note about "in the news", apparently Arbery was chased for over 4 minutes, the 36 seconds video was just a snippet. I think this will probably have to be included. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree a description of the 4 minute chase should be included in the article. Also, it may be important to note the doggedness of his killers with the help of content about this video. I'm saying that without looking at RS surrounding the 4 minute chase. --Steve Quinn (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn:, I appreciate all the great advice you've been giving me. Based on what you've advised me, this seems likely to be a serious WP:BLP violation: identifying men presumed innocent as "killers" (and "dogged" seems perhaps a loaded term, with its implication of hunting). If there are RS for these characterizations, shouldn't they be cited inline? Thanks! Tambourine60 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

False hate group narratives that are being spread by such groups should be covered in this article, along with their goals for doing so. [10].---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest modifying the article with these changes. If you're concerned, you can write it here first, so that we can discuss it further. FollowTheSources (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@FollowTheSources: I think it's OK for you to write whatever you think is best. I'm sure it will be fine. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Racists are racists. At least these racists are obvious. What is bothersome is those that push the racist narrative less obviously. I don't think this story belongs here yet. But, if it shows up in more RS. then possibly. O3000 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Doggedness [11] - "Mr. McMichael told the officer that he and his son grabbed their guns and began chasing Mr. Arbery after seeing him run through the neighborhood. [possible blp concern here]. "The McMichaels tried to cut off Mr. Arbery during the chase, according to Mr. McMichael’s account, and Mr. Arbery tried to avoid them by turning around and running in the other direction. At that point, Mr. Bryan 'attempted to block him, which was unsuccessful,'... Mr. Arbery then turned onto another street, and the McMichaels got in front of him while Mr. Bryan pursued from behind and began filming."

Mr. Bryan was the one who followed and recorded Arbery and he also attempted to block him, which was unsuccessful.

In the second paragraph of the NYT article, it says, "But unlike others who have been hailed as heroes for recording shootings, the man who filmed the fatal encounter is under investigation for his potential involvement in the pursuit of Mr. Arbery." This man is subsequently identified as Mr. Bryan. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree there seems to be about 3 minutes and 30 seconds of video missing, which might soon come to light [12]. I'm waiting for more RS about the 4 minutes to see if we should put this in the article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

- false information by far-right groups added, with related info [13] starship.paint (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)