![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
In the first sentence, the B in black should be lowercase, not uppercase. 74.96.227.154 ( talk) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
It says that it should be uppercase when surrounded by other terms that are also uppercase “Asian-Pacific” was an example given for when to capitalize “color labels” as the page called them. As the B in black is ‘t surrounded by other race/ethnicity related words, I believe it should be lowercase. 74.96.227.154 ( talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that sections Killing of Ahmaud Arbery#Trial be split into a separate page called Trial of Ahmaud Arbery. The sections within are large enough to make their own page. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that sections Killing of Ahmaud Arbery#Trial be split into a separate page called Trial of Ahmaud Arbery. The sections within are large enough to make their own page. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is 'White' sometimes capitalised? Brett Alexander Hunter ( talk) 03:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
In the summary table section, the list of state charges includes "criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment," but the list of convictions for William Bryan states "criminal attempt to commit a felony." Are these one and the same? Is one a typographical error? Even if they both indicate the same charge, for those unfamiliar with the legal jargon and terminologies of the judicial system of the state of Georgia, it would be better to leave the wording identical in both sections. Otherwise, it would seem to the untrained observer that William Bryan was convicted of a crime with which he was not charged.
In addition, the inclusion of District Attorney Jackie Johnson in the "State charges" section is confusing and disorganized. It is not entirely clear that Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, or William Bryan were not charged with "violating the oath of a public officer" or "obstruction of justice." It is also not clear whether Johnson was convicted, acquitted, or the charges are still pending. If convicted, what was her sentence? The placement of these charges raises more questions than it answers. The charges of Jackie Johnson should be appended in a newly created section at the bottom of the table summary, or eliminated from the table summary altogether and only mentioned in the introduction and body.
Perhaps the table could be divided into sections with each defendant receiving his or her own separate section with charges, verdicts, convictions, and sentences clearly delineated.
On that note of eliminating abiguities and confusion for the lay person, it would also be helpful to include a brief explanation of how one can be charged with multiple counts for the same crime. If someone punched someone five times, I could understand five counts of assault even if the punches occurred during a single altercation. Each punch could constitute a separate assault. What is not entirely clear is how someone can be convicted of multiple counts of felony murder when only one murder occurred. By definition, murder cannot be carried out multiple times on the same victim. Attempted murder could be, but not murder itself. Clearly it does not violate any legal principles of double jeopardy as it occurs often enough, but to the lay person, it is not entirely clear why. If any legal experts could shed light on the matter in a clear and concise manner, it would be helpful. Just a thought... 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 08:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This article has five instances of "9-1-1" and 15 examples of "911". The Wikipedia article for 9-1-1 uses the dashes and its first sentence offers 911 without the dashes as an alternative. If I were bold, which I am not for an article as hot as this one, I would change all to have dashes -- except when quoting a source that didn't use dashes. Bobagem ( talk) 01:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an incredibly long lead, as big as many other entire articles are. It's very dense and isn't (imo) suited to a lead section on an article. Particularly egregious is the addition of the murderer's justifications for their murder taking up most of the opening paragraph (when a simple "they racially profiled Ahmaud by incorrectly identifying him as a robbery suspect, chased then in their vehicles, surrounded him, at which point Travis murdered him with a shotgun" would suffice), but it takes up half of the opening paragraph. Much of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs includes overly dense details (such as what the DA officers did or didn't do, the "additional evidence section", the grand jury details aren't particularly relevant to a lead when the trial has proceeded past it to convictions & sentencing), and opening to the 4th paragraph is something of a summary of the previous paragraphs which shouldn't need to be done in a lead. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 07:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
they racially profiled Ahmaud by incorrectly identifying him as a robbery suspect- we can't go this far when sources don't. 2nd/3rd paragraphs are detailed because Arbery's killers nearly got away with it, if not for Gregory's decision to release the video. It's not a simple murder, charge and convict. Lots of things happened between murder and charge, and Jackie Johnson is being charged for it now. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Ekpyros it seems obvious that NorthBySouthBaranof does not agree with the changes you are proposing for this article. Per WP:BRD you need to bring your proposal here and work towards consensus. Edit summaries are helpful, but they are never a substitute for discussion. Guettarda ( talk) 16:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
according to the the defense attorneys, only trespassing with intent is required for burglary and thus there was evidence of burglary. A defense attorney is not a reliable source for anything other than the attorney and their client's opinion, and one may not rebut sourced facts with mere opinions. That the attorneys for now-convicted murderers argued something at trial does not constitute "evidence." On a metaphysical level,
trespassing with intentwould require the murderers to have knowledge of Arbery's mental state, which of course they did not have. It may well be true that the murderers perceived or believed Arbery to have that intent, but perceptions and beliefs are not evidence and clearly cannot justify armed, murderous vigilantism toward an unarmed person. The jury appropriately disposed of the attorney's arguments with their unambiguous verdicts. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The defendants have said they thought Mr. Arbery was guilty of burglaries in the area when they chased him. No evidence has been produced to show that to be true.(2)
he had been recorded on video cameras inside the house numerous times before. But there was no evidence that he ever took anything.However, do you have a source that his 2017 theft was in Satilla Shores? I thought Satilla Shores was a pretty small neighbourhood, and Arbery did not live there, although he lived close to there. From FOX5, the theft was from a Walmart in Brunswick, Georgia, and Satilla Shores isn't in Brunswick, but near it. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
My feeling is that we might need to adjust the sentence to something like: "While Arbery had been caught shoplifting in 2017, there is no evidence that he took anything during his runs through the neighbourhood of Satilla Shores."Absolutely not - that's the same sort of poisoning the well bullshit that was explicitly rejected at trial. The fact that someone committed a prior bad act is not evidence they committed any other crime. The fact is that there is no evidence Arbery committed any theft or burglary in the community in question, much less on that particular day, which strikes directly to the heart of why his murderers will be sitting in prison until they die.
In his ruling on Monday, Walmsley noted that the McMichaels knew nothing of Arbery’s past when they chased him down that day. “It is apparent that defendants’ intended use of the victim’s other acts is to engage in speculation as to why Arbery acted as he did,” the judge wrote. Walmsley also said the defense was trying to get “clearly bad character and propensity evidence” before the jury that is unfairly prejudicial. “The character of the victim is neither relevant nor admissible in a murder trial,” the judge wrote.NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 12:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted
SilkTork's addition of information about Arbery's past criminal record - that information is specifically excluded from inclusion in Wikipedia voice by
explicit RfC consensus. Consensus can, of course, change, but such a change would require another explicit consensus to be formed. I conclude that the disputed information may be included in the article but not in Wikipedia's voice. As well as the inline citations to reliable sources, there must also be in-text attribution. In other words, the new phrase or sentence in the article should open with words such as "according to". Because it is so very important that this information is not given disproportionate prominence, the new phrase or sentence should be as brief and succinct as possible. It should not appear in the lead, it should not be given its own heading, and it absolutely must not in any way seem to excuse or justify Arbery's killing.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@ SilkTork, you placed a disputed – discuss tag here? valereee ( talk) 19:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Murder of Ahmaud Arbery#Persons involved does not say what he did for a living.
William "Roddie" Bryan was a mechanic according to this page:
"he is a mechanic from Brunswick, Georgia. Bryan is a Trump supporter and works at a hardware store in the area."
I don't have time to add this, and it may need more references. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The article starts with:
If his birth and death dates are included in the sentence, do we really want an additional prepositional phrase to restate the age? It seems duplicative.
The standard in biographies is to place the birthdate as we have it now. Thoughts on moving "a 25 year old" to a second sentence elsewhere? I would have just made the change myself, but it seems like this article has front loaded details into the lead, and I don't know if this is intentional or not. I will let those who edit this more make the choice, if a choice is made. - removed by someone else now
2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (
talk)
19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
It would be nice if you put more about Aubrey other than his murder. Like maybe you could speak about his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:4A06:A6D8:8168:490C:F500:54BE ( talk) 04:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
In the first sentence, the B in black should be lowercase, not uppercase. 74.96.227.154 ( talk) 21:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
It says that it should be uppercase when surrounded by other terms that are also uppercase “Asian-Pacific” was an example given for when to capitalize “color labels” as the page called them. As the B in black is ‘t surrounded by other race/ethnicity related words, I believe it should be lowercase. 74.96.227.154 ( talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that sections Killing of Ahmaud Arbery#Trial be split into a separate page called Trial of Ahmaud Arbery. The sections within are large enough to make their own page. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that sections Killing of Ahmaud Arbery#Trial be split into a separate page called Trial of Ahmaud Arbery. The sections within are large enough to make their own page. Phillip Samuel ( talk) 18:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is 'White' sometimes capitalised? Brett Alexander Hunter ( talk) 03:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
In the summary table section, the list of state charges includes "criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment," but the list of convictions for William Bryan states "criminal attempt to commit a felony." Are these one and the same? Is one a typographical error? Even if they both indicate the same charge, for those unfamiliar with the legal jargon and terminologies of the judicial system of the state of Georgia, it would be better to leave the wording identical in both sections. Otherwise, it would seem to the untrained observer that William Bryan was convicted of a crime with which he was not charged.
In addition, the inclusion of District Attorney Jackie Johnson in the "State charges" section is confusing and disorganized. It is not entirely clear that Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, or William Bryan were not charged with "violating the oath of a public officer" or "obstruction of justice." It is also not clear whether Johnson was convicted, acquitted, or the charges are still pending. If convicted, what was her sentence? The placement of these charges raises more questions than it answers. The charges of Jackie Johnson should be appended in a newly created section at the bottom of the table summary, or eliminated from the table summary altogether and only mentioned in the introduction and body.
Perhaps the table could be divided into sections with each defendant receiving his or her own separate section with charges, verdicts, convictions, and sentences clearly delineated.
On that note of eliminating abiguities and confusion for the lay person, it would also be helpful to include a brief explanation of how one can be charged with multiple counts for the same crime. If someone punched someone five times, I could understand five counts of assault even if the punches occurred during a single altercation. Each punch could constitute a separate assault. What is not entirely clear is how someone can be convicted of multiple counts of felony murder when only one murder occurred. By definition, murder cannot be carried out multiple times on the same victim. Attempted murder could be, but not murder itself. Clearly it does not violate any legal principles of double jeopardy as it occurs often enough, but to the lay person, it is not entirely clear why. If any legal experts could shed light on the matter in a clear and concise manner, it would be helpful. Just a thought... 66.91.36.8 ( talk) 08:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This article has five instances of "9-1-1" and 15 examples of "911". The Wikipedia article for 9-1-1 uses the dashes and its first sentence offers 911 without the dashes as an alternative. If I were bold, which I am not for an article as hot as this one, I would change all to have dashes -- except when quoting a source that didn't use dashes. Bobagem ( talk) 01:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an incredibly long lead, as big as many other entire articles are. It's very dense and isn't (imo) suited to a lead section on an article. Particularly egregious is the addition of the murderer's justifications for their murder taking up most of the opening paragraph (when a simple "they racially profiled Ahmaud by incorrectly identifying him as a robbery suspect, chased then in their vehicles, surrounded him, at which point Travis murdered him with a shotgun" would suffice), but it takes up half of the opening paragraph. Much of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs includes overly dense details (such as what the DA officers did or didn't do, the "additional evidence section", the grand jury details aren't particularly relevant to a lead when the trial has proceeded past it to convictions & sentencing), and opening to the 4th paragraph is something of a summary of the previous paragraphs which shouldn't need to be done in a lead. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 07:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
they racially profiled Ahmaud by incorrectly identifying him as a robbery suspect- we can't go this far when sources don't. 2nd/3rd paragraphs are detailed because Arbery's killers nearly got away with it, if not for Gregory's decision to release the video. It's not a simple murder, charge and convict. Lots of things happened between murder and charge, and Jackie Johnson is being charged for it now. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Ekpyros it seems obvious that NorthBySouthBaranof does not agree with the changes you are proposing for this article. Per WP:BRD you need to bring your proposal here and work towards consensus. Edit summaries are helpful, but they are never a substitute for discussion. Guettarda ( talk) 16:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
according to the the defense attorneys, only trespassing with intent is required for burglary and thus there was evidence of burglary. A defense attorney is not a reliable source for anything other than the attorney and their client's opinion, and one may not rebut sourced facts with mere opinions. That the attorneys for now-convicted murderers argued something at trial does not constitute "evidence." On a metaphysical level,
trespassing with intentwould require the murderers to have knowledge of Arbery's mental state, which of course they did not have. It may well be true that the murderers perceived or believed Arbery to have that intent, but perceptions and beliefs are not evidence and clearly cannot justify armed, murderous vigilantism toward an unarmed person. The jury appropriately disposed of the attorney's arguments with their unambiguous verdicts. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The defendants have said they thought Mr. Arbery was guilty of burglaries in the area when they chased him. No evidence has been produced to show that to be true.(2)
he had been recorded on video cameras inside the house numerous times before. But there was no evidence that he ever took anything.However, do you have a source that his 2017 theft was in Satilla Shores? I thought Satilla Shores was a pretty small neighbourhood, and Arbery did not live there, although he lived close to there. From FOX5, the theft was from a Walmart in Brunswick, Georgia, and Satilla Shores isn't in Brunswick, but near it. starship .paint ( exalt) 12:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
My feeling is that we might need to adjust the sentence to something like: "While Arbery had been caught shoplifting in 2017, there is no evidence that he took anything during his runs through the neighbourhood of Satilla Shores."Absolutely not - that's the same sort of poisoning the well bullshit that was explicitly rejected at trial. The fact that someone committed a prior bad act is not evidence they committed any other crime. The fact is that there is no evidence Arbery committed any theft or burglary in the community in question, much less on that particular day, which strikes directly to the heart of why his murderers will be sitting in prison until they die.
In his ruling on Monday, Walmsley noted that the McMichaels knew nothing of Arbery’s past when they chased him down that day. “It is apparent that defendants’ intended use of the victim’s other acts is to engage in speculation as to why Arbery acted as he did,” the judge wrote. Walmsley also said the defense was trying to get “clearly bad character and propensity evidence” before the jury that is unfairly prejudicial. “The character of the victim is neither relevant nor admissible in a murder trial,” the judge wrote.NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 12:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted
SilkTork's addition of information about Arbery's past criminal record - that information is specifically excluded from inclusion in Wikipedia voice by
explicit RfC consensus. Consensus can, of course, change, but such a change would require another explicit consensus to be formed. I conclude that the disputed information may be included in the article but not in Wikipedia's voice. As well as the inline citations to reliable sources, there must also be in-text attribution. In other words, the new phrase or sentence in the article should open with words such as "according to". Because it is so very important that this information is not given disproportionate prominence, the new phrase or sentence should be as brief and succinct as possible. It should not appear in the lead, it should not be given its own heading, and it absolutely must not in any way seem to excuse or justify Arbery's killing.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
15:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@ SilkTork, you placed a disputed – discuss tag here? valereee ( talk) 19:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Murder of Ahmaud Arbery#Persons involved does not say what he did for a living.
William "Roddie" Bryan was a mechanic according to this page:
"he is a mechanic from Brunswick, Georgia. Bryan is a Trump supporter and works at a hardware store in the area."
I don't have time to add this, and it may need more references. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 03:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The article starts with:
If his birth and death dates are included in the sentence, do we really want an additional prepositional phrase to restate the age? It seems duplicative.
The standard in biographies is to place the birthdate as we have it now. Thoughts on moving "a 25 year old" to a second sentence elsewhere? I would have just made the change myself, but it seems like this article has front loaded details into the lead, and I don't know if this is intentional or not. I will let those who edit this more make the choice, if a choice is made. - removed by someone else now
2600:1700:12B0:300F:DD16:4DE8:C344:67CE (
talk)
19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
It would be nice if you put more about Aubrey other than his murder. Like maybe you could speak about his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:4A06:A6D8:8168:490C:F500:54BE ( talk) 04:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)