Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery/Archive 5

2667:(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? 2184:, 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 Knowledge, 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 Knowledge. The policy states that "A primary source may be used on Knowledge 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 3122:

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. ---

2788:, 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. --- 3990:, 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| 116:

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."

31: 3733: 3983: 3633: 688:

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. ―

3955: 3947: 3918: 3898: 3887: 3858: 3847: 2319:. 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, 1871:- 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. 4191:, 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! 2754:) 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... --- 2770:

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!

2059:, 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. 2806:. 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. — 2838:

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

2651:

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

2400:

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

2165:

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

2032:

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

408:

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

4295:

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. . "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

2666:

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 Knowledge, but rather citing RS to build an encyclopedia together. All I wrote was that RS

2079:

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

1964:

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

687:

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"

2962:

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

2628:

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

2385:

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

925:

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

783:

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

167:

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

139:

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).

2947:

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

1904:

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

949:

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

3121:

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

2695:

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

2354:

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

1343:

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

127:

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,

1836:

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

121:

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

4144:

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",

2280:

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.

115:

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

3545:

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

2557:

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?

2769:

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

2474:

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:

2853:

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.

1414:

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

950:"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). 2033:

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.) —

2979:

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

810:

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.

1615:

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.

2885:

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

2098:. 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. 2428:, 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. 3758:

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...)

2489:"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. 2542:

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.

4169:

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.

1854:: 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. 2247:

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.

4296:

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.

1837:

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.

3150:

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

1382:

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 Knowledge naming policy, just not ideal in the current situation.

2216:

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

4053: 1073:. 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. 2948:

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."

1090:, 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. 133:

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

3579: 1790:. 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. --- 1667: 2054:

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 -

4269:

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.

590:

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.

122:

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.

1537:

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.

358: 3058:

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.

2142:

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

2868:

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

2984:. 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. --- 2166:

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. ---

170:

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

1399:

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, "

2963:

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. ---

4323: 4306:

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.

4146: 3501: 3136:

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. ---

3456: 851:

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

3370: 1968:

May any statement be included in a Knowledge 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?

1139:- 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). 1358:

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. ---

3042:

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

2578:

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

3014:, 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 2889:

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 :: -->

847:- 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 3330: 2334:

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. ~

1045:

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).

2618:. 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, 1617: 244: 3780:

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

1961:"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." 1160:

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

3306: 3206: 1670:. 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 1116:

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.

1434:" titling is concerned, this main header is not unique. Various contributors feel that for greater impact of titling or specificity, some, most or all " 4057:

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.

2080:

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. —

1246:

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.

3583: 3487: 540:

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.

1905:

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

475:

Just a small point but the original DA who recused himself determined that the death was "justifiable homicide" within 24 hours of the killing. --

97: 3801:

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|

3281: 3231: 382:, 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. --- 3007: 1583:, that is a trap that Knowledge has fallen into and can't manage to get itself out. RS more commonly refer to it as "Killing of Ahmaud Arbery". 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 3018:

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.

2681:

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.

1595: 1365: 1320: 561: 505: 436: 389: 299: 4361: 3679: 3607: 4234:

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.

4217:

False hate group narratives that are being spread by such groups should be covered in this article, along with their goals for doing so.

2495:

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!

228:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

1520: 1497: 1298: 812: 3255: 1671: 4017: 3789: 3741: 3436: 1978: 1447: 2839:

add a high quality source in conjunction with the low quality source. (Note: Tamborine60 posted in the middle of my post here). ---

1724:

of". Shooting is inaccurate for a title because it leads the reader to think that the person is possible still alive. Sydney Poore/

3038:

I strongly dislike indulging in RECENTISM; but never win that battle. If we are to do so, sources must be top quality. I consider

3345: 2600:

I reviewed the cited sources - none of them made explicit connections to Aubrey, so by this standard, they all need to stay out.

2518:. Knowledge is not a newspaper that documents breaking news reports and controversy as it happens. Let the sources do their job. 1553: 1344:

guilty at trial. Thus, we must presume that the defendants are innocent until either found guilty at trial or they plead guilty.

576:

I don't think anyone has disputed that it was deliberate. The only questions are murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide.

4218: 4101: 1932: 1459: 1198: 926:

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? --

3904: 1642: 1467: 3576:

were immediately identified by police, arrests were only made 74 days later, after a video of the shooting was publicized?

2686: 2629:

Arbery" and "his family says it was Arbery" are not mutually exclusive, right? Indeed, both appear to be completely true.

2605: 2548: 1950:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1906: 1471: 1463: 1420: 784:

skin. Shooting seems an inadequate term given that the subject is dead. "Killing" therefore seems far more appropriate. --

323: 173:

is a quote from attorneys for Arbery’s parents, so it's a misleading sentence. And furthermore, the source clearly states

4086:

Sorry about that. The paywall can be bypassed by opening the link in an Incognito window (or your browser's equivalent).

2522:. Now we know that it is indeed relevant to the shooting on February 23 and can be included with the additional material. 731:

So you think there is some basis to believe that the men in the video did not kill Mr. Arbery, whether justified or not?

155:

I agree that we shouldn't rush to include every statement released by the various attorneys in this case. This is called

4013: 3912: 3798: 3785: 3737: 3432: 1621: 1443: 47: 17: 3415: 2574:

It is not known if Arbery is the person shown in any of the videos taken prior to Feb. 23, when the shooting occurred.

1703:

which use the term shooting. There are many more articles with the prefix "Shooting of" that involve fatal shootings.

4072:

Looks promising, but it's behind a paywall. Any chance there's a web archive version available somewhere? Regards,

1586: 1168:. The existing title is more consistent with the titles of other similar articles, so the article need not be moved. 4239: 4135: 4107: 4091: 4062: 2312: 2207: 1696: 1634: 1455: 1251: 1186: 670: 38: 4322:

I have to agree there seems to be about 3 minutes and 30 seconds of video missing, which might soon come to light

4301:

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

128:

stated that new information would be disclosed at the future (as yet unscheduled) preliminary hearing on the case.

4130:

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.

3572: 3475: 2487:

Further, a local reporter reports that Arbery's family IDed him as the man in prior videos, dating back to 2019:

2316: 2181: 1700: 1638: 1589: 1451: 1359: 1314: 1284: 1204: 555: 499: 430: 383: 336: 293: 263: 219: 3004:

The Insider apparently publishing content from the AJC seems to also be a good indicator on how to rate the AJC.

713:

The alledged are "charged" not "convicted". This title change would convict and is a huge departure from NPOV.--

273: 4367: 3987: 3881: 3685: 3613: 3531: 3523: 3515: 2785: 2682: 2615: 2601: 2544: 2469: 2386:

down an unarmed man. The image didn’t even include the shooter. So, it is a misleading depiction of the event.

2351: 1311: 596: 319: 277: 2743:

please do not accuse productive editors of "...patently false allegations and harassment" in you edit summary

2625:"One of Ahmaud Arbery's alleged killers had a confrontation with him 2 weeks before his death, neighbor says." 335:

I believe using the word "shooting" is the norm until such time as the motive for death is ascertained. e.g. "

3698:: As an article it seems solid, and while I'm certainly no DYK expert, it seems to meet the guidelines. —{{u| 3282:"One of Ahmaud Arbery's alleged killers had a confrontation with him 2 weeks before his death, neighbor says" 3232:"One of Ahmaud Arbery's alleged killers had a confrontation with him 2 weeks before his death, neighbor says" 2572:

The issue here is the difference in the sources, the USA Today source (which was being used before) states -

1666:– "Shooting of" is the typical phrasing of such titles on Knowledge, and it seems less sensationalistic. See 429:

Not surprising however, that when the victim is a black male in the U.S., we insist on "Shooting of ..." ---

4275: 3064: 2657: 2391: 2361:

I would like to hear more about the NPOV concerns, perhaps with compare-and-contrast to the Scott article. ―

2226: 2103: 1654: 1524: 1493: 1294: 816: 626: 2311:

that shows the location of Glynn County in Georgia instead, similar to the way the infoboxes are styled at

2112:

The IP editor's comment is not correct, and this discussion will not lead to an improvement of the article.

1982: 1584: 621:

Well, you can intentionally kill without it being murder. Otherwise, all police shootings would be murder.

4196: 4121: 4077: 3941: 3852: 3841: 3755: 2999: 2953: 2859: 2829: 2784:

I think those are low quality sources being cited by Tambourine60. I think two of them tend to delve into

2775: 2701: 2672: 2634: 2563: 2500: 2324: 1069: 1005: 977: 938: 896: 796: 487: 253: 145: 4291: 3371:"Suspects in Ahmaud Arbery killing had confrontation with young black man days before shooting: neighbor" 1645:, etc. The article can be renamed appropriately if and when the McMichaels are convicted of murder, e.g. 4330: 4313: 4260: 4250: 4235: 4225: 4175: 4131: 4103: 4087: 4058: 4052:"Far-right groups are spreading racist, false claims about shooting victim Ahmaud Arbery, analysts say" 4027: 4009: 3991: 3802: 3777: 3760: 3726: 3699: 3669: 3641: 3595: 3547: 3160: 3141: 3127: 2989: 2968: 2895: 2874: 2844: 2811: 2793: 2759: 2485:,' said… said he saw the man again on Feb. 23, this time motionless. Arbery lay dead on the pavement." 2286: 2203: 2193: 2171: 2150: 2085: 2038: 1820: 1795: 1679: 1646: 1247: 229: 4157: 4035: 4031: 3999: 3995: 3908: 3810: 3806: 3768: 3764: 3707: 3703: 3649: 3645: 3555: 3551: 3026: 2747: 2588: 2530: 2436: 2253: 2120: 2067: 2012: 1974: 1842: 1601: 1549: 1541: 1388: 1371: 1349: 1326: 1161: 1121: 1078: 1023: 567: 511: 442: 395: 305: 272:– Arbery was not only shot but was killed. Also per COMMONNAME, "Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery" has only 197: 3411: 832:

as it changes the tone from one of regretful outcome to intentional act prior to any conviction. --

4356: 3695: 3674: 3637: 3602: 3527: 3519: 3511: 2515: 2218: 1812: 1787: 1516: 1194: 836: 678: 657: 592: 581: 232:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

178: 156: 2622:

on the videos and/or in a confrontation with Travis McMichael on February 11. Additional RS here:

4271: 3986:

Sourcing: while I'd consider WGXA and The Daily Beast aren't the best sources — former's part of

3060: 2653: 2411: 2401:

would add much reader value and I have no problem with omitting it from the article completely. ―

2387: 2371: 2222: 2099: 1876: 1728: 1650: 1487: 1307: 1288: 1231: 1165: 1140: 1031: 1013: 908: 698: 622: 538: 462: 414: 366: 344: 4372: 4334: 4317: 4279: 4264: 4243: 4229: 4200: 4179: 4164: 4139: 4125: 4111: 4095: 4081: 4066: 4038: 4021: 4002: 3813: 3793: 3771: 3745: 3710: 3690: 3652: 3618: 3558: 3535: 3440: 3164: 3145: 3131: 3068: 3033: 2993: 2972: 2957: 2899: 2878: 2863: 2848: 2833: 2815: 2797: 2779: 2763: 2705: 2690: 2676: 2661: 2638: 2609: 2595: 2567: 2552: 2537: 2504: 2443: 2416: 2395: 2376: 2345: 2328: 2290: 2257: 2230: 2211: 2197: 2175: 2154: 2127: 2107: 2089: 2074: 2042: 2019: 1986: 1971:

If that is the case, then is Knowledge a relevant or minimally credible source of information?

1937: 1917: 1880: 1863: 1846: 1824: 1799: 1774: 1751: 1731: 1712: 1683: 1658: 1625: 1605: 1575: 1557: 1528: 1501: 1392: 1375: 1353: 1330: 1302: 1255: 1236: 1212: 1177: 1152: 1125: 1103: 1082: 1058: 1035: 1017: 983: 959: 944: 920: 902: 868: 839: 820: 802: 775: 740: 722: 703: 682: 661: 630: 600: 585: 571: 549: 515: 493: 466: 446: 418: 399: 370: 348: 327: 309: 257: 204: 149: 965:

This is a totally unrealistic situation. I would NEVER setup a Facebook page of any sort. ;) --

910: 4192: 4117: 4073: 3324: 2949: 2855: 2825: 2771: 2738: 2697: 2668: 2630: 2559: 2496: 2320: 2303:

After noting that the image of the struggle between Arbery and McMichael had been removed for

1859: 1833: 1708: 1571: 966: 955: 927: 885: 864: 785: 736: 476: 249: 182: 164: 141: 4325:. I'm waiting for more RS about the 4 minutes to see if we should put this in the article.--- 2202:

Ok, but if it's so obvious, then why can't you find a secondary source that notes this fact?

4326: 4309: 4256: 4221: 4186: 4171: 3156: 3137: 3123: 2985: 2964: 2891: 2870: 2840: 2821: 2807: 2789: 2755: 2340: 2282: 2189: 2167: 2144: 2081: 2047: 2034: 1816: 1791: 1769: 1746: 1675: 1173: 1148: 753: 2750:

for which you can be blocked. Also, aspersions are often the path that disruptive editors (

2696:

advice very much and of course you're free to write his/her name here if you like. Thanks!

4255:

I think it's OK for you to write whatever you think is best. I'm sure it will be fine. ---

4150: 4149:, the 36 seconds video was just a snippet. I think this will probably have to be included. 3019: 2824:– so what do you recommend we do about the other 15 references to the AJC in the article? 2646: 2581: 2523: 2462: 2429: 2249: 2113: 2060: 2057:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery article

2029: 2005: 2001: 1994: 1838: 1545: 1384: 1345: 1117: 1087: 1074: 718: 190: 186: 161:

Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens

110:

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

2358:

The image quality is so poor that I question whether it belongs anywhere in the article.

3892: 3732: 2944: 1926: 1692: 1190: 916: 856: 833: 829: 674: 653: 577: 545: 2273: 3015: 2402: 2362: 1910: 1889: 1872: 1725: 1222: 1098: 1053: 1027: 1009: 852: 689: 458: 410: 379: 362: 340: 3400:

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.

2262:

Yes, I agree. Somewhat to the left, I think – perhaps roughly in the middle of the

1807:: the manner of death was ruled a homicide, so the "killing" is not in dispute. See 2751: 2095: 2051: 1855: 1704: 1580: 1567: 951: 860: 732: 4012:

and sorry for all the hoop-jumping. This project loves its bureaucracy sometimes.

3054:

is not a terrible source, but shouldn’t be used for something this controversial.

3480: 2335: 1764: 1741: 1416: 1169: 1144: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3982: 3632: 3406:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as

2514:

we should always wait, and not rush to include every single news report - it's

168:

attorney for the homeowner, and the second half of the sentence beginning with

714: 3307:"Text suggests Gregory McMichael was deputized before Ahmaud Arbery shooting" 2299:

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

912: 848: 541: 1668:

Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States

2426:

Travis McMichael (left) and Ahmaud Arbery struggle during a confrontation

1092: 1047: 1026:. The title needs to clearly emphasize that it was not natural causes. – 752:

The standard naming convictions for this sort of thing is "shooting of".

537:. Killing is defined as "an act in which someone is deliberately killed". 1263:. English Knowledge has numerous main title headers under five forms — " 2268: 879: 425: 2274:

shows a black man running at a jogging pace on the left side of a road

3418:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. 3784:

in all of the fields that apply, and the review will be good to go.

3207:"Suspects in Arbery shooting had earlier neighborhood confrontation" 3205:

Schrade, Brad; Bert Roughton Jr., The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

3256:"GBI reviewing additional surveillance video in Ahmaud Arbery case" 3046:

itself I wouldn’t use, and the cite to it really didn't mirror the

2424:

Are you talking about the image for this article? The caption said

2138:

Knowledge is not a forum to publish your own thoughts and your own

292:

shooting..." which are simply another way of saying "killing". ---

1815:: "According to the autopsy, the manner of death was homicide." -- 1695:), There are other articles in which people were killed, such as 1633:- There's already a lot of precedent for these kinds of articles. 1401:

English Knowledge has numerous main title headers under five forms

280:. Also some of the Google results for "Shooting..." are actually " 175:

It is not known if Arbery is the person shown in any of the videos

4352:- false information by far-right groups added, with related info 3346:"Ahmaud Arbery may have had previous run-in with alleged killers" 3012:

Reuters, Associated Press, The New York Times, NBC News, ABC News

1898:

is the neutral way to go, which we are here for as Wikipedians.

1448:

Talk:Shooting of Terence Crutcher#Requested move 23 November 2019

1313:

Why just because he was shot can we not use "Killing of..."? ---

1022:"Death" suggests it could be from natural causes, like, say, the 554:

Sure, they shot him three times but didn't mean to kill him. ---

2981: 1287:

continues to remain as the most aptly descriptive main header. —

907:

Sorry, but major dictionaries assert that killing IS deliberate.

2802:

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're saying about the

1691:- Without knowing the motive, shooting is a more neutral term ( 1460:

Talk:Shooting of Patrick Harmon#Requested move 24 November 2019

669:- Similar incidents are referred to as "Shooting of" example - 1189:. No reason to rename this article. A precedent has been set. 25: 3736:

Needs full review - prior tick did not address the criteria.

1472:

Killing of Atatiana Jefferson#Requested move 24 November 2019

3874:

Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

3672:- thank you. Do you have concerns about the article itself? 361:

of the many similar articles using the words "shooting of".

3502:

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

2998:

What do you mean by low quality? Do you believe the AJC is

2479:

he recognized Arbery as the man they had confronted earlier

1217:

That's a cherry-picked precedent, a very bad practice. See

884:;) Killing doesn't have to be deliberate (see my post). -- 409:

you search you will find no articles titled "Killing of".

140:

I'm new to this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

1813:"Autopsy Shows Ahmaud Arbery Was Shot Twice in the Chest" 1423:

in 1964 have been also included as examples of lynching.

4353: 4308:" This man is subsequently identified as Mr. Bryan. --- 3461: 3452: 2744: 2308: 2304: 1218: 268: 4304:

In the second paragraph of the NYT article, it says, "

177:. I would support removing all the above material per 3927: 3867: 3827: 3546:

headline's wording, to me anyway.) Just my 2¢. —{{u|

2820:

Hm. I would really have to defer to your expertise,

3934:Hook has been verified by provided inline citation 3781: 2028:I disagree with the "hatting" of that comment that 1965:stated otherwise, it would still be contrafactual. 673:. If you move one, you'd have to move them all. – 106:WP:NOTNEWS and article as mouthpiece for attorneys 2576:Now these additional sources are more specific - 2483:he was the guy who kept showing up on our cameras 3754:(If it's any help, I did go through the list at 2620:his family and a neighbor have stated it was him 2266:, which is of course the left side of the road. 498:A justifiable homicide is still a "killing" --- 3636:Resolves my concern, looks good to me! Thanks 1310:, the autopsy has already ruled it a homicide. 3570:... that although the people involved in the 1957:Facts (dictionary defintion) versus "sources" 1740:”Death of” would be my preference as well. ~ 1566:, because shooting is more widely used now.-- 8: 3420:No further edits should be made to this page 3329:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 1786:" is in agreement with neutral wording, per 3756:Knowledge:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria 828:per similar articles using this naming and 2422:The image didn’t even include the shooter. 1972: 1539: 218:The following is a closed discussion of a 3305:McLean, Jenese Harris, Joe (2020-05-17). 457:Sorry, I must have misspelled my search. 2746:. This is considered casting aspersions 3197: 878:"brunt force trauma" would be death by 3834:Article is new enough and long enough 3322: 3003: 2421: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 276:while "Killing of Ahmaud Arbery" has 7: 4147:Arbery was chased for over 4 minutes 1482:" and the main header remaining at " 237:The result of the move request was: 4026:Thank you for the assistance! —{{u| 1438:" main headers should be moved to " 426:many articles named Killing of ... 2652:murder case. This is still a BLP. 2491:Arbery’s family has said it is him 2481:… 'All we knew about him was that 2309:placeholder image into the infobox 1672:Talk:Killing of Atatiana Jefferson 1407:", since there are also numerous " 648:as a net improvement in accuracy. 24: 3344:Fitz-Gibbon, Jorge (2020-05-13). 2520:There is no deadline on Knowledge 1946:The discussion above is closed. 3981: 3953: 3945: 3916: 3896: 3885: 3856: 3845: 3731: 3631: 3002:? You also said up above that - 2355:part of the subject event. But, 1164:, which is just one of the five 29: 4116:Thanks, that worked. Regards, 3403:Please do not modify this page. 2510:Per what I said above, this is 2180:Knowledge policy allows use of 2094:Yes, it was forumy, and worse, 4008:Review looks good now. Thanks 3010:, they published content from 1643:Shooting of Markeis McGlockton 1468:Shooting of Atatiana Jefferson 1: 1464:Killing of Atatiana Jefferson 1421:Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner 1444:Shooting of Terence Crutcher 18:Talk:Murder of Ahmaud Arbery 3964: 3416:Knowledge talk:Did you know 3408:this nomination's talk page 1993:Initial hatting comment by 423:On the contrary, there are 4388: 2313:Shooting of Trayvon Martin 1697:Shooting of Trayvon Martin 1635:Shooting of Trayvon Martin 1456:Shooting of Patrick Harmon 1442:", such as in the case of 1187:Shooting of Trayvon Martin 671:Shooting of Trayvon Martin 211:Requested move 12 May 2020 3573:shooting of Ahmaud Arbery 3476:shooting of Ahmaud Arbery 2317:Shooting of Michael Brown 2307:, I went ahead and put a 1701:Shooting of Michael Brown 1639:Shooting of Michael Brown 1452:Killing of Patrick Harmon 1285:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery 337:Shooting of Michael Brown 264:Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery 4373:12:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 4335:03:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 4318:03:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 4280:01:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 4265:03:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 4244:22:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4230:22:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4201:23:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4180:22:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4165:16:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4140:15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4126:15:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4112:15:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4096:15:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4082:15:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4067:15:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 4039:00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 4022:22:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 4003:22:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 3988:Sinclair Broadcast Group 3814:22:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 3794:17:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC) 3772:21:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC) 3746:22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC) 3711:23:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 3691:10:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 3653:04:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 3619:08:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) 3559:21:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC) 3441:06:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC) 3165:22:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 3146:21:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 3132:21:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 3069:12:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 3034:11:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2994:05:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2973:05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2958:05:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2900:05:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2879:07:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2864:05:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2849:08:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2834:05:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2816:04:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2798:04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2780:04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2764:04:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2706:04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2691:03:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2677:03:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2662:00:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2639:23:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2610:20:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2596:16:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2568:16:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2553:16:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2538:16:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2505:15:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2444:12:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2417:12:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2396:11:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2377:08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2352:Shooting of Walter Scott 2346:05:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2329:02:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 2291:16:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2258:02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2231:00:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2212:00:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2198:00:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 2176:18:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2155:18:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2128:18:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2108:18:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2090:17:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2075:17:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2043:17:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 2020:15:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1987:14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1948:Please do not modify it. 1938:01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 1918:20:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 1881:17:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 1864:05:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC) 1847:15:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC) 1825:01:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1800:00:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1775:16:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1752:02:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 1732:02:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 1713:22:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1684:01:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1659:00:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1626:17:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1618:2A01:388:390:111:0:0:1:E 1606:16:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1576:08:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1558:04:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1529:03:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1502:00:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1393:07:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 1376:16:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1354:13:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1331:08:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1303:03:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1256:00:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1237:15:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 1213:22:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1178:22:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1153:21:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1126:00:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 1104:21:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1083:21:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1059:20:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1036:20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1018:19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 984:05:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 960:19:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 945:13:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 921:10:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 903:08:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 869:19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 840:18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 821:18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 803:18:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 776:16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 741:17:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 723:16:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 704:14:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 683:16:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 662:15:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 631:16:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 601:16:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 586:15:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 572:14:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 550:13:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 516:10:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 494:05:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 467:14:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 447:14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 419:14:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 400:13:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 371:13:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 349:13:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 328:13:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 310:12:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 269:Killing of Ahmaud Arbery 258:02:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 225:Please do not modify it. 205:19:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 150:17:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC) 4014:The Squirrel Conspiracy 3799:The Squirrel Conspiracy 3786:The Squirrel Conspiracy 3738:The Squirrel Conspiracy 3600:- how about the above? 3536:05:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 3433:The Squirrel Conspiracy 3412:the article's talk page 3393:Did you know nomination 2614:You're not getting it, 1070:Death of Ahmaud Arbery 1006:Death of Ahmaud Arbery 278:~160 results on Google 274:~131 results on Google 1907:righting great wrongs 1647:Murder of Botham Jean 652:is also appropriate. 163:, Knowledge is not a 42:of past discussions. 3905:copyright violations 3008:this Insider article 1722:my preference "Death 1478:" vote resulted in " 1024:death of David Bowie 239:No consensus to move 2683:NorthBySouthBaranof 2616:NorthBySouthBaranof 2602:NorthBySouthBaranof 2545:NorthBySouthBaranof 2470:NorthBySouthBaranof 2050:- I didn't see any 1517:Duncan Lemp killing 1277:Assassination of... 320:NorthBySouthBaranof 3913:close paraphrasing 3369:Oliveira, Nelson. 1515:As for precedent: 1405:...under six forms 1219:my earlier comment 357:Google search for 3975: 3974: 3963: 3962: 3926: 3925: 3882:Adequate sourcing 3866: 3865: 3774: 3586: 3539: 3490: 3056:The New York Post 3052:The NY Daily News 2221:in this article. 1989: 1977:comment added by 1916: 1832:Shooting is more 1560: 1544:comment added by 1500: 1301: 1248:Persistent Corvid 1211: 1102: 1057: 286:shooting..." or " 248: 245:non-admin closure 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4379: 4364: 4359: 4254: 4251:FollowTheSources 4236:FollowTheSources 4190: 4132:FollowTheSources 4104:FollowTheSources 4088:FollowTheSources 4059:FollowTheSources 4048:Far right groups 3985: 3965: 3957: 3956: 3949: 3948: 3928: 3920: 3919: 3900: 3899: 3889: 3888: 3868: 3860: 3859: 3849: 3848: 3828: 3783: 3753: 3735: 3730: 3682: 3677: 3635: 3610: 3605: 3599: 3577: 3526:). Nominated by 3509: 3485: 3427:The result was: 3405: 3385: 3384: 3382: 3381: 3366: 3360: 3359: 3357: 3356: 3341: 3335: 3334: 3328: 3320: 3318: 3317: 3302: 3296: 3295: 3293: 3292: 3277: 3271: 3270: 3268: 3267: 3252: 3246: 3245: 3243: 3242: 3227: 3221: 3220: 3218: 3217: 3202: 2742: 2650: 2473: 2466: 2414: 2409: 2374: 2369: 2343: 2338: 2272:said the video " 2204:FollowTheSources 2147: 2052:reliable sources 1936: 1915: 1913: 1772: 1767: 1749: 1744: 1598: 1592: 1492: 1485: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1368: 1362: 1323: 1317: 1293: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1234: 1229: 1209: 1202: 1096: 1051: 986: 973: 970: 934: 931: 892: 889: 883: 859:, edge it out. 792: 789: 772: 769: 766: 763: 760: 757: 701: 696: 564: 558: 508: 502: 483: 480: 439: 433: 392: 386: 302: 296: 271: 242: 227: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4387: 4386: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4362: 4357: 4248: 4184: 4050: 4045: 4030:}} (they/them)｜ 3994:}} (they/them)｜ 3954: 3946: 3917: 3897: 3886: 3857: 3846: 3805:}} (they/them)｜ 3763:}} (they/them)｜ 3724: 3702:}} (they/them)｜ 3680: 3675: 3644:}} (they/them)｜ 3608: 3603: 3593: 3550:}} (they/them)｜ 3468: 3466: 3462:Article history 3401: 3395: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3379: 3377: 3375:nydailynews.com 3368: 3367: 3363: 3354: 3352: 3343: 3342: 3338: 3321: 3315: 3313: 3304: 3303: 3299: 3290: 3288: 3279: 3278: 3274: 3265: 3263: 3254: 3253: 3249: 3240: 3238: 3229: 3228: 3224: 3215: 3213: 3204: 3203: 3199: 3155:idea. IMHO. --- 3000:WP:QUESTIONABLE 2736: 2644: 2467: 2460: 2458: 2456:Security videos 2412: 2403: 2372: 2363: 2350:See infobox at 2341: 2336: 2301: 2182:primary sources 2145: 1995:User:Isaidnoway 1959: 1954: 1935: 1929: 1911: 1770: 1765: 1747: 1742: 1602:Coffeeandcrumbs 1596: 1590: 1483: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1411:" main headers. 1408: 1404: 1400: 1372:Coffeeandcrumbs 1366: 1360: 1327:Coffeeandcrumbs 1321: 1315: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1232: 1223: 1207: 1166:naming criteria 980: 971: 968: 964: 941: 932: 929: 899: 890: 887: 877: 799: 790: 787: 770: 767: 764: 761: 758: 755: 699: 690: 568:Coffeeandcrumbs 562: 556: 512:Coffeeandcrumbs 506: 500: 490: 481: 478: 443:Coffeeandcrumbs 437: 431: 396:Coffeeandcrumbs 390: 384: 318:- Makes sense. 306:Coffeeandcrumbs 300: 294: 267: 223: 213: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4385: 4383: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4320: 4302: 4299: 4246: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4098: 4049: 4046: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 3973: 3972: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3950: 3936: 3935: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3901: 3890: 3876: 3875: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3850: 3836: 3835: 3825: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3696:starship.paint 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3638:starship.paint 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3588: 3587: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3528:Starship.paint 3520:Starship.paint 3512:Colinmcdermott 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3492: 3491: 3465: 3464: 3459: 3449: 3447: 3443: 3425: 3424: 3396: 3394: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3361: 3336: 3297: 3280:Scher, Isaac. 3272: 3247: 3230:Scher, Isaac. 3222: 3196: 3195: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3148: 3134: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2945:User:Ramsquire 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2887: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2869:disruptive.--- 2866: 2786:sensationalism 2782: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2643:Tambourine60, 2570: 2540: 2457: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2419: 2380: 2379: 2359: 2348: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2214: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2110: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 1958: 1955: 1953: 1952: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1931: 1930: 1920: 1883: 1866: 1849: 1827: 1802: 1777: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1735: 1734: 1720:Killing of or 1715: 1686: 1661: 1628: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1561: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1436:Shooting of... 1428:Shooting of... 1424: 1412: 1409:Lynching of... 1397: 1396: 1395: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1273:Shooting of... 1258: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1180: 1155: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1061: 1040: 1039: 1038: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 978: 939: 897: 872: 871: 842: 823: 805: 797: 778: 746: 745: 744: 743: 726: 725: 708: 707: 706: 664: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 610: 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 593:Colinmcdermott 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 488: 470: 469: 452: 451: 450: 449: 403: 402: 374: 373: 352: 351: 330: 261: 235: 234: 220:requested move 214: 212: 209: 208: 207: 137: 136: 130: 124: 118: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4384: 4375: 4374: 4371: 4369: 4365: 4360: 4354: 4336: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4321: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4300: 4297: 4292: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4252: 4247: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4216: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4188: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4148: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4102: 4099: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4055: 4054: 4047: 4040: 4037: 4036:Contributions 4033: 4029: 4028:Goldenshimmer 4025: 4024: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4010:Goldenshimmer 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4001: 4000:Contributions 3997: 3993: 3992:Goldenshimmer 3989: 3984: 3979: 3970: 3967: 3966: 3952:Interesting: 3951: 3943: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3929: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3894: 3891: 3883: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3873: 3870: 3869: 3854: 3851: 3843: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3833: 3830: 3829: 3826: 3815: 3812: 3811:Contributions 3808: 3804: 3803:Goldenshimmer 3800: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3779: 3778:Goldenshimmer 3776: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3769:Contributions 3766: 3762: 3761:Goldenshimmer 3757: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3734: 3728: 3712: 3709: 3708:Contributions 3705: 3701: 3700:Goldenshimmer 3697: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3689: 3687: 3683: 3678: 3671: 3670:Goldenshimmer 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3654: 3651: 3650:Contributions 3647: 3643: 3642:Goldenshimmer 3639: 3634: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3620: 3617: 3615: 3611: 3606: 3597: 3596:Goldenshimmer 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3575: 3574: 3569: 3566: 3565: 3560: 3557: 3556:Contributions 3553: 3549: 3548:Goldenshimmer 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3503: 3499: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3484: 3482: 3478: 3477: 3470: 3469: 3463: 3460: 3458: 3454: 3451: 3450: 3446: 3444: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3423: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3404: 3398: 3397: 3392: 3376: 3372: 3365: 3362: 3351: 3350:New York Post 3347: 3340: 3337: 3332: 3326: 3312: 3308: 3301: 3298: 3287: 3283: 3276: 3273: 3261: 3257: 3251: 3248: 3237: 3233: 3226: 3223: 3212: 3208: 3201: 3198: 3194: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3149: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2946: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2867: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2768: 2767: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748:wp:aspersions 2745: 2740: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2648: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2627: 2626: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2539: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2492: 2486: 2484: 2480: 2471: 2464: 2455: 2445: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2427: 2423: 2420: 2418: 2415: 2410: 2408: 2407: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2370: 2368: 2367: 2360: 2357: 2356: 2353: 2349: 2347: 2344: 2339: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2305:NPOV concerns 2298: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2270: 2265: 2264:oncoming lane 2261: 2260: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2246: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2215: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2146:SharʿabSalam▼ 2141: 2137: 2129: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2111: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2058: 2053: 2049: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2031: 2027: 2026: 2021: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1996: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1956: 1951: 1949: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1934: 1933:Contributions 1928: 1924: 1921: 1919: 1914: 1908: 1903: 1902: 1897: 1896: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1867: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1850: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1831: 1828: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1811:for example: 1810: 1806: 1803: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1788:wp:Pov Naming 1785: 1781: 1778: 1776: 1773: 1768: 1762: 1759: 1758: 1753: 1750: 1745: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1687: 1685: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1662: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1651:Love of Corey 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1629: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1593: 1587: 1585: 1582: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521:68.197.116.79 1518: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1489:Roman Spinner 1484:Killing of... 1481: 1477: 1474:, where one " 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1440:Killing of... 1432:Killing of... 1425: 1422: 1418: 1413: 1403:", to state " 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1373: 1370: 1363: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1325: 1318: 1312: 1309: 1308:Roman Spinner 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1290:Roman Spinner 1286: 1269:Killing of... 1262: 1259: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1230: 1228: 1227: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1206: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1181: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1162:WP:COMMONNAME 1159: 1156: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1135: 1134: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1105: 1100: 1095: 1094: 1089: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1065: 1062: 1060: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1000: 999: 985: 981: 975: 974: 963: 962: 961: 957: 953: 948: 947: 946: 942: 936: 935: 924: 923: 922: 918: 914: 911: 909: 906: 905: 904: 900: 894: 893: 881: 876: 875: 874: 873: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 843: 841: 838: 835: 831: 827: 824: 822: 818: 814: 813:68.197.116.79 809: 806: 804: 800: 794: 793: 782: 779: 777: 774: 773: 751: 748: 747: 742: 738: 734: 730: 729: 728: 727: 724: 720: 716: 712: 709: 705: 702: 697: 695: 694: 686: 685: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 665: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 644: 643: 632: 628: 624: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 612: 611: 602: 598: 594: 589: 588: 587: 583: 579: 575: 574: 573: 569: 566: 559: 553: 552: 551: 547: 543: 539: 536: 533: 532: 517: 513: 510: 503: 497: 496: 495: 491: 485: 484: 474: 473: 472: 471: 468: 464: 460: 456: 455: 454: 453: 448: 444: 441: 434: 428: 427: 422: 421: 420: 416: 412: 407: 406: 405: 404: 401: 397: 394: 387: 381: 378: 377: 376: 375: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 355: 354: 353: 350: 346: 342: 338: 334: 331: 329: 325: 321: 317: 314: 313: 312: 311: 307: 304: 297: 291: 290: 285: 284: 279: 275: 270: 265: 260: 259: 255: 251: 246: 240: 233: 231: 226: 221: 216: 215: 210: 206: 203: 202: 201: 196: 195: 194: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 166: 162: 158: 154: 153: 152: 151: 147: 143: 135: 131: 129: 125: 123: 119: 117: 113: 112: 111: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4355: 4351: 4305: 4294: 4193:Tambourine60 4159: 4158: 4152: 4151: 4118:AzureCitizen 4100:Or try this. 4074:AzureCitizen 4056: 4051: 3977: 3976: 3968: 3931: 3871: 3831: 3824: 3723: 3673: 3601: 3571: 3567: 3508: 3497: 3474: 3472: 3445: 3428: 3426: 3419: 3407: 3402: 3399: 3378:. Retrieved 3374: 3364: 3353:. Retrieved 3349: 3339: 3314:. Retrieved 3310: 3300: 3289:. Retrieved 3285: 3275: 3264:. Retrieved 3262:. 2020-05-10 3259: 3250: 3239:. Retrieved 3235: 3225: 3214:. Retrieved 3210: 3200: 3192: 3152: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3028: 3027: 3021: 3020: 3011: 2950:Tambourine60 2856:Tambourine60 2826:Tambourine60 2803: 2772:Tambourine60 2739:Tambourine60 2698:Tambourine60 2669:Tambourine60 2631:Tambourine60 2624: 2623: 2619: 2590: 2589: 2583: 2582: 2577: 2573: 2560:Tambourine60 2532: 2531: 2525: 2524: 2519: 2516:WP:RECENTISM 2511: 2497:Tambourine60 2490: 2488: 2482: 2478: 2476: 2459: 2438: 2437: 2431: 2430: 2425: 2405: 2404: 2365: 2364: 2321:AzureCitizen 2302: 2277: 2267: 2263: 2219:WP:RECENTISM 2186:in principle 2185: 2139: 2122: 2121: 2115: 2114: 2069: 2068: 2062: 2061: 2056: 2014: 2013: 2007: 2006: 1973:— Preceding 1970: 1967: 1963: 1960: 1947: 1945: 1922: 1900: 1899: 1894: 1893: 1885: 1868: 1851: 1829: 1808: 1804: 1783: 1779: 1760: 1721: 1717: 1688: 1663: 1630: 1612: 1563: 1540:— Preceding 1534: 1514: 1488: 1480:No consensus 1479: 1475: 1289: 1265:Murder of... 1260: 1243: 1225: 1224: 1182: 1157: 1136: 1091: 1067: 1063: 1046: 1042: 1004:- I support 1001: 967: 928: 886: 844: 825: 807: 786: 780: 754: 749: 710: 692: 691: 666: 649: 645: 534: 477: 424: 332: 315: 288: 287: 282: 281: 262: 250:AzureCitizen 238: 236: 224: 217: 199: 198: 192: 191: 179:WP:RECENTISM 174: 169: 160: 157:WP:RECENTISM 142:Tambourine60 138: 132: 126: 120: 114: 109: 78: 43: 37: 4327:Steve Quinn 4310:Steve Quinn 4290:Doggedness 4257:Steve Quinn 4222:Steve Quinn 4187:Steve Quinn 4172:Steve Quinn 4145:apparently 3853:Long enough 3510:Created by 3481:viral video 3157:Steve Quinn 3138:Steve Quinn 3124:Steve Quinn 2986:Steve Quinn 2965:Steve Quinn 2892:Steve Quinn 2871:Steve Quinn 2841:Steve Quinn 2822:Steve Quinn 2808:BarrelProof 2790:Steve Quinn 2756:Steve Quinn 2512:exactly why 2283:BarrelProof 2190:BarrelProof 2168:Steve Quinn 2082:BarrelProof 2048:BarrelProof 2035:BarrelProof 1979:24.29.63.96 1925:per above. 1895:Shooting of 1817:K.e.coffman 1792:Steve Quinn 1763:per nom. ~ 1676:BarrelProof 1426:As far as " 1419:in 1955 or 1417:Emmett Till 1281:Death of... 1141:WP:BLPCRIME 650:Death of... 230:move review 171:assumption" 36:This is an 4153:Isaidnoway 3909:plagiarism 3842:New enough 3380:2020-05-18 3355:2020-05-18 3316:2020-05-18 3291:2020-05-17 3266:2020-05-17 3241:2020-05-17 3216:2020-05-17 3193:References 3022:Isaidnoway 2647:Black Kite 2584:Isaidnoway 2526:Isaidnoway 2463:Isaidnoway 2432:Isaidnoway 2250:Rreagan007 2116:Isaidnoway 2063:Isaidnoway 2008:Isaidnoway 1839:StonyBrook 1834:WP:PRECISE 1546:PeacePeace 1385:Rreagan007 1346:Rreagan007 1283:" . Thus, 1118:Rreagan007 1088:Rreagan007 1075:Rreagan007 193:Isaidnoway 183:WP:NOTNEWS 98:Archive 10 3578:Sources: 3479:became a 3473:that the 3050:article. 2276:". There 1927:Nate 2169 1498:contribs) 1299:contribs) 1191:Nice4What 857:Chrisvacc 834:Netoholic 675:Chrisvacc 654:Guettarda 578:Guettarda 165:newspaper 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 4358:starship 3971:: Done. 3903:Free of 3832:General: 3676:starship 3604:starship 3498:Reviewed 3486:Source: 3429:promoted 3325:cite web 2406:Mandruss 2366:Mandruss 2143:video.-- 1975:unsigned 1912:GenQuest 1901:Death of 1873:Pincrete 1784:Shooting 1726:FloNight 1554:contribs 1542:unsigned 1279:" and " 1226:Mandruss 1199:contribs 1068:Move to 1028:Muboshgu 1010:Jax 0677 853:Koncorde 693:Mandruss 459:Koncorde 411:Koncorde 380:Koncorde 363:Koncorde 341:Koncorde 187:WP:UNDUE 134:Arbery." 3978:Overall 3893:Neutral 3872:Policy: 3640:. —{{u| 3453:Comment 3286:Insider 3260:WSAV-TV 3236:Insider 3044:Insider 2477:" said 2269:AP News 2030:labeled 1856:YUEdits 1852:Support 1805:Support 1761:Support 1718:Support 1705:Rgb1110 1693:WP:NPOV 1613:Support 1581:KasiaNL 1568:KasiaNL 1430:" vs. " 1043:Killing 1002:Oppose 952:Digihoe 880:Ferengi 861:Digihoe 830:WP:NPOV 808:Support 781:Support 733:Dumuzid 646:Support 359:context 333:Comment 316:Support 39:archive 4363:.paint 4160:(talk) 3911:, and 3681:.paint 3609:.paint 3518:) and 3029:(talk) 3016:WP:BLP 2591:(talk) 2533:(talk) 2439:(talk) 2123:(talk) 2070:(talk) 2015:(talk) 2000:Not a 1923:Oppose 1886:Oppose 1869:Oppose 1830:Oppose 1780:Oppose 1689:Oppose 1664:Oppose 1631:Oppose 1564:Oppose 1535:Oppose 1476:Oppose 1261:Oppose 1244:Oppose 1205:Thanks 1185:– See 1183:Oppose 1170:VQuakr 1158:Oppose 1145:MrClog 1137:Oppose 1064:Oppose 972:Legend 969:Aussie 933:Legend 930:Aussie 891:Legend 888:Aussie 845:Oppose 826:Oppose 791:Legend 788:Aussie 750:Oppose 711:Oppose 667:Oppose 535:Oppose 482:Legend 479:Aussie 289:deadly 200:(talk) 4272:O3000 3942:Cited 3932:Hook: 3759:—{{u| 3534:) at 3061:O3000 2890:) --- 2886:this. 2752:wp:de 2654:O3000 2388:O3000 2223:O3000 2140:facts 2100:O3000 2096:WP:OR 2002:forum 1594:& 1494:(talk 1486:"). — 1462:) or 1446:→ ? ( 1364:& 1319:& 1295:(talk 1275:" , " 1271:" , " 1267:" , " 1099:help! 1054:help! 771:Focus 715:MONGO 623:O3000 560:& 504:& 435:& 388:& 298:& 283:fatal 16:< 4368:talk 4331:talk 4314:talk 4276:talk 4261:talk 4240:talk 4226:talk 4220:.--- 4197:talk 4176:talk 4136:talk 4122:talk 4108:talk 4092:talk 4078:talk 4063:talk 4032:Talk 4018:talk 3996:Talk 3807:Talk 3790:talk 3765:Talk 3742:talk 3704:Talk 3686:talk 3646:Talk 3614:talk 3582:and 3580:WaPo 3568:ALT1 3552:Talk 3532:talk 3524:talk 3516:talk 3471:... 3457:view 3437:talk 3331:link 3311:WJXT 3161:talk 3142:talk 3128:talk 3065:talk 2990:talk 2982:here 2969:talk 2954:talk 2896:talk 2875:talk 2860:talk 2845:talk 2830:talk 2812:talk 2794:talk 2776:talk 2760:talk 2702:talk 2687:talk 2673:talk 2658:talk 2635:talk 2606:talk 2564:talk 2549:talk 2501:talk 2392:talk 2325:talk 2315:and 2287:talk 2254:talk 2227:talk 2208:talk 2194:talk 2172:talk 2151:talk 2104:talk 2086:talk 2039:talk 1983:talk 1890:NPOV 1888:per 1877:talk 1860:talk 1843:talk 1821:talk 1796:talk 1729:♥♥♥♥ 1709:talk 1699:and 1680:talk 1655:talk 1622:talk 1588:--- 1572:talk 1550:talk 1525:talk 1389:talk 1350:talk 1252:talk 1201:) – 1195:talk 1174:talk 1149:talk 1143:. -- 1122:talk 1079:talk 1032:talk 1014:talk 1008:. -- 956:talk 917:talk 913:WWGB 865:talk 855:and 849:WWGB 817:talk 737:talk 719:talk 679:talk 658:talk 627:talk 597:talk 582:talk 546:talk 542:WWGB 463:talk 415:talk 367:talk 345:talk 324:talk 254:talk 185:and 146:talk 4293:- " 3969:QPQ 3584:AJC 3488:Vox 3455:or 3431:by 3414:or 3211:ajc 3153:bad 3048:AJC 3040:AJC 3006:In 2804:AJC 2342:333 2337:HAL 2188:. — 1892:. 1809:NYT 1782:- " 1771:333 1766:HAL 1748:333 1743:HAL 1674:. — 1450:), 1221:. ― 1093:Guy 1048:Guy 4333:) 4316:) 4278:) 4263:) 4242:) 4228:) 4199:) 4178:) 4170:-- 4138:) 4124:) 4110:) 4094:) 4080:) 4065:) 4020:) 3980:: 3944:: 3915:: 3907:, 3895:: 3884:: 3855:: 3844:: 3792:) 3744:) 3729:) 3500:: 3483:? 3448:( 3439:) 3410:, 3373:. 3348:. 3327:}} 3323:{{ 3309:. 3284:. 3258:. 3234:. 3209:. 3163:) 3144:) 3130:) 3067:) 2992:) 2971:) 2956:) 2898:) 2877:) 2862:) 2847:) 2832:) 2814:) 2796:) 2778:) 2766:\ 2762:) 2704:) 2689:) 2675:) 2660:) 2637:) 2608:) 2566:) 2551:) 2503:) 2493:." 2394:) 2327:) 2289:) 2278:is 2256:) 2229:) 2210:) 2196:) 2174:) 2153:) 2106:) 2088:) 2041:) 2004:-- 1997:: 1985:) 1909:. 1879:) 1862:) 1845:) 1823:) 1798:) 1711:) 1682:) 1657:) 1649:. 1641:, 1637:, 1624:) 1604:) 1574:) 1556:) 1552:• 1527:) 1519:. 1496:• 1466:→ 1454:→ 1391:) 1374:) 1352:) 1329:) 1297:• 1254:) 1197:· 1176:) 1151:) 1124:) 1081:) 1066:. 1034:) 1016:) 982:) 958:) 943:) 919:) 901:) 867:) 819:) 801:) 739:) 721:) 681:) 660:) 629:) 599:) 584:) 570:) 548:) 514:) 492:) 465:) 445:) 417:) 398:) 369:) 347:) 339:. 326:) 308:) 266:→ 256:) 241:. 222:. 181:, 159:- 148:) 94:→ 64:← 4370:) 4366:( 4329:( 4312:( 4298:" 4274:( 4259:( 4253:: 4249:@ 4238:( 4224:( 4195:( 4189:: 4185:@ 4174:( 4134:( 4120:( 4106:( 4090:( 4076:( 4061:( 4034:｜ 4016:( 3998:｜ 3809:｜ 3788:( 3782:y 3767:｜ 3740:( 3727:← 3725:( 3706:｜ 3688:) 3684:( 3648:｜ 3616:) 3612:( 3598:: 3594:@ 3554:｜ 3538:. 3530:( 3522:( 3514:( 3467:) 3435:( 3422:. 3383:. 3358:. 3333:) 3319:. 3294:. 3269:. 3244:. 3219:. 3159:( 3140:( 3126:( 3063:( 2988:( 2967:( 2952:( 2894:( 2873:( 2858:( 2843:( 2828:( 2810:( 2792:( 2774:( 2758:( 2741:: 2737:@ 2700:( 2685:( 2671:( 2656:( 2649:: 2645:@ 2633:( 2604:( 2580:. 2562:( 2547:( 2499:( 2472:: 2468:@ 2465:: 2461:@ 2413:☎ 2390:( 2373:☎ 2323:( 2285:( 2281:— 2252:( 2225:( 2206:( 2192:( 2170:( 2149:( 2102:( 2084:( 2037:( 1981:( 1875:( 1858:( 1841:( 1819:( 1794:( 1707:( 1678:( 1653:( 1620:( 1599:( 1597:C 1591:C 1570:( 1548:( 1523:( 1470:( 1458:( 1387:( 1369:( 1367:C 1361:C 1348:( 1324:( 1322:C 1316:C 1250:( 1233:☎ 1210:) 1208:♥ 1203:( 1193:( 1172:( 1147:( 1120:( 1101:) 1097:( 1077:( 1056:) 1052:( 1030:( 1012:( 979:✉ 976:( 954:( 940:✉ 937:( 915:( 898:✉ 895:( 882:. 863:( 837:@ 815:( 798:✉ 795:( 768:m 765:a 762:e 759:r 756:D 735:( 717:( 700:☎ 677:( 656:( 625:( 595:( 580:( 565:( 563:C 557:C 544:( 509:( 507:C 501:C 489:✉ 486:( 461:( 440:( 438:C 432:C 413:( 393:( 391:C 385:C 365:( 343:( 322:( 303:( 301:C 295:C 252:( 247:) 243:( 189:. 144:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index