Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely

Name inclusion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a pretty close count between those who wish to include or exclude the name, and the arguments are generally split between "covered in reliable sources" for those seeking inclusion and "WP:BLPCRIME" for those opposed. I have down-weighed the argument that the possibility that Penny is notable affects the application of BLPCRIME. This argument does not hold up against BLPCRIME, which sets the threshold at public figure, not simply notable. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which is linked in BLPCRIME, makes it clear that notability does not make one a public figure. This was pointed out in the discussion by Caeciliusinhorto. I also found arguments based around the sourcing merely existing well rebutted by Caeciliusinhorto, as the arguments don't expand on how the use of a name rather than describing the individual contributes to understanding the topic.

The strength of the opposition is well summed up by Nemov, who said in their !vote to include if we're dogmatically following the guidelines then the answer would be to exclude. WP:BLP is a policy, not a guideline, and responses with strong, policy based rationales have more weight than those without. As such, there is no consensus to include the name. As challenged material about a BLP requires consensus to include, it should be removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing to clarify per discussion on my talk page that I read the consensus as relating to the entire article. There was very little discussion about the lead itself, and the oppose rationales apply to the entire article rather than just the lead. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't end with the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the name of the killer be included in the lead section?

(original discussion in Talk:Name of Killer) --LoomCreek (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

LoomCreek - would you consider removing the name from this section until we have a decision? Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment, Sure LoomCreek (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

But you didn't LoomCreek? I.e. did you consider then dismiss it as not important? His name is still there in the lead section 16 days later; and you reverted me dropping the name from the whole article, but subsequently made this RfC about dropping the name from the lead only (without notifying me; while, yes, rather ANI me on a separate but related matter). It's rather useless to only drop from the lead. I request, again, dropping it (temporarily) from all of the article, and at least from the lead since/if you're actually only ok with that. comp.arch (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Comp.arch Why are you responding to week old talk comments (especially without even understanding the context)? This was about the talk page name. Stop being unnecessarily divisive. LoomCreek (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if this was about this talk page section, then that was ambiguous; I read "this section" as referring to "the lead section" in the RfC, that Dumuzid's comment was directly under. It's good that you removed his name. I see though you (and many others) refer to him below, all the time. It will rather hard to drop his name from history, why I never use the name, not even here. comp.arch (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as he is named in reliable sources, however, we should not label him as a "killer" as a possible breach of WP:BLPCRIME. WWGB (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment to WWGB - while I personally think we should exclude the name, "killer" is in fact a neutral description of what happened; it does not pertain to criminal liability, and there is no serious doubt that the named Marine was in fact the cause of Mr. Neely's death. Dumuzid (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose per WP:BLP/BLPCRIME polices and WP:SNOW. He was also named as a murderer in WP:Wikivoice: Murder of Jordan Neely, a WP:LIBEL, even more serious (legal) policy violation, that I saved Wikipedia from by reporting it, so it was just dropped. And he's still is named by people, quoted in the article, as a "murderer" and for "lynching" (something I had taken out, now realize was inserted back). WP has a policy against that even on other articles, even talk pages. I think we get away with less here, not more, and with those terms here the name must be out I think. Why is WP so strict? Because it doesn't want to get a lawsuit. I do not want WP shut down or hurt, so if this is passed I will consider to speedy delete the whole article, to safe WP. comp.arch (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment (update on my opposition): We are not just going by WP:RS, rather two self-published Twitter accounts (and I've not seen the news repeat those two libel comments, that I only know WP to report); in addition to WP:LIBEL in Wikivoice, that I reported to oversight, which was considered "serious BLP" violation, it's actually also illegal to repeat Libel (in the UK at least): "There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”)."[1] which is still done in the article ("lynching" and "murder") and then WP adds his name to the mix. United States defamation law: In Pollard v. Lyon (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed it illegal (I don't know about the repetition rule in the US): ("words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party the commission of some criminal offense involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished". Wikipedia could be sued in the UK at least, and/or in the US if similar rules there. I know of an Icelander sued by an Icelander in UK court, and he won libel suit, since written in English... At least if the WP:SUSPECT were a UK (or say German) citizen do we want different BLP rules to apply to people? To US rules then for sure apply?

  Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (he could ask for the deletion of the whole article, without his name he has no leg to stand on, family of the dead seemingly have no say): "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." "Summary deletion of BLPs: "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person [..] the article must not be restored, [..] without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy. [..] Passed 9 to 1" (I added bold). comp.arch (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  comp.arch, with all due respect, it's best not to go too far down the rabbit hole of conflicting jurisdictional takes on defamation. Suffice it to say that in every jurisdiction of which I am aware, truth is a defense and honest opinions are a defense (in the UK, see the Defamation Act, 2013 §§2-3). There is no dispute as to the underlying facts; even the suspect admits the interaction happened essentially as has been reported. The only question is whether criminal culpability is warranted, and if so, at what level. Essentially, what we have, is various people opining on the level of fault contained in the undisputed facts, from "none" to "murder." That is a classic bit of opinion. An honestly held opinion based on true underlying facts is actionable neither in the UK nor the US. While in general, I think your trepidation is apt, in these rare instances in which the facts of the matter are completely uncontested, things are a bit different. Cheers and Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  "truth is a defense", murder if off the table (to be fair that "opinion" of murder, which is a legal term, was stated before the DA charged otherwise). Truth is what the court/jury decides it is, which can't be "murder", in this case. The opinion wasn't we should investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, it was "lynching", it's just my opinion, so since it's not legally defined, then I can just say it? To me it sounds worse than murder, a hate crime, with higher penalty. And Wikipedia can repeat opinions of any kind, such as that? Seems to violate many WP:TWEET criteria and all 5 must not be violated. Not sure of an exception for politicians, and in fact policies disallow such language, seemingly from anyone, at least related to crime. comp.arch (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Time for me to bust out one of my stock phrases: courts determine legal liability, not reality. We are all free to disagree with courts and their findings whenever we please. Indeed, the court system artificially constrains itself with rules of evidence and holds proof of criminal activity to a very high bar ("beyond a reasonable doubt") in most common law jurisdictions. A jury could acquit a suspect, and then have the foreman say "well, I really think he did it, but I had one or two lingering doubts...." I guess, in your formulation, that would be defamation? The key is whether the underlying opinion actually imputes or implies facts not in evidence. If I said, of the suspect here, arguendo, "it was murder because he left his house that day looking to kill someone," that could certainly be defamation. If, on the other hand, I said "I don't care what a court finds, what I saw on that tape was murder," that can almost certainly not be defamation. Now again, if acquitted, I can't falsely claim someone was convicted--using "convicted murderer" has a very different valence than merely "murderer." But, as I say, courts deal in facts, but they don't control them for the rest of us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Actually Beyond (a) reasonable doubt isn't the standard for Libel, it is a "legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction [i.e., yes, for the defendant in the case here, but not regarding Wikipedia or its editors] in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities", which is the standard for libel cases, and I thought WP might be in the hot seat, but WP editors (four at that time) have actually been sued for $10 million dollars for libel, for repeating false claims..[2] I'm not sure how that went, nor saying such will happen here, I'm certainly not threatening it, I have no case. It seems the special legal policy WP:LIBEL was established by Jimmy Wales at the time, for the users, rather than (just) for WP (or himself). 01:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

References

• Exclude Name I certainly admit that the person is named fairly widely in reliable sources, and that he has not yet been officially charged with any crime. Although it is now being reported that the case will be presented to a grandy jury, which clearly places this person in the zone of criminal jeopardy. Per WP:BLPCRIME I definitely think it best to err on the side of caution and not using the name. While we would not be explicitly saying that either a crime had been committed or that this person had committed it, there is no way to report that this person was the perpetrator of conduct which is being investigated as criminal without implying that he has been accused of a crime, which triggers WP:BLPCRIME where the subject in question is otherwise non-notable. I would just say there's no rush on this; Wikipedia, to my mind, should aim to be a definitive record, and not a journalistic endeavor. I would urge that we wait for the dust to settle. As ever, though, happy to go with the wisdom of the crowd. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support I would be fine with using a different phrase other then killer @Dumuzid @WWGB. like for example "was killed as a result of [name], a 24 year-old white ex-Marine, placing him in a chokehold while they were riding the F train on the New York City Subway." But I do think the name should definitely be included. Since various reliable sources have reported on it and recently the persons attorney directly confirmed it was them. So we know that the identification is completely accurate at this point. LoomCreek (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:BLPCRIME. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Include name. Now that the name is published in the NYT, I think it's safe to state it as a fact, but with more neutral wording than "killed". I think "X choked Y to death while restraining him in a chokehold" will be sufficient. WP:BLPCRIME would prevent us from calling X a "murderer" since he wasn't convicted of murder in a court of law (at least not yet), but it wouldn't prevent us from stating a plain fact acknowledged in reliable sources: that X caused the death of Y through his actions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I don't mean to badger, but how do you square this with the "accused of having committed a crime" language of WP:BLPCRIME? I'm curious. Dumuzid (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid: The crime here is murder, of which we certainly aren't accusing Mr. X unless convicted in a court of law. However, it is not a matter of debate that X killed Y, which is not inherently a crime. Killing can be done legally: in self-defense, in war, in executions, etc. After all, X's lawyers wouldn't deny that X killed Y, they'd argue that X killed Y in self-defense. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  I quite agree that not all killing involves criminal culpability, but would your answer change if the suspect is formally charged by a grand jury? It would then seem to me that there is no way around naming him without implicitly accusing him of a crime. Dumuzid (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid You say that, but as they said killing can be considered legal. The distinction is between murder and killing. There is precedent for this per article naming conventions. When someone has been found guilty Wikipedia articles are named "murder of X" otherwise it's "killing of X". LoomCreek (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Where is the "precedent for this per article naming conventions", people have been named before, I think in violation of policies, but I know of no article title like "X murdered..." before conviction, i.e. I believe in all cases the person who dies is in the title if any; in this case we had Murder of Jordan Neely, a WP:LIBEL, so from any random blog post in the world you could have linked to it, then seen a name, thinking he murdered someone (while also seeing killer which does not contradict murder). Even us discussing "murder" and "lynching" on the Talk page, might be a violation if his name is anywhere in article or Talk space! He will never be convicted of murder since that isn't the charge. So it will never be reflected again in the title, unlike in other cases, where e.g. Murder of George Floyd: "Chauvin was convicted of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter". You see the charge here is third the way down, or fourth from 1st degree. [EDIT: I assumed double jeopardy, i.e. DA couldn't add more serious charge later:[3] "does not attach until the court swears in the jury, or until the first witness starts to testify in a trial before a judge. Filing charges thus does not trigger the rule."] comp.arch (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  ? I think you've misunderstood my point. It was before the charges were even decided, and was simply there to explain why killing is an appropriate term. I'm not really sure why you're arguing against things I wasn't even claiming LoomCreek (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you then clarify your point; where is the "precedent for this per article naming conventions" [before conviction]? That was basically mine, but I see I didn't actually add the intended question mark. I wasn't just answering you, also objecting to e.g Festucalex which as good and bad points, and simply untrue: "The crime here is murder". "murder" is I believe well defined, and a legal term (not a synonym with homicide, in law at least), while surprisingly "crime" isn't a legal term, but it often means a felony (they are all crimes, in that category). Can we at least agree on reinstating my edit that dropped the name, on caution, and then see about it after the RfC? There never was consensus (nor RfC) on including the name, and never will be... The default should be [because of privacy/BLP[CRIME]] names out until there is consensus. comp.arch (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  I was simply saying killing was an approximate term to use for this article (as opposed to murder, which wasn't since no conviction has happened). It's self explanatory, It's very far fetched to interpret it the way you did.

  Also still so far the consensus has held to include the name, with the vast majority calling to include the name. So no we wont and shouldn't drop the name. LoomCreek (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  I count 7 opposing the RfC and 10 12 supporting including his name, so how it that consensus to include the name? Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, a simple majority is not enough, and is the majority vast? And does that matter? Still not consensus. I believe I've seen the "rough consensus" term, and that doesn't even seem to apply, and I'm not sure how it is defined. I did agree to "killing", and "the killer" without name. I oppose "murdered" and "lynching"; and having his name. comp.arch (talk)10:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC).

  It's 13 supporting (including the narrowly include, and excluding my second statement) nearly twice those opposing. And yes Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY the arguments for its inclusion are substantive. And at this point the notability of the Daniel Penny is clear. LoomCreek (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  [It's not 13, we both miscounted]: 37% disagreeing is not consensus, which means non-consensus on including the name. While not 50% disagreeing, it doesn't matter, since WP:NOTDEMOCRACY means it's "not voting" that is used to determine consensus.

  I counted again, only 12 supporting in this RfC, and at least one seemingly changed his mind, while counted as support (would be 42% disagreeing with one, and 47%, with two, changing minds).

  His notability is not at all clear per the guideline on it (and neither is Neely actually, just the event I thought, but if none of the people are notable then then neither the event? Also per event-notability "whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time", non-notable; not both the event and the killer will get notable on conviction). Let's look at what the notability guideline actually says, or its sub-notability page on people, more specific chapter on "Crime victims and perpetrators", i.e. WP:CRIME (not to be confused with the policy WP:BLPCRIME "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. [Here you would say we are not talking about a separate article for him, or them, yet, but then you're arguing for him not notable, yet.] "For perpetrators", neither criteria holds 1. "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; [in footnote John Hinckley Jr. [who attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan a US President] ] Neither does 2. "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (I added the bold). Example given Seung-Hui Cho. [I.e. mass murderer responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007. Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols [..] This killing is the deadliest school shooting in US history and was at the time the deadliest one-man shooting rampage in modern US history]. There is no equivalence in notability. comp.arch (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Comp.arch There two main points:

  1. That this was killing (medically) is undisputed. Which is not a statement on legality simply that the chokehold lead to the death. Which is it not at all a violation of BLP:Crime. It's still something to treat with caution per defamation, but the clear medical proof and documentation makes this a non-issue. Because of this we're allowed to mention Daniel Penny's name in relation to this as long as its strictly medical description.

  2. The notability of Daniel Penny also allows for accusations and charges to be mentioned. As long it's made clear that these are statements from other notable people (and from Reliable sources) not judgements of wikipedia. This is per WP:BLPCrime which specifically mentions this allowance. LoomCreek (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not disputing 1. the killing. "was approached from behind and killed" describes it medically; no need for a name and I'm sure the coroner didn't include it! 2. He's not notable, so a "man has been charged". But you think other people are allowed WP:LIBEL just because they are notable [politicians]? Try to add "lynching" (that "honest opinion", not) to that person's WP page! Let's see how quickly it will be reverted, since it's not allowed. These are on Twitter, self-published, so not RS. If I'm wrong, and there's an RS exception for notable people making statements, then please try adding. His WP:BLPSELFPUB press release however fulfils all of the criteria including "1. it is not unduly self-serving" (which is arguable a failed criteria for famous politicians' Twitter statements). Of course he needs to clear his name, and silence would be deafening. Most recently he did an interview (I've not seen it), stating he's not a white supremacist. Why, because people are stating to think that, many only read the lead on Wikipeda (that should summarize, and be the only thing people need to read; such would be on Simple English Wikipedia), i.e. he, a white man, killed a black man. People think the world is not colorblind so he wasn't (let's wait until trial is over on that), that argument goes both ways, people who read it on Wikipedia may think there's a reason color is stated. comp.arch (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Comp.arch Am I really suppose to take such an inflammatory and frankly offensive comment by you seriously? It's insane that you'd use lynching as an example so flippantly to try to prove a point. LoomCreek (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Let me just jump in again to say this is not libel. Not even close. If it were, you would have already seen the lawsuits (see, e.g., 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation). The more you say this, comp.arch, the less persuasive I find any of your arguments. That said, I don't think statements from notable people are WP:DUE for inclusion unless they attract some sort of attention from reliable sources. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid (Just for the record, I conditioned that statements from notable people would have to be present within reliable sources to be included. ) LoomCreek (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  Right, and I think that is reasonable, though a quick re-skim of the article seems to show that, for instance, we have the AOC quote cited to her Tweet? At first glance, that seems WP:UNDUE to me, but I have been a bit busy, so I may have missed something! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  How do you count Support? I did only count this RfC and I had e.g. Nemov with support, but he comments later as if he changed his mind. Jerome Frank Disciple with his narrow include, is because of his self-published statement, which I'm not sure if WP allows. Anyway, I do not see it trumping WP policies, it seems natural that you don't want to stay quiet if you think you're not guilty. To be fair RS has covered his statement, so that may make it ok to include his statement (only without his name), maybe it's only ok to state he issued a statement, or maybe only include parts RS make note of (I actually didn't find that official statement online, except only from news). comp.arch (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're not the closing editor so these count updates are not productive. Nemov (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  Right -- and I agreed with that. Not all killing attracts criminal liability. And I think the rationale you and the others are advancing is completely coherent, but I feel like we're failing to grapple with the rules "on the books," as it were. Would you agree with me, arguendo, that if the suspect is charged with murder (or perhaps manslaughter in the first degree), then we could not include both his name and the fact of the charge and be in compliance with WP:BLPCRIME? Again, sorry to belabor the point, but we've kind of wandered into a field of my interest.Dumuzid (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid I think a charge would have no effect on a mention of it being a killing. However per WP:BLPCrime we could not mention charges of murder or manslaughter. LoomCreek (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not the way charges are handled in Wikipedia. If charges are laid against an individual, and if that person's name is widely sourced, then there is nothing in WP:BLPCRIME to prevent inclusion of the name of the accused. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks for the clarification. I was taking what I presumed could be the strictest definition given the level of discussion here.

If that's the case then I wonder if Dumuzid still opposes, since that seemed to be their major point of contention. LoomCreek (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

As clarification in the section it says "editors must seriously consider not including material...that suggests the person.. is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured" wouldn't that bar discussing accusations/charges? LoomCreek (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The words that you quoted are prefaced by, and apply only to, the statement "individuals who are not public figures". If Penny is charged, his name will be published around the world, and he will certainly pass the "public figure" test. WWGB (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@WWGB Ah okay, was just trying to understand. LoomCreek (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would disagree with this interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME as it would basically swallow the entire rule, but reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, I guess that's where our priorities differ: I would prefer to leave out the suspect's name (while defining him by characteristics) and note major points in the prosecution, as opposed to naming the suspect and then ignoring the prosecution until conviction, but both approaches certainly fit the strictures of WP:BLPCRIME. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid Ah okay I see where you're coming from now.

  But yes I personally prefer including the name even if that means that prosecution details can't be included yet.

  I will say as it stands prosecution has not started yet as far as I'm aware. We can also always return to this subject in the case where that happens and there's significant want to include it. LoomCreek (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're quite right that there's no prosecution yet, but it has been reported that the case is going before the grand jury. Have a wonderful weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid you too! LoomCreek (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid: If we try to quixotically remove anything that might even imply a possible murder charge, we might as well delete the whole article and half of Wikipedia with it. It remains an indisputable (and undisputed) fact that X killed Y, and there's no reason to hide his name when it's reported by reliable sources. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Festucalex Just as a heads up Dumuzid actually isn't against the "killing" term WWGB is. Dumuzid wanted to exclude the name so that prosecution details could be included in the Wikipedia article. It was basically miscommunication. That said I still support name inclusion. LoomCreek (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @LoomCreek: I am aware. I disagree with Dumuzid in that I believe that the name should be included, and I'm willing to compromise with WWGB in that the lead should say "X choked Y to death while restraining him in a chokehold" instead of "killed". 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Festucalex I also support name inclusion. I'm just clarifying Dumuzids statement doesn't want to delete anything that would have implications, the phrasing just lead to confusion. LoomCreek (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I see no distinction other than stylistic between "killed" and some formulation of "choked to death." I am just trying to grapple with the phrasing of WP:BLPCRIME (which could, of course, be changed). I think it basically demands we either don't name the non-notable suspect (my preference), or we name the subject and then basically leave the story until conviction or exoneration (LoomCreek's preference, I believe). I prefer the former, but have no problem with the latter. These are always tricky calls when we have someone utterly non-notable at the center of things. That said, I hope everyone is enjoying their day. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid I think as WWGB said. You don't have to actually worry about that since if they get charged they'll be consider a notable figure due to all the press LoomCreek (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I said above, I would disagree with this take, because it would mean WP:BLPCRIME is meaningless. We could certainly go that way, but it's not how the rules are currently constructed, to my mind. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid Ah okay, well my support for name inclusion still stands. LoomCreek (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid Otherwise we'd be denying the very fact of events. I believe it would be lying by omission. Just because its fact that the persons actions was the cause of the death. Not even the person involved denies that. LoomCreek (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  We are not "denying the very fact of events", which are "A man [Jordan Neely, I'm only ok with naming this man, whether victim or aggressor, since he's dead, and that for sure is a fact] got killed, while in a chokehold of a man [unamed], that restrained him from from behind, and others also helped restrain". It's not "lying by omission" to not name the unnamed man, no less that it is neither lying by not naming the others involved or many other details. comp.arch (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is Wikipedia, we deal in factual, credible, NPOV presentation of information, as best as possible. To intentionally omit the well reported facts of the incident — including that the man who killed Neely is named Penny — that would be veering towards unreality. No thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Excluding info per privacy/BLP and others isn't "NPOV presentation of information", inherently, it's non-presentation of information, that is explicitly required. Why don't we just dox the man? He's going to prison anyway right, so here you go: "Current address: [somewhere, find the right address, I dare you, it's there in some phonebook?], NY [Future address: Prison." "A person's full name is probably the most obvious example of personal information. But in fact, even a person's first name alone can represent personal information."[4] (bold in the original). comp.arch (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Comp.arch: Um, what? Nobody is doxxing Penny. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. I would also like to reiterate what other editors have suggested to you, because it's important that you WP:Don't bludgeon the process. It may be wise to back away from these discussion threads for awhile to allow consensus to form. I understand you have strong feelings on the topic, but it's not fair to everyone else that you continue to dominate the conversation space here. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

  > "... would your answer change if the suspect is formally charged by a grand jury?" – Being charged is not proof of guilt. Many people who were charged were later acquitted. – .Raven  ^.talk 03:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Multiple reliable secondary sources have published the killer's name. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with this rationale. No need to suppress Penny's name from the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose (coming from BLP/N). BLPCRIME is very clear that we do not publish the name of non-notable individuals until they are convicted for a crime. Doesn't matter how many sources repeat it, we have stricter standards than the press. --Masem (t) 16:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Until convicted, what? In this case, Penny has become notable for having (accidentally?) killed Jordan Neely. Whether or not it is determined to be a criminal act is another story. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  The charge from the DA is, yes, that he accidentially killed Neely, was negligent (i.e. not murder). I've presumed until now that his name would be published if convicted, but now I'm not so sure. Does even every conviction need the name? Would e.g. a non-public person be named on Wikipeda for accidentially driving over and killing one person (no hit and run, then also up to 15 years max in NY; he will seemingly get 5 years max.). If not convicted, his name should of course not be in Wikipedia. We are doing much more than the (ethical) WP:RS news media; those should follow Journalism ethics and standards: "22. In journalism, information and opinions must respect the presumption of innocence, in particular in cases which are still sub judice, and must refrain from making judgments."[5] (I added bold). I've not seen a single WP:RS source have the opinions we have in the same article, like "lynching" in their article. And Wikipedia is not news, we have stricter standards, we shouldn't relax the ethics, by mixing such "opinion" and information. comp.arch (talk)

WP:BLPCRIME only requires that "editors must seriously consider not including material ... ". Besides, Penny is no longer non-notable; his name has been published around the world. WWGB (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with @WWGB. Furthermore, the existence of this RfC is enough to be able to affirm that the addition or non-addition of the ex marine's name to the article is being under serious consideration. Now the context is different from when Daily Mail published the ex marine's name and then deleted it. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a primary source, but if the article's content is supported by references it is acceptable. After the ex marine's name appeared for the first time, a short time later the Daily Mail published it again, other magazines published it.. and right now it is published all over the world. Sadly, this case is already part of NYC's history. And as I said in a previous message, it is not our job to assert whether or not the ex marine is guilty or not guilty of something, but to bring encyclopedic coverage of this incident trying to give the article accurate content. Salvabl (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

People think this is simpler than it actually is. I don't even see "him" (alone) admitting killing Neely (nor does the coroner actually state he killed Neely! Not his job; the DA charged, but I've not seen him state anything publicly). His statement WP:BLPSELFPUB (through his layer team) is "[he] with the help of others, acted to protect themselves, until help arrived." So we're just naming him, not the other two. Were do you draw the line regarding BLP policy. You can say two others (unnamed) were involved, since they DID touch Neely. If they hadn't helped, Neely might have escaped and still be alive. So who is at fault? We don't know what would have happened, if they hadn't helped, nor what happened in the minutes not caught on video. There's no argument that the others have not been charged (as a former police officer has suggested should be done). We included the seemingly "main" guy before he was charged. We can't know if the others will not be charged in the future. Should we just includes names of people we or the news like to name? There is no rush in including his name until conviction. How does it help, really, having it? Neely is as dead either way, justice goes its course (unless you do not believe in the justice system). "We don't get to decide for readers which content is important or not". That's exactly what we do, and is our purpose, per consensus, except is some cases, i.e. regarding privacy! Then we don't get to decide, against policy. already "part of NYC's history. [we should] bring encyclopedic coverage of this incident", why just this?, we should name every defendant in NY history (with or without video "evidence"), and since this is English language WP, in at least those countries, I guess the whole world, even if neither party is notable. It's just up to what news stations know about and care to report? comp.arch (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why the rush to name someone who has been questioned and released, and not even arrested in connection with any crime? ElleTheBelle 13:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  There is no rush. The media have covered the incident (which is on film), and Penny's attorney has put out a statement on his behalf regarding involvement in what has now become a notable killing. It's not as if Penny is denying what happened. It doesn't matter if this is deemed a crime or not. Penny killed Jordan Neely by administering a chokehold that lasted for multiple minutes. These are the facts, and the medical examiner's office says the same, along with reliable sources. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  "It doesn't matter if this is deemed a crime or not." Of course it does. A "crime"/felony IS alleged by e.g. the DA, and thus e.g. BLPCRIME policy applies and the allegation matters now, and it also matters later after trial is over whether a crime happened! We'll then decide what to do regarding adding his name then. "There is no rush." If not, then you agree with me and e.g. ElleTheBelle? But you comment as if there is rush [to add the name], so I'm confused. comp.arch (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude in the spirit of BLPCRIME. Yes, it's not covered by the letter of policy (though I will note that simply being named by many reliable sources is not sufficient for a person to qualify as a public figure: cf WP:LPI), but I think it is within the spirit of BLPCRIME to exclude the name for the time being. There's no hurry: we can always decide to include the name when the situation becomes clearer and we know for certain what, if anything, they have been charged and/or convicted for, and if analyses with more temporal distance from the events include the name. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  Again, this has nothing to do with a person being charged or convicted. This article is about the killing of Jordan Neely. Are we seriously proposing to have an article on the subject, and intentionally leave readers in the dark about who the killer was? Nonsense. Reliable international sources are covering this, we should too. What is the point of leaving out simple facts? It doesn't improve the article. The lack of information makes it worse. Penny has now become a notable individual; public information about him (including his name) is quite obviously worthy of inclusion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Frankly, the name of the killer is absolutely meaningless information to 99.99% of readers. The vast, vast majority of readers, on seeing the name, will not have any idea who he is – if they have heard of him at all, it will only be because they already know the name of Jordan Neely's killer. It's all very well saying that leaving the name out doesn't improve the article, but the onus is on the people who want to include facts to show how their inclusion does improve the article, and I really don't see how it does in this case.

  Given the sensitivity of this case, and the fact that this is a non-public figure, we should err on the side of not including the name while things are still shaking out. The downsides of not including the name are minimal – we can always add the name later! The potential harms of unnecessarily including the name are much greater: that's a fundamental cornerstone of our entire BLP policy. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  What? We have to show how providing factually accurate information improves an article, really? Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? We don't get to decide for readers which content is important or not (saying that 99.99% of readers will find the name of the killer meaningless is a highly subjective statement), and I don't understand how censoring this man's name makes any sense when it's been internationally reported on. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, we can't include everything from news sources (see e.g. K2 discussion, and reverting of my quote from the NY Times). How does having the name in help? It's against policies, and can hurt Wikipedia Foundation, given careless additions of users, such as "murder" and lynching". comp.arch (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support — Based on the thoughts & logic from user Festucalex, and my own comments above. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:INTRO. Daniel Penny's name is included in most RSs, and is one of the most fundamental details about the article. Disagree with @Masem: the use of Penny's name in the article and the lead clearly fits within WP:NPF and with common practice in similar articles. Virtually every article on Wikipedia titled "Killing of..." includes the name of the killer in the lead, even in cases with no conviction as of yet. See Killing of Duante Wright, Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, Killing of Adam Toledo, Killing of Eric Garner, etc. Also see early versions of Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery for a case where the killers were private citizens (not police officers) and still named in the lead. There is nothing in wiki practice or policy that prevents us from including Penny's name in the lead. Combefere ★ Talk 14:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  A. You can't really support "per MOS:INTRO" guideline/non-policy (it doesn't trump very serious BLP policy), because that's about style of the lead (to summarize the main text), and what's being discussed here is leaving the name out altogether. B. The cases you list are all different in some way (e.g. police officers involved, let's put that discussion aside for now, since also all cases have ended). I don't know about "virtually every" article where people are named, so I looked more closely at the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. It was a hate crime a malice murder, claimed and convicted for. Arguable that makes it even more important to not name people, in case a wrong charge. It wasn't, there was video evidence as in this case, where they hunted down and shot Arbery, and were all denied bail (unlike here "questioned and released". As you show, there was also Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery at some point (and still Brunswick three, that's talked of removing right now). I see at 2021-11-24T18:55:40‎ Muboshgu "moved page Killing of Ahmaud Arbery" to Murder of Ahmaud Arbery: WP:BOLDly moving per https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-verdict-watch-11-24-21/index.html and Murder of George Floyd". comp.arch (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  A: That is incorrect. What is being discussed here is including or removing the name in the lead section, not removing it altogether. Scroll up and look at the RFC by LoomCreek on May 6th.

  B: All cases are different. This is the only homicide by RNC on the subway in the mid-afternoon that I'm aware of. I included Ahmaud Arbery to provide an example where the killer was not a police officer. Importantly, these cases are all also similar: they all involve homicides, the killers are all identified by name by multiple RSs, the killings are all caught on video, the killers all admit to the killings, and the killers names are all included in the lead sections of their respective articles. If you want an endless supply of other articles that check all five boxes here, I encourage you to look into early revisions of WP articles for mass shootings and/or bombings.

  But I admit I have not read every article on the encyclopedia. If you have a handful of examples of articles that meet the first four criteria and not the fifth, I would be excited to read them. At this moment, I am not aware of any. Combefere ★ Talk 06:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support but if we're dogmatically following the guidelines then the answer would be to exclude. A similar RfC was held recently discussing the use of a suspect's name and it was excluded despite being published by multiple reliable sources nationally. My position is if a suspect is named nationally by reliable sources it should be included. - Nemov (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wow! Nemov, so we should NOT follow a policy? Because it's dogmatic. I struck out your comment since you don't know the difference between a WP policy and a lesser guideline [EDIT: so that you could fix it, but then you changed [BLP] policy to "[dogmatically following] guidelines", making my objection/comment here look less serious and out of place]. And RS is also a guideline. There's nothing in Wikipedia rules that say we need or should repeat everything in RS sourced, it's the opposite, and privacy one reason, and WP:SUSPECT another policy that should be read together. If you disagree with policies, you need to get them changed or clarified. comp.arch (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not your job to strike other editors comments. Feel free to voice your opinion if you must, but leave my commments alone. Nemov (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, I struck out, since you were misrepresenting a WP policy, and we are in a discussion related to that policy; and at least I in relation to a more serious (yes you were not) Wikipedia policy with legal considerations, i.e. WP:LIBEL, that applied to the article here until at least 2023-05-18T15:28:46 when Anarchyte dropped the redirect Murder of Jordan Neely at my request, with "Serious BLP concerns. It is still alleged." comp.arch (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I think the recent RfC mentioned by Nemov is a bit different given the length of time between the crime and when the suspect was named. Also in this case, as far as I know there is zero dispute that the suspect in question in this case is the person in the widely released video, outside of any criminal charges; and they have released a statement acknowledging their involvement. I think we should consider and be careful about including suspects of crimes but given how widely their name was reported outside of the criminal investigation means there's no reason to exclude the name. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Time wasn't a factor in the WP:BLPCRIME argument for that RfC. Those arguing for exclusion said the accused wasn't a public figure before the crime. This is the same situation.

  A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

  Nemov (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Re-reading what I wrote, I should not have mentioned the time aspect (or at least less) since, yes, it's not really relevant exactly to the policy. I think for me since WP:BLPCRIME talks about consider[ing] not including material things like scope of coverage, how closely connected it is, and how widely discussed it is. Since the suspect in this case issued a statement about their involvement, unlike the German/Williams case, I see this as sufficiently different enough. Skynxnex (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support (again)

A charge doesn't change any of the dynamics discussed before and it's already been discussed on those grounds anyways LoomCreek (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude name per Wikipedia policy, like it or not. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Daniel Penny's name is not material that suggests he has committed a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 19:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  How do you mention his name without suggesting "he's accused of a crime?" that suggests the person has committed, or is 'accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.' Nemov (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  As of now, the first sentence in the article reads: "On May 1, 2023, around 2:30 p.m., Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, was killed by Daniel Penny, a white 24-year-old ex-marine, who placed him in a chokehold while they were riding the F train in Manhattan on the New York City Subway." That statement includes Penny's name without suggesting that he has committed a crime, or is even accused of a crime. Penny killed Neely. This is a neutral, verifiable fact, supported by dozens and dozens of RSs. Stating this fact is not equivalent to stating that he is guilty of second-degree manslaughter. Penny's name and his involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely are notable, regardless of whether or not he will be found guilty, or even whether or not he was charged with a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 19:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This seems like an okay place to ask but I don't see how editors must seriously consider not including material ... is as definite as you say, A. B.? It seems to me that we should err on the side of not including in the general case but if there's sufficient discussion and notability of the person, we could find a consensus to include the name without violating policy. So it's a discussion about where this falls instead of a bright-line policy decision. What, if anything, am I missing? Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Skynxnex, to answer your question:

• If you read the entirety of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, you'll see that the tenor of the policy is that we bend over backwards to avoid BLP problems.
  • By the way, aside from this particular case, all active editors should take a few minutes to read that particular policy.
• It's a small but telling thing about the policy's intent - missing from the excerpt quoted above is that "not" is in bold font:
  • editors must seriously consider not including material…

So I believe there's a little wiggle room in the policy, but only just a little. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Skynxnex (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Just wanted to briefly pop in to say that I agree that the article clearly suggests that the suspect committed a crime (for instance by saying he was charged with one), but also that "must seriously consider not" is not equivalent to "must not." Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Narrowly Include. I do take the WP:BLPCRIME concerns really seriously. I also disagree with the editors who say Penny is now notable—I don't think that's at all how the policy works. Penny isn't notable enough to have his own article per WP:PERPETRATOR. And "but the media highly publicized that this person was accused" doesn't, for me, weigh on the matter. By that logic, almost any random person whose name is floated by authorities as being responsible for a high-profile crime will have their name on Wikipedia. I think that's precisely against the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. However, in this case, Penny has issued a statement to the media justifying his involvement. He has entered the fray. I do think this is a close call, but I'm leaning towards thinking that's enough.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Update: In addition to the statement, Penny has now spoken to the media via an interview with the New York Post. That strengthens my include position.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - the evolving consensus in this section and elsewhere on this page is that the widespread, reliable news coverage of the alleged assailant trumps WP:BLPCRIME, or at least invokes the weasel-worded possible but-seldom-to-be-invoked exception in the policy. I also note that BLPCRIME has been a source of confusion and frustration in the many prior discussions at WT:BLP. (See the partial list of prior discussion I posted in another section).

Going forward, I suggest the community consider modify BLPCRIME to include WP:CATOUTOFBAG. That is, an explicit carve-out for cases involving widespread, reliable, national news coverage. Since charges can be dropped, it should also include a requirement that any previously named suspect immediately get their name scrubbed if no longer charged.

This should be a discussion elsewhere- probably and RfC at the Village Pump. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Note on comment - the WP: prefix there, it isn't to imply there's such a preexisting rule (in any context), in case people misunderstood or just scan text quicly, rather that you want such a rule. Precisely since there's no CATOUTOFBAG policy (or guideline), it doesn't seems like an excuse to pretend as if there were one. I dear no longer to strike people out (as I did before when BLP[CRIME?] policy were actually misrepresented, as just being a guideline). I don't meant to imply anyone trying to misrepresent anything, intentionally, I take all are acting in good faith. comp.arch (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

For the record (and particularly for the closing editor), I don't think this is an accurate representation of the emerging consensus here. By my count, only one editor supporting the inclusion of Penny's name (Nemov) made the argument that widespread reliable news coverage should trump or overrule BLP; and only one editor (Skynxnex) no editors relied on the looseness of the phrase "must seriously consider" in BLP. My interpretation of the consensus here is that there is no clause in BLP that precludes or even discourages us from using the name in the lead (or article). The few editors who have voted to exclude the name frankly have not done the work to explain which part of BLP is supposed to do so. On the flipside, the editors supporting inclusion have collectively quoted and deconstructed nearly every sentence in BLPCRIME and BLPNAME and found no cause for concern there. Of editors who support inclusion, the vast majority seem to think that there is no part of BLP that is violated by including the name.

You might have your own issues with the wording of BLP and the confusion surrounding it, but I'd encourage you to consider that you may have mischaracterized your opposition here in assuming they relied on those concerns. This article and BLP sit next to each other quite comfortably, as written each. Combefere ★ Talk 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC), Edited 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere I'll say I didn't "rely" on the looseness of the phrase only, really, but instead was trying to respond to people who thought WP:BLPCRIME had to apply where even the most strict reading of it would allow its inclusion so it's back to just a general consensus of editors instead of an WP:IAR situation ignoring policy to include it. Skynxnex (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Noted and updated. Combefere ★ Talk 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Include name - Maybe I'm reading it wrong but none of the sources have concealed Perry's identity and there wasn't multiple people involved in the killing (to make it impossible to know who was/wasn't involved) so I can't see how BLPCRIMES applies here ?, Perry has given a statement confirming his involvement in it so conviction or no conviction he was the murderer and therefore I see no reason not to include his name.... Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Include name: Penny has admitted that his actions caused the death of Neely and the NYC Medical Examiner has ruled Neely's death a homicide. I think the first sentence as currently written is factually accurate and ameliorates any BLPCRIME concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Include name. The fact that Penny's actions caused Neely's death is not in dispute and is covered in multiple RSes. Whether Penny's actions were illegal is a separate question. This is not a BLPCRIME issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  This comment by Sangdeboeuf was removed from the talk page by comp.arch in this revision. I have restored the comment. @Comp.arch: please do not remove comments from other editors on the talk page. Courtesy ping to @Sangdeboeuf:. Combefere ★ Talk 04:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry Sangdeboeuf, I didn't mean to erase your comment (I was clarifying mine, and didn't see an edit conflict, was I changing an old version by accident? not sure how this happened). [I wouldn't have erased a comment on purpose; I have struck out a comment, see above, creating controversy, for reasons that do not apply to you, while notifying that user. I wouldn't even do that now.] Everything related to him in this article is of course under WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP policies, so I'm confused. I think you're saying is that killing someone needs not be a crime, and if not (or since we're just stating that in Wikivoice), then those policies do not apply. But that is POV, his POV, that he is innocent. If we presume he will be not found guilty, then we are violating WP:NPOV policy. comp.arch (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

  We are not presuming anything about the outcome of any trial. A killing occurred according to official sources and bystander video, reported on in multiple top RSes. It does not imply any wrongdoing to state the name of the other party. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as I just realized I hadn't !voted here (and didn't really "cast" a !vote there, just typed a lot...). See the conversation in the (again) section below for my rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriusGod (talk • contribs) 02:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:BLPCRIME. ~ HAL333 00:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment It seems to be a pretty settled consistent majority at this point. Perhaps it's time to close the discussion? LoomCreek (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose/Exclude unless and until a conviction is reached – and then the reference should match the conviction, i.e. no reference to "murder" if that wasn't the charge convicted on. I presume you'd all insist on the same if it were your own name at issue. I know I would. WP:BLPCRIME and the presumption of innocence ask no less. We don't know what the state of evidence will be until the trial is over. E.g. will the ME's report be challenged, a second examination made? Too soon the conclusions here. – .Raven  ^.talk 03:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The duplicate discussion below has been closed. Courtesy pings to all of the editors who participated in that discussion, and not this one. @A. Randomdude0000:, @KiharaNoukan:, feel free to participate here. Combefere ★ Talk 16:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

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

"arrested X times" should note that being homeless is a crime in new york city

X was arrested Y times is generally included as proof of their character.

being arrested is not proof of guilt by itself, but there is a prevailing bias that being arrested many times means someone is actually guilty, immoral or otherwise a troublemaker.

therefore, to preserve NPOV, it should be noted that many of these arrests were most likely following from homelessness, as being homeless is illegal during the period he was homeless.

NYC allows requesting someone's criminal record for fact checking this, but this costs money and i'm having a hard time finding a secondary source going into detail about what the actual arrests were Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

References

@Bart Terpstra I agree I think that'd be a good addition. I'd say go ahead and add it as long as it's well sourced. LoomCreek (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@BarrelProof would it be more accurate to say homelessness is criminalized, rather than illegal?

I personally think these laws make being homeless illegal, but i'm unsure what the difference would be.

https://homelesslaw.org/criminalization/ Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra I know this wasn't addressed to me. But criminalized is just a broader term. Basically it's used to encompass when something isn't made explicitly illegal but in practice is through other laws.

For example, making loitering illegal criminalizes homelessness, as it is in practice impossible to not loiter as a homeless person.

But you can also arguably say that is making being homeless illegal.

Criminalization Criminalized is basically just a softer way to say it.

(the word also has some specific use cases. Describing when identities are criminalized. Such as being black in America in the 1800s, which was criminalized through sundown laws/black codes. But that's not specifically relevant to this case.)

In other words while criminalization is more broad, really either could be used in practice. It's really something up to the editors' judgement. LoomCreek (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

checking it over, i used neither word. i just assumed that was the issue they had.

my bad. Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

So, sorry to yet again be a stickler, but the addition as I read it is a bit WP:SYNTH-y; relying as it does on primary information and no secondary source specific to this case. I won't remove it, but I am ambivalent at best about the current wording. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to find a mainstream outlet that doesn't take the POV that homeless people are "not angels" and "actions have consequences", and any that don't take that angle will probably not see the value in dissecting the exact proportion of when he was arrested for what, as they would consider it irrelevant to his murder (time served, etc).

Only a place as split between positions as wikipedia would have a use for this perspective, haha. Bart Terpstra (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

what is sufficient for this?

just a publicized opinion by someone (who is not me) that some of the arrests were from homelessness? Bart Terpstra (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that coverage of the homeless (as well as poorer classes in general) is not done well in mass media, but you have the idea. We would want to see a reliable source making this very point, again, in the context of this case. This is one of those situations where I agree with you 100% and think you have it correct, but it doesn't seem Wikipedia-appropriate to me (at least thus far). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

added a reliable rated source that phrases it as "He had been arrested more than forty times, mostly for petty offenses, such as loitering and trespassing.".

i hope this is sufficient. Bart Terpstra (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That's perfect for me--thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra Checked the source, that definitely looks perfectly fine to avoid synth. LoomCreek (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra: concur, well handled. Xan747 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra: I just read your latest diff, which says, "most of the arrests were for minor violations like homelessness", which will surely be reverted, again. Might be better to say "mostly for minor violations related to homelessness", or perhaps best:

according to New Yorker magazine, most of the arrests were for "petty offenses, such as loitering and trespassing"

and then you're covered because you've got WP:RS with an inline attribution, which should also shut down the many/most edit warring. There's also plenty of RS that describe loitering laws being designed to "criminalize" homelessness, so you should also be able to make that explicit without violating WP:SYNTH. Xan747 (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@BarrelProof and @Combefere:

Please read this article which @Bart Terpstra has already cited, and then read my comment above. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: I did read that article. It calls out the minor offenses as mostly loitering and trespassing, which I think is fair to append to that sentence in the article. It does discuss a lot of the problems surrounding homelessness and mental health, and NYC's failure to address them, but it falls short of stating explicitly that homelessness is criminalized or that Jordan Neely was arrested multiple times because he was homeless.

Again, I think these statements are both true and obvious. But we need an RS calling them out explicitly before we can put them into the article. Combefere ★ Talk 00:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Saying "minor violations related to homelessness, such as loitering and trespassing" or quoting the New Yorker article would be fine. Saying "minor violations like homelessness" is not OK, because there is no criminal violation called homelessness. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere and @BarrelProof,

Thanks. Here's the final piece, from the Graun:

But like in the rest of the country, existing while unsheltered is essentially criminalized in New York. While New York doesn’t explicitly outlaw sleeping outside, most city parks close overnight, and there are regulations against obstructing sidewalks and sleeping across multiple subway seats. Adams, a former cop, has led highly publicized sweeps of encampments and subways, and he has empowered the NYPD to hospitalize unhoused people against their will, if they appear to be mentally ill. “Those are just ways of incarcerating folks who sleep outside and making sleeping outside illegal,” says Cerisier.

I'll write it up with a "see talk page" in the edit description. Cheers. Xan747 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: And that article doesn't mention Neely, so again it's WP:SYNTH. Combefere ★ Talk 00:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere Indeed not, but I think we can safely assume he was subject to the same laws and general conditions as his fellow street-dewellers. Here's my draft:

According to a police officer, Neely had been arrested 42 times by the NYPD, "mostly for petty offenses, such as loitering and trespassing," according to The New Yorker. In an article about the general issue of homelessness in the city, The Guardian said, "like in the rest of the country, existing while unsheltered is essentially criminalized in New York. While New York doesn’t explicitly outlaw sleeping outside, most city parks close overnight, and there are regulations against obstructing sidewalks and sleeping across multiple subway seats."

I'll hold off committing it until I hear back from you. Xan747 (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

References

@Xan747: I believe this still violates WP:SYNTH. To repeat, this is not about whether your logic is sound. Sure, we can safely assume that Neely was subject to the same laws and general conditions of the unhoused population of NYC, but we cannot include that analysis in the article unless a RS explicitly does so.

I did find this NPR article which discusses the criminalization of homelessness around Neely's death (and attributes the discussion to "advocates of the homeless"). But this analysis is more surrounding the vigilante killing, not surrounding Neely's own arrest record. At this point, it's the best I can find to put into the article. By all means, continue to look for a source that explicitly connects those two things, so we can add that analysis into the article. Combefere ★ Talk 02:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere: ok, so I left the first sentence as above, struck the second. I also made some edits on the more serious charges for readability. That section really needs help. How many violent offenses was he arrested/tried for? Xan747 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreek: I personally see criminalization as the process of making something illegal that once wasn't, and legal/illegal the status of whether something is lawful or unlawful.

@All: I personally find the phrases "criminalization of homelessness" and "homelessness is illegal" to be imprecise and somewhat loaded. As has been mentioned, the actual laws make it all but impossible for a unhoused person to abide the law, so homelessness becomes de facto illegal, not de jure illegal, and the test for this is for a homeowner or apartment dweller to sleep on a park bench one night in dirty, shabby clothing and find out what happens. We used to call these things vagrancy laws, but that term has almost certainly been deprecated, just as "homeless person" is now becoming.

But speaking of loaded, were I allowed to express my own opinions in an article, I'd describe these sorts of laws as genocidal. Xan747 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747 Ah sorry I misspoke, I really meant criminalized as a description. Rather than the process. LoomCreek (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreek no worries. I agree that criminalized is softer than illegal, and I would say in context of its typical usage it carries the sense of something that has only recently been made illegal, perhaps controversially so. But I digress ... Xan747 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Homelessness" is not the name of a crime. There is no law that says that a person who does X will be considered guilty of the crime of homelessness. No police officer or prosecutor fills out a form that lists "homelessness" as the reason for an arrest. No one is accused of being homeless in a court of law or is asked in a court whether they plead guilty or not guilty to homelessness. Some people may say that the effect of certain laws is to criminalize homelessness, and that may be roughly true in practice, but that is not the name of any crime that anyone is accused of or arrested for. To say that someone was arrested for homelessness is editorializing, which Wikipedia should not do. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

i think it's ludicrous to take that position when there is such a clear case for the existence of anti-homelessness legislation.

It's the equivalent of saying "i believe the euphemistic language lawmakers use outright", which is not a neutral or objective stance to take.

"One isn't arrested for being a homosexual, one is arrested for violating sodomy laws" is not an enlightened position in my humble opinion.

I hope the current edit is to your liking. Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We would need a reliable secondary source that discusses how the criminalization of homelessness specifically affects Neely's arrest record, otherwise this is WP:SYNTH. Combefere ★ Talk 20:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

are you saying it is WP:SYNTH to say if a homeless men was frequently arrested for "loitering" and "trespassing" this is due to him being homeless?

(assuming you have sources that say he is homeless and that he was frequently arrested for these offenses).

i do not think loitering and trespassing accurately portray what the arrestee was doing at the time to a reader, as the colloquial understanding is different from the legal/criminal understanding. Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

are you saying it is WP:SYNTH to say if a homeless men was frequently arrested for "loitering" and "trespassing" this is due to him being homeless?

Yes. That is precisely what WP:SYNTH is there to prevent us from doing.

To be clear, I agree with your point: Neely's arrest record demonstrates not much more than the fact that homelessness itself is a defacto crime in NYC. And I agree that reporting his arrest record without such an analysis misleads readers into making much more negative assumptions about Neely's character than a full picture of the story does. You make very good points which are undoubtedly true and are critical to include in any fair, unbiased article about Jordan Neely.

Still, we need an RS to connect those dots. We're not allowed to do it on our own. Combefere ★ Talk 21:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And I'll throw in on top of that, the wording in the article was just inaccurate. "[M]ost of the arrests were for minor violations like homelessness" - homelessness was not the dejure violation that precipitated any of the arrests. Better wording would be "most of the arrests were for minor violations related to homelessness" ...but again, we'd need an RS making that connection. Combefere ★ Talk 23:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

made "loitering and trespassing" link to anti-homelessness legislation instead, i assume this isn't wp:synth. Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not okay—nor is this entire attempt to paint Neely's arrest record as largely the result of "criminalizing homelessness"—despite there being exactly zero evidence in RS to support that contention. There are any number of issues:

• Loitering isn't used to arrest people simply for being homeless—indeed, that kind of arrest was made explicitly illegal in 1988 by the NY courts.
• Involuntary psychiatric hospitalization isn't inherently a criminal matter at all, and doesn't involve arresting people for either trespassing or loitering.
• Anyone familiar with NYC can tell you that trespassing and loitering offenses aren't weaponized against homeless—they're typically used in the context of explicit and far more serious criminality. For example, trespassing is used for those breaking into buildings, and loitering is used to curb obvious, open-air drug dealing. The NYPD really doesn't arrest people for trivial offenses, nor are they engaged in any effort to lock up people for simply being homeless. The fact that the initial post in this section uses arrests in homeless shelters to suggest a "criminalization of homelessness" shows the absurdity of the claim: those arrests are for actual crimes that take place inside homeless shelters—including robberies, rapes, and murders.

I could easily go on. But in the absence of any sources suggesting that any of Neely's arrests were due to "criminalization of homelessness", Wikilinking to that in specific reference to "most of" Neely's arrests isn't just SYNTH—or even simple editorializing, POV-pushing, and OR—but borders on deliberate disinformation.

The appropriate Wikilinks here are to the crimes of loitering and trespassing, obviously—the actual offenses for which Neely was arrested. If there's further information about the exact nature of those arrests, by all means they should be included. But the instant situation is a blatant example of editors with an opinion engaging in a desperate search for facts which can support it—perhaps the single worst way to go about making our encyclopedia. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 16:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The entire talk page and every single edit to this article fundamentally stems from opinion informed by a belief system that is deemed to conform with the belief system of Wikipedianism.

The presence of opinion and belief system is not what you are actually objecting to, it's having a different opinion or belief system that you do not think conforms with Wikipedianism (in your opinion).

(Wikipedianism being the ideology with which you should edit wikipedia, the policy, guidelines, etc.) Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

counter:

• NYPD arrests homeless people on trains for being homeless through selective enforcement(mar 2022)
• NYPD to arrest people who want to stay on train cars longer, a form of fare dodging (feb 2022)
• NYPD clears out homelessness camp and arrests some of those present for wanting to live there
• staying on private property, like a parking lot, without express permission of the owner is a form of simple tresspass
• U.S. police lie about their reasons for enforcing policy on citizens all the timeTemplate:No citation needed
• Homelessness is in fact criminalized

Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere: this article from the Graun is written by a local reporter, and gives one of the better overviews of the general issues the unhoused face in NYC that I've read so far. Also some really good details about Neely's life and struggles I haven't seen anywhere else. And a lot of detailed information about the various programs for homeless folks given by the people who make them run, literally the folks in the trenches, and they are fully on the record. Thus far it hasn't been cited anywhere in our article. Xan747 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Chokehold is an inherently dangerous technique

The chokehold is considered an inherently dangerous technique by (among others) the American military and law enforcement.

This is notable information that a reader is likely to not know about and that is relevant context for the incident.

should it be integrated into the article?

if so, how? Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed 1 CNN article from 2021 due to WP:SYNTH issues. I would suggest moving the entire section about chokehold danger down to the body. The currently cited sources: NYT, Forbes, (and the 2021 CNN Article), discuss lethality in the context of bans from some law enforcement agencies, which Penny is not a member of. The cited NYT article also states that chokeholds are allowed in some martial arts competitions and taught in the US military (which Penny is an ex-member of). KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan, if we're assuming -- and we can't -- that Penny participated in such competitions, that makes him potentially even more culpable than a less well-trained person applying the same hold.

However, according to Military.com:

In an interview with Military.com, Murphy said that training on chokeholds is "not something you touch once in boot camp and then go forget about." Both Murphy and Penny received instruction on the Marines' version of martial arts -- the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) -- starting in boot camp. The official website of Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island notes that the Corps' graduation requirements include that "all recruits undergo training in the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program throughout training" and adds that "they earn a tan belt, the entry-level belt of the five-level system." According to the document that lays out the standards for the program, part of the tan belt curriculum includes training on performing a rear choke, in addition to a variety of strikes, counters and other takedown techniques. "I can tell you just living at the barracks, or being on a MEU, or just existing in 1/5 -- we did some of that stuff constantly and a lot of it was informal," Murphy explained, while adding that MCMAP training is not designed to be non-lethal or safe. Murphy, whose unit and Afghanistan deployment were profiled in the documentary "Patrol Base Jaker", said that the Marines teach close combat techniques only in the frame of repelling the enemy's assault -- and even then "those [techniques] are all taught, essentially, as 'you screwed up and now somebody's grappling with you.'" "You're basically starting to kill them, and then you have to decide when to stop," Murphy said.

The cited document says:

The purpose of chokes is to render your aggressor unconscious or gain control of a close combat situation through less than lethal force. A choke is performed by either closing off of the airway to the lungs, thereby preventing oxygen from reaching the heart, or by cutting off of the blood flow to the brain. Both types of chokes can result in unconsciousness and eventual death for an aggressor. Chokes are classified in two categories: blood chokes and air chokes. A blood choke is performed on the carotid artery located on both sides of the neck, which carries oxygen-enriched blood from the heart to the brain. When executed properly, a blood choke takes between 8 to 13 seconds for the aggressor to lose consciousness. The blood choke is the preferred choke because its intended effect can be executed quickly, ending the fight. An air choke is performed on the windpipe or trachea, cutting off the air to the lungs and heart. When executed properly, an air choke takes between two and three minutes for the aggressor to lose consciousness. The air choke is not recommended because of the length of time it takes to stop the fight. Refer to appendix A for corresponding safeties 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, and 12. [...] XI: Never hold a choke for more than 5 seconds in training. The aggressor should never become light-headed during a choke.

I think it's fair to at least say that Penny knew exactly how potentially deadly the technique was, and had the training to know when to stop. Whether he acted on that training appropriately is probably something we won't be able to talk about until such time as evidence is presented at trial. Xan747 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not "fair to say that penny knew exactly" how anything was. This is simply what the cited sources state without bringing in WP:SYNTH issues: Some police departments do not utilize chokeholds because of risk of death. Some martial arts contests and the military do permit/train individuals to use this technique. Given that Penny is not a member of law enforcement, and that mention of the groups that do permit chokeholds is merited by WP:NPOV, it makes most sense to include this discussion in the body. I'm not assuming that Penny participated in any martial arts contests, let alone one that utilized chokeholds. However, if discussion of chokeholds used by law enforcement is WP:DUE, when Penny is not a law enforcement member, it would be proportional to include the fact that it's also used in these contests, given that the cited sources explicitly mention this. But more than anything, it would make most sense to mention the military context, given that this has the closest connection to Penny. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think questioning how much he knew about the danger is not relevant.

He got training in it in a context of lethal self-defense (being a marine), and I don't see how not being aware of the complete danger of violence you commit is relevant.

And, unlike firearms, the inherent danger of a choke-hold might not be obvious to an average reader, which is why it justifies it's inclusion in the article (atleast somewhere).

Feel free to replace the police sources with Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) and maybe American Academy of Neurology for expert opinion.

p.s. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume an ex-marine with assistance of atleast 2 others could realise he could ease up on the hold, especially if someone tried to point out to him he could/should ease up. Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan As I understand it, synth and npov only have to do with whether something can be written in an article, not where. As of right now, this is what the second sentence of the third paragraph says:

Penny approached Neely from behind and put him in a chokehold, a technique that some US law enforcement agencies do not utilize due to risk of death.

Here's my proposed rewrite based on the new RS I've introduced:

Penny approached Neely from behind and put him in a chokehold,a technique he would have practiced in basic training, and learned of its potential to cause death.

Then further below in the body we can discuss how incapacitation occurs in eight to 13 seconds, and the five second max rule, etc., because I agree that's a bit much in the introductory section. What do you think? Xan747 (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the cited military.com article that would support "Penny learned of its potential to cause death." The closest we have is a quote from a former marine corporal who started a petition against Penny: "You're basically starting to kill them, and then you have to decide when to stop," while the writer states that the military itself has not commented on chokehold technique. Some additions you propose based on the contents of the USMC MCMAP document are WP:SYNTH as it is not referenced in the military.com article beyond "part of the tan belt curriculum includes training on performing a rear choke, in addition to a variety of strikes, counters and other takedown techniques." For instance, mention of "5 second max" rule is only within the document.

I would support "a technique taught to Penny in basic training." for the lead. Further discussion for the body would require centering around what is actually directly discussed in articles that connect chokeholds to the Penny/Neely incident. ie. discussion of bans by law enforcement, utilization in martial arts contests, utilization in Marine Corps martial arts training. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan, bans by law enforcement are not relevant because we have no documentation that Penny was aware of them. We have no evidence that Penny participated in USMC martial arts contests. If we can't use official marine training documents linked to by the Military.com article to establish what Penny knew about the potential lethality of the technique, why are we wasting time talking about things that are even less well-connected? Xan747 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I would actually agree that chokeholds in relation to law enforcement and martial arts contests are not due for inclusion, at least for the lead. That being said, the original articles sourced all connected chokeholds with how they are banned in law enforcement, and permitted in other areas, which is why that is mentioned. By contrast, the military.com article does not mention, let alone connect items like limiting chokeholds for 5 seconds in training to the Jordan Neely case. This appears to exclusively be in the domain of another document, only part of which is cited by military.com in relevance to the Jordan Neely case.

What we have as relevant info for the military.com article is this: "use of the tactic, which is taught in basic training by the service", "Both Murphy and Penny received instruction on the Marines' version of martial arts -- the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program," and with regards to the document: "According to the document that lays out the standards for the program, part of the tan belt curriculum includes training on performing a rear choke, in addition to a variety of strikes, counters and other takedown techniques." KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan, according to your interpretation, would it be synth to enumerate the "variety of strikes" contained in the training manual even though the military.com article doesn't list each and every one of them? Xan747 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

More the case that it is clearly not due for inclusion, but back to the topic. What secondary source can you provide that justifies something along the lines of "I think it's fair to at least say that Penny knew exactly how potentially deadly the technique was, and had the training to know when to stop."

We have a military.com article which does not state that Penny "knew exactly how potentially deadly the technique was..."

We have a USMC training document from 2011 which is utilized by the article only to note that rear chokes, among other techniques, are trained by the USMC. It of course, also does not say that "Penny knew exactly how potentially deadly the technique was..." KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan, I have a secondary source that says, this is the training manual that Penny would have used in basic training, and would have been tested on as a condition of graduation. That establishes the training manual as a reliable and relevant source. Not part of it, the whole thing. The training manual says:

The purpose of chokes is to render your aggressor unconscious or gain control of a close combat situation through less than lethal force. A choke is performed by either closing off of the airway to the lungs, thereby preventing oxygen from reaching the heart, or by cutting off of the blood flow to the brain. Both types of chokes can result in unconsciousness and eventual death for an aggressor. Chokes are classified in two categories: blood chokes and air chokes. A blood choke is performed on the carotid artery located on both sides of the neck, which carries oxygen-enriched blood from the heart to the brain. When executed properly, a blood choke takes between 8 to 13 seconds for the aggressor to lose consciousness. The blood choke is the preferred choke because its intended effect can be executed quickly, ending the fight.

The marine.com article says, "The Marine Corps' MCMAP manual says that 'when executed properly, a blood choke takes between 8 to 13 seconds for the aggressor to lose consciousness.'" Looks like we've got the right manual.

More RS quoting Murphy:

[...] Marines are trained to use a chokehold on enemy combatants and to stop using such force once their adversary loses consciousness, he said. A four-minute video that recorded the chokehold showed Mr. Penny hanging on tight to Mr. Neely 50 seconds after he went limp. “I don’t think what he did was OK, and I don’t think it’s in line with anything the Marine Corps teaches,” Mr. Murphy said.

I don't think you're going to win on WP:SYNTH if based on all the above we write that Penny's training included warnings the technique could cause death, that it should only take eight to 13 seconds render someone unconscious, should be stopped once that state is obtained, and thus his actions were "not in line" with his training .

I've made my arguments, time to put this to a vote. Xan747 (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source."

The USMC document from 2011 cannot possibly on its own refer to an incident in 2023 to "at least say that Penny knew exactly how potentially deadly the technique was, and had the training to know when to stop." The military.com article cites only basic details from the document, and does not support this conclusion either.

With regards to a "blood choke," the military.com article does not allege that Penny performed this particular maneuver. Let alone say anything along the lines of "he knew exactly how potentially deadly this technique was and had the training to know when to stop."

I would agree to put in the Marine corporal's claims and his petition into the Reactions and protests section, where it belongs. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@KiharaNoukan, his petition is published on change-dot-org, which is blacklisted. This conversation is going in circles, I will await other feedback. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that the events in this article are still developing and that there are BLPs involved, I tend to think we should be conservative (small c) and a bit extra cautious with things here. That is why I prefer the old wording. The new version does, indeed, seem a bit synth-y for me. The military.com piece essentially consists of Murphy's opinion and some publicly available documents. But ensuring that these actually apply requires further validation, by my lights. Was the same version of the training manual in place at the time? The same tan belt requirements? Is it possible Penny missed "chokehold day"? And so on. As is so often the case with these things, in an informal sense Xan747, you have proved the case to me. I don't doubt that things are as you say. But I don't quite see the dots as linking up tightly enough for a Wikipedia connection. All that said, I am just an old guy who is up too late on the weekend, and I will happily go whichever way consensus dictates. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, putting that down as yes it's synth. Cheers. Xan747 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

this entire discussion has been derailed.

it doesn't matter if penny did or did not know, it's also something that can not be proven.

the topic is adding that a chokehold is inherently dangerous as context a reader might not be familiar with. Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, it is questionable to include this in the lead. The articles talking about it being "inherently dangerous" do so in the context of it being banned by some agencies in law enforcement, which Penny is not a member of. The NYT article on this contrasts this ban by mentioning that it is permitted by some martial arts contests and military training, the latter of which Penny has participated in. To ensure WP:NPOV would require that discussion of the chokehold include these other details, which makes most sense in the body. KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I am pushing for this change because it is not common knowledge chokeholds kill, unlike guns.

"guns are designed to kill people" would not have to be added to an article about a gun murder.

guns are also part of training in the military and shooting sports, paintball guns are also part of a sport.

the fact that the military allows chokeholds does not make it less dangerous and the fact martial arts allow it is in a different context, one where the grappler will actually let go if the subject taps out and where it is overseen by an expert in a safe environment.

There is a prevalent notion among reputable authorities and sources that chokeholds are inherently dangerous and that other methods of restraint are preferred, the fact that the technique is dangerous is neutral. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the infobox, citing the medical examiner, says "Homicide by chokehold" pretty clearly establishes that chokeholds can be deadly. We already have an attributed petition from another ex-marine in Reactions and protests that elaborates on this. I don't think it's necessary to include this in the lead with as tenuous of a connection as some law enforcement bans, which necessarily need to be balanced out by its continued usage by other agencies and areas, since that is explicitly mentioned by the very same articles bringing this issue up. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

you can kill someone by slapping them in the face as well, you can kill someone by sitting on them.

it does not convey the risk inherent to the action.

the law enforcement bans are not the primary source i want to focus on, i think the american institute of neurology is a way better main source/POV. Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The American Academy of Neurology, as referenced in both the Forbes and NYT article, both discuss chokeholds in the context of opposing police usage of them. The articles bring up the AAN POV in the context of the bans of chokeholds by some police departments. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra, yes it did, I'll own my part of that. This may be a bit wordy, but I think @KiharaNoukan would sign off on it. If it's ok with you then I think you can post it:

Penny approached Neely from behind and put him in a chokehold, a technique that some US law enforcement agencies do not utilize due to risk of death, which he would have practiced in basic training, and been tested on as a graduation requirement. Xan747 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

References

The best way to incorporate it would be via a reliable secondary source that makes this point in the context of this event. I'd be a bit surprised if there aren't any out there, but anything is possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

oh hey, good recommendation.

how is this forbes article?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/05/12/why-chokeholds-used-by-daniel-penny-on-jordan-neely-are-increasingly-banned-by-police-departments/ Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Forbes can be a bit of a headache as a reliable source, but that one strikes me as being in the clear, and enough that I think we should include a brief note without belaboring the information. That said, I'd give it a little bit of time just to see if there's more support or if anyone disagrees. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

hu, i honestly didn't know that Forbes has this bad a rating. Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

It's sort of getting better (I think?), but for a while there, most Forbes content seemed to be from 'contributors' which were basically blogs with little to no editorial oversight. Your article is clearly by Forbes staff, so I think that's reliable, though I will be the first to confess I still get tripped up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Homeless persons intentionally getting arrested to get a warm meal and bed

Hi, @WWGB: partial intent of this diff was to give context to what Neely experienced as a homeless person. Harper's story about Rikers is not his "bio," it's one of the more poignant and elegant commentaries on Neely's homelessness I've read thus far. Work with me a little? Xan747 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Much of that material is WP:UNDUE, bordering on WP:SOAP. We are not here to report on the plight of the homeless. This article is about Penny V Neely, not advocacy for the homeless. WWGB (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather lose the soap in the Public officials and community section than I would the opinions of someone who actually knew the man AND actually works hands-on with people like Neely. Xan747 (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@WWGB Id have to agree with Xan747. If we're going to include stuff like the arrest record of Jordan Neely (which arguably is irrelevant to the actual killing, it's not like anyone actually knew that till after). It is just as relevant to include the reaction and viewpoint of those who actually knew Neely, as an explanation of their background. LoomCreek (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all that discussion of Neely's prior offenses and arrest record and dance performances and celebrity impersonations is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Penny's actions were justified. Penny did not have any awareness of anything that Neely did or that Neely experienced before the two of them got on that subway train. We should also try to avoid overly speculating about what we think "people like Neely" experience in their lives. We should discuss Neely, not speculate about people who we think are like Neely and the general plight of the homeless, as WWGB aptly puts it, or about people of his ethnicity or people with a similar educational background or people who grew up in his neighborhood or people who share other particular characteristics. While Neely and this incident can be a good jumping-off point for a magazine article about homelessness or mental illness, this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. We should stick to the topic that the article is about and avoid WP:UNDUE tangents and WP:COATRACK attempts to use this topic to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that may or may not be relevant to the subject of the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

adding character details of the victim (or the perpetrator) is itself wp:undue and wp:coatrack, but a mainstream POV is that it's relevant as to whether someone deserves to be murdered in a train car.

So if the topic is giving a balanced wp:NPOV description of the character of the victim, then generalizations and assumptions will be introduced, either by a positive or negative character introduction, because the combination of all these facts is to create a wp:synthesis of research for the reader to make up their mind about the character of the victim.

"We shouldn't introduce generalisations" would also entail removing facts which do not establish character by themselves at all, like arrest record, because they do not actually proof character at all.

i.e. an arrest record shows how the victim is like other people with arrest records. Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

arrest record itself is WP:UNDUE as it is irrelevant to what actually happened, it's a after the fact justification for extrajudicial murder pushed by certain POV.Bart Terpstra (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that most of the recently active editors of this article have weighed in, and it's deadlocked 2-2 not counting my position. I propose to add the sentence in italics, leaving the rest of the paragraph as-is, and ask for a support or oppose vote:

Moses Harper, a dance instructor and performer, friend and mentor of Neely from age 16 until his death said, "when I think of Jordan Neely, I think of a gifted, kind, young soul who was trying to find some joy and peace in this world. He was looking for a reason to celebrate and engage in something positive. And it is painful to think that somebody treated him like he wasn't worth anything. He was priceless." Based on his years of outreach work at Rikers Island, Harper said that younger homeless men like Neely were frequently counseled by their elders to intentionally commit minor offenses for the purpose of getting a warm meal and bed in jail, or claim suicidal ideation to gain hospital admission, when no other options were available. The last time Harper saw Neely alive, he encouraged him to "get clean and clean up." Neely said, "Don't worry, I am going to do it." "But the system failed Jordan," said Harper.

The addition is no different from the twice as much text on homelessness and mental illness in the Public officials and community section, with the notable exception that Harper actually knew Neely and many many others in a similar situation, which makes him uniquely qualified to offer opinion than anything else I've been able to find thus far. I'll also note that the tone of what I've excerpted from Harper's article is far less incendiary that the pol's hottakes, as is indeed Harper's entire article. About as heated as he got is, "It took a matter of minutes for Daniel Penny to become Jordan’s arresting officer, judge, clerk, D.A., jury and executioner."

In sum, if the consensus is to strike my proposed addition, the consensus must also be to delete or neuter the comments of: Tiffany Cabán, Julia Salazar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Brad Lander. We would probably leave Adrienne Adams' comments as she's the only public figure explicitly quoted about the fact that Neely was black, which is odd given that the lede is "black man killed by white man." How much to write that great wrong may deserve its own thread.

Thanks all for your consideration and comments. Xan747 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

References

I think the section highlighted in italics should be included. The RS clearly and specifically connects the experience of homelessness and minor offenses to Neely, and is WP:DUE. If we're including Neely's arrest record (which Penny had no way of knowing when he killed him), then we certainly can't exclude other aspects of Neely's background on the basis that Penny wasn't privy to them. Combefere ★ Talk 16:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere, your vote makes it 3-2 and it's been two days. Should I run it, wait for more feedback, ping the other editors, something else? Xan747 (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. You don't need my (or anyone else's permission) to make an edit. Given the discussion thus far, I think it makes sense to include it. If other editors take issue, they can discuss it here and revert if consensus changes. Combefere ★ Talk 02:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Need clear consensus on Fox and NY Post

In a 'He would hurt anyone on train' accuracy discussion above, several editors gave the opinion that WP:FOX and WP:NYPOST should not be cited in this article. Subsequent to that discussion, several editors (including me) removed all citations to those outlets from the article, and any text in the article which solely relied on either them. Since then at least one edit was made relying on one or the other, and another editor reverted it. Just now, user @Ekpyros added the following new text sourced in part to Fox:

Other arrests in 2020 and 2021 included those for criminal contempt, after violating a restraining order, and public lewdness, for exposing himself to a female stranger.

I have found another source which substantiates the public lewdness arrest (but not what it was for). I could not find another source for the restraining order violation.

Irrespective of this particular edit, I think it would be good to try and establish a clear consensus on whether Fox and/or the NY Post can or cannot be cited in this article, because I don't think one exists. If we can't reach consensus for Fox, then I think this edit should stand unless consensus is reached that it should be removed for other reasons.

I hope it is appropriate to ping all the editors involved in the previous discussion: LoomCreek 92.12.7.53 Sandycee11 PriusGod Dumuzid Combefere ElleTheBelle Xan747 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

References

@Xan747 I think neither should be included as sources within the article. Fox news because of the politics involved which puts its reliability into question, something established on the WP:RS list.

And the NY Post because after 1976 it isn't considered a reliable source due to an ownership change that made it operate effectively as a tabloid. The list of RS' also mentions that it is apparently particularly bad with any stories that involve the NYPD. Which, while they are not the focus of this event, they are involved. I haven't looked into the details of this, but either of those criteria should immediately disqualify the NY Post's usage. LoomCreek (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra, pinging you b/c I see you've modified the edit in question. Xan747 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Count me as a definitely no on both. The Post is a no go per WP:NYPOST, and while Fox presents a less clear situation, I don't see any need to reach borderline sources for such small details. If it were to have a major impact on the article, I would have to think more, but as I say, this one is easy for me. Reasonable minds may certainly differ, however. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

My personal preference would be, to at the very least, getting secondary sources for any facts they add that are not in other sources.

e.g. he flashed a woman. doesn't seem to be in any other source.

this also seems redundant with all the other crimes already explicitly specified, as in, it does not remove a critical POV if that part would dissappear. Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Both are generally unreliable sources and should be removed from the article, along with any content that cannot be attributed to reliable sources. Combefere ★ Talk 19:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment Loomcreek Xan747 attempted to ping @Ekpyros: above, but mistagged her as "ElleTheBelle." Elle, please add a proper link to your user page, talk page, or user contribution list per WP:SIGLINK to avoid such confusion in the future. Combefere ★ Talk 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere Small correction, Xan747 attempted to ping them, not me LoomCreek (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No to Fox as well as Post I think that in politically charged situations like this, Fox has serious issues with reliability - it is well established consensus that Fox's political reporting is generally unreliable and seems to not ever have had a consensus regarding its reliability on other subjects in the first place. With that consensus missing, I think that some of Fox's claims may be worth investigating for their inclusion in the article, but they NEED to be corroborated by actual RS, and Fox of course should not be cited in that situation.

If any editor wishes to include something they read or saw on Fox, it would do them well to raise the issue on talk or to look through RS reporting to find something that backs up that claim.

All that being said, I don't think a detailed criminal history of Neely is even relevant - this page is here to inform about the killing of Neely and the immediate circumstances surrounding it. The description of Neely's criminalization lacks balance without a description of how that increasingly impacted his mental health, and I don't think either are necessary to describe Neely's background as it pertains to the situation at hand, which is why we're here.

While some background is warranted, and I don't think his criminal history needs to be scrubbed from the article, (as I've said before) we don't need to include every crime Neely ever committed, just like how we don't need to include detailed descriptions of Penny's deployments, should RS end up reporting about that. PriusGod (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Just want to briefly say that I quite agree with this. I definitely think we're going into a bit too much detail, but happy to go with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod, @Dumuzid, Ive got you both for no on Fox, I assume no to the Post as well? Xan747 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Definitely no to Post - sorry I didn't make that clear, I thought it was implied. PriusGod (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod, no worries, I just wanted to be absolutely sure. Xan747 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Definite no to NY Post as well here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed as well, no to both. In the spirit of being cautious regarding BLP concerns, we should be using sources that are very clearly and undeniably reliable. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Timeline of call to police

The incident section indicates that there is some confusion around the timeline of the call to police. Truthdig is the only source I see that reports a call went out to police at 2:20pm. The other two sources cited are NBC, which states that the first call to police was around 2:25, and NYT, which states that the first call to police was at 2:27. I don't think that the NBC or NYT sources are in conflict, and both are reliable sources per WP:RSP. Truthdig is not listed at WP:RSP, and I don't see any other sources listing the first call as 2:20. I'd like to change the paragraph to indicate that the first call to police was at 2:27, and remove Truthdig's reference from this paragraph. @LoomCreek Poppa shark (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So, a couple of quick thoughts. Inclusion or lack thereof at WP:RSP is really not determinative of anything. It exists only for sources that are frequently brought up in discussion. It is entirely possible for something to not be listed there and to be completely reliable or totally unreliable. Also, the fact that Truthdig represents a different narrative than other sources is neither here nor there really, though I do think if that is the only source we have for the alternate timeline, it is probably not WP:DUE for inclusion as a significant minority opinion. So I would say more sources or probably better without it, but happy to be wrong if consensus decides otherwise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'd agree that WP:RSP isn't the end all be all, and if a source not on the list isn't opposed by anything, there's no issue. However, in this case, we have two sources that are recognized as reliable that are in opposition to a source that isn't listed, so we shouldn't assume reliability. I agree, if another source lists 2:20 as the time of the first call, the paragraph is fine. Poppa shark (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Poppa shark, I can't remember if I'm the one who cited the Truthdig piece or not (I think I did not), but I did write the text about the time discrepancies between various sources, and directly quoted the article with an in-text citation about how the timeline didn't make sense to that author in recognition of the fact that the time reported was somewhat of an outlier, and that the author seemed to be editorializing. Reading all the sources, I think it's unclear whether the times being reported are when the 911 calls were received, or when the NYPD were notified by 911, or when dispatch sent the calls out over the radio to officers. There is also a question about how long Penny applied the chokehold: the widely reported 15-minutes attributed to Vazquez is contradicted by his own statements to CNN, where he said that the two men were on the floor for about seven minutes. BTW: Fox and NY Post both agree and are specific that the first 911 calls were received at 2:26 PM, attributed to NYPD sources ... but there is emerging consensus that they simply cannot be relied upon for use in this article due to its highly politicized nature.

TL;DR: the actual timeline is critical; had emergency responders arrived a few minutes sooner, Neely might have lived. Since multiple sources disagree, I think it is better to include all of them rather than trying to choose, but I am not adamant about including Truthdig. However, since @LoomCreek did the revert, I would like to hear from them before offering a firmer decision. Xan747 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747 I'm not super bound to the source but I felt it should be discussed first given the wide nature. The first aspect was that something being on or off the WP:RS list is not indicative of reliability.

There are still potential inconsistencies with the times. Mainly that the NYPD's own media release indirectly contradicted the first call being at 2:27pm. (However 'responded' is a vague term so it's hard to say)

I've also seen some local sources state 2:25 pm for the first call (non 911?) but haven't used them since I don't know how reliable that would be. If it's true it might explain the media release inconsistency. LoomCreek (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Oh I accidentally glossed over sharks mention of the 2:25 time, sorry about that. LoomCreek (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen the sources that state 2:25, but all of them I've seen, including yours, say either about 2:25 or approximately 2:25, both of which seem consistent with the first call being received at 2:27. I agree responded is a vague term, but I take it to mean the time that a unit told the dispatch was on their way. Poppa shark (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Poppa shark Just for clarification the source I used states 2:25 and 2:27 as separate calls (but I'm not opposed to the removal) LoomCreek (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreek, yes around 2:25 is clearly rounding and we should keep that out. Agree not being on RS list is not indicative of reliability either way. The reason I could be swayed from dropping the Truthdig piece is that it's an op-ed clearly critical of NYPD's response time that doesn't seem to contain any original reporting. OTOH, it's the only secondary source I've found which makes the point that certain things about the timeline don't make sense, with which I agree, so I'm keen to include anything which questions that. I'm on the fence, you seem to be on the fence, @Dumuzid leans toward exclude as does @Poppa shark. That sounds like consensus to exclude to me. Xan747 (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Include Penny's version of events?

In the news today is an on-camera interview of Penny released by his legal team, covered by BET and ABC 7 Chicago, among others. From the combination of both sources, I added the following text to the article in various places where they were contextual:

• According to Penny, Neely also said, "I'm going to kill you."
• Penny said, "between stops is only a couple of minutes" / Penny said the transit time "is only a couple of minutes."
• Penny said, "the whole interaction lasted less than 5 minutes."

@LoomCreek reverted those changes, saying in the edit summaries:

• why are we using a penny, a non neutral observer as a source for this? [re: chokehold duration of five minutes, Neely saying "I'm going to kill you.]
• not an appropriate place to put this information given the source [re: time btw stations "a couple of minutes."]
• Not at all appropriate to include Penny as some neutral source for the timeline of events. [re: time btw stations.]

My understanding of NPOV is that it does not preclude inclusion of material supporting a particular POV so long as it is reliably sourced, and so long as multiple POVs are proportionally represented. Policy also encourages explicit in-text attribution in such cases so the reader can more easily judge potential bias. Further, it is very common practice in articles about people accused or convicted of serious crimes to include the accused person's descriptions of events. I submit that it is entirely NPOV to include Penny's descriptions of events; indeed I argue that it would be a violation of NPOV to not include them. Xan747 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747 The main issue is the location of the information. It's not a neutral source and shouldn't be given the same weight as bystanders and witnesses. If it was under Daniel Penny's section with clear attribution that would be different. LoomCreek (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with LoomCreek. Penny is not a neutral observer. His comments on elapsed time are particularly dubious, as I doubt he was checking the time while applying the chokehold. Perhaps his statement that Neely wanted to kill him is relevant, but in Penny's voice in his subsection. WWGB (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both for your feedback. I don't contest that Penny has a clear bias. However, I have found nothing in policy saying that weight is determined by neutrality. What I do read is weight is determined by relative prominence in RSs, and that often, neutrality is obtained by presenting all prominent POVs and letting the reader decide which view is the most credible. Policy seems very clear that we don't get to decide, and that our job is to "describe disputes, but not engage in them," emphasis in the original. Now, I am a very new editor so it is entirely possible I've missed a nuance or ten. If so, please point out any rule(s) or guidance you think I've overlooked.

In the meantime, it seems like you're both ok adding Penny's statements to his section of the article (though WWGB may object to me including the five minutes claim), and I will do so with the stipulation that I disagree with the placement and don't consider the matter closed. Xan747 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I suspect Penny's claim about Neely's threats ought to be qualified a bit more heavily. Were Neely alive the claim that he repeatedly threatened to kill Penny would be the subject of another BLPCRIME debate (the crime would be menacing in the third degree).

It seems to me that including the aforementioned claim without indicating somehow that the claim is inconsistent with other people's testimonies and that it is in Penny's interest to exaggerate the danger that Neely represented carries the implication that Wikipedia is of the opinion that Penny's killing of Neely was justified as self defense, a claim that is not currently substantiated by court proceedings.

I think replacing the word-for-word quote with something along the lines of "[...] the accused alleged that Neely repeatedly threatened his life [...]" would suffice, but establishing consensus would be nice since that wording flies very close to MOS:DOUBT - but of course, indicating a small amount of doubt is the goal here. PriusGod (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod, We wouldn't have to explain to readers that the marine's version of events differs from witnesses if his accounts were included inline with them. And a good reason to quote the marine directly, as I have done, instead of paraphrasing him is so that it's in his voice, not Wikipedia's. Xan747 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Putting it inline would very clearly be WP:UNDUE, which is not simply meant to be a reflection of newspaper sources, nor is it blind. (Penny themselves is not a neutral reliable source on the events) This has been explained in previous discussions on this article's talk page. Penny statements absolutely should not be put right next to neutral witnesses. LoomCreek (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You should stop using the name of the marine, even in talk. It's not at all obvious to me that quoting him inline with Vazquez et al. is clearly undue; that section contains no mention of bias. And it very clearly says weight is determined by relative prominence in RS, so I'm really struggling to understand your statement about "reflection of newspaper sources." If you could point me to the relevant talk section, that would be appreciated. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop us using Penny's name on the talk page. He is also named in 26 source titles. That horse bolted weeks ago. WWGB (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of wp:blp is, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages." Emphasis in the original. This is not the thread to discuss the ramifications of your other (good) points. Xan747 (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That does not say we cannot name Penny, just that we must be careful what we say about him here. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you: we should be able to name him everywhere, but that's not how policy has been interpreted. If we can't name him in the article per the RfC, we can't name him anywhere, including here. Xan747 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I shall continue to call him Penny here. Bring it on . WWGB (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No desire to badger you about it. However, I did just drop a WP:BLPDELETE argument on the closing editor's talk page with the aim of reopening the discussion as a referendum on policy OR application of his interpretation to other similar articles out of compliance with it. Xan747 (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Marine" capitalization

I feel as though I recall a discussion here about capitalization of the word "Marine" in the lead, but couldn't find it - regardless, the usage of "the Marine" is inconsistent throughout the article, and it appears both capitalized and not capitalized in various places. I propose that we capitalize it in at lease all instances in which "the Marine" is used to replace Penny's name, as it is a proper adjective, but thought since there was some discussion about it in the past I ought to bring it up here. PriusGod (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@PriusGod, see WP:MARINE:

-----

Terms such as soldier, sailor, marine, and coast guardsman are not capitalized when describing an individual or a group, but are when used as a rank (see above).

Correct: The soldiers landed on the beach.

Incorrect: John Doe is a Marine

-----

However, if quoting a source directly, then preserve whichever case is in the source text (I can't remember where I read that, sorry). Xan747 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll get on that. I didn't think that the MOS would cover the usage of proper adjectives - egg on my face for not checking. PriusGod (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done PriusGod (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Quote in "Accused" section

On May 5, 2023, the accused's attorneys released a statement offering the accused's condolences to Neely's family, stating that the accused "never intended to harm Mr. Neely and could not have foreseen his untimely death" and that "[w]hen Mr. Neely began aggressively threatening the accused and the other passengers, Daniel, with the help of others, acted to protect themselves, until help arrived."

The latter half of this sentence includes Penny's name, however, it became extremely clunky when I tried to remove it and I haven't been able to think of a way to make it less uncomfortable without introducing highly ambiguous pronouns. Any input here? PriusGod (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can just summarize the quote instead of using the full quote? Honestly the only information we need from it is he is they said he didn't intend to harm, and they acted to protect themselves til help arrived. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think when dealing with statements from lawyers about their clients (and witnesses, law enforcement, the accused themself, etc.), that direct quotes are better than paraphrasing. In a direct quote that refers to the accused by name, it is perfectly acceptable to substitute the name with a label in [square brackets].

As for what to call "the accused", I think it's better to use a more neutral term. I thought it was fine to call him "the marine". Xan747 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Name inclusion (2)

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'd like to reopen a discussion of the name inclusion of the accused. Not including his name is absolutely ludicrous considering he has now been indicted by a grand jury, and his name is completely public. Wikipedia never does this with criminal cases. TheXuitts (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree, especially since the chokehold is a matter of fact not criminality. Personally I think policy allows the name inclusion before the indictment happened. LoomCreek (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's just that now that he's indicted it's especially ridiculous that his name isn't included. TheXuitts (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The admin who closed the RfC ruled on the basis that the marine doesn't fit the criteria for a "public figure", and thus by a "dogmatic" interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME, he cannot be named until such time as he is convicted. So I think a good question to ask is why this case requires a "dogmatic" interpretation. Do you have any examples of articles that went to something like an RfC and the ruling was that the accused person could be named? Xan747 (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about ones with rulings, but Derek Chauvin's name was put almost immediately on the Murder of George Floyd page before his conviction. Bryan Kohberger's name was put up on the 2022 University of Idaho killings page after his indictment. Neither Chauvin not Kohberger are public figures, but all of these people are homicide suspects and their names are as relevant as the victim's. TheXuitts (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is one of the most bizarre RfC outcomes I have seen on Wikipedia. The RfC was commenced six weeks ago, even before Penny was charged. So much has happened since then that makes Penny's earlier situation null and void. The RfC only covered exclusion of Penny's name from the lead, but the closing admin unilaterally extended the ban to the entire article. I strongly support the re-opening of this topic, and a fresh decision based on the circumstances at this time, not six weeks ago. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, The ruling also was in my opinion unrepresentative of the actual consensus and arguments made within the actual Rfc. It just seems really strange to rule so unilaterally without properly consulting the actual discussions. LoomCreek (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC outcome & decision by the closing editor should probably be challenged through appropriate channels. Unfortunately I don't have the time to properly appeal this or put together an intelligible request for re-evaluation, however. Strong support for other admins to take a look at this closure, and get second opinions. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@LoomCreek and WWGB: The WP:AN boards would be the place to do this, correct? Perhaps in the coming several (4 - 5) days I can put something together, if nobody else beats me to it. Maybe there is no local consensus, but I disagree with the reading & interpretation of BLP issues and feel the RfC closing decision and outcome should be reviewed. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if an escalation might be seen as forum-shopping, especially without clear local consensus. Perhaps it would be better to draft an argument for inclusion and submit that to the closing admin for consideration in the event we can reach a much clearer local consensus than we had in the RfC. Xan747 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with SFR, and I don't think he would take a close review as out of bounds. It is just essentially asking for wider community input. I don't believeanyone doubts that the close was made in good faith and of a rather thorny (if oft repeated) issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think we should try revisit here and reach a strong consensus based on recent developments before going anywhere else with it. And my preference would be to take that to SFR first before any decision to escalate. But I don't think I'd be too put out if other more experienced editors feel differently. And point of order ... is it maybe time to ping the editors involved with the two previous discussions and the RfC? Xan747 (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. Since the RFC was just closed, I think it would be improper to try to drum up momentum for a new RFC or even a new big discussion. Consensus can change, of course, but it can come off as a bit bludgeon-y if you try to overturn a consensus so very quickly. That is different, however, than challenging the close. So if you want so sort of build momentum for a discussion/RFC a way down the road, I guess that's okay, or if you'd like to challenge, that's okay. My hunch is that a challenge would wind up with the conclusion that SFR was within his discretion, but my fortune telling skills are greatly diminished. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting nuances there, food for thought. But I think some distance would do me good too; I had a devil of a time getting to sleep last night. Xan747 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point it seems like there's sufficient appetite among editors for a revisit, given the changing circumstances. While it's not usual to re-discuss something so soon, it isn't totally unheard of either. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree it's not unheard of. I might suggest that the changing circumstances are not directly responsive to the WP:BLPCRIME concerns, which, as we all know well now, says "until conviction." To be clear, I am not sure that's the best way the policy could be written, but it's what we have for the moment. While I wouldn't say there's anything strictly wrong with revisiting the issue right now, I think it might reduce the chance of success. But heaven knows I am often wrong! Happy Friday whatever happens! Dumuzid (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@TheXuitts, ok thanks. Eric Garner's killer, Daniel Pantaleo was never even charged, but is named in the article. Xan747 (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

A new discussion probably is warranted at some point with the way the last RfC proceeded with changing situation. Seeing as the closure was no consensus to include, rather than consensus to exclude there doesn't need to be necessarily be a wait period for a new discussion. I assume it will be same with people arguing the fact that BLPCRIME says we should consider not including name means we should not include. There's been 4-5 discussion on this, so no one can claim editors haven't considered not including it. So as far as I believe, policy has been more than followed. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

At least three editors in the "exclude" camp noted that charges had not been made at the time of their comment. Now that Penny has been charged, the balance may change. WWGB (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also assert that much of Penny's behavior in the time since the early days of that discussion has been largely that of a "public figure," which was a core part of my argument that I presented - that Penny has made no effort whatsoever to conceal his name past several days after the event and has released multiple videos with the clear intent to gather public goodwill with no apparent desire to remain anonymous.

Additionally, his family has a GoFundMe - while the goal of it is not to get views and clicks but to pay for lawyers' fees, crowdfunding campaigns are by definition attention-seeking behavior. I'm not saying the man wants to be a celebrity on the scale of Rittenhouse, but he is absolutely doing work that has the effect of (and in some cases the intent to) bringing attention to his name. PriusGod (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

While I am an exclusionist by nature, if we accept the WP:BLPCRIME rationale, this strikes me as the most compelling argument for inclusion. The defendant has certainly taken public steps. I am not sure at this point that it would be enough to flip me for inclusion in the article, but it has been some time since I looked into it. All that said, if people would like a close review, that is certainly understandable. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely second this. TheXuitts (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Exactly my thinking. TheXuitts (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Until there's a conviction here it's going to be difficult to make a case here because WP:BLPCRIME is a policy. He wasn't a public figure before this incident so there's very little wiggle room here. Even though I agree it's kind of silly to exclude the name, this is the policy so I endorse the close. Nemov (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't why people keep focusing on whether they were a public figure before the event. At this point Penny is a public figure which clearly exempts them from the policy.

  It doesn't matter that it's only because of this event and means they won't have their own article. LoomCreek (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article" LoomCreek (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also per WP:BLPNAME "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."

  In this case it's both been widely disseminated and we lose both significant context if don't include Daniel Penny's name. There really is no legitimate standing to exclude his name. LoomCreek (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  LoomCreek, please self revert your addition of the name. Reinstating contentious BLP material requires consensus, and there was literally just an RFC, as you're well aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, as it's a BLP violation, I've rolled back. If you restore it again without a consensus that meets or exceeds the WP:CONLEVEL of the RFC, you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I mean this in a kind way, isn't it pretty clear at this point that the consensus points toward it's inclusion? Not to mention the unusual timing with the indictment happening on the same day as the closing.

  I made the edit, as I very clearly mentioned in the edit summary, because a new discussion was almost immediately opened up by the actual community of editors on this article.

  While I understand your closing was in good faith, it is entirely unreflective of the actual consensus. LoomCreek (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Opening a discussion is not even close to the level required by WP:ONUS. Now, according to you I have no "standing" to make the arguments I have, but I would appreciate it if you try to afford me the same respect I do you. If that's not possible, so be it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I was specifically addressing Nemov's argument for exclusion, not yours. Saying that Penny doesn't meet public figure status, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It wasn't a personal attack, and there's no reason to infer that. Let's deal with problem at hand, which is that the closing made a decision, in good faith, that isn't representative of the arguments made or consensus. LoomCreek (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is what you're looking for. The consensus, or lack of consensus, from an RFC cannot be overturned by a few of the people from the RFC deciding they don't like the result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  I do intend to file a review of the closure over at WP:AN, as I believe that is the appropriate venue, correct?

  At the moment I don't have a lot of free time to do so, and I'm hoping someone else beats me to it. This is gonna take me a number of days to get around to. Not to mention that a thorough review of all these various BLP related discussions and creation of a cogent summary of differing arguments (along with reasons for why the decision should be possibly overturned) will also take a fair amount of time.

  In the meantime, if anyone else wants to make a post to WP:AN requesting a review of the closure please do so! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  LoomCreek has already done so! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I see it there now. Thank you! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  I did not infer that it was a personal attack. Instead I am asking that you accept that reasonable minds can differ on the question at hand, and that there are acceptable arguments for and against. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

change mentions of race to be blank seeing as there is no evidence that the crimes committed were racially motivated. VViIIiamMinerva (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I think it should be quite obvious why a motive would not be the only reason to include mentions of race in this article. Cannolis (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason that "we don't have motive" is not enough reason to remove it, is that for some, ethics is mostly about intention, and for others, outcomes are more important.

It is a major POV that this is an extension of a system that creates negative outcomes, regardless of the intent of individual people at a given time.

I hope you consider this a satisfying answer 😀 Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Neely's race is mentioned by virtually every source cited in the article, and is clearly WP:DUE. The implication that the crime was racially motivated is your own. See the previous discussion in the archive, and the plethora of linked discussions within that discussion. Combefere ★ Talk 02:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Penny is not a serving marine

An editor has replaced every occurrence of Penny with "the marine". Penny is no longer serving, so that label is erroneous. Should we use "ex-marine", "the accused" or some other label? Opinions sought. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that Penny has now been indicted by the grand jury, his name should probably be included in the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

My bad, I probably should have done ex-marine or the accused throughout. I was just updated to reflect RFC closing. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

My fault for using "the marine" as well. Would prefer "ex-marine" to "accused" as being more neutral but will accept either, can't think of any other option. Xan747 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I commend to everyone's reading, at least once, this from the official Marine Corps website:
https://www.marines.com/life-as-a-marine/life-in-the-marine-corps/once-a-marine-always-a-marine.html
("Once a Marine, Always a Marine") – There truly is no such thing as a former Marine, as after service our Marine Veterans are just as dedicated to advancing our Nation and defending its ideals.

The term "Marine veteran" adequately conveys that they are no longer in active service, for whatever reason.

ETA, later: Have changed all non-quoted occurrences to either "Marine veteran" or simply "veteran". – .Raven  .talk 05:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I was questioned on that capital "M" in "Marine". Some sources:

• United States Marine Corps rank insignia#Enlisted, e.g.: with Marines of these ranks serving as the senior enlisted Marines in a unit
• https://styleguide.militaryonesource.mil/terms/m
• https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/editors-desk/marine-vs-soldier-theres-a-difference/article_98e94b76-ec25-11df-b7c9-0017a4a78c22.html
• https://archive.nytimes.com/afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/when-every-letter-counts/
  We will now capitalize Marine and Marines when referring to individual members of the United States Marine Corps. Under the previous rule, we capitalized references to the service as a whole, but lowercased “marine” in referring to individuals. We used to say, “Three marines were wounded in the fighting.” Now we’ll say, “Three Marines were wounded in the fighting.” (We’ll make a similar change to capitalize “Coast Guardsman,” though that comes up less frequently.)

– .Raven  .talk 05:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

And for more sources re the "ex-", see here. – .Raven  .talk 06:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This was discussed in the "Marine" capitalization section above, and the 2-0 consensus was to follow WP:MARINE guidance, which is no caps when referring to individuals. If you were to take your arguments to the policy talk page, I would support you. Pending a change, I think it best to stick to current policy.

I think it is important to distinguish between active-duty/reservist status and discharged. I would prefer "ex-marine" or "former marine" over "marine veteran" or "veteran" as being the more neutral options, but most RS except Military.com and NPR are using "veteran marine." Xan747 (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, @Xan747, PriusGod, Skynxnex, WikiVirusC, and WWGB: and anyone else interested:
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "Marine" – .Raven  .talk 02:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I changed all instances of "the marine" to "the ex-marine" in the article where appropriate. If someone feels strongly he should go by some other label, I won't contest it if they make that change. Xan747 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I think "ex-marine" is probably WP:UNDUE since I don't think we know that his ex-marine-ness is really that defining of a trait at this time, as far as I know. I don't have a great replacement but I'd be supportive of figuring out a replacement (this isn't to say changing it all to "ex-marine" for now was a mistake). Skynxnex (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid referred to him as the "defendant" above, which seems softer than the suspect, or the accused, but not as flattering as ex-marine. Xan747 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of consensus to include Daniel Penny's name in the article, how should we refer to him? Suggestions have included "the accused", "the assailant", "the defendant", "ex-Marine" and "veteran". WWGB (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

• The defendant is most neutral, carrying neither implication of guilt nor heroism. Xan747 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Name him. As far as I know, we typically name the accused in criminal cases. I would do so here. Failing that, I guess we could say "the defendant". Adoring nanny (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Name Penny in the article and in the lead or use the term Assailant

Terms like "defendant" or "the accused" only make sense in a legal context regarding the case against Penny, and should be used solely to describe and reference the legal action and indictment.

Otherwise, when discussing Penny's actions and the event overall, "assailant" is both factual and accurate, as Penny is indisputably responsible for choking Neely, an act which led to the man's death (and a fact that even Penny has not denied). 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

He can always be referred to as "Marine veteran" or thereafter "veteran", per sources cited. "Defendant" works if referring to when he was charged, and thereafter until the case ends one way or another. – .Raven  .talk 02:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't refer to his marineness. What matters here is the fact he's accused of the crime, not random trivia about him. "The ex-marine" reads like something a newspaper would write for elegant variation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point here, it's not as if his being a Marine is somehow the defining element of Penny's persona or character. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Name him per Adorings argument. In absence the ex-marine. LoomCreek (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Name him or the defendant. Strongly oppose using the terms ex-Marine, veteran, et cetera. nf utvol (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Name him per my comments in what feels like a dozen disparate discussions about this subject. Combefere ★ Talk 00:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "ex-marine" or "veteran" as those terms suggest a false imbalance of power between the assailant and the victim. I prefer "assailant" as it can be used in situations prior to Penny's arrest. Of course, hope remains that Penny's name will one day be restored to the article. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Name Inclusion, reopened

Should the name of the person who killed (medically speaking) Jordan Neely be included?

This has been reopened up due to disagreements discussed within Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name inclusion (2) & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close challenge, Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Name Inclusion. And in light of the more recent developments of the case. (As the ANI disccusion started to revolve mainly on this topic rather then the closure.)-- LoomCreek (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion as I've argued in the previous discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion on a few bases:

1. Article is descriptive, not an accusations of criminality. Whether the killing was illegal remains up to the court.

2. For remaining sections, Daniel Penny is a public figure, cited in numerous reliable sources and with a platform to argue for himself through his lawyers. Whether they are notable because of this event or not is irrelevant to them now being a public figure.

3. We lose context when we exclude his name, he is a significant part of this event. To exclude his name gives the impression to an average reader he didn't perform the chokehold when he did. It warps the articles ability to actually accurately cover the topic. --LoomCreek (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion -- Neely's assailant fits the definition of a high-profile figure by seeking media attention, and self-promotion:
  • On May 20 he gave a scheduled on-camera interview with the New York Post that went beyond mere defense of his actions during the incident. Included in the piece were biographical details dating to his childhood, information about his siblings, parents, grandparents and great-grandparents and their ancestry, details of his foreign travels as an adult including photos, and details of his military service, also including a photo.
  • On June 11 his legal team released a video interview they had themselves produced in which he defends his actions.
  • Shortly after the incident, his legal team started a GiveSendGo campaign using his real name on his behalf, which to date has raised nearly three-million dollars.

  These are not the actions of a person reluctant to have their name, likeness, or details of their life publicized, but rather someone who willingly embraces the opportunity to tell his side of the story apparently believing that so-doing will improve public opinion of his actions. As such the Wikipedia article about the incident warrants the inclusion of his name. Xan747 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @.Raven has raised the question whether the video interview Neely's assailant gave to the NY Post can be used here in support of the contention that he's a public figure when there's consensus that the NY Post can't be cited in the article itself due to reliability concerns. My answer is that there's a distinction between using the Post's reporting in the article for things that are not easily verifiable -- such as the anonymous 65 year-old black woman who allegedly hailed the assailant as a hero, said that Neely had been threatening to kill people, and that she's willing to testify on his behalf -- and using the Post on a talk page to show a named person well-known to multiple RSs engaging in a self-promotional public relations campaign. Everybody knows what Neely's assailant looks like. There's little question it's him on camera saying things which are clearly self-promotional. I see no problem using that citation here to argue for classifying the former marine as a public figure. Xan747 (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Is "the anonymous 65 year-old black woman" then a public figure? She appeared in the same source. Perhaps her name can be discovered and printed here, since she's lost the considerations a non-public figure would have? – .Raven  .talk 16:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  She's a witness to an alleged crime, not alleged to have committed a crime. Therefore her hypothetical status as a public figure is not relevant. Xan747 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wait, but doesn't that lead to a strange result? WP:BLPCRIME gives more protection than WP:BLPNAME.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jerome Frank Disciple: If she voluntarily came forward as a named witness, then it would be appropriate to name her in the article same as we did for Grima and Vazquez. The value-add argument would be that using names makes it easier for readers to keep track of who said what. There's no need for the public figure test in that scenario. Xan747 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Huh. I guess what's throwing me is I'm not sure what "voluntarily came forward as a named witness" means ... unless it's "voluntarily spoke to the press as a witness and provided their name" ... but then it's Perry's interview with the press that I considered to have made him a public figure. So the tests end up looking the same to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  The tests of whether or not to name either individual are not the same because the witness isn't the one indicted on felony charges. One could argue that if she came forward, that would make her a public figure, but that test is irrelevant because she's not the one who has been indicted on felony charges. See red herring. Xan747 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  ... I don't think that's responsive to my point.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously I'm missing something. Perhaps you could restate. Xan747 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  That doesn't strike me as all that strange; BLPNAME issues can range all the way from the positive to negative, while BLPCRIME issues are always negative for the subject. Thus a higher level of protection. But reasonable minds can certainly differ! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh I agree with you. I thought Xan was suggesting the opposite—that a witness would be afforded more protection.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah. Well hopefully I've cleared things up. Xan747 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Xan747 - I would agree with you that the Post couldn't be used for the substance of what was said, but the fact of the interview is fine. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, you mean that the substance of the interview cannot be used here in the talk page to establish Neely's assailant as a public figure? Xan747 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, sorry. Bit of an appeal to hearsay concepts -- we couldn't use the interview as evidence of anything the assailant said or asserted (or anyone else, for that matter), but noting that the interview exists is perfectly fine as part of an overall argument. So yes, as part of saying he's a public figure, I think that's well within bounds. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just making sure. A reason given to exclude what the Post wrote about the anonymous witness was their history of making shit up. Publishing a video interview of a now well-recognized named individual should obviate any concerns that he's a figment of the Post's imagination. At best, one might argue that they dishonestly edited the video for whatever reason, but that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Xan747 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I supported the original RfC, but nothing has really changed per WP:BLPCRIME. This RfC should never have been be opened so close after the last one was closed correctly. The last challenge at ANI went down in flames and now a new RfC has been created far too fast. I am unmoved by arguments that this person is now a public figure or anything changed to overturn the last RfC. Since no one has made a compelling argument as to why this RfC was opened 3 days after the last one was closed this should be withdrawn. There needs to be a very clear and compelling reason to open a new RfC after one just closed and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason. Nemov (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  That is... not what IDONTLIKEIT says. The fact that many editors think the situation has changed is more than enough reason to revisit the RfC. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  As I mentioned, I don't find those arguments compelling. The editors didn't like the outcome, challenged the outcome, and then rusted to create a new RfC. This could have been opened up again in a few weeks, but 3 days is not enough. Nemov (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. By his own media-seeking actions, Daniel Penny is now a high profile individual. His identity is central to the killing of Jordan Neely. Penny is named in reliable sources around the world. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose/Exclude unless and until a conviction is reached – and then the reference should match the conviction, i.e. no reference to "murder" if that wasn't the charge convicted on. I presume you'd all insist on the same if it were your own name at issue. I know I would. WP:BLPCRIME and the presumption of innocence ask no less. We don't know what the state of evidence will be until the trial is over. E.g. will the ME's report be challenged, a second examination made, the cause of death changed? Too soon the conclusions here. – .Raven  .talk 02:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Umm, what? Penny killed Neely, period. This is factual and relevant info. Whether guilty of a crime or not, why are we censoring Wikipedia, and making it intentionally more difficult for a reader to find out information about who Penny is, what his background story and perspective is, etc? As has been mentioned previously, we don't exclude the names of people in other articles about similar events, so I don't see what makes this event special or why Penny's name should be suppressed and omitted? What is special or different here, when compared to other articles where a person's name is included for having participated in killing someone? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, the nature of Wikipedia is that local consensus is about the best we can do; articles will vary on any number of issues. For me, it simply comes down to my belief that Wikipedia should be less of a news source and more interested in conclusions. I agree that there's no doubt that Penny killed Neely, though the question of criminal culpability is out there. At any rate, that's the way I feel, but I certainly get it if my position ends up on the wrong end of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @72.14.126.22 What is special or different here, when compared to other articles where a person's name is included for having participated in killing someone?

  Yeah, I asked SFR that and he told me that dog won't hunt. And indeed the argument is discouraged enough to warrant its own shortcut WP:OTHERCONTENT. The question is interesting in its own right, but here's not the place. Drop a note on my chat if you want to chew on it a bit. Xan747 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid and Xan747: Yes, I am aware of the WP:OTHERCONTENT guidelines. But it strikes me as extremely odd that some editors here are very concerned about Penny in particular, and aren't vocal in other instances where a similar situation has arisen, and an article is written that includes the name of an accused / defendant / assailant / etc. sort of scenario. I'm not questioning motives, but the lack of consistency is why I thought challenging the close, and clarifying BLP policy could have been productive, to get opinions from outside of the deeply entrenched local consensus bubble here. It also just makes the article less informative, to intentionally exclude relevant information, based on a concern for Penny's well-being and reputation, when this individual is already speaking publicly and has been reported on internationally, in dozens of sources. Excluding Penny's name seems fruitless & pointless at this juncture, per the WP:CATOUTOFTHEBAG situation we are currently finding ourselves in, heh. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, I would support this policy across the board. But my Wikipedia time (especially for anything requiring in-depth research or attention) is sadly limited. I often duck into recent stories that attract a lot of attention mainly in an attempt to ward off outright vandalism, and sometimes to try to remind everyone that we're all on the same encyclopedic team. So I absolutely understand your point, and it is valid. But I hope you understand mine, as well. As the best saxophonist I ever knew liked to say, "nobody has enough time, but we all have all there is." Just a weekend thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid Granted I think there is a point in mentioning it as, in my opinion it seems to be a misuse of WP:BLPCRIME. People have, in good faith, been pushing an interpretation of it which hasn't been used before as if it's a hard rule. It's not and never has been, there's so much language in it that makes several intentional exceptions. For public figures, on editor discretion, and for topic accuracy. LoomCreek (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "For public figures" — See Wikipedia's Public figure:

  The controlling precedent in the United States was set in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which is considered a key decision in supporting the First Amendment and freedom of the press.

  A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to a public figure status. Typically, they must either be:

  • a public figure, a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
  • a limited purpose public figure, those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted....

  I would argue that this subject did not so much "thrust himself forward" as get dragged against his will. He is certainly not "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs".
  – .Raven  .talk 10:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @.Raven It's undeniable that he was not the first to reveal his true identity to the press; I believe it was the police. However, he was not forced to actively engage in a public relations campaign using his real name, leveraging his military service, and the litany of things irrelevant to any criminal or civil culpability he might have in relation to Neely's death. (Indeed, criminal defendants are often counseled to not make public statements and to keep as low profile as possible.) The standards set in WP:LOWPROFILE are "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication. [...] Need not be a 'household name', simply self-promotional." The results of his self-promotion include being hailed as a hero, and $3 million in donations to his legal defense. One might even argue that not including his name does him a disservice. Xan747 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "he was not forced to actively engage in a public relations" — No? He'd been subjected to massive vilification, a public campaign to prosecute him, and this didn't put him in the position of having to speak out in his own defense? Hm. I certainly hope neither you nor I nor anyone else here is caught up in such an event (as the young Central Park Five were — and they got falsely convicted, arguably due entirely to that public vilification and advance assumption of guilt), but we might feel some considerable pressure to so defend ourselves. – .Raven  .talk 18:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  He was also turned into a hero by the right-wing talking heads. So it goes both ways, in terms of his becoming a notable public figure in the media spotlight. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "He was also turned into a hero by the right-wing talking heads."

  Do we now base our decisions on what right-wing talking heads say? – .Raven  .talk 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  The point is that he's been vilified AND lionized in the popular press, which makes your one-sided complaint about the vilification fall a little flat, as it does your argument that he was somehow compelled to go on a pubic relations campaign. He was not, that was a choice. And it has worked to the tune of three-million dollars. There's no need to protect the man from his own self-promotion. Xan747 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  LoomCreek - forgive the ping, but this talk page has become quite convoluted! I don't really disagree with what you say here, but I have two small reactions: first is just to note Wikipedia's reliance on local consensus rather than global. I understand everyone is aware of this, but it's something I think actually worthwhile. The second is the policy itself. As I keep saying, I guess I kind of favor it in its current form? But it could certainly use clarification. And I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were changed to something more of a notability test. But I feel like that's a conversation that should be had directly, rather than arguing for exceptions, if that makes sense. As ever, certainly one where people can differ in all good faith, and if consensus should decide my thoughts are immaterial, it's probably for the best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "some editors here are very concerned about Penny in particular, and aren't vocal in other instances where a similar situation has arisen"
  In my case, that would be due to not seeing those pages when the discussion occurred.
  Wikipedia is large, and I haven't a chance of watching all that goes on. – .Raven  .talk 09:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  In 2018 CMGLaw reported, "Studies from various states show that somewhere between 30-50% of death certificates list incorrect causes of death."

  A 2017 study at the NLM/NIH website reported: "Of 601 original death certificates... A total of 580 (93%) death certificates had a change in ICD-10 codes between the original and mock certificates, of which 348 (60%) had a change in the underlying cause-of-death code."

  Don't assume too much, too early. – .Raven  .talk 07:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Trying to argue this is ridiculous on its face. But If you want to discuss this start a new talk section, as it's irrelevant to the discussion on criminality vs medical terms. As it's best to prevent the thread from becoming unnecessarily long. LoomCreek (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's one of many factors going into why we wait for a conviction, not just an indictment or even the start of a trial. Too much can happen. It's not over 'til it's over. Many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. Don't count your chickens 'til they're hatched. And many other sayings born of people's experiences with jumping to premature conclusions. – .Raven  .talk 09:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  One other thing: potential jurors, not yet called, read Wikipedia. Do you want to have it turn out that they got prejudiced in the case (or any case) by what Wikipedia said about a named defendant? Tell me you have some idea what the potential fallout could be. – .Raven  .talk 09:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  There is no potential fallout. Potential jurors read lots of sources besides Wikipedia, and all WP:RS name Penny, often in headlines. The idea that our naming of Penny will affect jurors is rather far-fetched. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please read more carefully: "by what Wikipedia said about  a named defendant".

  We've had several talkpage comments rather too forcefully assert this named person "definitely killed" someone. No trial has started yet to establish even that as a proven fact. In many other cases, perhaps around half of them, re-examinations have changed the cause of death. We don't know whether this will turn out to be one, if the defense asks for a re-examination. It is far too soon for us to name him as a killer, let alone as a murderer. That some newspapers may have done so, without even the fig-leaf of "alleged", does not relieve any other "publication" (like Wikipedia) of responsibility — if the allegation fails to be proven in a court of law. Changing the article after acquittal or dismissal on the grounds there was a different cause of death (e.g. some brain disease or injury that perhaps had also caused such erratic behavior shortly before death) would be too late. This is one reason we should wait to see whether there's a conviction. – .Raven  .talk 17:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  .Raven: Daniel Penny killed Neely by putting him in a chokehold that lasted several minutes, restricting his ability to breath.

  Neely's manner of death was determined to be due to homicide: "A spokesperson for the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner explained that 'manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider'." The source for that is from CNN, and it's cited in our article. Please drop the legal blah blah blah. Guilty or not of a crime, Penny killed Neely, end of story. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I hate to keep repeating myself, but initial cause-of-death decisions are frequently changed on re-examination, which is why defense attorneys frequently ask courts to order such re-examinations. We don't know yet whether this defense will request, or the court grant, such a re-examination, or (if it takes place) what its outcome will be. That leaves us still, now, without a final determination of that fact. In short words, it's too soon to say that for sure. – .Raven  .talk 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is going off-topic. This discussion is about whether to name Neely's assailant, not what or who killed him. I'd suggest taking that discussion here. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  If all that happened was "assailing" Neely, and someone gets convicted of it, then name that person in an article not titled "The killing of Jordan Neely", and don't let the lede's first sentence state Neely "was killed by ___". – .Raven  .talk 20:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll just point out that per WP:DEATHS, a coroner's report determining that the cause of death is a homicide is enough to justify the title of an article being "Killing of..." instead of "Death of..." The assertion that all coroner's reports must be verified in the course of a legal proceeding (when the vast majority of them don't even precipitate court cases) before they can be used by Wikipedia is so far removed from Wikipedia policy and practice and would be so incalculably detrimental to our ability to report the most basic and easily verifiable facts about an article that it cannot be taken seriously. Combefere ★ Talk 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose/Exclude essentially per Nemov. Indictment does not, for me, change the analysis under WP:BLPCRIME. Also, as I have said many times, while I understand the public figure argument, it would make the policy seem to me to be surplusage, so I would oppose on those grounds, though as I like to say, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all, and hope everyone is enjoying the weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  "while I understand the public figure argument, it would make the policy seem to me to be surplusage"

  I have to disagree with this interpretation, which as you note has been repeated often by editors arguing for exclusion. As I note in this comment, there are still cases where BLP precludes editors from including certain information about certain people. The identity of Neely's killer (not suspected killer, not alleged killer, his undeniable, widely named and reported actual killer) is just not one of them.

  I view this argument as a particularly unconvincing straw-man. It is not my position (nor any of the other editors arguing for inclusion that I can see) that BLP has no applicability to any information on Wikipedia. Combefere ★ Talk 15:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion - Sorry, Neely has voluntarily made himself a public figure by seeking attention and trying to build sympathy for himself. He should be named. I would go so far as to argue that anyone accused of a notable crime should be named as they become a public figure, but even a conservative reading of BLP indicates that he has forfeited any right to not be named. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion per WWGB 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose (once again) per WP:BLPCRIME. ~ HAL333 04:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion the (medical) killer is widely named in reliable secondary sources covering the killing. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Include. According to WP:LPI Penny is a high-profile individual: he has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication (the New York Post), and has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for his own defense, as reported in numerous independent RSes, e.g. NPR. WCBS, WNBC, NY1, and Insider. Several of them outright name him as Neely's killer: "In his first interview since placing Jordan Neely in a fatal chokehold, former U.S. Marine Daniel Penny ..."; "Penny doubled down on his defense ... explaining why he put the 30-year-old Neely in the chokehold that killed him ..."; "Daniel Penny, who held a homeless man in a chokehold on a New York subway causing his death ...", making Penny's identity central to the topic. Whether he is criminally culpable is a separate matter from the well-documented fact that his actions caused Neely's death. Omitting Penny's name at this point seems like (so to speak) a whitewash. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC) edited 10:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Include. No one, including Penny, is disputing that Penny killed Neely. As others have mentioned, Penny voluntarily said this and gave interviews about it. Name him. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I supported the last RFC and still support the name inclusion here however nothing has changed since the last RFC - WP:BLPCRIME states "For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." and according to sources (examples [6][7]) an indictment is not a conviction .... It's the first step to a criminal prosecution but it's not a conviction .... so therefore nothing has really changed since the last RFC and what has changed doesn't appear to be enough to meet BLPCRIME. –Davey2010^Talk 11:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Davey2010: You appear to support inclusion of Penny's name but you !voted "oppose"? This is a fresh RfC, not a review of the old one. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Well yeah .... It makes sense to include his name .... but BLPCRIME forbids it .... Wasn't that obvious enough to you?, I didn't state anywhere in my !vote that it was a review either. I simply took note of BLPCRIME and the last RFC-closers comments. –Davey2010^Talk 12:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME does not forbid anything. Rather "editors must seriously consider not including material". It is that consideration that we are deliberating in this section. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing the larger point. There was a RfC about this already. A few of us supported inclusion and the close pointed out the BLPCRIME policy. Nothing has changed in 3 days except a few of the supporters of inclusion now back the closer's comments. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

^^ What Nemov said. Seems like everyone has read and understand the closers comments except for the OP and WWGB who are still bringing up everything that was already discussed to death in the last RFC. Makes no sense. –Davey2010^Talk 14:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What the hell? Including Penny's name alone, and stating the facts about the event, does not in any way whatsoever imply that Penny committed a crime. Some folks here are really missing the point of this discussion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The article opens with "Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, was killed by..." — which is a definite statement on OUR part, in advance of a court establishing that fact. If the court finds otherwise, for example due to a re-examination changing the cause of death (which I've already cited sources saying happens in many other cases), then legally we would have asserted a false accusation. Bad enough as it is, with the sentence completed by a general description. Worse if we've actually named him. – .Raven  .talk 18:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The killing here is about as close to fact as we are ever likely to come. It is not disputed by anyone at all, even the indicted person. We are well within our rights to say "killed by." Criminal culpability is still an open question, so it would only be wrong if we assigned some sort of legal category or consequence to the act. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: We follow reliable sources, which all say, very definitively, that Penny killed Neely. It was also ruled a homicide by a medical examiner. These are the facts at hand, and can't be contradicted simply because you are worried that things may change in the future. If new information comes to light, and if reliable sources begin to report on these events differently, then the article will be edited and updated accordingly. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: "If the court finds otherwise, for example due to a re-examination changing the cause of death (which I've already cited sources saying happens in many other cases), then legally we would have asserted a false accusation."

That others may have stated "killed by X" as a definite fact is no comfort. Such others (including Donald Trump in full-page signed newspaper ads) definitely stated that a woman was beaten and raped by the Central Park Five — but later evidence exonerated them.

Accordingly, reliable sources often hedge their bets by saying "alleged" — "X was alleged to have killed Z", "the alleged killer" — and that's a better (if still imperfect) approach. – .Raven  .talk 19:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

All good arguments, but out of place for this discussion. Suggest you go here instead. Xan747 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If we don't have the confidence to say "was killed by", we shouldn't be saying it regardless of if we name Penny or not. Also, the court finding that Penny didn't kill Neely wouldn't make that not true. We go by what reliable secondary sources say, not what courts say. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elli Just as heads up, we do have the confidence to say it was a killing as it was ruled a homicide (medically) by a medical examiner. It's also fairly clear that the chokehold was the cause of death. Hopefully that clarifies things! LoomCreek (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we do. I was just responding to .Raven's argument. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, noted LoomCreek (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Jordan Neely was killed by Daniel Penny. This is a widely reported material fact that is substantiated by dozens if not hundreds of reliable secondary sources, and a coroner's report. It is also not information that suggests that Daniel Penny is guilty of a crime. Daniel Penny has been charged with manslaughter, not "killing." No part of the article implies that Penny is guilty of a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 15:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Where does the actual coroner's report say "killed by [name of person]"? – .Raven  .talk 06:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Public figures says, In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. A public figure is a person who has achieved notoriety, prominence or fame within a society. Both seem to apply here. The public celebration of Penny by Republicans indicates notoriety if not fame, does it not? Penny's New York Post interview justifying his actions also seems to satisfy the more restrictive criteria of Penny having "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved". How exactly is Penny not a public figure under these criteria? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I dont know if we can seriously consider a NY post interview as meeting the criteria of being a public figure since this material would not be acceptable on the basis of reliable sourcing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

They released a video interview through their lawyers, among many statements through many different reliable sources. So even excluding the NY Post, they meet the criteria easily. LoomCreek (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether the New York Post is a reliable source is not really relevant. It's a notable and widely read tabloid that is itself at the center of a great many public controversies: [8][9][10] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

So instead of "a multitude of reliable published sources", it's acceptable to count on a notably UNreliable source?

I don't think so. – .Raven  .talk 17:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: Multiple reliable sources have published the video released by his lawyers, and his Internet fundraising campaign. Either one of those on its own would satisfy the self-promotion clauses in WP:LOWPROFILE. That there are two makes the case stronger.

Note that I am using the NY Post interview in my argument for naming him. My comment here is not a concession that I shouldn't use it. Xan747 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

.Raven knows that, it's said above. Don't worry about explaining something over again when a person leads you into a circular argument. LoomCreek (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> "Note that I am using the NY Post interview in my argument for naming him" — Already noted and responded to, above. – .Raven  .talk 18:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, and? LoomCreek (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk about circular arguments! – .Raven  .talk 18:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure - LoomCreek (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Point of order: an argument going in circles is not the same as circular reasoning. IRL calls, so I'll add my justifications for using the NY Post interview under my own section later tonight. Xan747 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good - LoomCreek (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The ambiguity of "argument" here (syn.reasoning or syn.quarrel) could be easily be resolved this time by context. In this case we referred to a series of comments, not a single (looped) chain of reasoning.
See “'We have the same argument over and over.' This is one of the most common statements we hear in couples therapy sessions. If it feels like your fights never go anywhere, you may be trapped in a circular argument."
Cf. "Circular Conversations - Arguments which go on almost endlessly, repeating the same patterns with no resolution." – .Raven  .talk 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: no one is suggesting we use the NY Post as a source. The argument is that Penny himself used his interview in the NY Post to gain publicity and influence the resolution of his case. How does that not make him a public figure? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment I agree that Penny's actions make him both a high-profile individual, and a public figure. I have refrained from making this statement thus far, because I believe it has been (and is still) irrelevant to the discussion; editors arguing for opposition have not yet even made a substantial case that Penny's name should be removed from the article if he were a low-profile individual. I believe it is important for BLP interpretation for us to have the discussion on those grounds. However, I will reiterate that I do agree that Penny is both a high-profile individual and a public figure at this point. Combefere ★ Talk 17:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose: @LoomCreek: This is too much. You're in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. You started the last RFC, which closed three days ago. You then opened a challenge to that close, based on both (1) alleged error by the closer and (2) new information since the close. A majority of participants were opposing that challenge. You then withdrew that challenge and started a new RFC here. How is that not WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I want to second Nemov's and User:Davey2010's comments and reiterate what I said at the close challenge: While I supported inclusion in the original RFC, largely based on Perry's press interaction (the public statement and later interview), I do not think it was unreasonable that other editors disagreed, particularly because, on the spectrum of public figures, Perry would certainly be a minor one. I also don't think anything that has happened since the RFC affects the WP:BLPNAME analysis. To be clear: I still think Perry's name should probably be included: In Kenosha unrest shooting, we include Rittenhouse's name (as we should) even though he was tried and (controversially) found innocent. But I also think treating the absence of Perry's name as a 5-alarm fire worthy of several RFCs (and even more talk-page sections) is overkill. Per WP:CCC, "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." I think this is falling on the latter side of the line.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Clarification: In light of the fact that I think the prior close was valid and that the information that has emerged since the last RFC would not have shifted that RFC (and thus the only reason for a distinct outcome would be a different audience), I oppose.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jerome Frank Disciple I did this on the basis of support from a significant amount of the editors. You have no basis to claim WP:DROPTHESTICK. -LoomCreek (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think WP:DROPTHESTICK is relevant given what I discussed above, and the propriety of opening a second RFC three days after the last one ended is absolutely pertinent to the topic at hand.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  It might be untypical, but the closing of the discussion was too. I opened the Rfc after careful consideration and after the suggestion of several editors in the very ANI & discussions you mentioned. There's a reason I linked both discussions above. You don't have basis for WP:DROPTHESTICK, this isn't me acting on my own or trying force discussion. Editors took serious issue with the decision, even though it was made in good faith.

  I ask that you move this or further parts about this to the discussion section below, we don't want to clog up the actual topic with stuff like this. LoomCreek (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  "It might be untypical, but the closing of the discussion was too." See, there. By my read, that lets the cat out of the bag. The propriety of the close was something to be brought up at WP:AN (which will result in the close being tested on a reasonableness standard, not a good-faith standard). You did bring it up there, and you received very little support—it was very obvious that there wasn't a consensus to overturn the close. But before a closer could close that discussion, you "withdrew" it, closed the discussion, and then started this discussion here, and now you're citing the propriety of the close as a reason you've started another RFC. But that's WP:FORUMSHOPPING.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  See response below. (in discussion section) - LoomCreek (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Concur: this is WP:FORUMSHOPPING. – .Raven  .talk 17:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Challenging a close is not forum shopping. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Did you actually read the comment I replied to? – .Raven  .talk 18:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  For the record, I did not see this request at WP:AN. Had I seen it, I would have supported it there. The fact that it was not vigorously defended in its less than 24 hour life there was likely due to its limited visibility. Editors engaged in this discussion over policy should not be assumed to scour every AN every day. Combefere ★ Talk 15:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I pinged you (and others involved) for that very reason. However, I've noticed that notifications aren't always reliable. Xan747 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciate the ping. It was after the initial round of pings by LoomCreek. I saw it after the AN closed, at the same time that I saw the ping on this discussion here. Combefere ★ Talk 21:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  You're welcome. Things moved pretty fast then. Still are. Xan747 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on procedure and policy. Rittenhouse was very different as he showed up at a very public protest, with a rifle, and gave interviews right before the incident. In this situation it was a random dude on a subway interacting with what appears to be a mentally unstable individual. Nevertheless BLP is governed by policy and we've entered forum shopping territory here (I wasn't even involved in the original RfC yet I was ping summoned). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Most of the "include" !votes are themselves based on procedure and policy. Users' personal opinions about the circumstances of the incident are beside the point. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — including his name does not give, or help, our readers have a better understanding of the topic. Maybe in the future it can be included, but we are not on a deadline, we are not a newspaper. It is always best to err on the side of exclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. BLP is not violated by including Daniel Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely. There is no clause in BLP which precludes us from including this information. Editors who are arguing for exclusion seem to have the misguided interpretation of BLP that implies that we must censor any and all information about notable people who have ever been charged with any crime. This is not how BLP works, and nothing in BLP implies that it does or should work that way. We are only precluded from stating or implying that Penny is guilty of a crime (such as manslaughter). We are not precluded from including his name, or his involvement in the event that is the subject of the article. I invite all opposing editors to actually quote the relevant clause in BLP that prevents us from including the name, rather than simply asserting without explanation that BLP has somehow been violated. Thus far, no such explanation or analysis has been provided by any of the opposing editors. Combefere ★ Talk 01:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Notable person and public figure are not the same concept, and SFR was very clear in his close that the public figure standard is the hurdle to clear, and wasn't, because arguments in support of naming Neely's assailant mostly did so on the basis of his notability due to sustained coverage in multiple RSs. He specifically said he downweighted those arguments in his ruling. So it's public figure to name, otherwise not. Xan747 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  That is not a meaningful response to my argument. SFR stated that Penny was not a public figure, and cited WP:NPF but did not explain how NPF precludes us from including Penny's name or involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely from the article. The assertion that we "must clear the hurdle of proving Penny is a public figure" is one without basis. We must do no such thing. Penny is notable, and notability is enough to include him in the article.

  From NPF:

  "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

  NPF is very clear that we are allowed to include notable people who are not public figures in the article. Nothing about the inclusion of Penny's name or the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely violates any part of NPF. What specific sentence do you think is violated here, and how? Combefere ★ Talk 02:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BLPCRIME gives more specific and stricter guidance when it comes to criminal acts:

  For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

  I won't bother quoting SFR's close here, it's at the top of the page as of this writing. He's very clear that Neely's assailant must pass the public figure test to be named in the article. I don't know what else to tell you except that I was rudely surprised by a) the ruling and b) what I found when I read the policy more closely and compared it to the arguments for inclusion. Xan747 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Xan747: - as a reply to you, see my vote below. starship.paint (exalt) 03:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint, I saw that and we are in exact agreement; see my arguments near the top of the thread. The point I'm making with Combefere is that he leaves out any mention of the public figure test -- he only mentions notability, which is not the same thing, and isn't sufficient to name Neely's assailant. Xan747 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Xan747 There is no "public figure test" to leave out. BLPCRIME does not preclude us from including any and all information about notable individuals who are not public figures. It encourages (not even requires) us to exclude assertions about a person's guilt in relation to a crime if they are not a public figure. These things are not the same. Not remotely. Combefere ★ Talk 08:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Which makes the lede paragraph's "Neely was killed by X" problematic. If we could rely on the first ME's ruling (homicide) as final, we could at least say "killed" — but that so many cause-of-death findings are changed after re-examination suggests at least the possibility of it happening if the defense requests and gets a re-examination, and we won't know that until the defense rests. – .Raven  .talk 18:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is WP:CRYSTAL. It is a neutral, verifiable fact that Neely was killed. The ME's report is beyond sufficient evidence, and hundreds of secondary reliable sources corroborate it. The out of hand dismissal of this evidence is a fringe interpretation that is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The ME ruled it a homicide. The reliable sources call it a killing. We are obliged to follow suit. Combefere ★ Talk 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "The ME ruled it a homicide." — If and when the court finally agrees to homicide being a "material fact", we can say so. Stating it as a fact before then runs up against the problem that re-examinations have changed the initial cause-of-death declarations in 30%-50% of cases varying by state, and 60% in one study cited here. If the defense does NOT request or present a re-examination before it rests, I'd call that ruling a safe bet. – .Raven  .talk 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @.Raven

  If and when the court finally agrees to homicide being a "material fact", we can say so.

  Incorrect. We can say it is a killing as soon as the ME report is published, per WP:DEATHS. We can also say it is a killing without an ME report at all, if a "preponderance of secondary reliable sources" call it so (and they have!), per WP:DEATHS. See recent discussion on this point after the Killing of Tyre Nichols here.

  I'll ask that you strike all of these continued, bludgeoning comments, which are clearly opposed by WP policy, and refrain from making them in the future. Combefere ★ Talk 19:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  The article lede sentence follows "killing" with "by X" — a combination not ruled by the ME, who did not presume to name a responsible party.

  That ruling would be made by the court, not the ME (nor the papers, nor even the prosecutors).

  In the meantime, to combine the two is what WP calls synthesis. – .Raven  .talk 02:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  This would be a valid analysis, if not for the inconvenient fact that reliable secondary sources have stated outright, in no uncertain terms that Penny killed Neely.

  Here's one that lays it out in no uncertain terms:

  "Mr. Penny, apparently seeking to restrain Mr. Neely, placed him in a chokehold, killing him. The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.)"

  We are not synthesizing material from separate sources here. Dozens, if not hundreds of RSs are in agreement on the undeniable conclusion that Penny killed Neely. We are simply including the analysis from RSs, as we do for all information on all articles. Combefere ★ Talk 03:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. [X] killed Mr. Neely....)"

  While our article quotes (and cites to CNN): "manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider, the spokesperson said." [emphasis added]

  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/culpability

  So where did the ME's report name "Mr. [X]" as having "killed Mr. Neely"?

  WP:SYNTH again, plus false attribution. – .Raven  .talk 03:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  You are misapplying WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources get to synthesize. They did. We get to use their synthesis. End of story. Xan747 (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  We have other sources saying the ME's report did not assign culpability [='blame'] for Neely's death. If instead we follow one that claims it did — and it turns out it really didn't — are we not "culpable" for ignoring the discrepancy in reports to get a desired outcome? Central Park Five again. – .Raven  .talk 04:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Try this

  The city’s medical examiner said Neely died from “compression of neck (chokehold)” and declared his manner of death a homicide — a routine term used by coroners and medical examiners to mean death caused by another person, but not a finding of criminal culpability.

  My emphasis. Xan747 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody is arguing that we must assign criminal culpability to Penny. This is a straw man. Combefere ★ Talk 04:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  The ME's spokesperson, as quoted, did not specify 'criminal culpability'. – .Raven  .talk 04:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Which is not under dispute. Xan747 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody is suggesting we assign "culpability" to Penny in any sense. Nobody has suggested an edit to the article that says "Penny is culpable for Neely's death." This is a straw man.

  RSs say plainly that Penny killed Neely. We can as well. Combefere ★ Talk 04:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Saying "X killed Y" does say that X is to blame for Y's death.

  WP's rules are different from newspapers' rules. WP:NOTNEWS – .Raven  .talk 06:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  @.Raven: I agree with you, which is why I changed the lede last night. I was then overruled. This is not the thread to have that argument, however. Xan747 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Again, this does not address the substance of my argument. I'll remind you that SFR's closing argument is not WP policy, and should not be cited as such. That editor's assertion that Penny must pass the public figure test is a hollow assertion with no basis in WP policy.

As to your quotation of BLPCRIME, it still does not include an analysis of which part of BLPCRIME you believe has been violated and by what. Daniel Penny's name is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime or is accused of a crime. Stating the material fact that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely is not a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime or is accused of a crime. There has never been any sentence in the article that suggests Penny has committed a crime. BLPCRIME is not violated here. Combefere ★ Talk 03:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• So that I can better understand, would you then omit any mention of the indictment? Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Your reading of BLPCRIME is far too strict. It's meant for circumstances such as, say, an unsolved murder, where someone is arrested as a suspect. We wouldn't want to name them. Likewise, let's say a minor celebrity is arrested for a crime. There's a good argument for not mentioning that.

  This isn't either of those cases. Our article is about an incident and we 100% know that Penny was the person involved here (no one is denying this). The indictment is part of the incident, so it should be mentioned, but adding that information should not mean we need to remove other information (Penny's name). Sure, we should consider not including that information (as in the cases I mentioned above) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include that information! Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  You might be right, but for the moment, I am just going on a plain reading of the words of the policy. And you're right, "must consider" does not mean "must not include." And I confess I have a couple biases here: I think Wikipedia should take a slower approach to its articles, and I tend to side with criminal defendants of all stripes. Your mileage may certainly vary, and if consensus goes against me here (and it may), then so be it! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  As for no one (including Penny) denying that he killed Neely:

• "Penny denied he had Neely in a chokehold, claiming he was restraining him to protect others." (HuffPost, June 12)
• “Some people say that I was holding on to Mr. Neely for 15 minutes. This is not true — between stops is only a couple of minutes. So the whole interaction lasted less than 5 minutes,” Penny said. “Some people say I was trying to choke him to death — which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him. You can see in the video there’s a clear rise and fall of his chest, indicating that he’s breathing. I’m trying to restrain him from being able to carry out the threats.” (Matzav.com, June 12)
• "One of the people pinning Neely down ... also claimed that Penny was not 'squeezing' Neely's neck." (Insider, May 5)

– .Raven  .talk 09:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would not. I would, as BLPCRIME demands, "seriously consider" omitting any mention of the indictment, and after such serious consideration I would conclude that in this particular case, such an omission would be ridiculous given the widely reported material fact that Penny killed Neely, and the obvious necessity of reporting the material fact of his indictment in the light of our obligation to include the former fact.

  BLPCRIME is obviously meant to protect people whose involvement in the crime at all is still a matter of contention. It's not meant to shield anybody and everybody who have done something notable, when that notable thing also precipitates a criminal procedure. We don't censor the names of bombers, or mass shooters while the criminal procedures are still unfolding. The bombing or mass shooting itself is the notable event, and the people who carried out those acts must be named and included. The criminal procedures following that event are then not protected by BLPCRIME, because at that point the suspects are already named because of their undeniable inclusion in the event itself.

  Contrast with the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German where the name of the suspect is protected. Why? Because there's no widely reported material fact about the suspect that we can include about him. It's not a widely reported material fact that he killed them, or that he was involved at all. There's no notable material fact that we could include here, except that he was accused of a crime.

  Penny's privacy is not protected by BLPCRIME in the same way. He attacked and killed a homeless man on a subway. That's true, widely reported, and undisputable. That's why he's named in hundreds of news articles. That's why he's notable. Whether that act was a crime is just the next part of that story. But his involvement in the story, and our certainty of his involvement in the story do not in any way hinge on his conviction for a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 04:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  But would you agree with me that reporting the indictment would be a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime or is accused of a crime? As you note, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be included, but I want to make sure we are working from the same basic propositions. Dumuzid (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I would agree that reporting the indictment is certainly a suggestion that Penny has been accused of a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 04:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Undisputable"? See above. – .Raven  .talk 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "the material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely" — He's been arrested for it, after an ME's ruling on cause-of-death (homicide, not stating the actor)... but a court has not found on your "material fact", and cause-of-death declarations have been changed by re-examinations before now. Wikipedia is not under any deadline; we can wait to see what the court finds. – .Raven  .talk 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've responded to your WP:CRYSTAL argument elsewhere that this fringe theory is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. No RSs are casting doubt upon the veracity or the relevance of the ME's ruling. This is a Wikipedia article, not an exercise in the invincible ignorance fallacy. Combefere ★ Talk 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Again, "the material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely" was not ruled by the ME; the ME didn't name [X]. Others did. Your combining the two is WP:SYNTH. – .Raven  .talk 02:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I did not combine the two. Hundreds of RSs did. Combefere ★ Talk 03:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  That happened in the Central Park Five case, too. From History.com:

  The crime was splashed across front pages for months, with the teens depicted as symbols of violence and called “bloodthirsty,” “animals,” “savages” and “human mutations,” the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism and research organization, reports.

  Newspaper columnists joined in. The New York Post 's Pete Hamill wrote that the teens hailed “from a world of crack, welfare, guns, knives, indifference and ignorance…a land with no fathers…to smash, hurt, rob, stomp, rape. The enemies were rich. The enemies were white.”

  Adding fuel to the fire, weeks after the attack, in May 1989, real estate developer (and future U.S. president) Donald Trump took out full-page ads in The New York Times, the New York Daily News, the New York Post and New York Newsday with the headline, "Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!"

  “It was a media tsunami,” former New York Daily News police bureau chief David Krajicek tells Poynter. “It was so competitive. The city desk absolutely demanded that we come up with details that other reporters didn’t have.”

  And those RSs got it wrong. Perhaps one of the reasons why WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say to wait until "hundreds of RSs" accuse him; it talks about a court conviction instead.

  A "reliable" source should separate its verifiable facts from its (hasty) opinions. – .Raven  .talk 03:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  And those RSs got it wrong. Perhaps one of the reasons why WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say to wait until "hundreds of RSs" accuse him; it talks about a court conviction instead.

  BLPCRIME does not require a court conviction to include Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely. It only requires a court conviction to assert that he committed a crime. The article does not accuse Penny of committing a crime, and nobody is suggesting to add such an accusation to the article.

  The insinuation that we must not include any information from Reliable Sources, and can only report information that is ruled on by a court flies in the face of all standard practices of Wikipedia reporting and cannot be taken seriously. Reliable sources are the backbone of our encyclopedia. Combefere ★ Talk 04:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Then may I kindly suggest an RfC on WT:BLP about WP:BLPCRIME's

"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

Because at present the firm statement some editors wish placed on the article in Wikipedia's voice would indeed suggest that. – .Raven  .talk 04:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime.

As a matter of fact, there is already an ongoing discussion at WT:BLP which was initiated because one editor was (like you) very displeased about this reality. It's been ongoing for almost three months, and no consensus about changing the verbiage of BLPCRIME has been released; the verbiage proposed would not even preclude us from including the neutral and verifiable statement that Penny killed Neely.

If you have issues with the policy, I suggest contributing there. Combefere ★ Talk 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

> "neutral and verifiable statement that [X] killed Neely"

You have several times thumped the ME's ruling as asserting that.

Nowhere in the ruling is that asserted, per the ME's spokesperson.

If any other source falsely claims it does assert that... this would be one data point toward regarding the source as unreliable. – .Raven  .talk 06:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok. If a Reliable Source disagrees with you, then it must be unreliable, huh? Sorry to say I don't find that argument very convincing :)

Sadly I have to say that the more I engage with you on here, the less convincing I find your arguments. The interpretation that the ME's report does not find that Penny killed Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It's found in no RSs. None.

If you think that any RSs that disagree with you on this point must therefore be unreliable, I suggest you take them up individually at WP:RSP. Trying to dismiss the sources here is outside of the scope of this RfC, and disruptive. Combefere ★ Talk 07:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

> "If a Reliable Source disagrees with you, then it must be unreliable, huh?"

I said nothing about "if it disagrees with me" — rather, I said, if it "falsely claims", i.e. says something factually untrue... and I'll add in this case, something that was knowably untrue at the time... as in asserting that the Medical Examiner's ruling said something the Medical Examiner's spokesperson explicitly contradicted.

This wasn't an inquest, or a coroner's court/jury, nor was it Quincy, M.E.

> "The interpretation that the ME's report does not find that Penny killed Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It's found in no RSs. None."

72.14.126.22 and I both quoted above the CNN article already cited in the article:
"A spokesperson for the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner explained that 'manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider'." [emphasis added]
– .Raven  .talk 07:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

RS's interpretations of the ME report are usable in the article, and as a basis for discussion on the talk page. Your interpretation is not. If you have a problem with RS's reliability, go take it up at WP:RSP. Combefere ★ Talk 08:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

So CNN is now not a reliable source when quoting the ME's spokesperson verbatim? Wow. – .Raven  .talk 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Editing your comment after I've responded to it is bad form.

I suppose graduating from fringe, nonsense interpretations of the ME report onto fringe nonsense interpretations of the RSs reporting the ME report is the next obvious step in the stepwise devolution of your analysis here. I don't find it particularly convincing.

CNN is indeed a reliable source. They do not in any article deny that Penny killed Neely, nor that the ME report found that Penny killed Neely, nor did the ME spokesperson. Combefere ★ Talk 08:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I was editing it WHILE you were editing. You posted before I did, is all.

> "CNN... do not in any article deny that [X] killed Neely, nor that the ME report found that Penny killed Neely, nor did the ME spokesperson."

"deny that [X] killed Neely" is not what I said. As with "If a Reliable Source disagrees with you" above, you continue to deploy strawmen.

The ME's spokesperson said of the ME's determination that it was "not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider".

IOW, it did not assert  "that [X] killed Neely".

Quite a different matter.

The fact that some reporters could not understand that, just like you... says much worse about them than about you. It is their professional responsibility not to misrepresent statements, especially on important matters like death and its blame. Wikipedia editors are unpaid, and of a wide variety of educational and training backgrounds: "amateurs" in the non-pejorative sense; mistakes are to be expected... and corrected. – .Raven  .talk 08:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support based on procedure and policy. New information emerged to warrant a new discussion. WP:BLPCRIME links to WP:PUBLICFIGURE which links to WP:LOWPROFILE, stating: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. The defendant has sought out public attention via interviews and the fundraiser. I would think that the defendant qualifies as a limited purpose public figure under the definition of U.S. Supreme Court case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. that has “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” [11] starship.paint (exalt) 02:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is a reasonable line of argument, but I would note that defamation law can be instructive for Wikipedia purposes, but is not a perfect analog; and I would point to Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976), in which the court took a criminal indictment as the paradigmatic case of someone who had not voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye, and also noted that one should not "equate 'public controversy' with all controversies of interest to the public." But that is again, not a perfect match--and Penny has certainly taken some proactive media steps. Just food for thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the indictment by itself does not make the defendant a public figure. That is why I did not mention anything about the indictment. It is the interviews plus fundraiser. starship.paint (exalt) 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely so! But then we get into a very gray area (as with all the best cases). Is a legal fundraiser really voluntary in this day and age? Aren't interviews defending oneself at least somewhat compelled in the face of so much publicity? I could honestly argue either way. Interesting borderline issues. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid: - to my knowledge, Derek Chauvin did not give interviews, and only spoke in court. I would think that is example enough. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Fair, but Chauvin was not responsible for his own legal fees, which would change the calculation quite a bit, I should think. Either way, as I say, I believe there are reasonable arguments to be made on either side of the question. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not only did Penny advocate for his legal defense, but took pains in his New York Post interview to say Neely's killing had "nothing to do with race" and that it's "comical" to say he is "white supremacist", claiming to "love all people" as evidenced by his planned "road trip through Africa", etc. I would say this amounts to someone thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies, or as the Post puts it, the "political and racial firestorm" currently surrounding Penny. It's more than a simple argument against the manslaughter charge. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) edited 21:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Penny's name. WP:BLPNAME says: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, [...] it is often preferable to omit it." Both conditions are clearly not met. All WP:RS use his name, often in headlines. Penny has given multiple interviews: New York Post (May 20) [12], Fox News (June 8) [13], and in a video released through his lawyers (June 12) [14]. According to WP:LOWPROFILE, he is a high-profile individual: "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication..." Given that Penny doesn't try to conceal his name (rather the contrary) and our policies, I see no reason to omit his name. But we should make sure that our wording is neutral and not accusatory in any way. For example, the first sentence should be something like "Neely died after Penny held him in a chokehold" instead of "Neely was killed by Penny", since "kill" carries a connotation of intent. The sources given by Sangdeboeuf above provide some good examples of careful wording, as they avoid anything like "Penny killed Neely". — Chrisahn (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with Neely died after Penny held him in a chokehold or similar wording, as long as we don't censor Penny's identity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Daniel Penny's name in the lead and throughout article on the killing of Jordan Neely, for the following reasons:

Per Xan747, WWGB, Sangdeboeuf — who argued correctly that Penny has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities and that "Neely's assailant fits the definition of a high-profile figure by seeking media attention, and self-promotion". WP:LOWPROFILE states that an individual is high-profile if they have "given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program" which Penny has done.

Per Starship.paint — who cited WP:LOWPROFILE, which says that "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable", as Penny has engaged in public fundraising activities, given an interview, and released a video statement via attorneys.

Per Combefere — who pointed out that "BLP is not violated by including Daniel Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely."

Further, Penny has become a cause célèbre and has been promoted, defended, and honored very publicly by some members of the right, including Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, Republican politicians Matt Gaetz, Nikki Haley, and others.

WP:BLP is not violated by including Penny's name, which is an important piece of information to include in the article, and should not be omitted based on the far-too-stringent readings and interpretations of BLP policy as have been made by some who are opposed to naming Penny. Needless to say, I do not believe the previous RfC discussion or close fully took into account these points. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. I don't agree with the idea that the individual is a high profile individual or find the arguments so to be very convincing. Their lawyers released interviews in response to sensational reporting as part of his legal defence. This is not someone providing multiple interviews to different outlets, it is only in relation to the ongoing criminal proceedings, and I don't believe reporting of the case can ever make someone a high profile individual. However I believe there is reason for inclusion. I would see the normal application of BLPCRIME as being to keep the names of non-notable individuals out of the article. So if someone is later found not guilty Wikipedia hasn't published their name unnecessarily. In this case though the subject will always be notable to the article, whether they are found guilty or not, as their involvement is not disputed. The issue is how that name is included, which must not state guilt or imply guilt (until there is a verdict). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I largely agree, but... "This is not someone providing multiple interviews to different outlets" – In addition to the interview published by his lawyers, he gave interviews to the New York Post (May 20) [15] and Fox News (June 8) [16]. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I missed that, but I still feel this is now a normal part of a mounting a defence in modern high visibility cases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The point of BLP policy in general is to prevent Wikipedia from having an inappropriate negative effect on the lives of people who have the misfortune to be written about here. In the case of low-profile accused criminals, these harms might come from misidentification, from actual innocence, or simply from the accused not having access to appropriate ways to defend themselves. None of these apply in this case: as Adoring nanny notes, no one disputes that Penny killed Neely, and as starship.paint observes, there is no sense in which Penny can be viewed as low-profile any longer. It would have been reasonable to feel differently about whether Penny was low-profile some weeks ago, but it seems to me that that time is long past. --JBL (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  > "no one disputes that [X] killed Neely" — We have not yet seen the defense portion of the trial. The trial has not yet even begun. To say what "no one disputes" before that courtroom dispute is WP:CRYSTALBALL. – .Raven  .talk 18:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  It looks to me like you have made 30+ comments in the last three days, repeating the same (frankly rather inane) point over and over again. Maybe you could stop? --JBL (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I second this, it's bludgeoning. LoomCreek (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  You've made roughly twice the comments I have on this page. – .Raven  .talk 03:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's patently false, it's laughable you would even suggest that.- LoomCreek (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say "edits", I said "comments". Are we now counting typo corrections against me? Also, I made further comments after posting that, which will have changed the ratio. – .Raven  .talk 04:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm counting comments, it's not even close. This should be taken to the discussion section. LoomCreek (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Here I am increasing my comment-count again. Last of the night, I hope.

  What were your page search parameters? Username alone (which picks up mentions), or .sig with username/talkpage, which narrows it down? Also, does your UI collapse threads? – .Raven  .talk 04:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Take this to the discussion section. Keeping it here adds needless effort for the closing editor. LoomCreek (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  People keep repeating things like the "The fact that [X] killed Neely...", and "[X] killed Neely, period. This is factual and relevant info", and "... material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely...", and "plain fact acknowledged in reliable sources: that X caused the death of Y through his actions", and "It remains an indisputable (and undisputed) fact that X killed Y" [emphasis in original] — and citing the ME's ruling as though it identified the person responsible, which it did not.

  Combining that report with other sources (e.g. news agencies') is WP:SYNTH. Taking the prosecutors' charges as a source (even if cited by news agencies) is a classic violation of WP:BLPCRIME.

  People have been charged with crimes, yet exonerated. People have been widely accused in media, yet exonerated. Once again, take the Central Park Five for example — a massive public campaign of vilification and assumption of guilt took place, yet it turned out they had had nothing to do with the crime... or, if you prefer, the actual physical beating and rape, even before charges were filed. It was a tremendous rush to (false) judgment.

  I for one would prefer that Wikipedia not rush to judgment. We have no deadline, and judgment is the court's job.

  And... have you made the same request of Combefere? Loomcreek? Anyone else? Or just me?

  Consider counting up how many of my edits were typo corrections. – .Raven  .talk 03:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment There are now three overlapping discussions about this subject on the talk page, creating more needless confusion. I have closed and hatted one of them. Users @Nfutvol: and @Razzmatazz Max: have indicated support for including the name in discussions above and below. Their support should not be erased due to the overlapping discussions, as supporting editors' comments were erased in the first RfC. Combefere ★ Talk 00:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, because both of their comments were made after the indictment occurred they should be included as part of the support for name inclusion LoomCreek (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per BLPCRIME, not convinced by arguments to support.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion on the basis that he is not a low profile figure anymore based on his wiling participation in activity within the media, and the circus this has created. WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. Fieari (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@LoomCreek: Since you created a brand new RfC 3 days after the last one closed, you should ping the editors who participated in the previous discussion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I happened to have the list mostly compiled already. Hopefully I didn't miss or double-ping anyone.

Attn: @Comp.arch, @OhNoitsJamie, @Festucalex, @CJ-Moki, @Masem, @Salvabl, @Ekpyros, @Caeciliusinhorto, @Combefere, @Skynxnex, @A. B., @Jerome Frank Disciple, @Davey2010, @Sangdeboeuf, @HAL333, @A. Randomdude0000, @KiharaNoukan, @WikiVirusC, @PriusGod, @Springee, @Kcmastrpc, @Adoring nanny, @ActivelyDisinterested -- Xan747 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate it! LoomCreek (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jerome Frank Disciple, I did the ANI in the first place because ScottishFinishRadish's suggestion of it. By closing of he discussion I mean the RFC, not ANI. Trying to interpret my words that way is incredibly disingenuous. It was simply to clarify the reason for opening the rfc soon. If you read the discussion many of the people suggested a new RFC, including some who opposed the challenge. Of the people who supported a new RFC were @Starship.paint, @Springee, @WWGB, @Festucalexand @Xan747.

Again you have no any basis to claim WP:DROPTHESTICK or WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This decision was made following support from the actual people in the discussion. -LoomCreek (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I think this is pretty blatant forum shopping, for the reasons I said above (specifically, withdrawing the RFC close challenge when it became clear it would fail and then starting a new RFC as a way to directly contradict the close on the last RFC, which you also started). You think that's wrong. We can agree to disagree. We don't need to discuss this further. You just saying "you don't have any basis" and me saying "this is the basis" over and over again doesn't help anything.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, your making assumptions that are untrue. Regardless of the close challenge, a new Rfc was supported by most within the discussion, so the close by me is completely irrelevant to that. The ANI got off topic, talking about the actual topic of name inclusion rather then the close decision. But the discussion could have just as easily been kept open with a new rfc. I really don't understand why your trying to make these claims when its really clear I acted with support of the very people weighing in. You don't have basis for your claims and I don't see a reason to pretend there is. - LoomCreek (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

A new Rfc was supported by most within the discussion. This is simply not accurate and even some of those who said a new RfC may be necessary said there needed to be a break period. The challenge to the close was silly and recreating this RfC so soon after the last one demonstrates that you're unable to discuss this from a neutral POV. When multiple editors who supported the initial RfC are advising you to stand down it might be a good idea to take their advice. Nemov (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Please listen to the advice being given to you here. – .Raven  .talk 17:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

A lot has changed since the previous RfC (which was opened very early on and immediately after initial events took place), as noted numerous times in discussions here and over at WP:AN. I'm not sure it means that some of those who are strongly opposed will budge, but I'm also not sure how productive it is to attack LoomCreek simply because some of you may not want to have to continue defending your positions on the matter of name inclusion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking LoomCreek. They are objecting to an improper procedure. – .Raven  .talk 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a few observations. LoomCreek was not the one to reopen the topic on the talk page. By the time they filed the close challenge, there were seven other editors (including me) in the thread supporting some sort reopening the subject in light of events since the most recent comment in the RfC, which I believe was June 6, against two editors saying a close challenge or new RfC would be inappropriate. In the middle of that discussion, SFR said to LoomCreek that a close challenge is "what you are looking for," which Loom apparently took as advice on the best way to proceed (SFR later clarified that wasn't exactly his intent). In any case, we were off to the races. When it became clear to me that I misunderstood that a close challenge is not the place to relitigate the RfC, but to argue on procedural grounds that the close was invalid AND that the challenge was not likely to prevail, I asked another editor whether it might be best for LoomCreek to withdraw the close challenge so as not to waste everyone else's time, and particularly not SFR's. That editor never answered back, but LoomCreek apparently felt the argument had merit and withdrew the challenge.

TL;DR: in retrospect I think the close challenge was the wrong thing to do, but there was support from experienced editors to open another RfC, so I think LoomCreek's actions should be seen as having been done in good faith. Any criticism for withdrawing the close review should be directed at me, as it was my suggestion. Xan747 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats mostly correct. The decision wasnt made on the basis of the challenges success or not. It just became clear that there was significant support for an rfc and the challenge seemed to be just kind of going in circles, and was practically existing as rfc, which its not meant to be. So it was closed to save editors time and do what simply made the most sense. But yeah I definitely misunderstood what SFR meant originally when they proposed a close challenge, assuming it was just a helpful suggestion.LoomCreek (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> "I think LoomCreek's actions should be seen as having been done in good faith. Any criticism for withdrawing the close review should be directed at me...."
We can and should assume good faith all around. I would take the "Procedural oppose" comments as referring to the procedure, not to any person who suggested or decided on it. We are not !voting on candidates for wiki-office here. – .Raven  .talk 19:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note to the closing editor... Any arguments by editors from the previous RfC who don't address the previous close should be discounted. Simply repeating the same arguments from the previous RfC is further evidence this RfC wasn't necessary. Nemov (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's a ridiculous request. LoomCreek (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  You have reopened this RfC by claiming in light of the more recent developments of the case so why would you be against discounting arguments that are "repeating the same arguments from the previous RfC?" Nemov (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Do really expect me to entertain this? It's implicit and implied already. Trying to create some arbitrary requirement is disingenuous and no editor should take something like that seriously. You don't get to make up your own rules. LoomCreek (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's a reasonable request, but just that: a request. A closer can give it a little weight, a lot of weight, or no weight at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's reasonable. The Rfc was opened for several reasons, of which the indictment. And an expectation of different responses due to that, but to pretend that requires addressing the previous Rfc is incredibly disingenuous. And seems to only serve trying to discredit the actual opinions of other editors they disagree with, when they don't have standing or are unable to actually refute the arguments other editors have made. LoomCreek (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "standing" here? You seem to use the term very differently than I would (which is not to say you are using it incorrectly). Dumuzid (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ah to be fair its usually used differently. What I mean is the facts don't back up their arguments. Standing not in terms of status but instead in terms of having aspects to back up their position. I just used it much more colloquially, so sorry about the confusion. LoomCreek (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  No worries. As I said, just want to make sure I understand what you actually intend! Thanks for the explanation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• If you're unable to respond to my point there's no sense in communicating further. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not Part 2 of the original RfC. It is a fresh RfC, and hence all statements and arguments are relevant, appropriate and reasonable. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I admire your passion for arguing, but you're helping make my point. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Note to the closing editor - any arguments from myself should be interpreted to implicitly include an objection to the RfC that was closed against consensus by an editor who attempted to erase the majority of supporting arguments with a straw-man. As such, any comment I make in this discussion should be interpreted as an argument against the previous close, even if not explicitly stated. Arguments made from other editors should be interpreted in the same manner; editors should not be presumed ignorant.

Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 04:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that @ScottishFinnishRadish closed the previous RfC and a challenge to the close was quickly dismissed. Frankly, this is a poor understanding of the previous close. Nemov (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. ScottishFinishRadish closed the previous RfC, with only one reference to the "opposition" arguments (in reality, the majority arguments):

"The strength of the opposition is well summed up by Nemov, who said in their !vote to include if we're dogmatically following the guidelines then the answer would be to exclude."

This is clearly a misunderstanding of the arguments to include, as it was quite literally the only comment to make such an argument which I pointed out well before the closing. Arguments to include the name were primarily based on the fact that no part of BLP is violated by including the name. These arguments included quotations and analysis for virtually every line of text in BLP. Arguments to exclude the name were both in the minority, and were not substantive; they simply made the hollow assertion that BLP was somehow violated by including the name, but never explained how or why. The closing editor repeated the same hollow assertion, not supported by policy, and only held by a minority of involved editors.

Stating that the SFC closed the RfC against consensus and erased the majority of supporting arguments with a straw-man (yours, to be specific), is accurate. The consensus was that the inclusion of the name doesn't violate BLP. Combefere ★ Talk 15:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I supported inclusion and there was quite clearly no consensus in that RfC. To argue that there was was an consensus is frankly absurd. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As I have just pointed out, your argument for inclusion was the straw-man. No other editors arguing for inclusion agreed with you that BLP was violated. Your comment was used to wash all supporting editors with the same brush and dismiss our numerous substantive arguments out of hand. To argue that you represent the dozen editors who supported inclusion is absurd. Combefere ★ Talk 15:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You can ignore my point if you wish, but there was no consensus in that RfC. To argue otherwise is illogical. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a very close numerical "vote", however WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. The previous closing editor did criticize a lack of policy based arguments, so hopefully this discussion will remedy that. Regardless, here we are now, again. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree to disagree, I suppose. The ruling by the closing editor of "no consensus" does not mean that a consensus was not reached. While the discussion was long and at points tedious, anybody who takes the time to read it all can see a clear consensus that BLP was not violated. Virtually no editors made any substantive arguments there (nor here) that it was.

The closing editor miscounted the number of editors in support and in opposition, stating that the count was 12/10, when in actuality it was 15/9. Of nine opposing editors, only six cited BLP. Four of those six simply asserted that BLP was violated with no attempt at an explanation as to why. One (Caeciliusinhorto) even admitted that the letter of BLP was not violated, but that the spirit of it might be. Only Dumuzid made a real attempt to engage with the content of BLP and argue that it necessitated exclusion, and they did so very cautiously.

On the flipside, fourteen of the fifteen editors supporting inclusion believed that BLP was not violated. At least five (Fustucalex, 72.14.126.22, myself, Sangdeboeuf, and PriusGod) made numerous, substantive arguments analyzing detailed sections of BLP and explaining clearly why it was not violated. These arguments were never refuted, or even substantially addressed, there nor here.

WP:CONSENSUS is clear. Per WP:NHC these five detailed and thorough arguments should be weighted against one rather uncertain argument to arrive at the obvious consensus that BLP was not violated. Combefere ★ Talk 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree on 9 !votes to exclude. I count only 14 !votes to include, but there were two apparent double-counts (72.14.126.22 and LoomCreek) and one !vote that said support, but which SFR counted as exclude (Nemov). So that's probably how SFR got to 12/10 in favor of exclusion. Xan747 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, 12/10 in favor of inclusion. Xan747 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

15/9 is the correct count.

Include: WWGB, LoomCreek, Fustucalex, CJ-Moki, 72.14.126.22, Combefere, Nemov, Skynxnex, Jerome Frank Disciple, Davey2010, voorts, Sangdeboeuf, PriusGod, A. Randomdude000, Kihara Noukan.

Exclude: comp.arch, Dumuzid, OhNoitsJamie, Masem, ElleTheBelle, Caeciliusinhorto, A. B., Hal333, Raven.

Note: If Nemov's comment is counted as a vote to exclude (because he said that BLP was technically violated), then Caeciliusinhorto's comment must be counted to include (because he said that BLP was technically NOT violated). So the count is the same either way. Combefere ★ Talk 17:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but Caeciliusinhorto quite explicitly voted to exclude. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and Nemov quite explicitly voted to include. Hence why I have them in those columns. Combefere ★ Talk 17:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere, ah, I missed the three editors from the other RfC. So by SFR's method of counting !votes, that's 14/10 in favor of include name. But SFR made it clear that his decision was not based on a straight !vote count, but how well individual arguments cohered with policy. Xan747 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

So by SFR's method of counting !votes, that's 14/10 in favor of include name

Misreporting votes is not a "method of counting." The count was 15/9. Combefere ★ Talk 18:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere, my only intent was to report the man's logic, not defend it. Xan747 (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The ruling by the closing editor of "no consensus" does not mean that a consensus was not reached.If this is your POV there's no reason to continue this conversation. Nemov (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that editors on Wikipedia never make mistakes, then yes indeed this conversation is pointless. Combefere ★ Talk 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, there's nothing finer than a good-straw man on a Monday. Nemov (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

By all means, explain what your comment meant, if not to imply that the ruling of a closing editor was the word of God (that's genuinely the only interpretation I can fathom). But your last two vague, condescending comments are unconstructive and bordering on uncivil, and I encourage you to either engage constructively or disengage. Combefere ★ Talk 18:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

One (Caeciliusinhorto) even admitted that the letter of BLP was not violated, but that the spirit of it might be. Not to get embroiled in this discussion again, but my concession was that the letter of WP:BLPCRIME arguably did not apply. This hinged on the fact that that the man in question had not been at that point charged with any crime. Since he has apparently now been charged with second-degree manslaughter then BLPCRIME is clearly relevant in letter as well as spirit. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The questions now, I think, are (and I am not going to proffer any opinion here, because both the discussion and the source coverage has spiralled beyond what I care to follow): 1. do the man's public appearances mean that he is no longer a WP:LOWPROFILE figure, 2. what are the benefits to readers of naming him, and 3. given the enormous amount of coverage naming him in articles and headlines, how severe are the disadvantages of naming him now. Given those three questions, the calculus about whether or not it is useful or appropriate to name him may have changed (though it is very soon after the previous rfc was closed!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I note that none few of those opposed to including Penny's name are suggesting the removal of Jordan Neely's own arrest record on similar WP:BLPCRIME grounds, despite extensive discussion of the latter issue above. (Neely would be covered by BLP as a recently deceased person.) This only strengthens my belief that the "oppose" camp is motivated more by a desire to whitewash the deeds of a conservative right-wing cause célèbre than by any abiding concern for Wikipedia policy or the privacy of living persons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) edited 03:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Several of the oppose votes here supported inclusion in the previous RfC. You would be wise to withdraw such a ridiculously absurd allegation that is not in good faith. Nemov (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Should the article mention Neely's arrest record then? If so, why? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with your accusation? Nemov (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've struck the accusation. See new comment below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I believe I have taken both the positions you say that "none" have taken. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Noted and corrected. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If we're adhering to the letter of WP:BLPCRIME, why should we not also remove the material about Neely's own arrest record (at least those arrests that did not lead to a conviction)? Neely is covered by BLP policy as a recently deceased person. Seems like a double standard to omit Penny's name on BLPCRIME grounds while describing Neely's arrests for unprovoked assaults on women in the NYC subway ... assaulting a 68-year-old man on a subway platform ... criminal contempt ... and public lewdness, none of which appear to have resulted in a conviction. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment In a way, this whole discussion is pointless – we cannot exclude Penny's name from the article. Yes, we can erase it from the main text, but it will always show up dozens of times in the references section, because practically all sources use his name, often in the headline. Unless we bowdlerize all these headlines (which would of course be a gross violation of our rules), any reader who takes a glance at the references will see Penny's name. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  That may be true, but, to my knowledge, we've always accepted that site titles might include information that our policies would otherwise exclude. Take the name of a particular minor child which, let's hypothetically say, everyone agrees should be excluded from an article's main text on WP:BLPNAME grounds. I don't believe I've seen a discussion in which WP:BLPNAME is discarded because the child's name is referenced in headlines—even multiple source headlines. (Nor have I seen sources removed on that ground alone.)

  And I think that's fine. The main text is far more prominent than the references section. And the fact that a name can be found doesn't really control here: WP:BLPCRIME is not a question of verifiability, and I would argue that it's not even strictly a question of notoriety (Even under BLPNAME, I suppose it depends on whether you think the second sentence is a pure restriction of the first).--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, which is one reason I no longer refer to Neely's assailant by name even on the talk page or edit summaries. Xan747 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  And yet, WP:BLPNAME says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it ..." which is very clearly not the case here. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I was using BLPNAME for a hypo example. Obviously WP:BLPCRIME is what controls here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Jerome Frank Disciple: In general, these are reasonable points, but:

  - When basically all sources name that hypothetical minor, our article would probably also contain the name.

  - "the fact that a name can be found" – That's not an accurate description of the current situation. The point is: The name cannot not be found. Anyone who opens any source related to the incident is extremely likely to "find" Penny's name in the headline or in the first few sentences.

  - "WP:BLPCRIME is not a question of verifiability" – BLPCRIME is not a question of naming individuals. It doesn't apply. See my comment below. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm less sympathetic to that argument than I am to the argument that Penny's interviews show that he has an ability to exercise power in the press (the latter of which is a more pertinent consideration under the essay Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, which is referenced at the public-figures section). Even if a non-public figure's name is widely disseminated, I think the WP:BLPCRIME concerns still apply if, for example, they haven't engaged the press at all. Granted, as I said in the last RFC, I thought Perry qualified here, but I think this RFC is too obviously a relitigation of the last RFC for me to support it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. There has been a mix up. We're discussing two different questions:

1. Should we name the person who choked Neely?

2. What should we say about this person?

This RfC is about the first question, not the second one. Let's keep them separate.

I think many participants in this discussion who argue against including the name are actually addressing the second question. They worry that the article may violate WP:BLPCRIME and/or related policies by insinuating that Penny's actions were morally wrong or even criminal. I think that concern is justified. For example, our first sentence says "Neely was killed by...". According to what we currently know, that's technically correct, but the word "kill" has connotations of intent and direct causation. I can't find any WP:RS that use pointed wording like that. We should follow WP:RS and change the first sentence to something more neutral. Similarly for the rest of the text.

But that's a different question. We should have a separate discussion about it. This RfC is about the name.

This also means that WP:BLPCRIME is of little relevance to this RfC. BLPCRIME does not mention names. BLPCRIME addresses the second question, not the first. One of the polices that are relevant for this RfC is WP:BLPNAME (right below BLPCRIME). Let's not confuse them.

— Chrisahn (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment — I think there are two WP links worth including in this discussion. The first is WP:DEATHS which is the policy basis for all naming conventions of articles about deaths. The policy suggests titling articles "Killing of..." in the cases of a homicide. The next is an essay titled Let the facts speak for themselves. The term "killing" is neutral and factual. The description of events leading up to the killing should also be neutral and factual. We should include these neutral, verifiable facts and allow the readers to decide whether Penny's actions were "morally wrong." We should not censor or editorialize information over a concern about how the readers will interpret neutral, verifiable facts. Combefere ★ Talk 17:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I really think we shouldn't discuss this here, but in a new section. Just briefly: "Killing" is factual, but not quite neutral. "Homicide" would be neutral, "killing" not so much. There are reasons why The Killing (film), The Killing (American TV series), Killing Eve and many other dramas about criminals, spies and murderers chose the word. But as I said: Let's discuss the details elsewhere. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. The word "killing" is entirely neutral and descriptive. I suppose if you'd like to continue elsewhere, I invite you to bring your opinion over to WP:DEATHS, where the neutrality of the words like "killing" and "murder" have been thoroughly discussed and formalized into naming policy. Combefere ★ Talk 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn agree with you on the phasing of the lede, and last night did change it to be more neutral, but was reverted. Also agree that here's not the place for that discussion.

As for separating naming from what to say about, an argument could be made that, IF our ex-marine is to be considered a low-profile person, then no information about any potential criminal activity can be mentioned unless he's convicted of a crime -- whether he's named or not. Xan747 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I have to point out the poor reading of BLPCRIME here. BLPCRIME does not prevent us from excluding any and all information about "potential" criminal activity. It precludes us from explicitly stating that the activity was a crime. These are not the same.

Example: if it is a neutral verifiable fact that a man took something from a store and left without paying, we are allowed to report it (assuming the event is notable). We are not allowed to say he "stole" the item. That's what the policy controls. Combefere ★ Talk 18:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, BLPCRIME says that editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. Saying that they took something without paying for it clearly suggests that they committed a crime and therefore BLPCRIME would certainly be relevant. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a blatant misinterpretation of BLPCRIME. Reporting neutral verifiable facts is not an assertion that those facts constituted a crime, and are certainly not covered by BLPCRIME. See every article about bombings, mass shootings, police killings of civilians, etc. while the criminal events are unfolding. Neutral verifiable facts about the actions that the accused took are always reported in the Wikipedia article. The only thing BLPCRIME precludes us from doing is from claiming that the actions are criminal. Combefere ★ Talk 18:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As an example, explore old versions of the Killing of George Floyd page, before the trial of Derek Chauvin had even begun. The lead reads:

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, while being arrested for allegedly using a counterfeit bill. During the arrest Derek Chauvin, a white police officer with the Minneapolis Police Department, knelt on Floyd's neck for several minutes after he was already handcuffed and lying face down. Two police officers, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane, assisted Chauvin in restraining Floyd, while another officer, Tou Thao, prevented bystanders from interfering with the arrest and intervening as events unfolded. Floyd had complained about being unable to breathe prior to being on the ground, but after being restrained he became more distressed, and continued to complain about breathing difficulties, the knee in his neck, and expressed the fear he was about to die and called for his mother. After several minutes passed Floyd stopped speaking. For a further two minutes, he lay motionless and officer Kueng found no pulse when urged to check. Despite this Chauvin refused pleas to lift his knee until medics told him to.

It contains a handful of neutral, verifiable statements about Chauvin's actions, including the fact that he killed George Floyd. It did not and does not violate BLPCRIME because it does not assert that these actions are criminal. There are hundreds of articles that have followed the same logic about reporting current events surrounding BLPCRIME. This is how BLPCRIME works in both policy and common practice in Wikipedia. Combefere ★ Talk 18:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You can count me in the blatant misinterpretation camp. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, that suggests the person [...] is accused of having committed, a crime [...]

My emphasis. Reporting that a person has in fact been accused of, arrested for, charged with, arraigned for and indicted of a criminal act is doing far more than simply "suggesting" that fact. Xan747 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Out of the scope of this RfC. We're not discussing whether to include the indictment, we're discussing whether to include the name. As far as I'm aware, Daniel Penny's middle name is not "Accused." Combefere ★ Talk 19:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether we name him or not, if he's not a public figure then BLPCRIME kicks in and we must seriously consider not including anything from his arrest to indictment until such time as he's been found guilty. So in my view, the exclude name contingent is not going far enough. Xan747 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I invite you to share your dissatisfaction with every other Wikipedia page that routinely uses the interpretation of BLPCRIME that I've outlined above. You've got your work cut out for you. Here's a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:PrefixIndex&prefix=Killing+of&namespace=0

Looks like a long process, but hey it could be easier than admitting that other editors might actually know what they're talking about.

Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 19:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite satisfied doping so here, but we all have our faults. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, in light of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm not really persuaded by this argument. WP:BLPCRIME says we should avoid material that even "suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" (emphasis added).--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime. Nor was the fact that Chavin killed Floyd, nor the fact that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck for nine minutes, nor the fact that Chauvin refused pleas to lift his knees. All of those statements are neutral, verifiable facts, and they were included in the article because they didn't violate BLP.

The assertion that these neutral, verifiable facts are tantamount to criminal activity is your own. It's not in the voice of Wikipedia.

I'll point also to some stuff exists for a reason. Consider that the hundreds of other editors on Wikipedia every day, incorporating the neutral material facts into articles around notable deaths and killings might actually be well-aware of BLP, and that their common interpretation and usage of it is actually in line with the policy. Combefere ★ Talk 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the common interpretation seems to be that sustained naming in multiple RSs is the threshold for inclusion. But that's not the bar that's set in BLPCRIME. Xan747 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not precluded by BLPCRIME. Combefere ★ Talk 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you consider Neely's assailant to be a high-profile/public figure? If so, why? Please cite the specific text of the policy or guidance which supports your arguments. Xan747 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I have responded to these questions, and to you specifically, multiple times in multiple other parts of this discussion, including directly above. I suggest you read them. I do believe that Penny is a high-profile figure, and a public figure, but my argument depends on neither. If he were a low-profile figure, no part of BLPCRIME would preclude us from including his name, nor neutral, verifiable, and notable facts about his actions in relation to the subject of the article. It precludes us from characterizing those actions as crimes, which we do not do and nobody has suggested we do. Combefere ★ Talk 20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere, here is the full text of your initial opinion. Nowhere in it do you argue that Neely's assailant is a public figure/high-profile individual, only that he is notable, which is not the same thing -- and was the very first thing I pointed out to you in my initial response. Now if I missed somewhere you agreeing with me that our ex-marine is indeed a public figure/high-profile individual I apologize for having missed it.

Support inclusion. BLP is not violated by including Daniel Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely. There is no clause in BLP which precludes us from including this information. Editors who are arguing for exclusion seem to have the misguided interpretation of BLP that implies that we must censor any and all information about notable people who have ever been charged with any crime. This is not how BLP works, and nothing in BLP implies that it does or should work that way. We are only precluded from stating or implying that Penny is guilty of a crime (such as manslaughter). We are not precluded from including his name, or his involvement in the event that is the subject of the article. I invite all opposing editors to actually quote the relevant clause in BLP that prevents us from including the name, rather than simply asserting without explanation that BLP has somehow been violated. Thus far, no such explanation or analysis has been provided by any of the opposing editors. Combefere ★ Talk 01:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Xan747 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I never claimed that my argument was based on Penny being a public figure, I literally said the opposite. I said "my argument depends on neither". This is what I just explained above, and I think your repeated questions are quickly approaching WP:NOTGETTINGIT territory.

As I mentioned, my argument does not depend on the idea that Penny is a high-profile figure, nor a notable figure. To be clear, he is both. He is a high-profile figure, and he is a public figure. But even if he was a low-profile individual, BLPCRIME would not preclude us from including his name or his involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely. And I think that's important to highlight, because it shows how empty the arguments that we should exclude Penny's name are. Combefere ★ Talk 21:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand quite well your interpretation of the rules, and the rationale for it. My point was, and is, that the previous RfC was decided on a different interpretation which set public figure as the bar for naming. I also understand that interpretation of the rules, and the rationale for it ... but a closing admin's opinion counts for more than yours. Xan747 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

One editor's interpretation is not the word of God, even when they decide to close an RfC. BLPCRIME policy is clear, and community consensus around Wikipedia practice of this policy is also clear. It's used to preclude what it precludes. It's not used as a bludgeon to censor any and all information that editors don't like. Combefere ★ Talk 21:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing sacrosanct about a closer's opinion, and that's why challenges exist as well as why issues may be revisited. I would humbly suggest that the "BLPCRIME is useless" thread mentioned by Xan747 below might indicate that not everyone shares your view of the policy's clarity. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I have indeed seen the relevant discussion on WT:BLP. On the contrary, I think the discussion there highlights the broad community consensus and practice of including names and basic information about notable individuals even when they are suspected of crimes. This was actually the impetus for the discussion, which was initiated by an editor who wanted to change the policy in order to overturn this common understanding and practice of it. And after nearly three months, that editor and the few who want more a more stringent wording of the policy have not been able to form a consensus there to create one. Moreover, the wording that they are suggesting on that talk page isn't even restrictive enough for us to exclude Penny's name or involvement from this article.

So no, I do not believe the discussion on that talk page supports the idea that there is a broad community consensus that BLPCRIME as worded already requires us to exclude basic information like Penny's name from articles like this. Rather, I think anybody who holds such a view would find more difficulty, not less in continuing to hold it after viewing that discussion. Combefere ★ Talk 22:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I quite agree with that as well. My only point is that there are competent, good faith editors who believe the policy is overly ambiguous. My point is not "you are wrong" or "I am right," my point is simply that there is not currently an overriding consensus on the issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid > there is nothing sacrosanct about a closer's opinion

No, but where there's one there's bound to be another. Perhaps whoever closes this RfC won't have SFR's higher standard, thus a "notability" argument based on widespread sustained coverage in multiple RSs will suffice. But if a case can be made that clears a higher bar, why wouldn't one make that case? Xan747 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, it's likely due to complex threading and my old eyes, but I don't quite follow this in the current context. Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I sympathize. At this point it's probably best if I just let it go. Xan747 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll offer my reasoning.

"But if a case can be made that clears a higher bar, why wouldn't one make that case?"

If somebody illegally raises the bar, you should never jump over it. Jumping over it tacitly legitimizes its position. The first, and most important thing to do is say "Hey! No, no! The bar is here!" Combefere ★ Talk 04:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"The fact that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime." ... I'd very much disagree with that, particularly given that it's information that even suggests a crime was committed that's the proper standard.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to try to better understand your position, would you have also argued that all neutral verifiable statements in the above quotation from the Murder of George Floyd article (such as this one: "Derek Chauvin, a white police officer with the Minneapolis Police Department, knelt on Floyd's neck for several minutes after he was already handcuffed and lying face down") should have been censored until a conviction was secured, because they "suggested" that Derek Chauvin committed a crime? Combefere ★ Talk 19:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Was that text in there before the conviction? – .Raven  .talk 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It's from a randomly selected revision I pulled from November 2020. Chauvin was convicted on April 20, 2021. I invite you to peruse the revision history.

Perhaps even more pertinent in the history here, is the move request that took place on the page in 2020. Editors argued successfully that the term "Killing of..." was a neutral, verifiable description of events that did not imply criminal culpability, and therefore did not violate BLPCRIME. Later in 2020, there was an explosion of activity around similar pages of deaths and killings (mostly by police, but some not), and WP:DEATHS was formalized as a way to standardize the naming convention and create sense and order in a highly chaotic atmosphere. The understanding that the word "killing" is a neutral term that does not imply criminal culpability is foundational to that policy.

You can examine other articles and find the same reasoning. The current Killing of Tyre Nichols page names Nichols' killers explicitly, and details all of their actions which caused his death. They are charged, but not yet convicted. This is the standard practice for high-profile killings on Wikipedia where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute. The legality or criminality of their actions is in dispute, and we cannot comment on it; but the fact of their actions is essential to include in the article. Combefere ★ Talk 05:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

> "This [naming charged-but-not-convicted persons as 'killers'] is the standard practice for high-profile killings on Wikipedia where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute."

Hmm. Consensus-closers are asked to weigh !votes by match to policies and guidelines, which can be cited to (and quoted from) P&G pages.

Where are closers asked to weigh by assertions of "standard practice", and how can we either cite or quote pages about it?

Someone might assert that edit-warring, move-warring, and personal attacks are "standard practice" — because they often occur — despite contravening policies and guidelines. Should we be persuaded?

Meanwhile, where does WP:BLPCRIME (I won't quote it again) say the standard is different for "high-profile killings" vs. low — rather than being different for "high-profile people" vs. low?

Or does being caught up in the first automatically make one the second? – .Raven  .talk 06:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There are policies against edit-warring, move-warring, and personal attacks, and those policies are regularly used to discourage those actions or sanction the users who perpetuate them. That's practice. It's the real, material implementation of policy, which is in its own right an interpretation of that policy and how it is to be applied.

To contrast, there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles titled "Killing of..." Within these articles and their revision history, there are hundreds of examples of killers being named prior to a conviction. It doesn't always happen, but when the identify of the killer is not in dispute and is reported by a large number of RSs then it is virtually always included (I cannot find a counterexample). This is what I mean when I say it is common practice to include such information in cases where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute.

On the other hand, there are also "Killing of..." articles where RSs do not name a killer, but name somebody who is suspected of killing. In these cases, BLPCRIME and LPNAME are frequently used to protect the identity of the suspect. See this recent discussion for an example.

This is because BLPCRIME encourages us to exclude information that suggests a low-profile individual has been accused of a crime. An arrest or charge meets that criteria. A medical homicide does not; a medical homicide is not a crime or even an accusation of a crime. BLPCRIME is not written to indicate that the neutral fact of a medical homicide must be censored, and it is not practiced in this way either. Combefere ★ Talk 06:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Your penultimate paragraph would apply, then. The ME's ruling, which you've repeatedly thumped, does not name anyone as the killer. The ME's spokesperson said explicitly that "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider". Naming or blaming any individual for the death is not part of the ME's job, as it's not something that can be seen in the examination of the body. – .Raven  .talk 07:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Penny is not "suspected" of killing Neely. He killed Neely. Multiple RSs have reported that he killed Neely. No RSs dispute that he killed Neely. Penny does not dispute that he killed Neely.

Your insistence that we do not know who or what killed Jordan Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It is supported by no RSs. None. It is, as I've pointed out, an invincible ignorance fallacy. Repeatedly WP:BLUDGEONING this point all over the discussion section is disruptive. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors at this point, and we are well beyond WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. I very much suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK on this point. Combefere ★ Talk 07:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the same arguments go round and round each time it's raised shows that BLPCRIME needs work to make it less ambiguous. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And there's a thread for that: BLPCRIME is useless. Xan747 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I know, I was the last editor to comment on that thread and that was back in mid April. Nothing has changed and the same arguments are still happening because of the ambiguous nature of BLPCRIME. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

So you did. Real shame it's not getting more traction. Xan747 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing ambiguous about the policy. It's commonly understood and has been used for years on hundreds of articles surrounding crimes: deaths, killings, bombings, shootings, etc. This is the first time in recent memory it's blown up into a huge disagreement, and it's not an accident that it's a current event surrounding a man who has become a lightning-rod for politically charged discourse. Combefere ★ Talk 19:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There has been many of these recently, one I can remember was someone saying that court documents could be used to name someone as a child killer and another involved three discussions at BLPN, one at ANI, and a month long RFC to come to the same conclusion as the original BLPN discussion. It's been a massive waste of editors time. If you haven't been aware of them, I feel jealous of you. And neither of those had an politics involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion was just a few weeks ago. Nemov (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Now I can't remember if I've mixed up the details or both were about child killers. I do know we could have all been doing something more useful to the encyclopedia if the guidance was clearer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I was aware of that discussion, and even referenced it in another comment. Perhaps this discussion has so skewed my frame of reference, that I view the other as a relatively quick and civil affair :) Combefere ★ Talk 20:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe everyone should stop replying to the replies of their replies in the Survey section. Some poor sod will have to close this at some point, and there's a whole section for discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, the discussion section was made to prevent that sort of problem. But some have mostly ignored it. In particular .Raven whose responded to pretty much every comment. I've noticed it's usually with one glaring issue that seemingly baits a response. LoomCreek (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Name of article redux

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 to reopen the discussion about whether the title of the article should be reverted to "Death of Jordan Neely," or remain "Killing of Jordan Neely".

• Revert to Death of: although the medical examiner has ruled Neely's death a homicide by compression of the neck, and his assailant has not denied applying the chokehold, there is no court ruling that Neely's assailant did indeed cause his death. As the current title strongly implies in Wikipedia's voice that the assailant caused Neely's death, the name of the article should be changed. This does NOT imply that the article itself cannot report on the medical finding, properly attributed in-line to the appropriate authority, only that the title should be changed to be more neutral.

Xan747 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I apologize for constantly repeating myself, but I would oppose this change. Courts determine legal liability, not reality. There is no serious dispute that this death was a 'killing.' Whether it was an act attracting criminal culpability, we don't know yet. But there is no evidence for any theory but one: the indicted caused the death of Mr. Neely. As such, I would consider this a step too far, but happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't know yet THAT there is no evidence for any other theory. Perhaps there will be no re-examination. Perhaps a re-examination will merely confirm the ME's initial ruling. But on the other hand, perhaps there will be one and it won't. We don't know yet. We don't know yet. We would be wrong to assume until we DO know, from the court, not anywhere else.. – .Raven  .talk 20:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, this strikes me as a textbook case of needlessly multiplying possibilities. Human epistemological faculties are obviously limited. Saying "perhaps we will have evidence in the future" is the same as saying "we have no evidence now." If we accept that our knowledge might change, that would mean Wikipedia could never assert anything. Is it possible that evidence will be discovered that Amelia Earhart lived to a very old age in Indonesia? It's certainly possible. Should we give that theory credence, in the absence of evidence? Could Osama bin Laden have had a massive stroke and died moments before he was shot? In theory, sure. But even beyond that, again courts do not determine reality. Criminal courts especially purposefully limit themselves in terms of evidence allowed and the burden of proof. What would happen, for instance, if the indicted here were held not criminally guilty, but later civilly liable? Would we then have Heisenberg's 50/50 killing? But what really persuades me is that there is literally no suggestion from anyone, including the accused, that the manner of death was something other than personal violence. If consensus ends up in your favor, I won't complain, but it seems problematic to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What "that would mean" is that "Wikipedia could never assert" someone committed a killing until the court so declared after both the prosecution and defense had a chance to present evidence — including about cause-of-death — and the court (most likely with a jury) decided the fact as well as the law. Because until then the outcome is uncertain. – .Raven  .talk 20:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There are circumstances where I would absolutely agree with you. But here, we have the police, the witnesses, the prosecutors, the medical examiner, and the accused himself all on one side of the evidence ledger--while on the other side we have you saying "but maybe not." And I am curious: just how would you deal with a situation where the defendant was found not criminally guilty but civilly liable? Dumuzid (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem because in both cases there's been a court ruling, and the person's name can be associated with both criminal and civil suits. Trickier is if the person has been found liable in the civil suit, but the criminal case is ongoing. Or vice versa; it's essentially the same problem. A strict reading of the rules probably requires that the defendant cannot be named until both trials have concluded.

But then there are appeals... Xan747 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Appeals were going to be my next question! And it's very rare to have a civil trial prior to the criminal (theoretically possible, but I am not personally familiar with it happening). There's a good reason for that: criminal trials have a preclusive effect on civil liability, but not the other way around. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Overall I think it would be most sensible to simply follow the lead of RSs on BLPCRIME issues, that seems to be what happens most of the time. But now I'm really talking more about naming Neely's assailant than I am about what to name the article, and Combefere just pointed me to WP:DEATHS, which may change my opinion. Fun times! Xan747 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Killing of, is absolutely the boiler plate standard for articles like this. LoomCreek (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As I've been learning, some standard practices may not be compliant with policy. Xan747 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the reluctance but this is a well trodden and established policy itself. I can assure you it is compliant with broader policy. LoomCreek (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Support – Exactly on the grounds stated. If and when the ME's initial ruling is upheld in court, the title can be changed again. – .Raven  .talk 20:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the medical examiner's findings are somehow (magically!) determined to be in error, then the title of the article can be reverted to "Death of ..." 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral/lean oppose: I largely agree with User:Dumuzid. It makes far more sense to go by the medical examiner report, which I understand is thus far undisputed, until it is disputed. In addition to the issues he noted in terms of treating court rulings as gospel, it's also worth pointing out that such a finding wouldn't necessarily be obvious! Sure, if someone is found guilty, that's one thing, but let's suppose a defendant is found not guilty. That could be because a jury didn't find causation ... or it also could be because they found an affirmative defense ... or because they found lack of intent. Without a special verdict form, we wouldn't know. Granted, this all said ... in general, I'm actually in favor of using "Death of" in all articles, because for all the debates that the phrasing has inspired, I don't think an article about a killing is actually affected at all if it's titled "Death of"—"death of" is a catch all, and even if someone is adjudicated guilty, you can describe that in the first sentence of the article if need be.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Dumuzid: There is no serious dispute that this death was a 'killing.' How exactly would the article describe Neely's death otherwise? "Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, died after being placed in a chokehold by a 24-year-old white ex-marine"? Died of what? Old age? Compare Killing of Gabby Petito, a similarly high-profile case where Petito's boyfriend Brian Laundrie admitted to killing her, and is named in the article as the killer, even though no trial occurred. (Laundrie would still be covered under BLP policy as a recently deceased person.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> How exactly would the article describe Neely's death otherwise? "Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, died after being placed in a chokehold by a 24-year-old white ex-marine"

Yes, exactly. Immediately followed by, The medical examiner found that the cause of death was "compression of neck (chokehold)" and ruled that it was a homicide.

Doing it that way takes it out of Wikipedia's voice. And you'll note that the RSs who reported the ME's findings didn't put it in their own voice either, but attributed the opinion to an authority. There are good reasons for that, and this is a case where following their lead is a good idea. Xan747 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The proposed wording is dancing around the plain fact that Penny killed Neely by choking him. This is not in dispute, and the effort to couch the incident in passive voice terms strikes me as plain obfuscation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I repeat; there are reasons news outlets phrase things such ways, and Wikipedia strives to be even more cautious. Xan747 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose reverting to "Death of..." This was a homicide, and the title of the article should be "Killing of Jordan Neely," per WP:DEATHS. WP policy is very clear here. There is no justification for changing the name to imply that the death was not a homicide. Combefere ★ Talk 01:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that one yet, it bears serious consideration against my position. Will sleep on it, thanks. Xan747 (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: I suggest you revert the request and close this discussion. Two points I encourage you to take away here:

• Requested Moves are the formal process for changing the title of a page. Opening a discussion on a talk page like this is disruptive because it creates the necessity for a duplicate formal discussion later. I believe all of us on this talk page have recently seen how disruptive duplicate discussions can be. If you think a page should be moved, just make the move request and have the discussion there.
• WP:DEATHS is the policy that guides virtually all Requested Moves around articles with the titles "Death of..." "Killing of..." "Murder of..." etc. The policy was formalized in 2020 during a surge of activity around these types of articles after the Murder of George Floyd. I suggest reviewing the policy, and looking over a number of the requested move discussions that have already taken place over similar articles. A couple that I can link off the top of my head:

• Shooting of Breonna Taylor → Killing of Breonna Taylor
• Death of Tyre Nichols → Killing of Tyre Nichols
• Death of Eric Garner → Killing of Eric Garner
• Shooting of Tamir Rice → Killing of Tamir Rice
• Killing of George Floyd → Murder of George Floyd
• Death of Meredith Hunter → Killing of Meredith Hunter
• Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer → Murder of Asher and Yonatan Palmer
• Death of Yehuda Shoham → Killing of Yehuda Shoham

All of these discussions (and many more!) use WP:DEATHS as the guiding principle for understanding how articles about deaths should be named on Wikipedia. By all means, make a formal move request, but it will not pass. WP:DEATHS is very clear that the title "Killing of..." should be used when the manner of death is a homicide. The coroner's report has determined the manner of death was a homicide, and there is a conviction for manslaughter (which has been used in the past as a basis for "Killing of..." title when a coroner's report was unavailable). This is as cut-and-dry of a naming situation as possible. WP policy is that the title of this article should be "Killing of Jordan Neely."

Combefere ★ Talk 03:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose – This is getting absurd, and goes against policy! Per Combefere's point, the WP:DEATHS flowchart is very clear on naming conventions in relation to deaths / killings / murders etc. For now, the appropriate title of this article is "Killing of ..." because the manner of death has been determined a homicide by the medical examiner, and a conviction of Penny for murder has not been obtained. If Penny is convicted of murder, then the correct title for this article will become "Murder of ..." 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Penny won't be convicted of murder, because the DA is not even perusing that charge. He's only being charged with second-degree manslaughter. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. However, manslaughter is still a form of unlawful homicide. What does that mean in terms of the WP:DEATHS flowchart? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@72.14.126.22 In that case it can either remain killing of, or sometimes manslaughter of but that's incredibly uncommon from what I've seen. LoomCreek (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A manslaughter conviction still equates to a "Killing of..." title on the flowchart. This is an ongoing matter of debate, with some editors believing that "Murder of..." is appropriate when there is a conviction for any form of homicide, and on the other side at least one editor arguing that a conviction for Second-Degree Murder should not be enough for a "Murder of..." title. Combefere ★ Talk 02:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, Wikipedia policy certainly is a can of worms! Thanks for your reply. :) 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elli Yes, killing does not mean murder (edit: ah my mistake, I understand now tou were just addressing their second point) It's a medical term, meaning the actions of Penny caused Jordan Neely's death. If you'd like some examples from other articles Id be happy to provide them. LoomCreek (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Neely arrest record

If we're going by WP:BLPCRIME in other areas, then we should also omit most of Neely's arrest record, apart from incidents that led to a criminal conviction. (Neely is covered under this policy as a recently deceased person.) Neely was not a public figure, and the source for this information is given as an unnamed "law enforcement source", which in addition to being dubious in itself (see Police perjury), runs afoul of WP:BLPGOSSIP: Be wary of relying on sources ... that attribute material to anonymous sources. In particular, the 2019 assault case records were sealed according to the Daily News. I question whether describing Neely's prior arrests is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Frankly it strikes me as character assassination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The text in contention appears to be this block, which was removed by Sangdeboeuf alongside the opening of this section on the talk page:

According to a police officer, Neely had been arrested 42 times by the NYPD. Most the arrests were for petty offenses, such as loitering and trespassing; however, three of the arrests were for unprovoked assaults on women in the NYC subway, and one was for assaulting a 68-year-old man on a subway platform in 2019. Other arrests, in 2020 and 2021, included those for criminal contempt, after violating a restraining order, and public lewdness, for exposing himself to a female stranger.

Per WP:BLPCRIME, editors must seriously consider not including information suggesting that a person has been accused of a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Reports of these specific arrests certainly fall under that category. Given that Neely's killer was not privy to his alleged arrest record, I do not consider the information to be essential to an article about the killing of Jordan Neely, so I would lean toward excluding the information. The article is about the killing, not about Neely. Combefere ★ Talk 00:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf, why stop there? Same justification could be used to lose most of this as well:

In 2015, Neely pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child after dragging a 7-year-old girl down a street; he was sentenced to four months in jail. At the time of his death, he was subject to a 15-month alternative to incarceration program after pleading guilty in February 2023 to felony assault of a 67-year-old woman, whom he had punched as she exited a train station in November 2021, breaking her nose and fracturing an orbital bone. Under the terms of the program, Neely was to live in a treatment facility in the Bronx. He had a warrant issued for his arrest after he missed a court date to update a judge on his progress and abandoned the treatment facility 13 days after he started the program.

In March 2023, Neely was spotted and taken to a homeless shelter by an outreach worker, who described him as calm and subdued. His last interaction with law enforcement was on April 9, 2023; outreach workers called police after witnessing Neely urinating inside a subway car, and he was ejected from the train. Five days later, an outreach worker spotted Neely in Coney Island, and noted him as aggressive and incoherent, writing that "He could be a harm to others or himself if left untreated." Xan747 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: Your reference [4] shows up blank in the reflist. – .Raven  .talk 04:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven that's because it's defined elsewhere on the main page. Xan747 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I intentionally left in statements that refer to a guilty plea, which implies a criminal conviction. The outreach worker's perception of Neely as "aggressive and incoherent" doesn't imply any crime occurred. The statement about public urination is borderline; I don't think it adds anything meaningful and I'd be fine with removing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but there's still a question of relevance. I could be persuaded to go either way with this. One argument is that the former marine wouldn't have known about Neely's arrests and conviction records, so those details are irrelevant and should be excluded per BLPCRIME. Another argument is that Neely's history of violent assault bolsters the assailant's contention that Neely's behavior was threatening enough to warrant physical intervention, and leaving that information out biases public opinion against a presumed innocent person. Xan747 (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The argument that Neely's history of violent assault bolsters the assailant's contention that Neely's behavior was threatening is pure WP:SYNTH. It's not Wikipedia's job to help Penny's legal case, let alone by besmirching a deceased person's name. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Then unless you can think of another reason why his guilty pleas and convictions are relevant, you should delete that information as well. Same for "aggressive and incoherent" behavior and "could be a harm to others" with the same justification. Pissing on the subway car is pure fluff. Xan747 (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Neely's 40+ arrests on the subway are widely cited in reliable sources: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. This information is relevant and important to the article as it demonstrates that Neely was not a model subway rider, but had history as a difficult and aggressive passenger. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue the arrest number itself isn't indicative of anything given how homeless people are often arrested on petty charges such as loitering (for the crime of being homeless). You could try to make a case for specific arrests though, but on the condition of them having actual guilty convictions that go through. LoomCreek (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

and also as goes without saying being from reliable, and in this case non-anonymous/identified with few exceptions, sources LoomCreek (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the reliable sources listed by @WWGB: make any claim that Neely actually committed any of the acts that precipitated his arrests. They only make the claim that he was arrested, e.g. "accused of a crime," which is information we are encouraged to exclude. Per WP:BLPCRIME, Neely is presumed innocent unless there is a conviction, and this information is encouraged to be excluded from the article. For instance, one of the sources says Neely was arrested for dodging fares. Without a conviction for that case, or without a reliable source saying that Neely actually did bypass a subway turnstile, we shouldn't include the information. The arrest itself cannot be a basis for inclusion.

Furthermore its pertinence to the article is questionable. Neely's status as a "model subway rider" is not the subject of the article. Nobody else on the subway had knowledge of his arrest record at the time of his death. His behavior on the train precipitating Penny's attack on him is relevant. His entire life history is not. Combefere ★ Talk 03:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

WWGB: those sources seem to be getting their info from the same anonymous police source as CNN ("police say", "according to a police statement"). Or they are simply repeating what CNN and others already published ("according to US media", "police reportedly arrested"). There's always reason to be skeptical of anonymous police statements like these. I'm not sure what Neely being a difficult and aggressive passenger has to do with the topic unless to justify his killing, which would violate WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. A history of arrests by itself doesn't even prove that, given that unhoused people often intentionally commit crimes in order to receive food and shelter in jail; indeed, one of Neely's friends says young homeless men are often advised they can get "a bed and a warm meal" if arrested. It suggests Neely may just have been trying to survive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the coverage in the sources, I think it might be appropriate to make a generalized statement about something like a "history of minor offenses" or the like, but I see no reason to list them or describe them in detail. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Daniel Penny

Duplicate discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think people deserve to read the name of the person who is charged with killing Neely. Daniel Penny. Not just “marine” Razzmatazz Max (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC) @Razzmatazz Max: There is an ongoing discussion about this at the talk section above. If you would like to participate in that discussion, make a comment there. I will hat this duplicate discussion to prevent confusion. Combefere ★ Talk 00:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)