Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Change: "Penny should have known when Neely became unconscious and released him"

to: "some believe the hold was justified while others do not" 50.206.31.50 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Please describe how we can provide a "consensus". Several news stations interviewees new yorkers with a mix of responses showing that some people believed Penny's actions justified some did not, shall we provide links to dozens of videos with these interviews? 2601:646:4201:6370:C4A1:5BF:32B:5369 (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"Penny should have known..." is a declarative statement of a personal opinion. Random NYers have no idea what Penny did or didn't know and inclusion of this sentence screams of bias, as does your excuse for not revising it.

Not that Wiki cares anymore. Your political bias is getting more and more pronounced, which degrades your integrity and value as a source for information. 76.73.182.106 (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I honestly believe much of this article should be rewritten. It seems quite biased, heavily insinuating the idea that what Daniel Penny was unjust. 98.115.49.65 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Very much agree. The tone and even the writing style are biased. Please change/edit to be more neutral - especially "should have known." Thanks! 2603:6011:C003:1256:D188:F3CC:F6AC:C762 (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated by other posters the language in this article seems very biased. It is important to understand that there are varying opinions of this incident. The langue and content of this article seems to only represent one viewpoint. 71.71.148.123 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Only one viewpoint is supposed to be represented--that of the reliable sources. If you'd like to present some to back up changes you'd like to see, you are welcome to do so! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

While some narratives often prioritize traditional evidence, might surface-level facts miss the full story? In many instances, the most widely shared narratives can overlook subtle, yet significant, details that may alter our understanding of events. The inclusion of reliably diverse perspectives—those that may challenge common views—can enrich the broader conversation. Perspectives, while sometimes diverging from the mainstream, encourage deeper exploration of overlooked aspects of a matter. This broadens the scope of the mission, inviting readers to critically engage with the complexities of truth. In doing so, the encyclopedia fosters a more inclusive view of events, embracing a fuller range of interpretations. Hu Nhu (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The source is Alex Hollings, a "Former marine blackbelt", not law enforcement or legal expert, and Business Insider has 'no consensus' as a RS. Giving him 2 whole paragraphs is excessive at least. Hi! (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Death, not killing ...

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 agree!✨

Killing of Jordan Neely? Really? Bias and an unreasonable prejudice. Death of Jordan Neely. 2003:DC:8F02:3750:58A6:4609:8EE6:5432 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Penny has admitted to killing Neely, but he claims it was homicide and not murder. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Penny is qualified to make that determination. We need to wait until the trial ends. "Death" is more appropriate at this time. 66.31.232.83 (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If he said he didn't kill him, then...? 220.235.191.187 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. We should be able to up- and downvote these things because Wiki has gotten extremely Left biased in the last few years, which makes the information in these entries suspect and largely unusable as a source. 76.73.182.106 (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy where business is conducted by voting(which is easily gamed in this format). Wikipedia should not be trusted blindly, readers should examine the sources provided. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth. If you see errors in how the sources in this article are summarized, please tell how. If you have additional sources, please offer them.

A source being biased does not preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless it is alleged that the source is so biased it lacks basic journalistic standards or makes things up out of whole cloth. You are free to read an article and disagree with all of it. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you read the top of the talk page, this topic was discussed and resolved in an open forum; see here. Basically the coroner ruled that this was a homicide and so the name of the page reflects this fact. Anyone charged is innocent until proven guilty. Qflib (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well now. He is just innocent. 47.184.206.84 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth reapproaching this now that the verdict has come back as not guilty. The coroner and a defense-hired pathologist had different views but the court verdict should really be the deciding factor. ExiaMesa (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Not how that works it's still a killing just not a homicide, also the sentence has been reduced to manslaughter which is in fact killing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The sentence? There is no sentence. He was acquitted. The second-degree manslaughter was dismissed. A jury unanimously found him not guilty of the only remaining charge of criminally negligent homicide. That means there is no conviction and no sentence. Neither manslaughter nor homicide. Nothing in the jury's verdict affirms the medical examiner's claim (which was made prior to the toxicology report and several other forensic reports, and was disputed by the defense's medical examiner) that the cause of death was homicide.

"Killing" doesn't imply murder, but it does imply homicide. You don't say "my aunt was killed by cancer," you say "my aunt died of cancer." All words have a semantic range, but they also carry a connotation that may be weighted towards a more typical meaning. We should generally use words that, if interpreted according to their most typical colloquial meaning, would result in an accurate understanding of what we're describing. If your sentence requires people to interpret words in an unusual way, on the basis that those words' semantic ranges technically encompass the obscure meaning you intend, then it's misleading. It may be technically true, but it will have the effect of misleading or prejudicing some readers.

Sometimes that's fine, but in an article that describes a living person, where a person's reputation is at stake? And in a legal context, where formal definitions really matter, where the verdict is an objective fact? As far as I can tell, the only reason to use the term "killing," even after the verdict, is that you have an axe to grind and would like to use this article, and Wikipedia's voice, to tarnish the reputation of a living person you dislike. Let's be honest, there are many editors on Wikipedia with an agenda, who have no qualms with abusing this platform to influence public opinion.

If you stubbornly cling to a title that implies a finding of fact that the jury did not affirm, I have to ask, why? Why does it matter so much to you that this article should have a title that implies something terrible about a person? Why do you feel so strongly that we should prejudice the reader with the implication that Neely died by homicide? What legitimate, nonideological reason could you have for such a strong preference? Does the word "Death" really carry so much less accurate information that it's an intolerable substitute for "Killing"? No. What it carries less of is not accurate information, but emotional valence. GlacialHorizon (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia documents reliable sources and if those sources consider it a killing, then it's a killing. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (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.

why not use the same expression for both, either use the word - man - on both or just the description black or white.

please look into this:

'Jordan Maurice' Caine Neely was a 30-year-old black man who grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey.

Daniel Penny is a white (where is the man part here?) former Marine sergeant from West Islip, New York. 2800:B20:111A:3DFF:E1B7:8F6D:3EFB:C6C5 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please, let's try to answer with more detail and common sense, being "Marine" is not the subject we are addressing in the way this wiki is being presented. Both are - Men - and not Marine or Dancer respectively. The information should correspond with the fact that both are Men in the eyes of the law and public. It is a single word that can be biased information, what would the impact on the wiki, will be to add to Daniel Penny the attribute of Man+White+Marine? Would this harm the wiki?? Of course not, but it is clear from the intention on the data in this wiki, that Daniel Penny is being presented as a White+Marine ONLY, and NOT as a Man, that can be scared like any other, Man or Woman on that train. One single word makes a difference in this article. Thanks for considering my observation. If not, then it is stated here in this topic. 2800:B20:111A:3DFF:E1B7:8F6D:3EFB:C6C5 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Why use the terms “white” and “black” at all? The terms are not only inaccurate and divisive, but there is no indication that skin color has any relevance to these events. I vote we remove these terms entirely, with the possible exception of statements alleging racial bias (e.g. Sharpton’s). TheOtter (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 71.167.113.91 (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s Wikipedia, anybody can edit the article. But I would imagine you’ll get dogpiled if you do. Jwa05002 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

Change "Killing of Jordan Neely" in title to "Death of Jordan Neely" as existing title implies guilt since a party is currently standing trial for murder charges. Proposed title conveys equal information without any potential bias. 98.20.76.127 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?oldid=1153263936#Requested_move_4_May_2023 Cannolis (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 47.218.105.178 (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, especially considering he has now been found not guilty on all charges, meaning it is legally no longer homicide.2607:FEA8:9540:DE0:300E:5340:E2D7:4960 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Penny has confessed to killing Neely, and whether it was murder or homicide does not change that fact that he was harmed intentionally in a way that resulted in his death-- purposefully or not. He was killed by another man. Wereallprettybizzare (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Penny didn't confess to killing Neely. 2601:C2:1600:5E0:DDA8:D8CA:5B23:F69F (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2024 (2)

Penny is not a former Marine, no one is a former Marine, he is a retired Marine 50.145.136.178 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. All of the news article refer to Penny as a "Marine vet" or a "Marine veteran," not as a "former Marine." I could certainly use that language throughout the article instead. However, "retired Marine" is someone who has left active service after a specific number of years, and that is not the case here. But I can adjust the language to "Marine veteran." Qflib (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest autopsy

Showed no bruises at neck. Toxicology report indicated other reasons for death. Judge on Fox news. 72.175.149.6 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Please suggest the changes you want to be made to the article and then provide reliable sources to back them up. Also Fox News is not reliable per. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please either (a) include the specific part of the linked article that declares Fox News unreliable, or (b) revise your comment to be more factual. 208.79.249.235 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

He was clearly strangled, and synthetic marijuana was found in his system by the toxicology report. Autopsy shows he was killed by compression of his neck. Wereallprettybizzare (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

An autopsy, or rather the report of it, is a medical opinion - a piece of expert evidence. It is not a finding of fact, nor is it more inherently probative of a fact than is any other piece of evidence. An autopsy report certainly is not more deserving of factual weight than a court judgment that contradicts the report. As Penny has been acquitted, the autopsy is not grounds for any statement in this article other than the statements of the medical examiner's opinion as per the medical examiner's report, e.g., "after an autopsy, the coroner ruled Penny's death was a homicide by strangulation." All statements of fact contrary to the factual findings of the court which rely solely upon the medical report must be revised, or these statements will be false. 2601:C2:1600:5E0:DDA8:D8CA:5B23:F69F (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Killing?

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.

---

In most legal jurisdictions, New York is one, intent is required to be considered a killing as murder; meaning that to be convicted of murder, the prosecution must prove that the accused person intended to cause the death of the victim, not just that they caused the death unintentionally or through negligence.

Key points about intent in killing:

• Different levels of intent: Depending on the circumstances, a killing can be considered first-degree murder (requiring premeditation and specific intent to kill), second-degree murder (malicious intent without premeditation), or manslaughter (killing without the intent to kill but with reckless behavior).
• Proving intent: Prosecutors must present evidence to demonstrate the accused person's mental state at the time of the killing, including their actions, words, and surrounding circumstances.
• Exceptions: Some situations, like felony murder, may not require proving specific intent to kill if the death occurs during the commission of a serious crime.

2601:402:501:46B0:2D49:2C26:1634:867F (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Killing should be replaced by death. 2406:3400:308:0:FE35:4118:8CBD:B3F6 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

To both of you we go by reliable sources which say this is a killing, we know he was killed and the jury needs to determine whether it was homicide, murder, etc. If you would like to challenge this please supply multiple reliable sources that say this wasn't a killing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to move it to death instead of killing, then make a page move request Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2024 (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.

His backpack and jacket are still on

The article says some "journalist" said Penny threw down his jacket violently? I just saw the footage. Very hard to throw down a jacket pinned to you by a backpack, even after finally letting go of Neeely. How about not including what someone said when the video proves it's not what happened? 98.114.90.123 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

Change the title to "Death of Jordan Neely" 2600:4808:98B4:AB01:DF68:2DB5:7C1B:12D4 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: In fact, consensus is against this change. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This was over six months ago, when evidence (and reporting of said evidence) that exists today did not then. 220.235.191.187 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it was some time ago, but that time passing does not change the fact that the community made the decision. To change that decision, you would need to establish a new consensus. If you'd like to start a fresh request to move, you are welcome to do so.

But I think it is highly unlikely to pass; none of the subsequent reporting has done anything to annul the reasons (legal and linguistic) that promoted editors to support the current title. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

AntiDionysius is correct. Also I would ask this poster, as well as everyone else, to please follow and carefully read the link below in addition to seeing the discussion that AD shared. There is a standard, which has been followed here as far as I can see, for deciding what the title should be in this particular set of circumstances: Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles . Qflib (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be taken down - misinformation

This WIKI contains too much opinion and not enough facts. 150.195.155.124 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

need to add synthetic drug use and sickle cell crisis as contributing to his death. Chokehold wasn't the only cause 2601:14B:C204:6000:EC87:8C8E:ABEB:399 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

previous incidents and mental struggles should also be included Wereallprettybizzare (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

it should also be included that daniel isnt the one that killed him directly, the police also didnt want to give him mouth to mouth and only did chest compressions which gives him a much lower survival rate anyway. 2A02:3030:A61:1B6B:9440:3E42:C120:3C84 (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024

No mention that he was homeless because his parents kicked him out because he was to much for them. 100.34.12.157 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not murder, new evidence

New evidence shows he did not die of chokehold. This needs to be changed to death, not murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/defense-pathologist-says-jordan-neely-didnt-die-chokehold-nyc-subway-rcna180958 32.142.31.66 (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say murder. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add that no "new evidence" shows anything like this, per your own link. Apparently, this is a single contradicting testimony from one forensic pathologist, who unlike the original medical examiner didn't conduct any autopsy in this case, and has also boldly claimed that "schizophrenia" was a physical (?) contributor to the man's death.

In any case, nothing can be definitively stated until reliable sources say it. Right now, the article follows what the majority of those sources say, and what the consensus of editors has established as a result. Perhaps we should add a section at the top of this talk page linking to the discussion AntiDionysius mentioned above. LaughingManiac (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

False information

this needs to be edited to correct the false information such as the manner of death, or be taken down if the authorbis unwilling to correct it with facts in evidence. 64.222.206.99 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources if you have any sources that say it wasn't a killing then provide them and they will be reviewed. Right now the majority of reliable sources say this was a killing by chokehold. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna180775

Literally in the headline it says “Death of Jordan Neely.”

Wikipedia should be LESS biased than your average news source.

And if you simply google it, article after article describes this incident as the “Death of Jordan Neely.” Not as a killing (or a murder or a homicide).

Also given the jury verdict, if the editors of this page have any integrity at all, they’d change the wording to “death of” Jwa05002 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested wording change

When I read "Neely's death was ruled a homicide" I expected to later read about a court ruling of some sort, not a medical examiner's determination as I saw later with "the medical examiner's office determined the manner of death to be homicide". IMO "was ruled" is somewhat misleading even if technically accurate. Perhaps something like "was found to be" or "was determined to be"? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the outcome of the trial, in which the defense presented a pathologist disputing the finding of a homicide, and given that the jury found that Penny was not guilty even on the lesser charge, I changed this to disputed in the infoboxes. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph still says "Neely's death was ruled a homicide by compression of the neck on May 4, which was later disputed by defense lawyers during Penny’s trial." It is good that we mention that it was disputed, but in my opinion "ruled" is still the wrong word. Medical examiniers do not issue rulings, Judges do. The court ruled that... The jury found the defendant... The medical examiner determined that... The court's decision was... The verdict was... The finding of the medical examiner was... Different words often carry different implications as to the source. Diagnosed? Doctor. Ruled? Judge. Charged? Prosecutor. That way we can say "a diagnosis of" or "was diagnosed as having" without specifying that it was a doctor who made the diagnosis. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2024

Killing of Jordan Neely → Death of Jordan Neely – Article title needs to match up to date RS coverage

Up to date RS wavers between continuing to present this as a confirmed killing or playing it safe and describing this as a death, without making a direct statement either way on Penny killing Neely. While some RS like BBC seem to adopt the former position, others go towards the latter position, likely because this point was a central area of dispute in the trial, and was part of jury instructions, which in turn led to a not guilty verdict. RS coverage of this issue typically steers away from taking sides on either affirming the Medical Examiner's position that it was a homicide or the Pathologist testimony casting doubt on that finding. Examples of RS that carefully attribute claims of what caused Neely's death rather than readily describing it conclusively as a killing, and typically utilize the terms "death" over "killing" include:

The New York Times: Over the course of the trial, Mr. Penny’s legal team has pushed back at the assertion that their client’s restraint was the cause of Mr. Neely’s death. And the question of what exactly killed Mr. Neely was central to the monthlong debate between the prosecutors and defense lawyers.

Associated Press: Contradicting a city medical examiner’s finding, a pathologist hired by the defense said Neely died not from the chokehold but from the combined effects of K2, schizophrenia, his struggle and restraint, and a blood condition that can lead to fatal complications during exertion.

ABC News: The city's medical examiner concluded Penny's chokehold killed Neely. The defense argued Neely died from a genetic condition and the synthetic marijuana found in his system.

A number of talk sections have raised the issue of this wiki article's title being inappropriate. Given the coverage of the most recent RS in light of new details from the trial, the right move would be to play it safe like many RS are doing now and label this as a death and attribute the claims of its cause, rather than affirmatively describing this as a killing. Even sources that otherwise use language that describe the death as a result of Penny's actions, like the aforementioned BBC article, decline to conclusively take the side of the medical examiner or the pathologist when focusing on the specific topic of cause of death in detail. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: recent coverage seems to use both terms pretty liberally; for example, the NYT article says death of Jordan Neely in the title and then asks what exactly killed Mr. Neely in the body. Previous coverage leaned pretty heavily towards "killing", hence the decision in the original move discussion. I see no reason to change the title just because sources have become slightly less emphatic.

I am also quite unconvinced by the argument that "killing" implies guilt or lends support to a particular cause of death; people can be "killed" by anything, including natural causes, as the NYT's word choice exemplifies. --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you find a single Wikipedia article about people being killed by a natural disaster that has “The killing of…” in the title?

By putting “killing” in the headline, a certain connotation is being implied. The person was killed intentionally and with malice.

Saying otherwise is just arguing semantics.

Pretty much every article by every RS is referring to this as “The Death of Jordan Neely.”

Ascribing a negative connotation to an event that the vast majority of main stream RS aren’t ascribing should not be wiki’s standard Jwa05002 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, of course we're arguing semantics. This is a semantic discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:KILLINGOF is an essay, but it seems to be the standard convention in Wikipedia and WP:CONSISTENT is policy. As it states:

If the cause of a death is unknown, may be the result of an accident or may be attributable to natural causes, the article should be titled "Death of [person]" instead of "Killing of [victim]" or "Murder of [victim]". For example, in the Death of Mutula Kilonzo, the victim died under suspicious circumstances but foul play was never conclusively determined, so such an article must not be labeled as a murder.

You point out that the NYT puts the question of what exactly killed Mr. Neely in the air as up for debate, but for basically every other article on wikipedia, the fact that there is such a question would support a move to "Death of Jordan Neely". KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we’re done here. Jwa05002 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, we're not, the move discussion is ongoing. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There was dispute over cause of death when the previous move discussion took place too, and consensus then was still in favour of using the word "killing". I don't think there is any significantly greater level of dispute now, even if one jury has taken a particular position on it. Thus I see no reason to overturn the previous decision. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion seems to be from over a year ago. A considerable amount of new info has been made available since then, and RS has updated its coverage accordingly. It's not just a jury decision, it's how RS characterize the cause of death controversy between the pathologist and the medical examiner, which predates the verdict but postdates the last discussion.

Example from NYT in November 2024, again carefully attributing statements, declining to conclude one way or the other, and primarily using the neutral descriptor of "death": The medical examiner, Dr. Cynthia Harris, determined that Mr. Neely died from “compression of the neck,” and held firm to her findings through three days of testimony. However, an expert Mr. Penny’s legal team called to testify, Dr. Satish Chundru, rebutted that. KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, there isn't a single other notable Wikipedia article where "Killing" is not used a murder/manslaughter context, so death by other causes shouldn't be called killing. For example, the Death of Michael Jackson article uses death due to a drug overdose (i.e. not a murder/manslaughter) vs the Murder of George Floyd articles uses murder when Chauvin was found criminally liable for killing him, but Penny was not. MrCheese76 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some articles in which no one was successfully convicted of murder, manslaughter, or other criminal charges (including aquittals) that are titled 'killing': Killing of Trayvon Martin, Killing of Michael Brown, Killing of Freddie Gray, Killing of Tortuguita, Killing of Ashli Babbitt, Killing of Eric Garner, Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., Killing of Sean Bell Mason7512 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, a precedence has been set specifically in the US context of the highly-covered killings of Black people - largely men. There is a broader social context that encompasses social attitudes that are also reflected in RS grammatical rulemaking and style guides that dissuade use of passive voice. Using “death of” would not only contradict Wikipedia precedence but also wider grammatical and style guides. Editor85213 (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We should not be using vague, ambiguous euphemisms in this situation. Neither the opinion of a medical examiner selected by the defense of the man whose actions killed him nor the language used by RSs when discussing each side of the trial changes the fact that Jordan Neely was killed. This isn't a case of a mysterious death, the manner of which is legitimately or widely debated (such as Death of Elisa Lam, Death of Jeffrey Epstein). Killed, unlike murdered, holds no legal implication of guilt so this decision should not be swayed but recent legal outcomes. Mason7512 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is about evidence brought forward as part of the legal proceedings and how RS have characterized the cause of death, not the verdict. Sources predating the verdict describe contention in the cause of death pre-verdict, such as this November NYT piece. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia has long been consistent on the difference between "killing" and "murder" when there's actually a conviction. But "death" is too ambiguous. The death was still ruled a homicide, and no one, not even Penny, disputes that label. Being acquitted doesn't erase that. It just makes it not a criminally liable act. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The homicide finding was disputed, including by Penny, who brought forward a pathologist who disputed that finding. Reliable secondary sources, which take precedence over the primary source of the medical examiner, do not conclude this was a homicide, but rather attribute and mention the opposing viewpoints. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It was ruled a homicide by ONE expert, other experts disagreed (as reported by reliable sources)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/nyregion/daniel-penny-defense-jordan-neely.html

According to this article, an expert for Daniel Penny’s defense testified that Neely died from a combination of drug use and sickle cell disease. This expert also testified there’s literally no way to measure how much force Penny applied and that it would be impossible to determine if the chokehold contributed to the death.

In the trial only 2 expert medical witnesses testified according to this NYT (a reliable source) article. Why are you disregarding one of them? That doesn’t seem unbiased or fair at all. Jwa05002 (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is at least one MEDICAL EXPERT who disputes that Neely’s death was a homicide, as reported by numerous reliable sources.

https://gothamist.com/news/defense-lawyers-in-nyc-subway-chokehold-case-blame-sickle-cell-echoing-george-floyd-trial

This article (from a RS) reports on what Penny’s defense expert testified to, it even goes into some detail about how sickle cell trait can cause death.

https://apnews.com/article/daniel-penny-subway-chokehold-death-trial-436b3a5c79e9dbd34b351c4f3a2ac302

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/daniel-penny-trial-forensic-pathologist-chokehold-death/

Here are 2 more reliable sources reporting what the expert medical witness said (disputing that Penny caused Neely’s death)

Now you may disagree with the medical expert, but it doesn’t matter. Wikipedia articles aren’t based on any individual editor’s beliefs. They are based on what has been reported by reliable sources.

An there are numerous reliable sources in this case that have reported an expert does not believe Jordan Neely was killed by anybody. Jwa05002 (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:KILLINGOF Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

struggle and restraint were caused by the strangling Wereallprettybizzare (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Yep... people have been keeping this article very biased in bad faith, using Wikipedia legalism, for too long; now that verdict is in, this article needs drastic changes.Mercster (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Since this vote began, multiple other RS have described the event exclusively as a "death", not a "killing".

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/daniel-penny-jd-vances-guest-weekends-army-navy-game-rcna184110: "Daniel Penny, the man who was found not guilty in the chokehold death of Jordan Neely..."

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/10/daniel-penny-nyc-subway-chokehold-jordan-neely-not-guilty: "The death of the 30-year-old Michael Jackson impersonator who performed in Times Square triggered a wave of demonstrations at the time..."

https://apnews.com/article/daniel-penny-nyc-subway-trial-jordan-neely-3c69673475d69e02aa80f6d146114554: "An anonymous Manhattan jury cleared Penny of a criminally negligent homicide charge in the death of Neely..."

I assume they are describing the event this way for the same reason WP:KILLINGOF lists: when "a verdict of acquittal reflects the conclusion of the jury that no homicide occurred". Distinct from some other cases that have been mentioned (like Killing of Trayvon Martin) Penny was acquitted not only of manslaughter but also criminally negligent homicide. Aclfc (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear about the language here: he was not "acquitted of manslaughter". You can say that he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter, that's fine (and even go so far as to argue that, due to presumption of innocence, he is by default innocent of that charge); but he was only acquitted of the lesser charge of negligent homicide, while the charge of manslaughter was dismissed due to the jury deadlocking. This is an important distinction, given how much of this move discussion is about semantics, and the precise meaning of words.

Also, since I'm one of the users who has by far among the most replies in this discussion (as I also used to be LaughingManiac), I'm hereby announcing that, unless someone explicitly pings me with a neutral request for information, I'll stop responding from this point forward, to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING - especially since I've advised that others should do the same. I won't contribute to this anymore, and will let everyone else discuss (and let the move closer decide based on the available arguments). Thanks everyone for your participation, regardless of where you stand on this matter! NewBorders (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It was my mistake to imply he was acquitted of manslaughter, thanks. Still, it seems to me that if priority is given to a jury verdict (and to the common name used by reliable sources after the jury verdict), then an acquittal of negligent homicide should support describing the event as a death and not a killing. Aclfc (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Support "Killing" implies murder or malintent the word "Death" sounds more neutral and unbiased. Rager7 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: The definition of “killing” is to cause the death, intentional or unintentional, of another person. A jury found in his criminal case based on available evidence that he did not cause the death of Jordan Neely. This article title would be acceptable had his defense stipulated that he did cause Neely’s death but argued it was a justifiable homicide, they did not. The State of New York offered evidence that Neely’s death was caused by neck compression and the defense offered evidence suggesting that it was not the cause. It is entirely irresponsible to list the article as killing instead of death until there is clear and concise reports that Perry caused Neely’s death. LasagnaLover23 (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose this title change - although I would understand if it does end up being changed, and wouldn't find too many issues with that change. Though I do agree there are some policy-based reasons to change the wording to "death", I ultimately am of the opinion that WP:CONSISTENT, the reported facts of the case, and the coverage by reliable sources, all point to the current wording being far more appropriate than "death" (which would fail WP:NPOVTITLE).

Reasons for vote, collapsed due to length.

Here are my general observations, having reviewed the sources and policies above: It's obviously not true that Pretty much every article by every RS is referring to this as “The Death of Jordan Neely.”, as a simple search of the word "killing" within the titles of this article's sources can attest to. It is, however, true that as far as I can tell, most recent sources use the word "death", and that though a non-insignificant amount of sources cited by our article (22, by my count) prefer the word "killing", more of them use the word "death". Though I would also point out many of those use the phrase "chokehold death", with (in my mind) the clear intent of establishing a link between the action of choking and the death that occurred (and some, such as this one, using the explicit phrasing "choking to death"). It is also true that even the KILLINGOF essay clearly states to take into account legal proceedings and adapt accordingly, e.g. here: Later legal proceedings may justify or require that the title of an article be revisited. For example, a later inquest or trial may result in the determination that no homicide occurred, in which case the article should be titled as "Death of [name]". I would also mention, however, that CONSISTENCY, in this particular case, which as justly pointed out above comes from policy and not an essay, does not make much of a case for either wording. For instance, just among the top "Killing of..." results, the killing of JonBenét Ramsey, killing of Michael Brown and killing of Freddie Gray all utilize that term, despite having "death" in source titles, and despite the killers in each instance being acquitted, or not charged with anything. Obviously, CRITERIA is going to be the deciding factor here, but the policy also mentions that These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others.. Ultimately, my reading of the policies here are that they argue far less for solid and unmoving rules when it comes to decisions such as this one, and rather that they encourage case-by-case judgment based on personal assessment of sources and their consensus on the topic. I also think that, in this particular case, the sources do not present an overwhelming consensus to choose one title over the other. Now, with all that said: - I am of the personal opinion that, regardless of what the jury has found, this was unambiguously a killing (whether in self-defense or not), at least until it can be established beyond reasonable doubt, and as supported by reliable sources, that the victim would've died even with no chokehold - with the defense pathologist's arguments in particular, as I read them within the sources, coming off as specious at best; - I think that MANDY, which is an essay that nonetheless, remains, in my opinion, very correct, is enough to address the contention that Mr. Penny and his defense team should be allowed to cast doubt over the characterization of the events, and furthermore that while RS may need to document that doubt in their article titles, we are beholden to no such standards, and should instead focus on how those sources actually describe the case; - I believe, within that lens, that the majority of the coverage by reliable sources, presenting the situation as it happened - a man held another man in a chokehold until that other man died - fairly unambiguously support the characterization of "killing" rather than "death"; - I also lean towards the idea that it's far more natural, whether it be in other articles or with respect to how readers will search for this, to refer to the death of a man who died in the course of another one's chokehold with the term "killing" rather than the less proactive "death" - and thus, from a more policy-based standpoint, per the above criteria of "Naturalness", I would also support that wording. Hence my general vote.

LaughingManiac (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The criminal druggie was a user of synthetic cannabinoids such as K2. He was schizo, and had a blood condition which may or may not have arisen from decades of illegal drug abuse. We can say he died, sure, but what was the role the cops who retched at the druggie's smell, even if they at some point provided respiratory assistance? Plus, like LaughingManiac says, «more of [our sources] use the word "death".» XavierItzm (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're personal opinion on the victim is not an argument also Wikipedia is not a soap box Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your language in this discussion is inappropriate and unnecessary. Mooonswimmer 17:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is whole inappropriate and bigoted language to use. Editor85213 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, interesting arguments. I wonder what role his being held in a chokehold for a minute after going limp played in his death. Maybe being strangled for 6 minutes was a preexisting condition he gave himself. Jv110 (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Give me a break. It is an accurate description. This person was an addict to illegal drugs, was on illegal drugs at the time, threatened to kill a woman with her child (hence the term criminal), was mentally ill, and had sickle cell disease. Daniel Penny saved lives, and acted out of necessity. Also, marijuana does retch, you can't pretend that it doesn't. Daniel Penny was a marine. He would have known what he was doing. He needed to restrain him, and Neely wouldn't have died as a result of Penny's actions. 208.38.225.31 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• @XavierItzm, I'd suggest to you that you strike your unnecessary and belligerent comments about the person in the article. Your opinion on the subject in the article does not help the case and only shows that your hate is disruptive. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia:KILLINGOF Also we have reached large consensus on the name after a previous discussion. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support, the public discourse has changed on the matter. Killing to me implies murder, and he wasn't murdered per the laws of the state he resided in.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  The medical examiner stated that it was homicide. Killing is factually correct. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/daniel-penny-verdict-nyc-subway-chokehold-jordan-neely/ 88.97.229.218 (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  As others have stated, “killing” is not the same thing as homicide/murder (irregardless of your personal interpretation of sword) - it indicates a death where causation has been determined and uses active voice as is standard in PS style guides. Editor85213 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  The law presumes us innocent until proven guilty. As there is no way he could have been proven guilty, Wikipedia cannot degrade his reputation over something he was acquitted for. 208.38.225.31 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - from WP:KILLINGOF If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". "Homicide of [person]" is not expected to form a natural name. If there is doubt that a death resulted from homicide, the article should be titled "Death of [person]". the medical examiner determined cause of death is homicide. [1]. Since legal proceedings did not determine murder, title should remain as is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  The medical examiner is not the law. ONE "expert". Let's change that last sentence. Since legal proceedings did not determine murder or homicide, title should be changed to not imply murder or homicide. 208.38.225.31 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I’d like to add to this also, the medical examiner testified in court that she determined this was a homicide prior to receiving a toxicology report. By that logic, Neely could’ve had 5 times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system (which clearly wouldn’t be a homicide). Ruling before she even had toxicology calls her credibility into question, IMO. Jwa05002 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I said the other comment will be my last but just noticed this. That surely depends on whether it's possible to determine homicide without the toxicology report which is something experts should determine not random Wikipedians. If person A uses a missile to blow someone's head off, it's hardly surprising that a coroner would rule it a homicide without even looking at any toxicology results. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. The medical examiner report was never retracted and the medical determination of homicide remains, a defense attorney simply convinced a panel of 12 lay people that legal definition of homicide by Jordan Neely was not met, which means we legally can't say Jordan Neely was murdered, only that he was killed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:KILLINGOF as quoted above. Cause of death is homicide, "Killing of" is still most appropriate. Orthostasis (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can understand the rationale behind wanting the wording changed, but irregardless he was still killed, whether self defense/etc. Think WP:KILLINGOF covers this pretty well Bittybit5 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support, Titling this "Killing off..." specifically implies murder, which clearly didn't happen in this incident. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  No it doesn't, killing just implies that the victim was killed my someone. Manslaughter is still killing someone. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just having the article titled "Death of..." would remove any ambiguity regarding that. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, passive voice is almost universally discouraged by English language PS style guides for the exact reason that it obfuscates the action occurring (hence why its opposite is called “active voice”). As many others have commented, his death was also ruled the homicide by the medical examiner, meaning he was killed by someone else, his death did not occur as an accident or a natural cause. Editor85213 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Citation: "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". Editor85213 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The term "killing" does not imply murder, and it is routinely used for articles where the perpetrator is not convicted, such as Killing of Trayvon Martin. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I came to this article with very little prior knowledge. This morning I read this NYTimes article and then followed that by reading this Wikipedia article top to bottom. I followed that up with a dive into definitions of "homicide" and the WP essay WP:"Murder of" articles that several people here have linked to with the shortlink WP:KILLINGOF. Working under the potentially false assumption that this essay is the best way to determine whether something should be called a Murder, Killing, or Death, I still have questions.
  • The coroners report ruled it a homicide, but this was disputed by the defense who blamed the death on some combination of synthetic marijuana, mental illness and sickle cell anemia. Under the widest definition of homicide, which includes: "Somebody pulled a gun on me; I instinctively shoved him and he stumbled, tripped on his untied shoe laces, hit his head, and died" I think this is technically a homicide in the sense that Neely would not have died if Penny hadn't put him in a choke hold. I suppose the jury's verdict technically puts it into the category of Justafiable homicide. So under that reading, the statement "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". "Homicide of [person]" is not expected to form a natural name. 'If there is doubt that a death resulted from homicide, the article should be titled "Death of [person]". would have us use the word killing instead of death, despite the last sentence, which I have bolded. (Is there actually doubt?)
  • On the other hand, Wikipedia:"Murder_of"_articles#The_verdict_excludes_homicide's statement that A verdict of acquittal reflects the conclusion of the jury that no homicide occurred, and the article should be titled "Death of [person]" gives me pause. Does the "not guilty" verdict here mean that the jury found reasonable doubt that this was a homicide, or only that the homicide was not criminal.

Overall based on what I've read, I lean oppose. If I were to learn that the jury specifically said this was not a homicide, I'd likely change my mind. ~Awilley (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasonable and well thought out analysis on this topic.

I’ll just say with this case in particular, the term killing implies a certain malice on Penny’s part that the jury in the case did not seem to believe was present.

Therefore using the term killing, in this case, gives the article an apparent bias and makes it controversial.

Using the term “death of…” eliminates this problem and doesn’t alter the information provided to a person seeking out the article.

That (should be) the ultimate goal of every Wikipedia article. Providing information to the user (and doing so in a manner that appears as unbiased and uncontroversial as possible) Jwa05002 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The word killing does not describe malice, it is a verb without any adverbs indicating how/why the action is carryed out. Your subjective personal interpretations of words are not relevant to this discussion. According to Wikipedia’s guide: "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". The ME determined the cause of death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of [person]”.

See the following articles for precedence where individuals were killed, but no one was convicted of murder, manslaughter, or other criminal charges (including aquittals) that are titled 'killing': Killing of Trayvon Martin, Killing of Michael Brown, Killing of Freddie Gray, Killing of Tortuguita, Killing of Ashli Babbitt, Killing of Eric Garner, Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., Killing of Sean Bell. Editor85213 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The medical examiner's finding was homicide. Additionally, "killing" does not imply any criminal culpability. TheXuitts (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. While the term "killing" may not necessarily imply murder or even manslaughter, it seems to me that if neither of these apply, then the term would only be appropriate if there was at least a "killer" who was intending to kill. If a person's death cannot be determined to have been brought about either intentionally or negligently, I don't see how calling their death a "killing" is appropriate. In calling it a "homicide", the medical examiner in this case was not passing judgement on intent, only on the scientific question of how and why Neely died.--Dylancatlow1 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Killing is at all a term that implies the action was intentional and homicide actually does imply it being intentional. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I assume you meant to say "Killing is not at all a term that implies the action was intentional"

  It is, though. If a nurse gives a patient the wrong drug, and they die as a result, we would not normally call that a "killing" unless they knew what they were doing. If Penny killed Neely unintentionally, and his actions were not deemed to be criminally negligent either, it's misleading to call it a "killing". It implies he was intending to kill him, which has not been established. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  You are incorrect, because a nurse has medical training and a legal duty of care it is homicide either way, just usually litigated under malpractice insurance in civil court in the US. A nurse knowingly giving a patient the wrong dose is homicide a nurse unknowingly giving the patient the wrong dose is negligent homicide.

  Even in a correct version of your metaphor, the word killing is a verb which describes an action and has no implication of being guilty or non-guilty. In the English language and adverb would be necessary to indicate that said killing was intentional or unintentional, which the legal system differentiates as homicide.

  This is corroborated by Wikipedia’s article naming convention: "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". The ME determined the cause of death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of [person]”. Editor85213 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're overanalyzing the analogy. It is simply a fact that if a nurse gave a patient the wrong drug and that killed them, we not call the incident a "killing". If there was a Wikipedia article about the incident, it would not be called "The killing of that patient". End of story.

  You're right that the term "killing" does not necessarily imply there had been any wrongdoing. If there had been no wrongdoing, however, then I say there must at least have been an *intention to kill*. Otherwise, it's just incorrect use of language. No medical examiner could tell from the body alone whether Penny would have known exactly when to stop the chokehold to prevent their death. They're a mere human in this.

  If you're right that that is Wikipedia's standard, and its implications in this case "have to be applied", then I suggest we look into changing it. It's giving too much weight to any mere ruling of "homicide". We have to be allowed to think on our feet and not be tied to such a simple rule. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I say there must at least have been an *intention to kill*

  I disagree with this idea, which seems like uncorroborated original research and personal interpretation.

  Not only do reliable sources often use the word "killing" even when intent hasn't been proven, or has been dismissed[2][3][4][5][6], but the implication that "killing" naturally suggests "intent to kill" is neither present in standard definitions of the concept [7][8][9][10], nor in our page on homicide (which is the first disambiguation suggestion for killing), nor in other examples of that word that can be found in our article titles, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread. NewBorders (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Dylancatlow1: I'd note that RaDonda Vaught homicide case while not titled "killing of" because it's concentrates on the case rather than the killing, does in fact use the language "after she mistakenly administered the wrong medication that killed a patient in 2017" (emphasis mine). This reflects the language sources use. And even Vaught herself said in an initial interview '"probably just killed a patient."' [11] Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) In the interest of full disclosure, I've had a look to see if I can find any other articles. I couldn't find any that are particularly close except R v Lee which doesn't use killing but again concentrates on the legal case. Then there's Celobar incident which is sorta similar. It doesn't use killings either, but I think this case is partly reflective of the classic problem of one death being a tragedy, millions being a statistics. While it's twenty and not millions, it is true that the way such deaths are treated tends to be different. Besides the deaths I suspect there were also other harms caused short of death although our article doesn't mention this. (E.g. if someone modifies a specific Tesla software either as the owner or with their permission and it results in the car crashing and killing someone besides the person who modified the software it's easy to imagine the person who performed the modification being charged with some form of homicide. This is much less likely if Tesla doesn't test their software properly, releases it and several or many of their cars crash and kill people.) There is also 2014 Chhattisgarh sterilisation deaths which again doesn't use killings anywhere. However the details seem fairly unclear at least in our article, and again this seems to be partly reflective of the fact it involved a number of deaths and other harm, rather than just a one or two although true the title doesn't reflect the other harm either. Also loosely similar is Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident which also does call it an accident and not killing. But again, I think this is partly reflective of the fact it involved a number of deaths and other harm. Also the deaths were somewhat disassociated from the human actions which lead up to them. There's also Death of MohBad which isn't a great article anyway and the details of the death seem very unclear, but in any case our article title might very well change to killing depending on what happens in the future. Death of Chong Yun Jing is interesting but despite there apparently being negligence, the negligence was somewhat disassociated from the death. Then there's also Death of Amber Thurman but that seems much more about the law in her state, and also death from inaction is far less likely to be seen as a killing. Death of Chaniece Wallace is vaguely similar. To some extent so to Death of Brian Sinclair and Death of Kelly Savage. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos: - No a homicide does not have to be intentional. "A homicide requires only a volitional act, or an omission, that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm. It is separate from suicide.". Yes Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, but in this case that doesn't matter since our article simply reflects how the word is use throughout the world. Hence why the relevant supplement Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) likewise says "Note: to avoid protracted debates, the word "homicide" in this context means "the killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional". It does not imply any degree of culpability." Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've addressed this already. This convention has to be recognized as potentially allowing nonsense to be said, whether or not it generally works. Proof: a mother buys medicine for her child, but it turns out to be laced with poison. Not knowing this, she voluntarily decides to give it to her child, "killing" them. Did she "kill" her child, though? No. And any article about it would never accuse her of killing anyone. That would be preposterous.

  Therefore, the following definition of a "killing" does not work for every case: "a volitional act, or an omission, that causes the death of another". Dylancatlow1 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's quite likely that the article would indeed be titled killing. Regardless of the mother, people don't just randomly end up with medicine laced with poison. The only way this is likely because someone else did something to result in the mother getting poison. Again this is reflected in WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and is how we always title such articles. Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're just grasping at straws, dude. It would only be called a "killing" because of the medicine having been laced with poison. The mother would not be described as the killer or even a killer in this situation. I could easily come up with another example, if you want. Or you can just accept defeat. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Dylancatlow1: Come up with another example then since both your examples are so highly flawed and one even contradicts what we're specifically doing. Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, as it happens, we have a similar example to this: the adult neighbor of a girl accidentally poisoned her. Alas, it would seem reliable sources disagree with your interpretation.

  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxx2ed443jko

  https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/italy-people-cps-london-old-bailey-b2581966.html

  https://news.sky.com/story/fatiha-sabrin-11-year-old-girl-killed-on-her-birthday-by-poisonous-gas-desperate-neighbour-used-for-bedbug-infestation-13180389

  https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/woman-who-killed-neighbour-11-with-bedbug-poison-avoids-jail-37vs93ts2

  Would you say a toddler who accidentally shot his own mother "killed" her? No? Then, again, you disagree with reliable sources.

  https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/12/11/toddler-shoots-kills-mother-jessinya-mina-fresno/76914748007/

  https://abc13.com/post/woman-accidentally-shot-killed-2-year-old-child-fresno-california-police-say/15635977/

  https://eu.desertsun.com/story/news/nation/california/2024/12/10/california-woman-killed-by-toddler-playing-with-unsecured-handgun/76893674007/

  Also, there is no "victory" or "defeat" here. That phrasing denotes a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. We are all just trying, in good faith, to reflect the coverage of the situation in a proper way. NewBorders (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  In NZ there is [12] [13]. We don't have an article on that and are unlikely to ever have one but IMO if we did it would be titled killing reflective of the guilty plea even if she was discharged without conviction. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  How interesting that in almost all of the examples you were able to come up with, the word "killed" was preceded by the word "accidentally". Now why is that, if the word "kill" does not at all imply it was intentional? Seems like you lost the argument to me. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  How interesting that in almost all of the examples you were able to come up with, the word "killed" was preceded by the word "accidentally"

  This seems like a clear shifting of the goalposts to me. Your opposition to the term wasn't "accidental killing can only be defined as such if it's also accompanied by the explicit term accidental"; it was, as I'm quoting once again, that "if there had been no wrongdoing, however, then I say there must at least have been an *intention to kill*" (or, if we're going back to your very first comment, "the term would only be appropriate if there was at least a "killer" who was intending to kill"). No mention is made, here or anywhere else in your argumentation, that another word must nuance the concept of "killing" to make that judgment one way or the other. This opposition was merely that the word "killing" by itself denotes "a killer, and thus an intention to kill".

  As I have demonstrated, several times, this is wrong. One basic way of understanding that this is wrong is, again, our page on homicide. Please indicate, to me, were in that article it is stated that the concept of homicide always implies an intent to kill? Alternatively, in legal terms, which people supportive of this change have utilized consistently in this discussion, how would you explain the distinction between manslaughter and murder... both of which imply killing, but make different statements concerning intent?

  And, again, if your original contention were accurate, then an "accidental killing" would be an oxymoron. The fact it's not, and that as you yourself point out "accidentally" can be associated to the word, proves beyond doubt that the word itself makes no claims concerning intent.

  To put it very simply, you are incorrect when you suggest that the concept of killing implies intent to kill. This is unsupported by reliable sources, by our own articles, and in terms of article titles, by our WP:CONSISTENT policy.

  Additionally, and this is the second warning I'm giving you here, I'd remark that using words like "losing" or "winning" indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Please refrain from this kind of attitude, as this is unproductive; we are here, as I've already stated, to establish consensus between differing opinions, and portray the coverage of reliable sources, in its majority, in a responsible and reasonable way. If our consensus finds that "death" is the appropriate wording, I will respect that consensus, regardless of my own opinion.

  Will you do the same if it finds the opposite? NewBorders (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  So you're basically trying to say that Wikipedia's one-sentence definition of "killing" is a reasonable one to apply in every conceivable situation because you can find cases where the term "killing" is used to refer to truly accidental acts that the authors constantly stress are killings of an accidental sort. Here is my position: while I certainly don't think that the phrase "accidental killing" is an oxymoron, I don't think it is standard to use the word "killing" in the context of someone's accidental death unless its accidental nature is made clear almost immediately. It is simply not the way we talk, and the examples you cite pretty much show this. I did see that one of the headlines said "killed" without immediately specifying the death as accidental (doing so instead in the first sentence of the article), but it being accidental was already quite obvious from the fact that the weapon used was bedbug poison. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  So you're basically trying to say that Wikipedia's one-sentence definition of "killing" is a reasonable one to apply in every conceivable situation

  Well, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That was more of a supporting example to try and illustrate the concept in a simpler way, but ultimately the bulk of my argumentation relies on how the word is commonly used, and understood, by reliable sources.

  But ultimately, I think we've both made our positions clear here. The person(s) in charge of finding consensus in analyzing this conversation will judge accordingly which interpretation seems more correct. NewBorders (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Killing and murder are synonymous in my mind, and public perception will likely reflect that. Wikipedia contributors are not in a position to determine how exactly Neely died, and I don’t think it’s wise to sleuth sources, even reputable ones, to determine the truth of the matter. (Doing so is tantamount to relitigating the case in a separate court of public opinion.) Thus, the court’s ruling should be considered “the truth” as far as we can determine. I’m sympathetic to the oppose vote when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22Murder_of%22_articles#%22Killing_of%22_articles is read closely, but—and my personal opinion intrudes at this point—killing, to me, signifies intention, and my vague knowledge of the case (sorry) doesn’t give the impression of intention. I’ll offer a counterexample: A man enters a police station brandishing an empty handgun and is killed. This is suicide by cop, and a medical examiner will determine that bullets killed him, but this man’s article will not be titled “Killing of John Doe”; it will be titled “Death of John Doe” or “Suicide of John Doe.”—BboyYen (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• First off we know that a man killed him a court just has ruled it wasn't a homicide that being intent to kill. Also why do I keep having to link this but for the love of the spaghetti monster read Wikipedia:KILLINGOF. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  If a man enters a police station brandishing an empty handgun and is killed, his article will be titled “Death of John Doe” or “Suicide of John Doe” (as I indicate above). In that example, we know someone other than the man is directly responsible for the latter’s death (ha). If Neely was behaving in a threatening manner and Penny’s intention was merely to restrain the former, how are we to argue who or what is ultimately responsible for the former’s death? Why can’t Neely’s demise be an “accident”? But I own that, at this point, my personal opinion is intruding! BboyYen (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  No it would be killing per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). We do it all the time. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your personal interpretation of the word “killing” is irrelevant. In the English language, the word killing is a verb that describes an action without implication of intent, and without a without an adverb to modify the word it is unequivocally not synonymous with murder.

  Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia as naming conventions, "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". The ME determined the cause of Neely’s death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of [person]”. Editor85213 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support the renaming of the article to "Death of Jordan Neely." I want to start this off by saying that I don't find it persuasive or compelling that the word "killing" implies guilt. I disagree with that line of reasoning, and I don't think that reason alone provides enough justification to renaming this article. Instead, I think renaming the article to "Death of Jordan Neely" is necessary in that it better reflects the broader scope of the incident and this article's content, which covers not only the circumstances of Neely's death, but also his conduct and the social context surrounding the incident. The current title, Killing of Jordan Neely, overly emphasizes the manner of death, despite the legal outcome of Penny’s acquittal, which indicates that Penny's actions were conducted as self-defense. I believe the change is warranted to ensure the title remains neutral and reflective of the article’s focus, and to align with most of the recent reliable sources. DocZach (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't an analysis I necessarily disagree with, but I'd just like to remark that, as I understand it, "self-defense" having occurred doesn't preclude "killing", in the same way that self-defense doesn't contradict the notion of "violence". It merely provides a justification for either action.

  Although I don't really think that was your main point either way. Just something to keep in mind. LaughingManiac (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. That was the point I was trying to get across. The word "killing" does not imply guilt, and if that was the only reason present to rename the article, I would oppose the renaming of it. However, I support the renaming of the article particularly because of the scope of the incident, the focus of the article, and the broader social context around what occurred. More importantly, however, it is how the majority of reliable sources are referring to it. DocZach (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I misinterpreted that particular part of your comment - since it was separate from your original disagreement with the notion that "killing" = "guilt", I thought it was used for your conclusion. My bad. LaughingManiac (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  @DocZach: I've already said quite a lot in this discussion so this will probably be my last comment but I don't quite understand why killing of doesn't reflect adequately reflect the scope of the article if you agree that it's sufficiently undisputed he was killed. I also don't understand why you feel this is any different from the many other similar cases where there was significant social contexts but which are still titled killing, in fact I'd suggest often even more so than this case e.g. the list given by User:Mason7512 #c-Mason7512-20241210215200-MrCheese76-20241210040500 above. Notably Killing of Trayvon Martin and Killing of Freddie Gray IMO had significantly more social context than this case. Or even Killing of Eric Garner which was vaguely similar in both location and cause (although involved the police and their added protections). Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support Neely’s death was not a murder. He was threatening to kill other people. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a debate section for litigating personal beliefs, there is no evidence that he was threatening to kill other people. we are here to discuss the naming of this article per Wikipedia’s naming conventions and precedence. The word killing is not synonymous with the word murder or homicide and does not denote guilt or innocence, merely that one did not die of natural causes. As Wikipedia’s naming convention states, "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". The ME determined the cause of Neely’s death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of [person]”. Editor85213 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Witnesses (as reported by reputable sources) described Neely’s behavior as “insanely threatening.” Multiple witnesses also said they “feared for their life” because of Neely’s presence and actions.

Whether Neely actually said the words “I’m going to kill somebody” is debatable. Penny said he did, although his testimony isn’t objective here.

What isn’t debatable is that people on the subway feared for their lives and felt threatened by Neely’s actions. Testimony to this effect has been published in numerous reliable sources.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/witnesses-in-nyc-subway-chokehold-case-described-praying-hiding-during-jordan-neely-rant/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/nyregion/subway-chokehold-case-witnesses-daniel-penny.html Jwa05002 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as others have noted killing does not in any way imply murder. If we were saying it was a murder, we would have called it Murder of, which we never did and should never do unless there was a court case ruling it murder. Instead we used killing, a title which routinely used in cases where there's no dispute it's not murder and in cases where self defence is not in dispute per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). A person is still killed even if the killing is in self-defence. In fact, if the person wasn't killed then self-defence doesn't even come in to it (in terms of 'killing' it might still come up in relation to assault etc). So all arguments to the contrary are IMO invalid as they seem to fundamentally misunderstand both our policies and guidelines as well as the meanings of the relevant word. However while most of the arguments to move are invalid, this case is a little unique as it does seem the validity over the homicide ruling was in significant dispute in the trial instead of simply asserting it was self defence or defence of others. But I'm not convinced this is sufficient to overrule our normal practice that we accept the official coroner's ruling by itself. I'd be more convinced if it's clear sources no longer clearly identify this as a killing but I don't think we have enough yet for that. Perhaps in several months especially after any civil case is resolved it will be clearer which way sources now view the case. My impression is Killing of Eric Garner is similar although more complicated since we don't know what happened with the grand jury and the officer was fired suggesting some fault with his actions. (Still I expect if it had gone to trial, it's quite likely the homicide ruling would have been in significant dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  BTW, just noticed the Eric Garner mentions this 'A veteran San Jose Police Officer, Phillip White, tweeted: "Threaten me or my family and I will use my God given and law appointed right and duty to kill you. #CopsLivesMatter"'. So and unsurprisingly, even a veteran police officer understands that killing someone is indeed killing someone no matter if it's not murder. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'd add that because 'homicide' and 'killing' do not by themselves refer to any specific criminal charge, I think it's also relevant to consider whether the criminal standards should apply. We reject the term 'murder' even when it's widely use in reliable secondary sources to describe a killing when the court case did not find there was 'murder' in no small part because we consider that 'murder' refers to one or more specific crimes and so without a court decision it's not a murder regardless of whether it's just because the criminal standards couldn't be met. I don't think this applies to killing or homicide. And therefore with the coroner's ruling and especially if the civil dispute ends up in something supporting there being a homicide, it seems quite reasonable for us to continue to call it a killing even if it's possible that part of the reason for the jury's verdict was because they didn't believe it was a homicide beyond a reasonable doubt (which AFAIK we don't know at the moment anyway it could be they felt despite it being a homicide it wasn't a negligent homicide). Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support That it was a 'death' is indisputable. That it was a 'killing' is disputable by reasonable minds, and unnecessarily provocative. Also, calling this a 'killing' means that Wikipedia is therefore clearly implying Penny is a 'killer', which has BLP issues. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support "Killing of" implies it was done intentionally or was a murder. Also in agreement with the user above me. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Without saying anything about the merit of this move request, I believe it is pretty obvious that saying that a person killed someone is not necessarily a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, as there are many instances that the law can allow a person to kill another (e.g. killing in order to protect oneself or another, killing an enemy in a war, killing an innocent person in a way that is not criminally negligent). "Killing" and "murder" are not synonyms. Sticking to the terminology that most reliable sources are using would be the best way to go here. Badbluebus (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  The trial found Penny not guilty of all charges, without the need for any affirmative defense involving justifiable homicide. The factual issue in question is whether the death was a homicide at all, not whether any homicide was justified, and the prosecution failed to prove the death was a homicide. Warren Dew (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  We have no idea whether the prosecution proved or didn't prove that the case was homicide. The jury was deadlocked on whether it was manslaughter and decided that it was not negligent homicide. No ruling of any kind was made on whether it was some other kind of homicide (justifiable, accidental etc). AntiDionysius (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  That charge was dismissed. Even the prosecutors didn’t think there was strong enough evidence to prove it. Jwa05002 (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, there has been no ruling on whether or not a homicide in general occurred. A legally allowable homicide could have occurred. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  The word “could” is pretty telling here. Available evidence Reported by RS is inconclusive. So title the article “death of…” and let the reader come to their own conclusion about whether or not he was killed. I see no down side to doing that. Jwa05002 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  "Could" in the context of what the court ruled on; they never touched the question. A homicide evidently did occur. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. "Killing" doesn't imply murder, but it does imply homicide. You don't say "my aunt was killed by cancer," you say "my aunt died of cancer." All words have a semantic range that can encompass multiple meanings, but they also carry a particular connotation that may be weighted towards a more typical meaning. We should generally use words that, if interpreted according to their most typical colloquial meaning, would result in an accurate understanding of what we're describing. If your sentence would be interpreted by most people to mean something other than what you're trying to say, it's a problem. If your sentence requires people to interpret words in an unusual way, on the basis that those words' semantic ranges technically encompass the obscure meaning you intend, then it's misleading. It may be technically true, but it will have the effect of misleading or prejudicing some readers.

  Sometimes that's fine, especially when there are countervailing reasons to use the words you chose. But what reasons are there to use "killing," when at least as many reliable sources use "death"? The external factors weigh against "killing," not for. In an article that describes a living person, where a person's reputation is at stake? And in a legal context, where formal definitions really matter, where the verdict is an objective fact?

  As far as I can tell, the only reason to use the term "killing," even after the verdict, is that you have an axe to grind and would like to use this article, and Wikipedia's voice, to tarnish the reputation of a living person who has come to represent something you dislike. Let's be honest; there are many editors on Wikipedia with an agenda, who have no qualms with abusing this platform to influence public opinion. They are on both sides of this issue. But at least there are legitimate reasons to prefer the word "death," like the fact that a jury did not find anyone guilty of homicide, that the cause of death was one of the most important questions of fact in the trial, and that the title of this article has implications for the reputation of a living person who has not been convicted of any crime. These are weighty issues that should give us pause before using the word "killing." What comparably weighty issues are there that should make us hesitate to change the title?

  If you stubbornly cling to a title that implies a finding of fact that the jury did not affirm, I have to ask, why? Why does it matter so much to you that this article should have a title that implies something terrible about a living person? Why do you feel so strongly that we should prejudice the reader with the implication that Neely died by homicide? What legitimate, nonideological reason could you have for such a strong preference? Does the word "Death" really carry so much less accurate information that it's an intolerable substitute for "Killing"? No. What it carries less of is not accurate information, but emotional valence. GlacialHorizon (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The charge of manslaughter was dismissed, and the jury ruled that he was not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. "Killing of" reveals an undue bias in the title, so it should be changed to the neutral "Death of". Dogman15 (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  By my quick count this makes 12 that support a name change and 11 that oppose. A few days to go still. Jwa05002 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  We do not move based on consensus, an independant, reviewer of the page needs to form their own rational after taking into account every argument and rebuttal brought up in this thread. Even if it's many people who support the move and a few who oppose it, if every single supporting arguments to move all have flimsy rationale, then it will not be moved. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  We do move based on consensus, it's just that "consensus" is not determined via a numerical vote count. NewBorders (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's I meant to say. Sorry. I did mean that it wasn't based on vote count. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Refer to Wikipedia:What is consensus? and Wikipedia is not a democracy.

  As I've seen, the numerical amount of "votes" is rarely considered when it comes to judging discussions like these, except as a minor supporting rationale in cases where quality of arguments is equivalent on either side and there is clear and overwhelming numerical superiority (which 12-11 wouldn't really be usually considered as).

  Or in another case, if there is overwhelming support for one result, then WP:SNOW can be argued. NewBorders (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  By my quick count this makes 12 that support a name change and 11 that oppose. A few days to go still. 69.197.206.10 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Both death and killing are indisputable; the ruling only means the court found him not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. He still killed him -- but legally he was found not criminally liable for his actions. wound theology◈
• Oppose- Neely was indeed killed. There can be no disputing that fact. Had this discussion been to rename the article to "Murder of Jordan Neely", I'd have !voted "no". Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is overly simplistic. If someone was killed by a lightning strike, there would never be an article about the incident titled "The killing of that person". There is more going on here than whether "he was killed". Dylancatlow1 (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. A person can be killed by a heart attack. You can be killed by a plane crash.

  “killing of…” doesn’t do anything to eliminate the ambiguity of how a person died, but in many cases it adds a lot of controversy and apparent bias on Wikipedia’s part.

  We also have specific terms for a human killing another human if they’re convicted in a court (manslaughter, murder, etc). These terms can be used in the headline if they apply.

  “killing of…” is just too controversial of a descriptor for this platform, which ultimately is supposed to be a non controversial, non biased source of information. Anything labeling itself an encyclopedia should go out of its way to avoid any appearance of bias. Jwa05002 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think one could easily make a case for it having been a "killing" if Penny had intended to kill him in self-defense, but I just don't think we can be sure enough about that to state it as a fact. If it was accidental in a way that wasn't negligent on his part (because of it being a messy situation), calling it a "killing" doesn't seem appropriate to me. Rather, it was an unintended death that resulted from a physical struggle. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has no policy stating that something has to be non contreversial also it is not biased to state that yes someone dying by a another person's actions is a killing despite the justice system or jury's ruling that it wasn't criminally negligent manslaughter. Also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is it acceptable to label an article as killing when there are two different autopsies that arrived at different conclusions for the cause of death? The medical examiner ruled it a homicide, yet the forensic pathologist for the defense did not agree with those findings. I find it inappropriate to label the article as killing if there are potentially conflicting reports, at least until the veracity of those reports can be verified. LasagnaLover23 (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I never said it was biased, I said it would be misleading to call it a "killing" if there had not been any intention on Penny's part to kill anyone. You read "killing of", and you assume that means it was plainly intentional. I don't know what to tell you, it just seems self-evident to me. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  But that is simply not how we name articles on Wikipedia, no matter what one might assume when they read killing of we call it that per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has no hard-and-fast rules regarding anything, from what I've read. It has conventions, yes, but not rules. I concede that using "death of" in the title would not be a perfect option either, insofar as it would be a little euphemistic in the case of someone who had died at the hands of an intentional "killer", which is impossible to rule out here. But since I think it does hinge on the question of intentionality, and since the prosecutors never even accused Penny of deliberately killing Neely, I think it's pretty clear here which option is the less "leading" of the two. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• KEEP as KILLING OF JORDAN NEELY. He was killed on camera. He didn't just happen to fall off a cliff. He was intentionally killed. CNC33 (. . .talk) 01:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support per GlacialHorizon. ~ HAL333 06:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support the move to "Death of Jordan Neely". The cause of death is disputed, so we should choose the title that puts Wikipedia in less potential legal danger. Warren Dew (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per GlacialHorizon's rational. Whether Neely died is indisputable, he obviously did. Him being "killed" is extremely disputed so a less charged word like "death" should be used. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - change to Weak Oppose - Though WP:KILLINGS is an essay, from what I've seen it is the convention. "Killing of" for death caused by another, "death of" for death not caused directly by another person. And, to avoid libel issues, we shouldn't label something a murder without a court conviction; the perpetrator is an "alleged murderer" until convicted.---Avatar317^(talk) 06:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Did you mean to say support? Because the OP is intending to move this page from "Killing of" to "Death of" Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think they were saying no to "Death of" and yes to "killing of" but also no to "murder of" or any similar language in the article. Mason7512 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment to my change: This seems like a difficult call based on sources and the jury's "finding of fact". Neely died because of physical interaction with another person. Unlike this case: 2020 Tennessee swatting, which could also be titled "Death of Mark Herring", where the perpetrator got a five year federal (no parole in the federal system) sentence when Herring died of a heart attack during the swatting.---Avatar317^(talk) 22:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think Neely died of a heart attack. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oops misread that excuse me. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: And I will be brief, as I have work tomorrow. WP:DEATHS, to start, is not policy; still, it does provide a rather succinct explanation of naming our articles, which would necessitate "Killing of". Now, the jury has dismissed both of its charges against Mr. Penny (one by deadlock, and one by "not guilty"), and absent the People of New York bringing another trial against him, we must assume that, for legal criminal liability, its word is sacrosanct and final. But that applies solely to the realm of the law. We are not the law. Ultimately, the way I see it is that absent the intervention of Mr. Penny, Mr. Neely would still be alive today, possibly; and given that human interaction was necessary to bring about his untimely death, we should, per WP:DEATHS, use "Killing of". But, again, that is not policy, and so I register little more than a weak objection, preferring to WP:IAR it, as consensus may so decide. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per the arguments presented in WP:MURDEROF and WP:DEATHS, essentially. I would strongly oppose, of course, if the article was to be moved to "Murder of Jordan Neely" as that would be clearly inaccurate. However, the acquittal of Penny does not change the facts that existed prior, which consensus found suitable to have this article named the way it is now. I understand the concerns of perception with the word "killing," but referring to killings not adjudicated as murder as killings is more or less standard practice on Wikipedia. I would invite the reader to consider the arguments presented in WP:TITLECON, which refers to the policy described in WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLE. In the interest of avoiding my introducing bias into this discussion, I will disclose that I was a very active participant in talk page discussions on this page last year and will limit my further participation in this discussion as much as is reasonable. PriusGod (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Title should be "Death of Jordan Neely", not "Killing of Jordan Neely" which wrongly assumes guilt.

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.

---

. 143.44.196.249 (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

See above discussion Bremps... 23:09, 9 December 2024 (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.

Jury decision.

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.

---

A jury found Daniel penny not guilty of homicide, even criminally negligent homicide. I understand the issues and reasons why some feel to word it as the killing and lost his cause of death as homicide but those are proven false in a court of law. Jordan Neely was not murdered, his death was tragic, but we all need to agree that the court of law should set the precedents in articles rather than deciding on our own. Chyarbrough34 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See the the above discussion on this topic. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2024 (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 10 December 2024

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.

---

Expert witness testified that Daniel Penny’s chokehold of Jordan Neely isn’t what killed the homeless man — he died from the “combined effects” of synthetic marijuana, schizophrenia and other factors. 2600:1700:3B20:3840:8131:9BCE:3C80:12AB (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article, under the section about the trial. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And yet the title of the article still says Neely was “killed” despite numerous reliable sources reporting an expert testified that he wasn’t. Why? Jwa05002 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Because we have other realiable sources saying it was a killing and also Wikipedia:KILLINGOF. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is already the subject of a move discussion - one you've participated in. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The man was not homeless. The day he died, he still had 12 additional months of the 15 months of stable housing the judge gave him. Like The New York Times says:

on Feb. 9 of this year [...] He was to go from court to live at a treatment facility in the Bronx, and stay clean for 15 months. In return, his felony conviction would be reduced. He promised to take his medication and to avoid drugs, and not to leave the facility without permission [...] But just 13 days later, he abandoned the facility.

XavierItzm (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Schizophrenia can't kill you itself, also this expert didn't use an autopsy like the actual examiner right. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Schizophrenia absolutely leads to a higher mortality rate (among people who are diagnosed with it) and is used frequently as a contributing factor to a person’s death according to the NIH.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9077617/

it could easily be argued that Schizophrenia was as much a cause of Neely’s death as anything else (which is why multiple reliables sources have reported it was according to an expert)

Also, the medical expert the prosecution used attributed Neely’s death to the choke hold prior to seeing a toxicology report. She also admitted under oath causes of death are “not perfect science” and medical examiners often disagree.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/daniel-penny-trial-medical-examiner-testifies/

Given that the medical experts (as reported by multiple RS) disagree on the cause of death here, I submit the only fair way to categorize Neely’s death is simply as that. A death. Not a killing. Jwa05002 (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Schizophrenia leads to a higher mortality rate due to specific symptoms, such as suicidal ideation or psychotic episodes, that enable dangerous situations like this one, or others, to more easily occur in the first place. However, any suggestion that it physically contributed to a man's death (as opposed to, y'know, the primary contributing factor, namely the other man that was brutally choking him) is, to the best of my knowledge, arrant nonsense that is unsupported by medical literature.

As an aside, as someone who is diagnosed schizophrenic, I find the weaponization of it that has been done over the course of this ideological flashpoint disturbing, and grossly offensive; regardless of people's opinion on whether vigilante killings are justified or not, I would appreciate misinformation about it not being circulated further, as it is already a deeply misunderstood disorder. LaughingManiac (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You’ll notice, nothing I said was my own opinion, I was simply repeating what doctors and experts have said as reported by reliable sources and scientific studies (which I provided citations too). The only person weaponizing Schizophrenia is you (in an effort to silence discussion you don’t like) Jwa05002 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Your implication wènt beyond that of "doctors and experts", given the comment you were replying to.

The only person weaponizing Schizophrenia is you

Don't you dare.

Not only did I not suggest that you, yourself, were weaponizing the disease (while what you've just said counts directly as a personal attack), but this is also an incredibly tone-deaf thing to say to someone who has just told you that they are diagnosed with schizophrenia and are concerned by how that issue has been talked about.

This is already an offensive thing to claim as a mere PA, but it is doubly so given the context.

You have also made an additional clear aspersion (in an effort to silence discussion you don’t like), which is similarly against the rules. We have standards here. You may not accuse people of things with no evidence.

I will ask you, once, politely, to please retract your personal attack and aspersions. Otherwise, this will be for WP:ANI to judge. LaughingManiac (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

All I’ve done is provide citations of opinions by medical experts and reporting by reliable sources that schizophrenia leads to a higher mortality rate and that it was a contributing factor in Neely’s death.

You provided no sources to refute that. Instead you (unnecessarily) brought up your own schizophrenia diagnosis, and claimed you find it “grossly offensive” that scientists and medical experts have determined that Neely’s schizophrenia was a contributing factor in his death, and that schizophrenia itself can contribute to death.

Again, I will not be bullied into silence by the mere fact that you personally have been diagnosed schizophrenic.

Your “gross offense” is irrelevant to the discussion. These are the opinions of medical experts as reported by RS. Jwa05002 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Very well.

You were clearly warned. LaughingManiac (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. Irrelevantly Invoking your schizophrenia diagnosis and proclaiming your gross offense (at the opinion of scientists and experts) is a bullying tactic meant to silence discussion of the subject. Jwa05002 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Again please read Wikipedia:KILLINGOF Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2024 (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 10 December 2024 (2)

185.104.138.25 (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Toxicology

I believe you forgot to mention Mr. Neely was under the influence of drugs. 174.110.57.240 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You believe incorrectly. It's in the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope. No mention of "drugs" in the actual article. But if you think I'm wrong, please point out where? 12.192.208.206 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"Prosecutors stated that Neely was high on synthetic marijuana" literally in the incident section read the bloody article people shouldn't have to do your job for you. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, I’d like to remind you that Wikipedia’s core guidelines emphasize respectful and civil interactions among editors. Insulting or aggressively pushing another user, especially on a talk page, violates several important policies, including: WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:DR and WP:TPG. If this behavior continues, it may result in administrative action, including a block from editing. I encourage you to please focus on productive, respectful discussions in order to contribute positively to the project. Thank You — Bruno 🌹 (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for this behaviour I kinda just get sick of the constant flood of IPs. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the above, and in light of the amount of replies you've left here, I'd like to remind you that BLUDGEONING is usually not viewed positively. And I say this as someone who agrees with your position, as I think is evident at this point.

Once your position has been made clear, you should allow others the chance to discuss.

Additionally, there's really no need to counter every opposing comment, especially those that don't hold much weight, something which other editors will see for themselves. Consensus is generally established through quality of argumentation, after all, not quantity of comments. LaughingManiac (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair I will refrain for countering every comment though most of my replies redirect people to the Wikipedia:KILLINGOF article which is very necessary in this topic. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Confused about verdict

Can someone explain in a logical way how it is possible for the jury to be deadlocked on the top charge of manslaughter but be able to reach unanimous acquittal verdict on a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide?

NOTE: This is not intended as debate about the verdict. It is a genuine and very obvious question that I think this article must explain for readers who are not legally trained.

If the jury was deadlocked on the top charge, then presumably at least one juror believes guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it would not make sense at all for that same juror to acquit on a lesser charge with a lower burden of proof. And since acquittal also requires unanimous decision, this seems to be an impossible result. What am I missing here?

I think any reader who is not legally trained would be confused by this purely on logical grounds, so it's essential that this article provide some kind of explanation to a very obvious question. 2601:189:8480:A1B0:B53E:EDD8:A10:2A23 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I see the article doesn't sufficiently explain it, I added content that hopefully resolves this question. The jury needed to consider the higher manslaughter charge before they could move to the weaker, easier negligent homicide charge. The jury initially debated the higher charge, got stuck, and couldn't move onto the lower charge. The defense tried to close the case with a mistrial, while the prosecution moved for a dismissal of the manslaughter charge for a chance to get a guilty verdict on the weaker negligent homicide charge. Judge sided with the dismissal, and jury acquitted on the lower charge after they were allowed to deliberate on it (Why? who knows, but the progression of discussion from manslaughter -> negligent homicide may be similar enough for jury positions to translate over.) KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@2601:189:8480:A1B0:B53E:EDD8:A10:2A23

a big problem also was the initial jury instructions. the judge instructed the jury to not consider the lesser charge of they found Penny guilty of manslaughter OR if they could not find him guilty due to three charge not being proven beyond reasonable doubt.

when the jury came back and informed the judge they could not agree on a verdict for charge 1, the prosecution moved to have the charge dropped.

This is not something that is done. the jury has already deliberated the charges. in fact the judge acknowledged that he was going outside the standards by making a comment that he "would take a chance", inferring that he understood this might get any conviction overturned due to prejudicing the jury. 99.33.126.209 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Spurious See-Also link

Why does the See-Also section contain a link to the completely unrelated 1984 NYC subway shooting when it has nothing to do with this case? It implies that Penny's actions were justified by drawing a specious connection to the shooting, implying that Neely was a threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.9.202 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Neely was a threat. He’d already assaulted 3 women previously on the subway: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/07/us/jordan-neely-subway-nyc-homeless/index.html

he had a warrant out for his arrest (again, for assaulting someone on the subway)

and he was literally screaming threats at people the moment he walked on the subway during this incident Jwa05002 (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OPINION, contrary to WP:NPOV. The source you provided literally says, "A witness told CNN although Neely was acting erratically on the subway, he did not harm anyone nor did they see him armed with a weapon". Bruno 🌹 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Try googling it. Or better yet, check out the Wikipedia article about it. It describes in detail how Neely was threatening people the day of the incident Jwa05002 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/daniel-penny-jury-trial-vote-jordan-neely/story?id=116404879

Before the jury entered the courtroom on Friday, [Judge] Wiley noted how the "reasonableness" standard was established in People v. Goetz – another high-profile New York trial after Bernhard Goetz shot four teenagers on a New York subway in 1984 after they allegedly tried to rob him.

Assuming that at least some jurors who chose to acquit did not do so out of a belief that there was no homicide, case law from Goetz on determining reasonableness in a justification defense is (probably) what they acquitted on. It's also a natural and common comparison, self defense controversy on NYC subway, Ex from NYT: Like Mr. Goetz’s case 40 years ago, the episode sharply divided New Yorkers and the nation. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

2600:1700:34D7:8C10:6F47:3980:CB8E:DB28 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

Revision 1262473118 introduced an error in the first sentence by adding a verb without deleting the old one: "after being put held in a chokehold"

Personally I think the old verb "put" is better here because "held in a chokehold" is repetitious.

But either way, one of them needs to be deleted. 2600:100A:B117:AEA5:0:4E:8F8B:3301 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting the error. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

should we add additional informational about the trial?

1. it was widely reported that while BLM was protesting outside that the Cory room windows were left open and that everyone (importantly the jury) could hear them - which included threatening language in there was no conviction.

2. that the prosecuter repeatedly referred to Mr Penny as "the white man" while examining witnesses. the defense objected but was apparently over ruled.

3. the legally questionable actions of the judge. AFTER the jury has already deliberated over the manslaughtercharge, returned saying they could not agree on a verdict, were sent back to try again, returned with the same answer - the judge granted the prosecution's motion to drop the charge. The judge apparently acknowledged his action were unprecedent when he stated he "would take the chance".

4. that even though the manslaughter charges were dropped, it would be almost impossible to attempt to try Penny again for manslaughter as the key has already deliberated the charge, which means Penny would be placed in "double jeopardy". 99.33.126.209 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can provide some reliable sources then sure why not. Use Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see if it is reliable. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a bunch of coverage about dropping the manslaughter charge especially given the defence objections [14] [15]. If there had been a guilty verdict on the lesser charge I'm sure this would have remained a very big deal and litigated to heck. But I'm not convinced this is a significant issue any more given the outcome of the case since as it turns out, this seems to have provided an advantage to Penny. If the judge had ruled it a mistrial, it's likely the prosecution could have tried again but this is impossible now. Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2024

Remove the "white" before Marine, when you introduce Daniel Penny. Because it insinuates that it was a racial crime. 5.20.32.61 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: the races of the two men is pretty obviously necessary context for other content in the article Cannolis (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)