Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dumuzid (talk | contribs) at 15:12, 4 July 2023 (→What to include from assailant's video statement: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Name inclusion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a pretty close count between those who wish to include or exclude the name, and the arguments are generally split between "covered in reliable sources" for those seeking inclusion and "WP:BLPCRIME" for those opposed. I have down-weighed the argument that the possibility that Penny is notable affects the application of BLPCRIME. This argument does not hold up against BLPCRIME, which sets the threshold at public figure, not simply notable. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which is linked in BLPCRIME, makes it clear that notability does not make one a public figure. This was pointed out in the discussion by Caeciliusinhorto. I also found arguments based around the sourcing merely existing well rebutted by Caeciliusinhorto, as the arguments don't expand on how the use of a name rather than describing the individual contributes to understanding the topic.
The strength of the opposition is well summed up by Nemov, who said in their !vote to include if we're dogmatically following the guidelines then the answer would be to exclude. WP:BLP is a policy, not a guideline, and responses with strong, policy based rationales have more weight than those without. As such, there is no consensus to include the name. As challenged material about a BLP requires consensus to include, it should be removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing to clarify per discussion on my talk page that I read the consensus as relating to the entire article. There was very little discussion about the lead itself, and the oppose rationales apply to the entire article rather than just the lead. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't end with the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

LoomCreek - would you consider removing the name from this section until we have a decision? Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Sure LoomCreek (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't LoomCreek? I.e. did you consider then dismiss it as not important? His name is still there in the lead section 16 days later; and you reverted me dropping the name from the whole article, but subsequently made this RfC about dropping the name from the lead only (without notifying me; while, yes, rather ANI me on a separate but related matter). It's rather useless to only drop from the lead. I request, again, dropping it (temporarily) from all of the article, and at least from the lead since/if you're actually only ok with that. comp.arch (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Comp.arch Why are you responding to week old talk comments (especially without even understanding the context)? This was about the talk page name. Stop being unnecessarily divisive. LoomCreek (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if this was about this talk page section, then that was ambiguous; I read "this section" as referring to "the lead section" in the RfC, that Dumuzid's comment was directly under. It's good that you removed his name. I see though you (and many others) refer to him below, all the time. It will rather hard to drop his name from history, why I never use the name, not even here. comp.arch (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as he is named in reliable sources, however, we should not label him as a "killer" as a possible breach of WP:BLPCRIME. WWGB (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to WWGB - while I personally think we should exclude the name, "killer" is in fact a neutral description of what happened; it does not pertain to criminal liability, and there is no serious doubt that the named Marine was in fact the cause of Mr. Neely's death. Dumuzid (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per WP:BLP/BLPCRIME polices and WP:SNOW. He was also named as a murderer in WP:Wikivoice: Murder of Jordan Neely, a WP:LIBEL, even more serious (legal) policy violation, that I saved Wikipedia from by reporting it, so it was just dropped. And he's still is named by people, quoted in the article, as a "murderer" and for "lynching" (something I had taken out, now realize was inserted back). WP has a policy against that even on other articles, even talk pages. I think we get away with less here, not more, and with those terms here the name must be out I think. Why is WP so strict? Because it doesn't want to get a lawsuit. I do not want WP shut down or hurt, so if this is passed I will consider to speedy delete the whole article, to safe WP. comp.arch (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (update on my opposition): We are not just going by WP:RS, rather two self-published Twitter accounts (and I've not seen the news repeat those two libel comments, that I only know WP to report); in addition to WP:LIBEL in Wikivoice, that I reported to oversight, which was considered "serious BLP" violation, it's actually also illegal to repeat Libel (in the UK at least): "There is a long-standing common law rule that it is no defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to prove that he or she was only repeating what someone else had said (known as the “repetition rule”)."[1] which is still done in the article ("lynching" and "murder") and then WP adds his name to the mix. United States defamation law: In Pollard v. Lyon (1875), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed it illegal (I don't know about the repetition rule in the US): ("words falsely spoken of a person which impute to the party the commission of some criminal offense involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true, may be indicted and punished". Wikipedia could be sued in the UK at least, and/or in the US if similar rules there. I know of an Icelander sued by an Icelander in UK court, and he won libel suit, since written in English... At least if the WP:SUSPECT were a UK (or say German) citizen do we want different BLP rules to apply to people? To US rules then for sure apply?
    Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (he could ask for the deletion of the whole article, without his name he has no leg to stand on, family of the dead seemingly have no say): "Where the living subject of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." "Summary deletion of BLPs: "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person [..] the article must not be restored, [..] without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy. [..] Passed 9 to 1" (I added bold). comp.arch (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    comp.arch, with all due respect, it's best not to go too far down the rabbit hole of conflicting jurisdictional takes on defamation. Suffice it to say that in every jurisdiction of which I am aware, truth is a defense and honest opinions are a defense (in the UK, see the Defamation Act, 2013 §§2-3). There is no dispute as to the underlying facts; even the suspect admits the interaction happened essentially as has been reported. The only question is whether criminal culpability is warranted, and if so, at what level. Essentially, what we have, is various people opining on the level of fault contained in the undisputed facts, from "none" to "murder." That is a classic bit of opinion. An honestly held opinion based on true underlying facts is actionable neither in the UK nor the US. While in general, I think your trepidation is apt, in these rare instances in which the facts of the matter are completely uncontested, things are a bit different. Cheers and Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "truth is a defense", murder if off the table (to be fair that "opinion" of murder, which is a legal term, was stated before the DA charged otherwise). Truth is what the court/jury decides it is, which can't be "murder", in this case. The opinion wasn't we should investigate and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, it was "lynching", it's just my opinion, so since it's not legally defined, then I can just say it? To me it sounds worse than murder, a hate crime, with higher penalty. And Wikipedia can repeat opinions of any kind, such as that? Seems to violate many WP:TWEET criteria and all 5 must not be violated. Not sure of an exception for politicians, and in fact policies disallow such language, seemingly from anyone, at least related to crime. comp.arch (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Time for me to bust out one of my stock phrases: courts determine legal liability, not reality. We are all free to disagree with courts and their findings whenever we please. Indeed, the court system artificially constrains itself with rules of evidence and holds proof of criminal activity to a very high bar ("beyond a reasonable doubt") in most common law jurisdictions. A jury could acquit a suspect, and then have the foreman say "well, I really think he did it, but I had one or two lingering doubts...." I guess, in your formulation, that would be defamation? The key is whether the underlying opinion actually imputes or implies facts not in evidence. If I said, of the suspect here, arguendo, "it was murder because he left his house that day looking to kill someone," that could certainly be defamation. If, on the other hand, I said "I don't care what a court finds, what I saw on that tape was murder," that can almost certainly not be defamation. Now again, if acquitted, I can't falsely claim someone was convicted--using "convicted murderer" has a very different valence than merely "murderer." But, as I say, courts deal in facts, but they don't control them for the rest of us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Beyond (a) reasonable doubt isn't the standard for Libel, it is a "legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction [i.e., yes, for the defendant in the case here, but not regarding Wikipedia or its editors] in most adversarial legal systems.[1] It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities", which is the standard for libel cases, and I thought WP might be in the hot seat, but WP editors (four at that time) have actually been sued for $10 million dollars for libel, for repeating false claims..[2] I'm not sure how that went, nor saying such will happen here, I'm certainly not threatening it, I have no case. It seems the special legal policy WP:LIBEL was established by Jimmy Wales at the time, for the users, rather than (just) for WP (or himself). 01:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Grechenig, Nicklisch & Thoeni, Punishment Despite Reasonable Doubt - A Public Goods Experiment with Sanctions under Uncertainty, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (JELS) 2010, vol. 7 (4), p. 847-867 (ssrn).
  • Exclude Name I certainly admit that the person is named fairly widely in reliable sources, and that he has not yet been officially charged with any crime. Although it is now being reported that the case will be presented to a grandy jury, which clearly places this person in the zone of criminal jeopardy. Per WP:BLPCRIME I definitely think it best to err on the side of caution and not using the name. While we would not be explicitly saying that either a crime had been committed or that this person had committed it, there is no way to report that this person was the perpetrator of conduct which is being investigated as criminal without implying that he has been accused of a crime, which triggers WP:BLPCRIME where the subject in question is otherwise non-notable. I would just say there's no rush on this; Wikipedia, to my mind, should aim to be a definitive record, and not a journalistic endeavor. I would urge that we wait for the dust to settle. As ever, though, happy to go with the wisdom of the crowd. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I would be fine with using a different phrase other then killer @Dumuzid @WWGB. like for example "was killed as a result of [name], a 24 year-old white ex-Marine, placing him in a chokehold while they were riding the F train on the New York City Subway." But I do think the name should definitely be included. Since various reliable sources have reported on it and recently the persons attorney directly confirmed it was them. So we know that the identification is completely accurate at this point. LoomCreek (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per WP:BLPCRIME. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name. Now that the name is published in the NYT, I think it's safe to state it as a fact, but with more neutral wording than "killed". I think "X choked Y to death while restraining him in a chokehold" will be sufficient. WP:BLPCRIME would prevent us from calling X a "murderer" since he wasn't convicted of murder in a court of law (at least not yet), but it wouldn't prevent us from stating a plain fact acknowledged in reliable sources: that X caused the death of Y through his actions. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I don't mean to badger, but how do you square this with the "accused of having committed a crime" language of WP:BLPCRIME? I'm curious. Dumuzid (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid: The crime here is murder, of which we certainly aren't accusing Mr. X unless convicted in a court of law. However, it is not a matter of debate that X killed Y, which is not inherently a crime. Killing can be done legally: in self-defense, in war, in executions, etc. After all, X's lawyers wouldn't deny that X killed Y, they'd argue that X killed Y in self-defense. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree that not all killing involves criminal culpability, but would your answer change if the suspect is formally charged by a grand jury? It would then seem to me that there is no way around naming him without implicitly accusing him of a crime. Dumuzid (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid You say that, but as they said killing can be considered legal. The distinction is between murder and killing. There is precedent for this per article naming conventions. When someone has been found guilty Wikipedia articles are named "murder of X" otherwise it's "killing of X". LoomCreek (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the "precedent for this per article naming conventions", people have been named before, I think in violation of policies, but I know of no article title like "X murdered..." before conviction, i.e. I believe in all cases the person who dies is in the title if any; in this case we had Murder of Jordan Neely, a WP:LIBEL, so from any random blog post in the world you could have linked to it, then seen a name, thinking he murdered someone (while also seeing killer which does not contradict murder). Even us discussing "murder" and "lynching" on the Talk page, might be a violation if his name is anywhere in article or Talk space! He will never be convicted of murder since that isn't the charge. So it will never be reflected again in the title, unlike in other cases, where e.g. Murder of George Floyd: "Chauvin was convicted of unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter". You see the charge here is third the way down, or fourth from 1st degree. [EDIT: I assumed double jeopardy, i.e. DA couldn't add more serious charge later:[3] "does not attach until the court swears in the jury, or until the first witness starts to testify in a trial before a judge. Filing charges thus does not trigger the rule."] comp.arch (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ? I think you've misunderstood my point. It was before the charges were even decided, and was simply there to explain why killing is an appropriate term. I'm not really sure why you're arguing against things I wasn't even claiming LoomCreek (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you then clarify your point; where is the "precedent for this per article naming conventions" [before conviction]? That was basically mine, but I see I didn't actually add the intended question mark. I wasn't just answering you, also objecting to e.g Festucalex which as good and bad points, and simply untrue: "The crime here is murder". "murder" is I believe well defined, and a legal term (not a synonym with homicide, in law at least), while surprisingly "crime" isn't a legal term, but it often means a felony (they are all crimes, in that category). Can we at least agree on reinstating my edit that dropped the name, on caution, and then see about it after the RfC? There never was consensus (nor RfC) on including the name, and never will be... The default should be [because of privacy/BLP[CRIME]] names out until there is consensus. comp.arch (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was simply saying killing was an approximate term to use for this article (as opposed to murder, which wasn't since no conviction has happened). It's self explanatory, It's very far fetched to interpret it the way you did.
    Also still so far the consensus has held to include the name, with the vast majority calling to include the name. So no we wont and shouldn't drop the name. LoomCreek (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I count 7 opposing the RfC and 10 12 supporting including his name, so how it that consensus to include the name? Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, a simple majority is not enough, and is the majority vast? And does that matter? Still not consensus. I believe I've seen the "rough consensus" term, and that doesn't even seem to apply, and I'm not sure how it is defined. I did agree to "killing", and "the killer" without name. I oppose "murdered" and "lynching"; and having his name. comp.arch (talk)10:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    It's 13 supporting (including the narrowly include, and excluding my second statement) nearly twice those opposing. And yes Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY the arguments for its inclusion are substantive. And at this point the notability of the Daniel Penny is clear. LoomCreek (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [It's not 13, we both miscounted]: 37% disagreeing is not consensus, which means non-consensus on including the name. While not 50% disagreeing, it doesn't matter, since WP:NOTDEMOCRACY means it's "not voting" that is used to determine consensus.
    I counted again, only 12 supporting in this RfC, and at least one seemingly changed his mind, while counted as support (would be 42% disagreeing with one, and 47%, with two, changing minds).
    His notability is not at all clear per the guideline on it (and neither is Neely actually, just the event I thought, but if none of the people are notable then then neither the event? Also per event-notability "whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time", non-notable; not both the event and the killer will get notable on conviction). Let's look at what the notability guideline actually says, or its sub-notability page on people, more specific chapter on "Crime victims and perpetrators", i.e. WP:CRIME (not to be confused with the policy WP:BLPCRIME "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. [Here you would say we are not talking about a separate article for him, or them, yet, but then you're arguing for him not notable, yet.] "For perpetrators", neither criteria holds 1. "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; [in footnote John Hinckley Jr. [who attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan a US President] ] Neither does 2. "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (I added the bold). Example given Seung-Hui Cho. [I.e. mass murderer responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007. Cho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others with two semi-automatic pistols [..] This killing is the deadliest school shooting in US history and was at the time the deadliest one-man shooting rampage in modern US history]. There is no equivalence in notability. comp.arch (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Comp.arch There two main points:
    1. That this was killing (medically) is undisputed. Which is not a statement on legality simply that the chokehold lead to the death. Which is it not at all a violation of BLP:Crime. It's still something to treat with caution per defamation, but the clear medical proof and documentation makes this a non-issue. Because of this we're allowed to mention Daniel Penny's name in relation to this as long as its strictly medical description.
    2. The notability of Daniel Penny also allows for accusations and charges to be mentioned. As long it's made clear that these are statements from other notable people (and from Reliable sources) not judgements of wikipedia. This is per WP:BLPCrime which specifically mentions this allowance. LoomCreek (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disputing 1. the killing. "was approached from behind and killed" describes it medically; no need for a name and I'm sure the coroner didn't include it! 2. He's not notable, so a "man has been charged". But you think other people are allowed WP:LIBEL just because they are notable [politicians]? Try to add "lynching" (that "honest opinion", not) to that person's WP page! Let's see how quickly it will be reverted, since it's not allowed. These are on Twitter, self-published, so not RS. If I'm wrong, and there's an RS exception for notable people making statements, then please try adding. His WP:BLPSELFPUB press release however fulfils all of the criteria including "1. it is not unduly self-serving" (which is arguable a failed criteria for famous politicians' Twitter statements). Of course he needs to clear his name, and silence would be deafening. Most recently he did an interview (I've not seen it), stating he's not a white supremacist. Why, because people are stating to think that, many only read the lead on Wikipeda (that should summarize, and be the only thing people need to read; such would be on Simple English Wikipedia), i.e. he, a white man, killed a black man. People think the world is not colorblind so he wasn't (let's wait until trial is over on that), that argument goes both ways, people who read it on Wikipedia may think there's a reason color is stated. comp.arch (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Comp.arch Am I really suppose to take such an inflammatory and frankly offensive comment by you seriously? It's insane that you'd use lynching as an example so flippantly to try to prove a point. LoomCreek (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me just jump in again to say this is not libel. Not even close. If it were, you would have already seen the lawsuits (see, e.g., 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation). The more you say this, comp.arch, the less persuasive I find any of your arguments. That said, I don't think statements from notable people are WP:DUE for inclusion unless they attract some sort of attention from reliable sources. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid (Just for the record, I conditioned that statements from notable people would have to be present within reliable sources to be included. ) LoomCreek (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, and I think that is reasonable, though a quick re-skim of the article seems to show that, for instance, we have the AOC quote cited to her Tweet? At first glance, that seems WP:UNDUE to me, but I have been a bit busy, so I may have missed something! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you count Support? I did only count this RfC and I had e.g. Nemov with support, but he comments later as if he changed his mind. Jerome Frank Disciple with his narrow include, is because of his self-published statement, which I'm not sure if WP allows. Anyway, I do not see it trumping WP policies, it seems natural that you don't want to stay quiet if you think you're not guilty. To be fair RS has covered his statement, so that may make it ok to include his statement (only without his name), maybe it's only ok to state he issued a statement, or maybe only include parts RS make note of (I actually didn't find that official statement online, except only from news). comp.arch (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not the closing editor so these count updates are not productive. Nemov (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right -- and I agreed with that. Not all killing attracts criminal liability. And I think the rationale you and the others are advancing is completely coherent, but I feel like we're failing to grapple with the rules "on the books," as it were. Would you agree with me, arguendo, that if the suspect is charged with murder (or perhaps manslaughter in the first degree), then we could not include both his name and the fact of the charge and be in compliance with WP:BLPCRIME? Again, sorry to belabor the point, but we've kind of wandered into a field of my interest.Dumuzid (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid I think a charge would have no effect on a mention of it being a killing. However per WP:BLPCrime we could not mention charges of murder or manslaughter. LoomCreek (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way charges are handled in Wikipedia. If charges are laid against an individual, and if that person's name is widely sourced, then there is nothing in WP:BLPCRIME to prevent inclusion of the name of the accused. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay thanks for the clarification. I was taking what I presumed could be the strictest definition given the level of discussion here.
If that's the case then I wonder if Dumuzid still opposes, since that seemed to be their major point of contention. LoomCreek (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As clarification in the section it says "editors must seriously consider not including material...that suggests the person.. is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured" wouldn't that bar discussing accusations/charges? LoomCreek (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The words that you quoted are prefaced by, and apply only to, the statement "individuals who are not public figures". If Penny is charged, his name will be published around the world, and he will certainly pass the "public figure" test. WWGB (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB Ah okay, was just trying to understand. LoomCreek (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I would disagree with this interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME as it would basically swallow the entire rule, but reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I guess that's where our priorities differ: I would prefer to leave out the suspect's name (while defining him by characteristics) and note major points in the prosecution, as opposed to naming the suspect and then ignoring the prosecution until conviction, but both approaches certainly fit the strictures of WP:BLPCRIME. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid Ah okay I see where you're coming from now.
    But yes I personally prefer including the name even if that means that prosecution details can't be included yet.
    I will say as it stands prosecution has not started yet as far as I'm aware. We can also always return to this subject in the case where that happens and there's significant want to include it. LoomCreek (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quite right that there's no prosecution yet, but it has been reported that the case is going before the grand jury. Have a wonderful weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid you too! LoomCreek (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid: If we try to quixotically remove anything that might even imply a possible murder charge, we might as well delete the whole article and half of Wikipedia with it. It remains an indisputable (and undisputed) fact that X killed Y, and there's no reason to hide his name when it's reported by reliable sources. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Festucalex Just as a heads up Dumuzid actually isn't against the "killing" term WWGB is. Dumuzid wanted to exclude the name so that prosecution details could be included in the Wikipedia article. It was basically miscommunication. That said I still support name inclusion. LoomCreek (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LoomCreek: I am aware. I disagree with Dumuzid in that I believe that the name should be included, and I'm willing to compromise with WWGB in that the lead should say "X choked Y to death while restraining him in a chokehold" instead of "killed". 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Festucalex I also support name inclusion. I'm just clarifying Dumuzids statement doesn't want to delete anything that would have implications, the phrasing just lead to confusion. LoomCreek (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I see no distinction other than stylistic between "killed" and some formulation of "choked to death." I am just trying to grapple with the phrasing of WP:BLPCRIME (which could, of course, be changed). I think it basically demands we either don't name the non-notable suspect (my preference), or we name the subject and then basically leave the story until conviction or exoneration (LoomCreek's preference, I believe). I prefer the former, but have no problem with the latter. These are always tricky calls when we have someone utterly non-notable at the center of things. That said, I hope everyone is enjoying their day. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid I think as WWGB said. You don't have to actually worry about that since if they get charged they'll be consider a notable figure due to all the press LoomCreek (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I would disagree with this take, because it would mean WP:BLPCRIME is meaningless. We could certainly go that way, but it's not how the rules are currently constructed, to my mind. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid Ah okay, well my support for name inclusion still stands. LoomCreek (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid Otherwise we'd be denying the very fact of events. I believe it would be lying by omission. Just because its fact that the persons actions was the cause of the death. Not even the person involved denies that. LoomCreek (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not "denying the very fact of events", which are "A man [Jordan Neely, I'm only ok with naming this man, whether victim or aggressor, since he's dead, and that for sure is a fact] got killed, while in a chokehold of a man [unamed], that restrained him from from behind, and others also helped restrain". It's not "lying by omission" to not name the unnamed man, no less that it is neither lying by not naming the others involved or many other details. comp.arch (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Wikipedia, we deal in factual, credible, NPOV presentation of information, as best as possible. To intentionally omit the well reported facts of the incident — including that the man who killed Neely is named Penny — that would be veering towards unreality. No thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excluding info per privacy/BLP and others isn't "NPOV presentation of information", inherently, it's non-presentation of information, that is explicitly required. Why don't we just dox the man? He's going to prison anyway right, so here you go: "Current address: [somewhere, find the right address, I dare you, it's there in some phonebook?], NY [Future address: Prison." "A person's full name is probably the most obvious example of personal information. But in fact, even a person's first name alone can represent personal information."[4] (bold in the original). comp.arch (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Comp.arch: Um, what? Nobody is doxxing Penny. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. I would also like to reiterate what other editors have suggested to you, because it's important that you WP:Don't bludgeon the process. It may be wise to back away from these discussion threads for awhile to allow consensus to form. I understand you have strong feelings on the topic, but it's not fair to everyone else that you continue to dominate the conversation space here. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "... would your answer change if the suspect is formally charged by a grand jury?" – Being charged is not proof of guilt. Many people who were charged were later acquitted. – .Raven  .talk 03:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Multiple reliable secondary sources have published the killer's name. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this rationale. No need to suppress Penny's name from the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (coming from BLP/N). BLPCRIME is very clear that we do not publish the name of non-notable individuals until they are convicted for a crime. Doesn't matter how many sources repeat it, we have stricter standards than the press. --Masem (t) 16:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Until convicted, what? In this case, Penny has become notable for having (accidentally?) killed Jordan Neely. Whether or not it is determined to be a criminal act is another story. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The charge from the DA is, yes, that he accidentially killed Neely, was negligent (i.e. not murder). I've presumed until now that his name would be published if convicted, but now I'm not so sure. Does even every conviction need the name? Would e.g. a non-public person be named on Wikipeda for accidentially driving over and killing one person (no hit and run, then also up to 15 years max in NY; he will seemingly get 5 years max.). If not convicted, his name should of course not be in Wikipedia. We are doing much more than the (ethical) WP:RS news media; those should follow Journalism ethics and standards: "22. In journalism, information and opinions must respect the presumption of innocence, in particular in cases which are still sub judice, and must refrain from making judgments."[5] (I added bold). I've not seen a single WP:RS source have the opinions we have in the same article, like "lynching" in their article. And Wikipedia is not news, we have stricter standards, we shouldn't relax the ethics, by mixing such "opinion" and information. comp.arch (talk)
WP:BLPCRIME only requires that "editors must seriously consider not including material ... ". Besides, Penny is no longer non-notable; his name has been published around the world. WWGB (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with @WWGB. Furthermore, the existence of this RfC is enough to be able to affirm that the addition or non-addition of the ex marine's name to the article is being under serious consideration. Now the context is different from when Daily Mail published the ex marine's name and then deleted it. We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a primary source, but if the article's content is supported by references it is acceptable. After the ex marine's name appeared for the first time, a short time later the Daily Mail published it again, other magazines published it.. and right now it is published all over the world. Sadly, this case is already part of NYC's history. And as I said in a previous message, it is not our job to assert whether or not the ex marine is guilty or not guilty of something, but to bring encyclopedic coverage of this incident trying to give the article accurate content. Salvabl (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People think this is simpler than it actually is. I don't even see "him" (alone) admitting killing Neely (nor does the coroner actually state he killed Neely! Not his job; the DA charged, but I've not seen him state anything publicly). His statement WP:BLPSELFPUB (through his layer team) is "[he] with the help of others, acted to protect themselves, until help arrived." So we're just naming him, not the other two. Were do you draw the line regarding BLP policy. You can say two others (unnamed) were involved, since they DID touch Neely. If they hadn't helped, Neely might have escaped and still be alive. So who is at fault? We don't know what would have happened, if they hadn't helped, nor what happened in the minutes not caught on video. There's no argument that the others have not been charged (as a former police officer has suggested should be done). We included the seemingly "main" guy before he was charged. We can't know if the others will not be charged in the future. Should we just includes names of people we or the news like to name? There is no rush in including his name until conviction. How does it help, really, having it? Neely is as dead either way, justice goes its course (unless you do not believe in the justice system). "We don't get to decide for readers which content is important or not". That's exactly what we do, and is our purpose, per consensus, except is some cases, i.e. regarding privacy! Then we don't get to decide, against policy. already "part of NYC's history. [we should] bring encyclopedic coverage of this incident", why just this?, we should name every defendant in NY history (with or without video "evidence"), and since this is English language WP, in at least those countries, I guess the whole world, even if neither party is notable. It's just up to what news stations know about and care to report? comp.arch (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why the rush to name someone who has been questioned and released, and not even arrested in connection with any crime? ElleTheBelle 13:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no rush. The media have covered the incident (which is on film), and Penny's attorney has put out a statement on his behalf regarding involvement in what has now become a notable killing. It's not as if Penny is denying what happened. It doesn't matter if this is deemed a crime or not. Penny killed Jordan Neely by administering a chokehold that lasted for multiple minutes. These are the facts, and the medical examiner's office says the same, along with reliable sources. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "It doesn't matter if this is deemed a crime or not." Of course it does. A "crime"/felony IS alleged by e.g. the DA, and thus e.g. BLPCRIME policy applies and the allegation matters now, and it also matters later after trial is over whether a crime happened! We'll then decide what to do regarding adding his name then. "There is no rush." If not, then you agree with me and e.g. ElleTheBelle? But you comment as if there is rush [to add the name], so I'm confused. comp.arch (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude in the spirit of BLPCRIME. Yes, it's not covered by the letter of policy (though I will note that simply being named by many reliable sources is not sufficient for a person to qualify as a public figure: cf WP:LPI), but I think it is within the spirit of BLPCRIME to exclude the name for the time being. There's no hurry: we can always decide to include the name when the situation becomes clearer and we know for certain what, if anything, they have been charged and/or convicted for, and if analyses with more temporal distance from the events include the name. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this has nothing to do with a person being charged or convicted. This article is about the killing of Jordan Neely. Are we seriously proposing to have an article on the subject, and intentionally leave readers in the dark about who the killer was? Nonsense. Reliable international sources are covering this, we should too. What is the point of leaving out simple facts? It doesn't improve the article. The lack of information makes it worse. Penny has now become a notable individual; public information about him (including his name) is quite obviously worthy of inclusion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, the name of the killer is absolutely meaningless information to 99.99% of readers. The vast, vast majority of readers, on seeing the name, will not have any idea who he is – if they have heard of him at all, it will only be because they already know the name of Jordan Neely's killer. It's all very well saying that leaving the name out doesn't improve the article, but the onus is on the people who want to include facts to show how their inclusion does improve the article, and I really don't see how it does in this case.
    Given the sensitivity of this case, and the fact that this is a non-public figure, we should err on the side of not including the name while things are still shaking out. The downsides of not including the name are minimal – we can always add the name later! The potential harms of unnecessarily including the name are much greater: that's a fundamental cornerstone of our entire BLP policy. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What? We have to show how providing factually accurate information improves an article, really? Isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? We don't get to decide for readers which content is important or not (saying that 99.99% of readers will find the name of the killer meaningless is a highly subjective statement), and I don't understand how censoring this man's name makes any sense when it's been internationally reported on. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we can't include everything from news sources (see e.g. K2 discussion, and reverting of my quote from the NY Times). How does having the name in help? It's against policies, and can hurt Wikipedia Foundation, given careless additions of users, such as "murder" and lynching". comp.arch (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Based on the thoughts & logic from user Festucalex, and my own comments above. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:INTRO. Daniel Penny's name is included in most RSs, and is one of the most fundamental details about the article. Disagree with @Masem: the use of Penny's name in the article and the lead clearly fits within WP:NPF and with common practice in similar articles. Virtually every article on Wikipedia titled "Killing of..." includes the name of the killer in the lead, even in cases with no conviction as of yet. See Killing of Duante Wright, Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, Killing of Adam Toledo, Killing of Eric Garner, etc. Also see early versions of Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery for a case where the killers were private citizens (not police officers) and still named in the lead. There is nothing in wiki practice or policy that prevents us from including Penny's name in the lead. Combefere ★ Talk 14:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A. You can't really support "per MOS:INTRO" guideline/non-policy (it doesn't trump very serious BLP policy), because that's about style of the lead (to summarize the main text), and what's being discussed here is leaving the name out altogether. B. The cases you list are all different in some way (e.g. police officers involved, let's put that discussion aside for now, since also all cases have ended). I don't know about "virtually every" article where people are named, so I looked more closely at the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. It was a hate crime a malice murder, claimed and convicted for. Arguable that makes it even more important to not name people, in case a wrong charge. It wasn't, there was video evidence as in this case, where they hunted down and shot Arbery, and were all denied bail (unlike here "questioned and released". As you show, there was also Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery at some point (and still Brunswick three, that's talked of removing right now). I see at 2021-11-24T18:55:40‎ Muboshgu "moved page Killing of Ahmaud Arbery" to Murder of Ahmaud Arbery: WP:BOLDly moving per https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-verdict-watch-11-24-21/index.html and Murder of George Floyd". comp.arch (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A: That is incorrect. What is being discussed here is including or removing the name in the lead section, not removing it altogether. Scroll up and look at the RFC by LoomCreek on May 6th.
    B: All cases are different. This is the only homicide by RNC on the subway in the mid-afternoon that I'm aware of. I included Ahmaud Arbery to provide an example where the killer was not a police officer. Importantly, these cases are all also similar: they all involve homicides, the killers are all identified by name by multiple RSs, the killings are all caught on video, the killers all admit to the killings, and the killers names are all included in the lead sections of their respective articles. If you want an endless supply of other articles that check all five boxes here, I encourage you to look into early revisions of WP articles for mass shootings and/or bombings.
    But I admit I have not read every article on the encyclopedia. If you have a handful of examples of articles that meet the first four criteria and not the fifth, I would be excited to read them. At this moment, I am not aware of any. Combefere ★ Talk 06:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but if we're dogmatically following the guidelines then the answer would be to exclude. A similar RfC was held recently discussing the use of a suspect's name and it was excluded despite being published by multiple reliable sources nationally. My position is if a suspect is named nationally by reliable sources it should be included. - Nemov (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Nemov, so we should NOT follow a policy? Because it's dogmatic. I struck out your comment since you don't know the difference between a WP policy and a lesser guideline [EDIT: so that you could fix it, but then you changed [BLP] policy to "[dogmatically following] guidelines", making my objection/comment here look less serious and out of place]. And RS is also a guideline. There's nothing in Wikipedia rules that say we need or should repeat everything in RS sourced, it's the opposite, and privacy one reason, and WP:SUSPECT another policy that should be read together. If you disagree with policies, you need to get them changed or clarified. comp.arch (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not your job to strike other editors comments. Feel free to voice your opinion if you must, but leave my commments alone. Nemov (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, I struck out, since you were misrepresenting a WP policy, and we are in a discussion related to that policy; and at least I in relation to a more serious (yes you were not) Wikipedia policy with legal considerations, i.e. WP:LIBEL, that applied to the article here until at least 2023-05-18T15:28:46 when Anarchyte dropped the redirect Murder of Jordan Neely at my request, with "Serious BLP concerns. It is still alleged." comp.arch (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the recent RfC mentioned by Nemov is a bit different given the length of time between the crime and when the suspect was named. Also in this case, as far as I know there is zero dispute that the suspect in question in this case is the person in the widely released video, outside of any criminal charges; and they have released a statement acknowledging their involvement. I think we should consider and be careful about including suspects of crimes but given how widely their name was reported outside of the criminal investigation means there's no reason to exclude the name. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Time wasn't a factor in the WP:BLPCRIME argument for that RfC. Those arguing for exclusion said the accused wasn't a public figure before the crime. This is the same situation.
    A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
    Nemov (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-reading what I wrote, I should not have mentioned the time aspect (or at least less) since, yes, it's not really relevant exactly to the policy. I think for me since WP:BLPCRIME talks about consider[ing] not including material things like scope of coverage, how closely connected it is, and how widely discussed it is. Since the suspect in this case issued a statement about their involvement, unlike the German/Williams case, I see this as sufficiently different enough. Skynxnex (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (again)
A charge doesn't change any of the dynamics discussed before and it's already been discussed on those grounds anyways LoomCreek (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Daniel Penny's name is not material that suggests he has committed a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 19:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you mention his name without suggesting "he's accused of a crime?" that suggests the person has committed, or is 'accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.' Nemov (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As of now, the first sentence in the article reads: "On May 1, 2023, around 2:30 p.m., Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, was killed by Daniel Penny, a white 24-year-old ex-marine, who placed him in a chokehold while they were riding the F train in Manhattan on the New York City Subway." That statement includes Penny's name without suggesting that he has committed a crime, or is even accused of a crime. Penny killed Neely. This is a neutral, verifiable fact, supported by dozens and dozens of RSs. Stating this fact is not equivalent to stating that he is guilty of second-degree manslaughter. Penny's name and his involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely are notable, regardless of whether or not he will be found guilty, or even whether or not he was charged with a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 19:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an okay place to ask but I don't see how editors must seriously consider not including material ... is as definite as you say, A. B.? It seems to me that we should err on the side of not including in the general case but if there's sufficient discussion and notability of the person, we could find a consensus to include the name without violating policy. So it's a discussion about where this falls instead of a bright-line policy decision. What, if anything, am I missing? Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Skynxnex, to answer your question:
  • If you read the entirety of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, you'll see that the tenor of the policy is that we bend over backwards to avoid BLP problems.
    • By the way, aside from this particular case, all active editors should take a few minutes to read that particular policy.
  • It's a small but telling thing about the policy's intent - missing from the excerpt quoted above is that "not" is in bold font:
    • editors must seriously consider not including material…
So I believe there's a little wiggle room in the policy, but only just a little. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Skynxnex (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Just wanted to briefly pop in to say that I agree that the article clearly suggests that the suspect committed a crime (for instance by saying he was charged with one), but also that "must seriously consider not" is not equivalent to "must not." Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrowly Include. I do take the WP:BLPCRIME concerns really seriously. I also disagree with the editors who say Penny is now notable—I don't think that's at all how the policy works. Penny isn't notable enough to have his own article per WP:PERPETRATOR. And "but the media highly publicized that this person was accused" doesn't, for me, weigh on the matter. By that logic, almost any random person whose name is floated by authorities as being responsible for a high-profile crime will have their name on Wikipedia. I think that's precisely against the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. However, in this case, Penny has issued a statement to the media justifying his involvement. He has entered the fray. I do think this is a close call, but I'm leaning towards thinking that's enough.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Update: In addition to the statement, Penny has now spoken to the media via an interview with the New York Post. That strengthens my include position.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - the evolving consensus in this section and elsewhere on this page is that the widespread, reliable news coverage of the alleged assailant trumps WP:BLPCRIME, or at least invokes the weasel-worded possible but-seldom-to-be-invoked exception in the policy. I also note that BLPCRIME has been a source of confusion and frustration in the many prior discussions at WT:BLP. (See the partial list of prior discussion I posted in another section).
Going forward, I suggest the community consider modify BLPCRIME to include WP:CATOUTOFBAG. That is, an explicit carve-out for cases involving widespread, reliable, national news coverage. Since charges can be dropped, it should also include a requirement that any previously named suspect immediately get their name scrubbed if no longer charged.
This should be a discussion elsewhere- probably and RfC at the Village Pump. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note on comment - the WP: prefix there, it isn't to imply there's such a preexisting rule (in any context), in case people misunderstood or just scan text quicly, rather that you want such a rule. Precisely since there's no CATOUTOFBAG policy (or guideline), it doesn't seems like an excuse to pretend as if there were one. I dear no longer to strike people out (as I did before when BLP[CRIME?] policy were actually misrepresented, as just being a guideline). I don't meant to imply anyone trying to misrepresent anything, intentionally, I take all are acting in good faith. comp.arch (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (and particularly for the closing editor), I don't think this is an accurate representation of the emerging consensus here. By my count, only one editor supporting the inclusion of Penny's name (Nemov) made the argument that widespread reliable news coverage should trump or overrule BLP; and only one editor (Skynxnex) no editors relied on the looseness of the phrase "must seriously consider" in BLP. My interpretation of the consensus here is that there is no clause in BLP that precludes or even discourages us from using the name in the lead (or article). The few editors who have voted to exclude the name frankly have not done the work to explain which part of BLP is supposed to do so. On the flipside, the editors supporting inclusion have collectively quoted and deconstructed nearly every sentence in BLPCRIME and BLPNAME and found no cause for concern there. Of editors who support inclusion, the vast majority seem to think that there is no part of BLP that is violated by including the name.
You might have your own issues with the wording of BLP and the confusion surrounding it, but I'd encourage you to consider that you may have mischaracterized your opposition here in assuming they relied on those concerns. This article and BLP sit next to each other quite comfortably, as written each. Combefere ★ Talk 07:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC), Edited 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Combefere I'll say I didn't "rely" on the looseness of the phrase only, really, but instead was trying to respond to people who thought WP:BLPCRIME had to apply where even the most strict reading of it would allow its inclusion so it's back to just a general consensus of editors instead of an WP:IAR situation ignoring policy to include it. Skynxnex (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and updated. Combefere ★ Talk 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name - Maybe I'm reading it wrong but none of the sources have concealed Perry's identity and there wasn't multiple people involved in the killing (to make it impossible to know who was/wasn't involved) so I can't see how BLPCRIMES applies here ?, Perry has given a statement confirming his involvement in it so conviction or no conviction he was the murderer and therefore I see no reason not to include his name.... Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name: Penny has admitted that his actions caused the death of Neely and the NYC Medical Examiner has ruled Neely's death a homicide. I think the first sentence as currently written is factually accurate and ameliorates any BLPCRIME concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include name. The fact that Penny's actions caused Neely's death is not in dispute and is covered in multiple RSes. Whether Penny's actions were illegal is a separate question. This is not a BLPCRIME issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment by Sangdeboeuf was removed from the talk page by comp.arch in this revision. I have restored the comment. @Comp.arch: please do not remove comments from other editors on the talk page. Courtesy ping to @Sangdeboeuf:. Combefere ★ Talk 04:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Sangdeboeuf, I didn't mean to erase your comment (I was clarifying mine, and didn't see an edit conflict, was I changing an old version by accident? not sure how this happened). [I wouldn't have erased a comment on purpose; I have struck out a comment, see above, creating controversy, for reasons that do not apply to you, while notifying that user. I wouldn't even do that now.] Everything related to him in this article is of course under WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP policies, so I'm confused. I think you're saying is that killing someone needs not be a crime, and if not (or since we're just stating that in Wikivoice), then those policies do not apply. But that is POV, his POV, that he is innocent. If we presume he will be not found guilty, then we are violating WP:NPOV policy. comp.arch (talk) 11:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not presuming anything about the outcome of any trial. A killing occurred according to official sources and bystander video, reported on in multiple top RSes. It does not imply any wrongdoing to state the name of the other party. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as I just realized I hadn't !voted here (and didn't really "cast" a !vote there, just typed a lot...). See the conversation in the (again) section below for my rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PriusGod (talk • contribs) 02:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude per WP:BLPCRIME. ~ HAL333 00:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to be a pretty settled consistent majority at this point. Perhaps it's time to close the discussion? LoomCreek (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Exclude unless and until a conviction is reached – and then the reference should match the conviction, i.e. no reference to "murder" if that wasn't the charge convicted on. I presume you'd all insist on the same if it were your own name at issue. I know I would. WP:BLPCRIME and the presumption of innocence ask no less. We don't know what the state of evidence will be until the trial is over. E.g. will the ME's report be challenged, a second examination made? Too soon the conclusions here. – .Raven  .talk 03:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The duplicate discussion below has been closed. Courtesy pings to all of the editors who participated in that discussion, and not this one. @A. Randomdude0000:, @KiharaNoukan:, feel free to participate here. Combefere ★ Talk 16:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Penny is not a serving marine

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

Given that Penny has now been indicted by the grand jury, his name should probably be included in the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I probably should have done ex-marine or the accused throughout. I was just updated to reflect RFC closing. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My fault for using "the marine" as well. Would prefer "ex-marine" to "accused" as being more neutral but will accept either, can't think of any other option. Xan747 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I commend to everyone's reading, at least once, this from the official Marine Corps website:
https://www.marines.com/life-as-a-marine/life-in-the-marine-corps/once-a-marine-always-a-marine.html
("Once a Marine, Always a Marine") – There truly is no such thing as a former Marine, as after service our Marine Veterans are just as dedicated to advancing our Nation and defending its ideals.
The term "Marine veteran" adequately conveys that they are no longer in active service, for whatever reason.
ETA, later: Have changed all non-quoted occurrences to either "Marine veteran" or simply "veteran". – .Raven  .talk 05:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was questioned on that capital "M" in "Marine". Some sources:
– .Raven  .talk 05:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for more sources re the "ex-", see here. – .Raven  .talk 06:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in the "Marine" capitalization section above, and the 2-0 consensus was to follow WP:MARINE guidance, which is no caps when referring to individuals. If you were to take your arguments to the policy talk page, I would support you. Pending a change, I think it best to stick to current policy.
I think it is important to distinguish between active-duty/reservist status and discharged. I would prefer "ex-marine" or "former marine" over "marine veteran" or "veteran" as being the more neutral options, but most RS except Military.com and NPR are using "veteran marine." Xan747 (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @Xan747, PriusGod, Skynxnex, WikiVirusC, and WWGB: and anyone else interested:
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of "Marine" – .Raven  .talk 02:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed all instances of "the marine" to "the ex-marine" in the article where appropriate. If someone feels strongly he should go by some other label, I won't contest it if they make that change. Xan747 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think "ex-marine" is probably WP:UNDUE since I don't think we know that his ex-marine-ness is really that defining of a trait at this time, as far as I know. I don't have a great replacement but I'd be supportive of figuring out a replacement (this isn't to say changing it all to "ex-marine" for now was a mistake). Skynxnex (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumuzid referred to him as the "defendant" above, which seems softer than the suspect, or the accused, but not as flattering as ex-marine. Xan747 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once a marine, always a marine. You dont need to be a currently-serving marine to be addressed as a marine. Unless someone is dishonorably discharged, its not "ex marine", its "marine".
Also, its pretty sad to see how pages like this involve some of the most BS information in them, like how Daniel Penny supposedly choked Neely for 15-min, a statement that is patently false. The words of an eye witness are irrelevant to that matter, eye witness testimony is INCREDIBLY unreliable, ESPECIALLY when they try to determine how long an incident occurred. You can clearly see on video that it didnt last that long, and you can also see that Daniel rolled Neely over to his side to make sure he didnt choke while he was unconscious, which clearly shows that he had the well-being of Neely in mind. But it seems like the people that have edited this page only care about making Penny look as bad as possible, while simultaneously trying to make Neely look as innocent as possible (like using a 10-year-old photo of him). If we're going to talk about Penny being an "ex-marine", why tf then would people be acting like Neely was a "Michael Jackson impersonator", when he hadnt done that for years? XD3vlLx (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Terms like "defendant" or "the accused" only make sense in a legal context regarding the case against Penny, and should be used solely to describe and reference the legal action and indictment.
Otherwise, when discussing Penny's actions and the event overall, "assailant" is both factual and accurate, as Penny is indisputably responsible for choking Neely, an act which led to the man's death (and a fact that even Penny has not denied). 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He can always be referred to as "Marine veteran" or thereafter "veteran", per sources cited. "Defendant" works if referring to when he was charged, and thereafter until the case ends one way or another. – .Raven  .talk 02:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that doesn't refer to his marineness. What matters here is the fact he's accused of the crime, not random trivia about him. "The ex-marine" reads like something a newspaper would write for elegant variation. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point here, it's not as if his being a Marine is somehow the defining element of Penny's persona or character. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name him per Adorings argument. In absence the ex-marine. LoomCreek (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name him or the defendant. Strongly oppose using the terms ex-Marine, veteran, et cetera. nf utvol (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name him per my comments in what feels like a dozen disparate discussions about this subject. Combefere ★ Talk 00:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "ex-marine" or "veteran" as those terms suggest a false imbalance of power between the assailant and the victim. I prefer "assailant" as it can be used in situations prior to Penny's arrest. Of course, hope remains that Penny's name will one day be restored to the article. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Name him - I don't see why we wouldn't. His name is the most accurate and neutral word. The void century 22:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name Inclusion, reopened

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

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

Survey

1. Article is descriptive, not an accusations of criminality. Whether the killing was illegal remains up to the court.
2. For remaining sections, Daniel Penny is a public figure, cited in numerous reliable sources and with a platform to argue for himself through his lawyers. Whether they are notable because of this event or not is irrelevant to them now being a public figure.
3. We lose context when we exclude his name, he is a significant part of this event. To exclude his name gives the impression to an average reader he didn't perform the chokehold when he did. It warps the articles ability to actually accurately cover the topic. --LoomCreek (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion -- Neely's assailant fits the definition of a high-profile figure by seeking media attention, and self-promotion:
    • On May 20 he gave a scheduled on-camera interview with the New York Post that went beyond mere defense of his actions during the incident. Included in the piece were biographical details dating to his childhood, information about his siblings, parents, grandparents and great-grandparents and their ancestry, details of his foreign travels as an adult including photos, and details of his military service, also including a photo.
    • On June 11 his legal team released a video interview they had themselves produced in which he defends his actions.
    • Shortly after the incident, his legal team started a GiveSendGo campaign using his real name on his behalf, which to date has raised nearly three-million dollars.
    These are not the actions of a person reluctant to have their name, likeness, or details of their life publicized, but rather someone who willingly embraces the opportunity to tell his side of the story apparently believing that so-doing will improve public opinion of his actions. As such the Wikipedia article about the incident warrants the inclusion of his name. Xan747 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @.Raven has raised the question whether the video interview Neely's assailant gave to the NY Post can be used here in support of the contention that he's a public figure when there's consensus that the NY Post can't be cited in the article itself due to reliability concerns. My answer is that there's a distinction between using the Post's reporting in the article for things that are not easily verifiable -- such as the anonymous 65 year-old black woman who allegedly hailed the assailant as a hero, said that Neely had been threatening to kill people, and that she's willing to testify on his behalf -- and using the Post on a talk page to show a named person well-known to multiple RSs engaging in a self-promotional public relations campaign. Everybody knows what Neely's assailant looks like. There's little question it's him on camera saying things which are clearly self-promotional. I see no problem using that citation here to argue for classifying the former marine as a public figure. Xan747 (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended replies (1/10 collapsed by starship.paint)
  • Is "the anonymous 65 year-old black woman" then a public figure? She appeared in the same source. Perhaps her name can be discovered and printed here, since she's lost the considerations a non-public figure would have? – .Raven  .talk 16:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She's a witness to an alleged crime, not alleged to have committed a crime. Therefore her hypothetical status as a public figure is not relevant. Xan747 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, but doesn't that lead to a strange result? WP:BLPCRIME gives more protection than WP:BLPNAME.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jerome Frank Disciple: If she voluntarily came forward as a named witness, then it would be appropriate to name her in the article same as we did for Grima and Vazquez. The value-add argument would be that using names makes it easier for readers to keep track of who said what. There's no need for the public figure test in that scenario. Xan747 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I guess what's throwing me is I'm not sure what "voluntarily came forward as a named witness" means ... unless it's "voluntarily spoke to the press as a witness and provided their name" ... but then it's Perry's interview with the press that I considered to have made him a public figure. So the tests end up looking the same to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The tests of whether or not to name either individual are not the same because the witness isn't the one indicted on felony charges. One could argue that if she came forward, that would make her a public figure, but that test is irrelevant because she's not the one who has been indicted on felony charges. See red herring. Xan747 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... I don't think that's responsive to my point.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I'm missing something. Perhaps you could restate. Xan747 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't strike me as all that strange; BLPNAME issues can range all the way from the positive to negative, while BLPCRIME issues are always negative for the subject. Thus a higher level of protection. But reasonable minds can certainly differ! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I agree with you. I thought Xan was suggesting the opposite—that a witness would be afforded more protection.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Well hopefully I've cleared things up. Xan747 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Xan747 - I would agree with you that the Post couldn't be used for the substance of what was said, but the fact of the interview is fine. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, you mean that the substance of the interview cannot be used here in the talk page to establish Neely's assailant as a public figure? Xan747 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry. Bit of an appeal to hearsay concepts -- we couldn't use the interview as evidence of anything the assailant said or asserted (or anyone else, for that matter), but noting that the interview exists is perfectly fine as part of an overall argument. So yes, as part of saying he's a public figure, I think that's well within bounds. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just making sure. A reason given to exclude what the Post wrote about the anonymous witness was their history of making shit up. Publishing a video interview of a now well-recognized named individual should obviate any concerns that he's a figment of the Post's imagination. At best, one might argue that they dishonestly edited the video for whatever reason, but that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Xan747 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I supported the original RfC, but nothing has really changed per WP:BLPCRIME. This RfC should never have been be opened so close after the last one was closed correctly. The last challenge at ANI went down in flames and now a new RfC has been created far too fast. I am unmoved by arguments that this person is now a public figure or anything changed to overturn the last RfC. Since no one has made a compelling argument as to why this RfC was opened 3 days after the last one was closed this should be withdrawn. There needs to be a very clear and compelling reason to open a new RfC after one just closed and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason. Nemov (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  • That is... not what IDONTLIKEIT says. The fact that many editors think the situation has changed is more than enough reason to revisit the RfC. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned, I don't find those arguments compelling. The editors didn't like the outcome, challenged the outcome, and then rusted to create a new RfC. This could have been opened up again in a few weeks, but 3 days is not enough. Nemov (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. By his own media-seeking actions, Daniel Penny is now a high profile individual. His identity is central to the killing of Jordan Neely. Penny is named in reliable sources around the world. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Exclude unless and until a conviction is reached – and then the reference should match the conviction, i.e. no reference to "murder" if that wasn't the charge convicted on. I presume you'd all insist on the same if it were your own name at issue. I know I would. WP:BLPCRIME and the presumption of innocence ask no less. We don't know what the state of evidence will be until the trial is over. E.g. will the ME's report be challenged, a second examination made, the cause of death changed? Too soon the conclusions here. – .Raven  .talk 02:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended replies
  • Umm, what? Penny killed Neely, period. This is factual and relevant info. Whether guilty of a crime or not, why are we censoring Wikipedia, and making it intentionally more difficult for a reader to find out information about who Penny is, what his background story and perspective is, etc? As has been mentioned previously, we don't exclude the names of people in other articles about similar events, so I don't see what makes this event special or why Penny's name should be suppressed and omitted? What is special or different here, when compared to other articles where a person's name is included for having participated in killing someone? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, the nature of Wikipedia is that local consensus is about the best we can do; articles will vary on any number of issues. For me, it simply comes down to my belief that Wikipedia should be less of a news source and more interested in conclusions. I agree that there's no doubt that Penny killed Neely, though the question of criminal culpability is out there. At any rate, that's the way I feel, but I certainly get it if my position ends up on the wrong end of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @72.14.126.22 What is special or different here, when compared to other articles where a person's name is included for having participated in killing someone?
    Yeah, I asked SFR that and he told me that dog won't hunt. And indeed the argument is discouraged enough to warrant its own shortcut WP:OTHERCONTENT. The question is interesting in its own right, but here's not the place. Drop a note on my chat if you want to chew on it a bit. Xan747 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid and Xan747: Yes, I am aware of the WP:OTHERCONTENT guidelines. But it strikes me as extremely odd that some editors here are very concerned about Penny in particular, and aren't vocal in other instances where a similar situation has arisen, and an article is written that includes the name of an accused / defendant / assailant / etc. sort of scenario. I'm not questioning motives, but the lack of consistency is why I thought challenging the close, and clarifying BLP policy could have been productive, to get opinions from outside of the deeply entrenched local consensus bubble here. It also just makes the article less informative, to intentionally exclude relevant information, based on a concern for Penny's well-being and reputation, when this individual is already speaking publicly and has been reported on internationally, in dozens of sources. Excluding Penny's name seems fruitless & pointless at this juncture, per the WP:CATOUTOFTHEBAG situation we are currently finding ourselves in, heh. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I would support this policy across the board. But my Wikipedia time (especially for anything requiring in-depth research or attention) is sadly limited. I often duck into recent stories that attract a lot of attention mainly in an attempt to ward off outright vandalism, and sometimes to try to remind everyone that we're all on the same encyclopedic team. So I absolutely understand your point, and it is valid. But I hope you understand mine, as well. As the best saxophonist I ever knew liked to say, "nobody has enough time, but we all have all there is." Just a weekend thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid Granted I think there is a point in mentioning it as, in my opinion it seems to be a misuse of WP:BLPCRIME. People have, in good faith, been pushing an interpretation of it which hasn't been used before as if it's a hard rule. It's not and never has been, there's so much language in it that makes several intentional exceptions. For public figures, on editor discretion, and for topic accuracy. LoomCreek (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "For public figures" — See Wikipedia's Public figure:

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

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

    • a public figure, a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
    • a limited purpose public figure, those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted....
    I would argue that this subject did not so much "thrust himself forward" as get dragged against his will. He is certainly not "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs".
    – .Raven  .talk 10:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @.Raven It's undeniable that he was not the first to reveal his true identity to the press; I believe it was the police. However, he was not forced to actively engage in a public relations campaign using his real name, leveraging his military service, and the litany of things irrelevant to any criminal or civil culpability he might have in relation to Neely's death. (Indeed, criminal defendants are often counseled to not make public statements and to keep as low profile as possible.) The standards set in WP:LOWPROFILE are "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication. [...] Need not be a 'household name', simply self-promotional." The results of his self-promotion include being hailed as a hero, and $3 million in donations to his legal defense. One might even argue that not including his name does him a disservice. Xan747 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "he was not forced to actively engage in a public relations" — No? He'd been subjected to massive vilification, a public campaign to prosecute him, and this didn't put him in the position of having to speak out in his own defense? Hm. I certainly hope neither you nor I nor anyone else here is caught up in such an event (as the young Central Park Five were — and they got falsely convicted, arguably due entirely to that public vilification and advance assumption of guilt), but we might feel some considerable pressure to so defend ourselves. – .Raven  .talk 18:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He was also turned into a hero by the right-wing talking heads. So it goes both ways, in terms of his becoming a notable public figure in the media spotlight. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "He was also turned into a hero by the right-wing talking heads."
    Do we now base our decisions on what right-wing talking heads say? – .Raven  .talk 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that he's been vilified AND lionized in the popular press, which makes your one-sided complaint about the vilification fall a little flat, as it does your argument that he was somehow compelled to go on a pubic relations campaign. He was not, that was a choice. And it has worked to the tune of three-million dollars. There's no need to protect the man from his own self-promotion. Xan747 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    LoomCreek - forgive the ping, but this talk page has become quite convoluted! I don't really disagree with what you say here, but I have two small reactions: first is just to note Wikipedia's reliance on local consensus rather than global. I understand everyone is aware of this, but it's something I think actually worthwhile. The second is the policy itself. As I keep saying, I guess I kind of favor it in its current form? But it could certainly use clarification. And I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were changed to something more of a notability test. But I feel like that's a conversation that should be had directly, rather than arguing for exceptions, if that makes sense. As ever, certainly one where people can differ in all good faith, and if consensus should decide my thoughts are immaterial, it's probably for the best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "some editors here are very concerned about Penny in particular, and aren't vocal in other instances where a similar situation has arisen"
    In my case, that would be due to not seeing those pages when the discussion occurred.
    Wikipedia is large, and I haven't a chance of watching all that goes on. – .Raven  .talk 09:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In 2018 CMGLaw reported, "Studies from various states show that somewhere between 30-50% of death certificates list incorrect causes of death."
    A 2017 study at the NLM/NIH website reported: "Of 601 original death certificates... A total of 580 (93%) death certificates had a change in ICD-10 codes between the original and mock certificates, of which 348 (60%) had a change in the underlying cause-of-death code."
    Don't assume too much, too early. – .Raven  .talk 07:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to argue this is ridiculous on its face. But If you want to discuss this start a new talk section, as it's irrelevant to the discussion on criminality vs medical terms. As it's best to prevent the thread from becoming unnecessarily long. LoomCreek (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's one of many factors going into why we wait for a conviction, not just an indictment or even the start of a trial. Too much can happen. It's not over 'til it's over. Many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. Don't count your chickens 'til they're hatched. And many other sayings born of people's experiences with jumping to premature conclusions. – .Raven  .talk 09:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One other thing: potential jurors, not yet called, read Wikipedia. Do you want to have it turn out that they got prejudiced in the case (or any case) by what Wikipedia said about a named defendant? Tell me you have some idea what the potential fallout could be. – .Raven  .talk 09:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no potential fallout. Potential jurors read lots of sources besides Wikipedia, and all WP:RS name Penny, often in headlines. The idea that our naming of Penny will affect jurors is rather far-fetched. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read more carefully: "by what Wikipedia said about  a named defendant".
    We've had several talkpage comments rather too forcefully assert this named person "definitely killed" someone. No trial has started yet to establish even that as a proven fact. In many other cases, perhaps around half of them, re-examinations have changed the cause of death. We don't know whether this will turn out to be one, if the defense asks for a re-examination. It is far too soon for us to name him as a killer, let alone as a murderer. That some newspapers may have done so, without even the fig-leaf of "alleged", does not relieve any other "publication" (like Wikipedia) of responsibility — if the allegation fails to be proven in a court of law. Changing the article after acquittal or dismissal on the grounds there was a different cause of death (e.g. some brain disease or injury that perhaps had also caused such erratic behavior shortly before death) would be too late. This is one reason we should wait to see whether there's a conviction. – .Raven  .talk 17:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    .Raven: Daniel Penny killed Neely by putting him in a chokehold that lasted several minutes, restricting his ability to breath.
    Neely's manner of death was determined to be due to homicide: "A spokesperson for the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner explained that 'manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider'." The source for that is from CNN, and it's cited in our article. Please drop the legal blah blah blah. Guilty or not of a crime, Penny killed Neely, end of story. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to keep repeating myself, but initial cause-of-death decisions are frequently changed on re-examination, which is why defense attorneys frequently ask courts to order such re-examinations. We don't know yet whether this defense will request, or the court grant, such a re-examination, or (if it takes place) what its outcome will be. That leaves us still, now, without a final determination of that fact. In short words, it's too soon to say that for sure. – .Raven  .talk 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is going off-topic. This discussion is about whether to name Neely's assailant, not what or who killed him. I'd suggest taking that discussion here. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If all that happened was "assailing" Neely, and someone gets convicted of it, then name that person in an article not titled "The killing of Jordan Neely", and don't let the lede's first sentence state Neely "was killed by ___". – .Raven  .talk 20:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just point out that per WP:DEATHS, a coroner's report determining that the cause of death is a homicide is enough to justify the title of an article being "Killing of..." instead of "Death of..." The assertion that all coroner's reports must be verified in the course of a legal proceeding (when the vast majority of them don't even precipitate court cases) before they can be used by Wikipedia is so far removed from Wikipedia policy and practice and would be so incalculably detrimental to our ability to report the most basic and easily verifiable facts about an article that it cannot be taken seriously. Combefere ★ Talk 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Exclude essentially per Nemov. Indictment does not, for me, change the analysis under WP:BLPCRIME. Also, as I have said many times, while I understand the public figure argument, it would make the policy seem to me to be surplusage, so I would oppose on those grounds, though as I like to say, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all, and hope everyone is enjoying the weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replies
  • "while I understand the public figure argument, it would make the policy seem to me to be surplusage"
    I have to disagree with this interpretation, which as you note has been repeated often by editors arguing for exclusion. As I note in this comment, there are still cases where BLP precludes editors from including certain information about certain people. The identity of Neely's killer (not suspected killer, not alleged killer, his undeniable, widely named and reported actual killer) is just not one of them.
    I view this argument as a particularly unconvincing straw-man. It is not my position (nor any of the other editors arguing for inclusion that I can see) that BLP has no applicability to any information on Wikipedia. Combefere ★ Talk 15:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended replies
@Davey2010: You appear to support inclusion of Penny's name but you !voted "oppose"? This is a fresh RfC, not a review of the old one. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah .... It makes sense to include his name .... but BLPCRIME forbids it .... Wasn't that obvious enough to you?, I didn't state anywhere in my !vote that it was a review either. I simply took note of BLPCRIME and the last RFC-closers comments. –Davey2010Talk 12:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLPCRIME does not forbid anything. Rather "editors must seriously consider not including material". It is that consideration that we are deliberating in this section. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the larger point. There was a RfC about this already. A few of us supported inclusion and the close pointed out the BLPCRIME policy. Nothing has changed in 3 days except a few of the supporters of inclusion now back the closer's comments. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^^ What Nemov said. Seems like everyone has read and understand the closers comments except for the OP and WWGB who are still bringing up everything that was already discussed to death in the last RFC. Makes no sense. –Davey2010Talk 14:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell? Including Penny's name alone, and stating the facts about the event, does not in any way whatsoever imply that Penny committed a crime. Some folks here are really missing the point of this discussion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article opens with "Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, was killed by..." — which is a definite statement on OUR part, in advance of a court establishing that fact. If the court finds otherwise, for example due to a re-examination changing the cause of death (which I've already cited sources saying happens in many other cases), then legally we would have asserted a false accusation. Bad enough as it is, with the sentence completed by a general description. Worse if we've actually named him. – .Raven  .talk 18:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The killing here is about as close to fact as we are ever likely to come. It is not disputed by anyone at all, even the indicted person. We are well within our rights to say "killed by." Criminal culpability is still an open question, so it would only be wrong if we assigned some sort of legal category or consequence to the act. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven: We follow reliable sources, which all say, very definitively, that Penny killed Neely. It was also ruled a homicide by a medical examiner. These are the facts at hand, and can't be contradicted simply because you are worried that things may change in the future. If new information comes to light, and if reliable sources begin to report on these events differently, then the article will be edited and updated accordingly. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: "If the court finds otherwise, for example due to a re-examination changing the cause of death (which I've already cited sources saying happens in many other cases), then legally we would have asserted a false accusation."
That others may have stated "killed by X" as a definite fact is no comfort. Such others (including Donald Trump in full-page signed newspaper ads) definitely stated that a woman was beaten and raped by the Central Park Five — but later evidence exonerated them.
Accordingly, reliable sources often hedge their bets by saying "alleged" — "X was alleged to have killed Z", "the alleged killer" — and that's a better (if still imperfect) approach. – .Raven  .talk 19:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good arguments, but out of place for this discussion. Suggest you go here instead. Xan747 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't have the confidence to say "was killed by", we shouldn't be saying it regardless of if we name Penny or not. Also, the court finding that Penny didn't kill Neely wouldn't make that not true. We go by what reliable secondary sources say, not what courts say. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli Just as heads up, we do have the confidence to say it was a killing as it was ruled a homicide (medically) by a medical examiner. It's also fairly clear that the chokehold was the cause of death. Hopefully that clarifies things! LoomCreek (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that we do. I was just responding to .Raven's argument. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, noted LoomCreek (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan Neely was killed by Daniel Penny. This is a widely reported material fact that is substantiated by dozens if not hundreds of reliable secondary sources, and a coroner's report. It is also not information that suggests that Daniel Penny is guilty of a crime. Daniel Penny has been charged with manslaughter, not "killing." No part of the article implies that Penny is guilty of a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 15:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the actual coroner's report say "killed by [name of person]"? – .Raven  .talk 06:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Public figures says, In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. A public figure is a person who has achieved notoriety, prominence or fame within a society. Both seem to apply here. The public celebration of Penny by Republicans indicates notoriety if not fame, does it not? Penny's New York Post interview justifying his actions also seems to satisfy the more restrictive criteria of Penny having "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved". How exactly is Penny not a public figure under these criteria? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if we can seriously consider a NY post interview as meeting the criteria of being a public figure since this material would not be acceptable on the basis of reliable sourcing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They released a video interview through their lawyers, among many statements through many different reliable sources. So even excluding the NY Post, they meet the criteria easily. LoomCreek (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the New York Post is a reliable source is not really relevant. It's a notable and widely read tabloid that is itself at the center of a great many public controversies: [8][9][10] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of "a multitude of reliable published sources", it's acceptable to count on a notably UNreliable source?
I don't think so. – .Raven  .talk 17:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven: Multiple reliable sources have published the video released by his lawyers, and his Internet fundraising campaign. Either one of those on its own would satisfy the self-promotion clauses in WP:LOWPROFILE. That there are two makes the case stronger.
Note that I am using the NY Post interview in my argument for naming him. My comment here is not a concession that I shouldn't use it. Xan747 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.Raven knows that, it's said above. Don't worry about explaining something over again when a person leads you into a circular argument. LoomCreek (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "Note that I am using the NY Post interview in my argument for naming him" — Already noted and responded to, above. – .Raven  .talk 18:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and? LoomCreek (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about circular arguments! – .Raven  .talk 18:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - LoomCreek (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order: an argument going in circles is not the same as circular reasoning. IRL calls, so I'll add my justifications for using the NY Post interview under my own section later tonight. Xan747 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good - LoomCreek (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity of "argument" here (syn.reasoning or syn.quarrel) could be easily be resolved this time by context. In this case we referred to a series of comments, not a single (looped) chain of reasoning.
See “'We have the same argument over and over.' This is one of the most common statements we hear in couples therapy sessions. If it feels like your fights never go anywhere, you may be trapped in a circular argument."
Cf. "Circular Conversations - Arguments which go on almost endlessly, repeating the same patterns with no resolution." – .Raven  .talk 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven: no one is suggesting we use the NY Post as a source. The argument is that Penny himself used his interview in the NY Post to gain publicity and influence the resolution of his case. How does that not make him a public figure? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that Penny's actions make him both a high-profile individual, and a public figure. I have refrained from making this statement thus far, because I believe it has been (and is still) irrelevant to the discussion; editors arguing for opposition have not yet even made a substantial case that Penny's name should be removed from the article if he were a low-profile individual. I believe it is important for BLP interpretation for us to have the discussion on those grounds. However, I will reiterate that I do agree that Penny is both a high-profile individual and a public figure at this point. Combefere ★ Talk 17:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose: @LoomCreek: This is too much. You're in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. You started the last RFC, which closed three days ago. You then opened a challenge to that close, based on both (1) alleged error by the closer and (2) new information since the close. A majority of participants were opposing that challenge. You then withdrew that challenge and started a new RFC here. How is that not WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I want to second Nemov's and User:Davey2010's comments and reiterate what I said at the close challenge: While I supported inclusion in the original RFC, largely based on Perry's press interaction (the public statement and later interview), I do not think it was unreasonable that other editors disagreed, particularly because, on the spectrum of public figures, Perry would certainly be a minor one. I also don't think anything that has happened since the RFC affects the WP:BLPNAME analysis. To be clear: I still think Perry's name should probably be included: In Kenosha unrest shooting, we include Rittenhouse's name (as we should) even though he was tried and (controversially) found innocent. But I also think treating the absence of Perry's name as a 5-alarm fire worthy of several RFCs (and even more talk-page sections) is overkill. Per WP:CCC, "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." I think this is falling on the latter side of the line.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: In light of the fact that I think the prior close was valid and that the information that has emerged since the last RFC would not have shifted that RFC (and thus the only reason for a distinct outcome would be a different audience), I oppose.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended replies
  • Oppose on procedure and policy. Rittenhouse was very different as he showed up at a very public protest, with a rifle, and gave interviews right before the incident. In this situation it was a random dude on a subway interacting with what appears to be a mentally unstable individual. Nevertheless BLP is governed by policy and we've entered forum shopping territory here (I wasn't even involved in the original RfC yet I was ping summoned). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • Oppose — including his name does not give, or help, our readers have a better understanding of the topic. Maybe in the future it can be included, but we are not on a deadline, we are not a newspaper. It is always best to err on the side of exclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. BLP is not violated by including Daniel Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely. There is no clause in BLP which precludes us from including this information. Editors who are arguing for exclusion seem to have the misguided interpretation of BLP that implies that we must censor any and all information about notable people who have ever been charged with any crime. This is not how BLP works, and nothing in BLP implies that it does or should work that way. We are only precluded from stating or implying that Penny is guilty of a crime (such as manslaughter). We are not precluded from including his name, or his involvement in the event that is the subject of the article. I invite all opposing editors to actually quote the relevant clause in BLP that prevents us from including the name, rather than simply asserting without explanation that BLP has somehow been violated. Thus far, no such explanation or analysis has been provided by any of the opposing editors. Combefere ★ Talk 01:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended replies
  • Notable person and public figure are not the same concept, and SFR was very clear in his close that the public figure standard is the hurdle to clear, and wasn't, because arguments in support of naming Neely's assailant mostly did so on the basis of his notability due to sustained coverage in multiple RSs. He specifically said he downweighted those arguments in his ruling. So it's public figure to name, otherwise not. Xan747 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a meaningful response to my argument. SFR stated that Penny was not a public figure, and cited WP:NPF but did not explain how NPF precludes us from including Penny's name or involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely from the article. The assertion that we "must clear the hurdle of proving Penny is a public figure" is one without basis. We must do no such thing. Penny is notable, and notability is enough to include him in the article.
    From NPF:
    "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
    NPF is very clear that we are allowed to include notable people who are not public figures in the article. Nothing about the inclusion of Penny's name or the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely violates any part of NPF. What specific sentence do you think is violated here, and how? Combefere ★ Talk 02:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPCRIME gives more specific and stricter guidance when it comes to criminal acts:

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

    I won't bother quoting SFR's close here, it's at the top of the page as of this writing. He's very clear that Neely's assailant must pass the public figure test to be named in the article. I don't know what else to tell you except that I was rudely surprised by a) the ruling and b) what I found when I read the policy more closely and compared it to the arguments for inclusion. Xan747 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xan747: - as a reply to you, see my vote below. starship.paint (exalt) 03:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint, I saw that and we are in exact agreement; see my arguments near the top of the thread. The point I'm making with Combefere is that he leaves out any mention of the public figure test -- he only mentions notability, which is not the same thing, and isn't sufficient to name Neely's assailant. Xan747 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xan747 There is no "public figure test" to leave out. BLPCRIME does not preclude us from including any and all information about notable individuals who are not public figures. It encourages (not even requires) us to exclude assertions about a person's guilt in relation to a crime if they are not a public figure. These things are not the same. Not remotely. Combefere ★ Talk 08:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which makes the lede paragraph's "Neely was killed by X" problematic. If we could rely on the first ME's ruling (homicide) as final, we could at least say "killed" — but that so many cause-of-death findings are changed after re-examination suggests at least the possibility of it happening if the defense requests and gets a re-examination, and we won't know that until the defense rests. – .Raven  .talk 18:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:CRYSTAL. It is a neutral, verifiable fact that Neely was killed. The ME's report is beyond sufficient evidence, and hundreds of secondary reliable sources corroborate it. The out of hand dismissal of this evidence is a fringe interpretation that is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The ME ruled it a homicide. The reliable sources call it a killing. We are obliged to follow suit. Combefere ★ Talk 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "The ME ruled it a homicide." — If and when the court finally agrees to homicide being a "material fact", we can say so. Stating it as a fact before then runs up against the problem that re-examinations have changed the initial cause-of-death declarations in 30%-50% of cases varying by state, and 60% in one study cited here. If the defense does NOT request or present a re-examination before it rests, I'd call that ruling a safe bet. – .Raven  .talk 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @.Raven
    If and when the court finally agrees to homicide being a "material fact", we can say so.
    Incorrect. We can say it is a killing as soon as the ME report is published, per WP:DEATHS. We can also say it is a killing without an ME report at all, if a "preponderance of secondary reliable sources" call it so (and they have!), per WP:DEATHS. See recent discussion on this point after the Killing of Tyre Nichols here.
    I'll ask that you strike all of these continued, bludgeoning comments, which are clearly opposed by WP policy, and refrain from making them in the future. Combefere ★ Talk 19:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article lede sentence follows "killing" with "by X" — a combination not ruled by the ME, who did not presume to name a responsible party.
    That ruling would be made by the court, not the ME (nor the papers, nor even the prosecutors).
    In the meantime, to combine the two is what WP calls synthesis. – .Raven  .talk 02:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a valid analysis, if not for the inconvenient fact that reliable secondary sources have stated outright, in no uncertain terms that Penny killed Neely.
    Here's one that lays it out in no uncertain terms:
    "Mr. Penny, apparently seeking to restrain Mr. Neely, placed him in a chokehold, killing him. The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.)"
    We are not synthesizing material from separate sources here. Dozens, if not hundreds of RSs are in agreement on the undeniable conclusion that Penny killed Neely. We are simply including the analysis from RSs, as we do for all information on all articles. Combefere ★ Talk 03:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. [X] killed Mr. Neely....)"
    While our article quotes (and cites to CNN): "manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider, the spokesperson said." [emphasis added]
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/culpability
    So where did the ME's report name "Mr. [X]" as having "killed Mr. Neely"?
    WP:SYNTH again, plus false attribution. – .Raven  .talk 03:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misapplying WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources get to synthesize. They did. We get to use their synthesis. End of story. Xan747 (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have other sources saying the ME's report did not assign culpability [='blame'] for Neely's death. If instead we follow one that claims it did — and it turns out it really didn't — are we not "culpable" for ignoring the discrepancy in reports to get a desired outcome? Central Park Five again. – .Raven  .talk 04:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Try this
    The city’s medical examiner said Neely died from “compression of neck (chokehold)” and declared his manner of death a homicide — a routine term used by coroners and medical examiners to mean death caused by another person, but not a finding of criminal culpability.
    My emphasis. Xan747 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is arguing that we must assign criminal culpability to Penny. This is a straw man. Combefere ★ Talk 04:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ME's spokesperson, as quoted, did not specify 'criminal culpability'. – .Raven  .talk 04:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not under dispute. Xan747 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is suggesting we assign "culpability" to Penny in any sense. Nobody has suggested an edit to the article that says "Penny is culpable for Neely's death." This is a straw man.
    RSs say plainly that Penny killed Neely. We can as well. Combefere ★ Talk 04:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "X killed Y" does say that X is to blame for Y's death.
    WP's rules are different from newspapers' rules. WP:NOTNEWS – .Raven  .talk 06:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @.Raven: I agree with you, which is why I changed the lede last night. I was then overruled. This is not the thread to have that argument, however. Xan747 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this does not address the substance of my argument. I'll remind you that SFR's closing argument is not WP policy, and should not be cited as such. That editor's assertion that Penny must pass the public figure test is a hollow assertion with no basis in WP policy.
As to your quotation of BLPCRIME, it still does not include an analysis of which part of BLPCRIME you believe has been violated and by what. Daniel Penny's name is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime or is accused of a crime. Stating the material fact that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely is not a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime or is accused of a crime. There has never been any sentence in the article that suggests Penny has committed a crime. BLPCRIME is not violated here. Combefere ★ Talk 03:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • So that I can better understand, would you then omit any mention of the indictment? Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reading of BLPCRIME is far too strict. It's meant for circumstances such as, say, an unsolved murder, where someone is arrested as a suspect. We wouldn't want to name them. Likewise, let's say a minor celebrity is arrested for a crime. There's a good argument for not mentioning that.
    This isn't either of those cases. Our article is about an incident and we 100% know that Penny was the person involved here (no one is denying this). The indictment is part of the incident, so it should be mentioned, but adding that information should not mean we need to remove other information (Penny's name). Sure, we should consider not including that information (as in the cases I mentioned above) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include that information! Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be right, but for the moment, I am just going on a plain reading of the words of the policy. And you're right, "must consider" does not mean "must not include." And I confess I have a couple biases here: I think Wikipedia should take a slower approach to its articles, and I tend to side with criminal defendants of all stripes. Your mileage may certainly vary, and if consensus goes against me here (and it may), then so be it! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for no one (including Penny) denying that he killed Neely:
  • "Penny denied he had Neely in a chokehold, claiming he was restraining him to protect others." (HuffPost, June 12)
  • “Some people say that I was holding on to Mr. Neely for 15 minutes. This is not true — between stops is only a couple of minutes. So the whole interaction lasted less than 5 minutes,” Penny said. “Some people say I was trying to choke him to death — which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him. You can see in the video there’s a clear rise and fall of his chest, indicating that he’s breathing. I’m trying to restrain him from being able to carry out the threats.” (Matzav.com, June 12)
  • "One of the people pinning Neely down ... also claimed that Penny was not 'squeezing' Neely's neck." (Insider, May 5)
– .Raven  .talk 09:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven, good find, I added that detail in this diff, using a local news agency for the site. If it gets challenged, we'll take it to a different talk thread so as not to continue cluttering up this one with the same off-topic point over and over. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven and Xan747: It's all fine and good that Daniel Penny denies he used a chokehold, but what do our reliable sources say? The HuffPost article cited above by .Raven says "Penny was captured on a bystander video putting Neely in a chokehold ..." That article also says that Penny claims Neely was on drugs, but did the medical examiner's report affirm that accusation? The second source .Raven cited above (Insider), also says "Penny, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, put Neely in a chokehold ... I would like to remind y'all that we follow what the reliable sources say. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the actual topic here: the repeated claims on this page (worded variously) that no one (including Penny) denied that he killed Neely. Pointing to all the sources which don't mention his (and that witness's) denial  doesn't erase the sources which do mention those denials... nor make those false claims true. – .Raven  .talk 07:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not. I would, as BLPCRIME demands, "seriously consider" omitting any mention of the indictment, and after such serious consideration I would conclude that in this particular case, such an omission would be ridiculous given the widely reported material fact that Penny killed Neely, and the obvious necessity of reporting the material fact of his indictment in the light of our obligation to include the former fact.
    BLPCRIME is obviously meant to protect people whose involvement in the crime at all is still a matter of contention. It's not meant to shield anybody and everybody who have done something notable, when that notable thing also precipitates a criminal procedure. We don't censor the names of bombers, or mass shooters while the criminal procedures are still unfolding. The bombing or mass shooting itself is the notable event, and the people who carried out those acts must be named and included. The criminal procedures following that event are then not protected by BLPCRIME, because at that point the suspects are already named because of their undeniable inclusion in the event itself.
    Contrast with the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German where the name of the suspect is protected. Why? Because there's no widely reported material fact about the suspect that we can include about him. It's not a widely reported material fact that he killed them, or that he was involved at all. There's no notable material fact that we could include here, except that he was accused of a crime.
    Penny's privacy is not protected by BLPCRIME in the same way. He attacked and killed a homeless man on a subway. That's true, widely reported, and undisputable. That's why he's named in hundreds of news articles. That's why he's notable. Whether that act was a crime is just the next part of that story. But his involvement in the story, and our certainty of his involvement in the story do not in any way hinge on his conviction for a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 04:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But would you agree with me that reporting the indictment would be a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime or is accused of a crime? As you note, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be included, but I want to make sure we are working from the same basic propositions. Dumuzid (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would agree that reporting the indictment is certainly a suggestion that Penny has been accused of a crime. Combefere ★ Talk 04:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Undisputable"? See above. – .Raven  .talk 09:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    > "the material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely" — He's been arrested for it, after an ME's ruling on cause-of-death (homicide, not stating the actor)... but a court has not found on your "material fact", and cause-of-death declarations have been changed by re-examinations before now. Wikipedia is not under any deadline; we can wait to see what the court finds. – .Raven  .talk 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to your WP:CRYSTAL argument elsewhere that this fringe theory is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. No RSs are casting doubt upon the veracity or the relevance of the ME's ruling. This is a Wikipedia article, not an exercise in the invincible ignorance fallacy. Combefere ★ Talk 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, "the material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely" was not ruled by the ME; the ME didn't name [X]. Others did. Your combining the two is WP:SYNTH. – .Raven  .talk 02:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not combine the two. Hundreds of RSs did. Combefere ★ Talk 03:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That happened in the Central Park Five case, too. From History.com:
    The crime was splashed across front pages for months, with the teens depicted as symbols of violence and called “bloodthirsty,” “animals,” “savages” and “human mutations,” the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism and research organization, reports.
    Newspaper columnists joined in. The New York Post 's Pete Hamill wrote that the teens hailed “from a world of crack, welfare, guns, knives, indifference and ignorance…a land with no fathers…to smash, hurt, rob, stomp, rape. The enemies were rich. The enemies were white.”
    Adding fuel to the fire, weeks after the attack, in May 1989, real estate developer (and future U.S. president) Donald Trump took out full-page ads in The New York Times, the New York Daily News, the New York Post and New York Newsday with the headline, "Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!"
    “It was a media tsunami,” former New York Daily News police bureau chief David Krajicek tells Poynter. “It was so competitive. The city desk absolutely demanded that we come up with details that other reporters didn’t have.”
    And those RSs got it wrong. Perhaps one of the reasons why WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say to wait until "hundreds of RSs" accuse him; it talks about a court conviction instead.
    A "reliable" source should separate its verifiable facts from its (hasty) opinions. – .Raven  .talk 03:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And those RSs got it wrong. Perhaps one of the reasons why WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say to wait until "hundreds of RSs" accuse him; it talks about a court conviction instead.
    BLPCRIME does not require a court conviction to include Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely. It only requires a court conviction to assert that he committed a crime. The article does not accuse Penny of committing a crime, and nobody is suggesting to add such an accusation to the article.
    The insinuation that we must not include any information from Reliable Sources, and can only report information that is ruled on by a court flies in the face of all standard practices of Wikipedia reporting and cannot be taken seriously. Reliable sources are the backbone of our encyclopedia. Combefere ★ Talk 04:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then may I kindly suggest an RfC on WT:BLP about WP:BLPCRIME's
"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
Because at present the firm statement some editors wish placed on the article in Wikipedia's voice would indeed suggest that. – .Raven  .talk 04:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime.
As a matter of fact, there is already an ongoing discussion at WT:BLP which was initiated because one editor was (like you) very displeased about this reality. It's been ongoing for almost three months, and no consensus about changing the verbiage of BLPCRIME has been released; the verbiage proposed would not even preclude us from including the neutral and verifiable statement that Penny killed Neely.
If you have issues with the policy, I suggest contributing there. Combefere ★ Talk 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "neutral and verifiable statement that [X] killed Neely"
You have several times thumped the ME's ruling as asserting that.
Nowhere in the ruling is that asserted, per the ME's spokesperson.
If any other source falsely claims it does assert that... this would be one data point toward regarding the source as unreliable. – .Raven  .talk 06:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. If a Reliable Source disagrees with you, then it must be unreliable, huh? Sorry to say I don't find that argument very convincing :)
Sadly I have to say that the more I engage with you on here, the less convincing I find your arguments. The interpretation that the ME's report does not find that Penny killed Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It's found in no RSs. None.
If you think that any RSs that disagree with you on this point must therefore be unreliable, I suggest you take them up individually at WP:RSP. Trying to dismiss the sources here is outside of the scope of this RfC, and disruptive. Combefere ★ Talk 07:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "If a Reliable Source disagrees with you, then it must be unreliable, huh?"
I said nothing about "if it disagrees with me" — rather, I said, if it "falsely claims", i.e. says something factually untrue... and I'll add in this case, something that was knowably untrue at the time... as in asserting that the Medical Examiner's ruling said something the Medical Examiner's spokesperson explicitly contradicted.
This wasn't an inquest, or a coroner's court/jury, nor was it Quincy, M.E.
> "The interpretation that the ME's report does not find that Penny killed Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It's found in no RSs. None."
72.14.126.22 and I both quoted above the CNN article already cited in the article:
"A spokesperson for the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner explained that 'manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider'." [emphasis added]
– .Raven  .talk 07:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RS's interpretations of the ME report are usable in the article, and as a basis for discussion on the talk page. Your interpretation is not. If you have a problem with RS's reliability, go take it up at WP:RSP. Combefere ★ Talk 08:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So CNN is now not a reliable source when quoting the ME's spokesperson verbatim? Wow. – .Raven  .talk 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing your comment after I've responded to it is bad form.
I suppose graduating from fringe, nonsense interpretations of the ME report onto fringe nonsense interpretations of the RSs reporting the ME report is the next obvious step in the stepwise devolution of your analysis here. I don't find it particularly convincing.
CNN is indeed a reliable source. They do not in any article deny that Penny killed Neely, nor that the ME report found that Penny killed Neely, nor did the ME spokesperson. Combefere ★ Talk 08:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I was editing it WHILE you were editing. You posted before I did, is all.
> "CNN... do not in any article deny that [X] killed Neely, nor that the ME report found that Penny killed Neely, nor did the ME spokesperson."
"deny that [X] killed Neely" is not what I said. As with "If a Reliable Source disagrees with you" above, you continue to deploy strawmen.
The ME's spokesperson said of the ME's determination that it was "not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider".
IOW, it did not assert  "that [X] killed Neely".
Quite a different matter.
The fact that some reporters could not understand that, just like you... says much worse about them than about you. It is their professional responsibility not to misrepresent statements, especially on important matters like death and its blame. Wikipedia editors are unpaid, and of a wide variety of educational and training backgrounds: "amateurs" in the non-pejorative sense; mistakes are to be expected... and corrected. – .Raven  .talk 08:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up at WP:RSP. Your refusal to accept a consensus of hundreds of RSs is not within the scope of the discussion at this RfC. Combefere ★ Talk 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For thousands of years, the value of pi (π) was given wrong, e.g., the Babylonians had it at 3, the Egyptians at about 3.1605. I could cite those millennia of estimates, but they would still be wrong.
Did the medical examiner's ruling actually, factually, name [X] as the killer? The ME's spokesperson said no. Anyone who claims otherwise should cite and quote that ruling, not some other people's claims unsupported and even contradicted by the very agency they thump.
Good grief, how many hundreds of sources uncritically repeated Donald Trump's falsehoods?
Would citing all those sources "verify" Trump's statements?
Let's have a little more critical thinking skill here, please. – .Raven  .talk 00:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended replies
  • This is a reasonable line of argument, but I would note that defamation law can be instructive for Wikipedia purposes, but is not a perfect analog; and I would point to Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976), in which the court took a criminal indictment as the paradigmatic case of someone who had not voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye, and also noted that one should not "equate 'public controversy' with all controversies of interest to the public." But that is again, not a perfect match--and Penny has certainly taken some proactive media steps. Just food for thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the indictment by itself does not make the defendant a public figure. That is why I did not mention anything about the indictment. It is the interviews plus fundraiser. starship.paint (exalt) 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely so! But then we get into a very gray area (as with all the best cases). Is a legal fundraiser really voluntary in this day and age? Aren't interviews defending oneself at least somewhat compelled in the face of so much publicity? I could honestly argue either way. Interesting borderline issues. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid: - to my knowledge, Derek Chauvin did not give interviews, and only spoke in court. I would think that is example enough. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, but Chauvin was not responsible for his own legal fees, which would change the calculation quite a bit, I should think. Either way, as I say, I believe there are reasonable arguments to be made on either side of the question. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only did Penny advocate for his legal defense, but took pains in his New York Post interview to say Neely's killing had "nothing to do with race" and that it's "comical" to say he is "white supremacist", claiming to "love all people" as evidenced by his planned "road trip through Africa", etc. I would say this amounts to someone thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies, or as the Post puts it, the "political and racial firestorm" currently surrounding Penny. It's more than a simple argument against the manslaughter charge. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) edited 21:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion of Penny's name. WP:BLPNAME says: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, [...] it is often preferable to omit it." Both conditions are clearly not met. All WP:RS use his name, often in headlines. Penny has given multiple interviews: New York Post (May 20) [12], Fox News (June 8) [13], and in a video released through his lawyers (June 12) [14]. According to WP:LOWPROFILE, he is a high-profile individual: "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication..." Given that Penny doesn't try to conceal his name (rather the contrary) and our policies, I see no reason to omit his name. But we should make sure that our wording is neutral and not accusatory in any way. For example, the first sentence should be something like "Neely died after Penny held him in a chokehold" instead of "Neely was killed by Penny", since "kill" carries a connotation of intent. The sources given by Sangdeboeuf above provide some good examples of careful wording, as they avoid anything like "Penny killed Neely". — Chrisahn (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with Neely died after Penny held him in a chokehold or similar wording, as long as we don't censor Penny's identity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion of Daniel Penny's name in the lead and throughout article on the killing of Jordan Neely, for the following reasons:
Per Xan747, WWGB, Sangdeboeuf — who argued correctly that Penny has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities and that "Neely's assailant fits the definition of a high-profile figure by seeking media attention, and self-promotion". WP:LOWPROFILE states that an individual is high-profile if they have "given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program" which Penny has done.
Per Starship.paint — who cited WP:LOWPROFILE, which says that "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable", as Penny has engaged in public fundraising activities, given an interview, and released a video statement via attorneys.
Per Combefere — who pointed out that "BLP is not violated by including Daniel Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely."
Further, Penny has become a cause célèbre and has been promoted, defended, and honored very publicly by some members of the right, including Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, Republican politicians Matt Gaetz, Nikki Haley, and others.
WP:BLP is not violated by including Penny's name, which is an important piece of information to include in the article, and should not be omitted based on the far-too-stringent readings and interpretations of BLP policy as have been made by some who are opposed to naming Penny. Needless to say, I do not believe the previous RfC discussion or close fully took into account these points. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. I don't agree with the idea that the individual is a high profile individual or find the arguments so to be very convincing. Their lawyers released interviews in response to sensational reporting as part of his legal defence. This is not someone providing multiple interviews to different outlets, it is only in relation to the ongoing criminal proceedings, and I don't believe reporting of the case can ever make someone a high profile individual. However I believe there is reason for inclusion. I would see the normal application of BLPCRIME as being to keep the names of non-notable individuals out of the article. So if someone is later found not guilty Wikipedia hasn't published their name unnecessarily. In this case though the subject will always be notable to the article, whether they are found guilty or not, as their involvement is not disputed. The issue is how that name is included, which must not state guilt or imply guilt (until there is a verdict). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree, but... "This is not someone providing multiple interviews to different outlets" – In addition to the interview published by his lawyers, he gave interviews to the New York Post (May 20) [15] and Fox News (June 8) [16]. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed that, but I still feel this is now a normal part of a mounting a defence in modern high visibility cases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion. The point of BLP policy in general is to prevent Wikipedia from having an inappropriate negative effect on the lives of people who have the misfortune to be written about here. In the case of low-profile accused criminals, these harms might come from misidentification, from actual innocence, or simply from the accused not having access to appropriate ways to defend themselves. None of these apply in this case: as Adoring nanny notes, no one disputes that Penny killed Neely, and as starship.paint observes, there is no sense in which Penny can be viewed as low-profile any longer. It would have been reasonable to feel differently about whether Penny was low-profile some weeks ago, but it seems to me that that time is long past. --JBL (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extended replies (10/10 collapsed by starship.paint)
  • > "no one disputes that [X] killed Neely" — We have not yet seen the defense portion of the trial. The trial has not yet even begun. To say what "no one disputes" before that courtroom dispute is WP:CRYSTALBALL. – .Raven  .talk 18:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me like you have made 30+ comments in the last three days, repeating the same (frankly rather inane) point over and over again. Maybe you could stop? --JBL (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this, it's bludgeoning. LoomCreek (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made roughly twice the comments I have on this page. – .Raven  .talk 03:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's patently false, it's laughable you would even suggest that.- LoomCreek (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say "edits", I said "comments". Are we now counting typo corrections against me? Also, I made further comments after posting that, which will have changed the ratio. – .Raven  .talk 04:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm counting comments, it's not even close. This should be taken to the discussion section. LoomCreek (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here I am increasing my comment-count again. Last of the night, I hope.
    What were your page search parameters? Username alone (which picks up mentions), or .sig with username/talkpage, which narrows it down? Also, does your UI collapse threads? – .Raven  .talk 04:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Take this to the discussion section. Keeping it here adds needless effort for the closing editor. LoomCreek (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People keep repeating things like the "The fact that [X] killed Neely...", and "[X] killed Neely, period. This is factual and relevant info", and "... material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely...", and "plain fact acknowledged in reliable sources: that X caused the death of Y through his actions", and "It remains an indisputable (and undisputed) fact that X killed Y" [emphasis in original] — and citing the ME's ruling as though it identified the person responsible, which it did not.
    Combining that report with other sources (e.g. news agencies') is WP:SYNTH. Taking the prosecutors' charges as a source (even if cited by news agencies) is a classic violation of WP:BLPCRIME.
    People have been charged with crimes, yet exonerated. People have been widely accused in media, yet exonerated. Once again, take the Central Park Five for example — a massive public campaign of vilification and assumption of guilt took place, yet it turned out they had had nothing to do with the crime... or, if you prefer, the actual physical beating and rape, even before charges were filed. It was a tremendous rush to (false) judgment.
    I for one would prefer that Wikipedia not rush to judgment. We have no deadline, and judgment is the court's job.
    And... have you made the same request of Combefere? Loomcreek? Anyone else? Or just me?
    Consider counting up how many of my edits were typo corrections. – .Raven  .talk 03:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are now three overlapping discussions about this subject on the talk page, creating more needless confusion. I have closed and hatted one of them. Users @Nfutvol: and @Razzmatazz Max: have indicated support for including the name in discussions above and below. Their support should not be erased due to the overlapping discussions, as supporting editors' comments were erased in the first RfC. Combefere ★ Talk 00:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, because both of their comments were made after the indictment occurred they should be included as part of the support for name inclusion LoomCreek (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BLPCRIME, not convinced by arguments to support.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion on the basis that he is not a low profile figure anymore based on his wiling participation in activity within the media, and the circus this has created. WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. Fieari (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion per my support in the previous RFC and I haven't seen any oppose arguments that have made me re-evaluate it. If anything, I'm somewhat swayed that name or not should be controlled primarily by WP:BLPNAME which is a clear include and then other prose around either the name or placeholder name is what WP:BLPCRIME is about. But this case, both the amount of media coverage, the way his identity was made public, and the amount he himself has been public about the case, makes me support inclusion. Skynxnex (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion of name - per my response to the discussion above. it's a bit confusing that there are multiple open discussions on the same topic The void century 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add that multiple references in this article include the name of the defendant in the title. So it's not like his name will be hidden if it's excluded in the body. One can easily find his name in the references section. The void century 05:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support inclusion - Seems like most people opposing are doing so on b/c of WP:BLPCRIME's provision against suggesting a "person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". Those people are probably confused by the difference between "killing" and criminal offenses like homicide, murder, and manslaughter. Lots of "killing" is done is a legal way, and saying "Person X killed person Y" doesn't mean a crime has occurred. Exclusion when this guy is named by so many other sources just makes WP look plain dumb. This is another good example of the WP:BLP facists making this project look incompetent. NickCT (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion: Some points:
- (I suppose this is more of a comment to the closer, but it also includes an argument) This discussion is about name inclusion only. BLPCRIME does not prevent by default the inclusion of even the types of information covered by the policy, and does not govern other types of information. Arguments that simply cite BLPCRIME without further explanation as to exactly why the name inclusion ALONE is "material [...] that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" are arguments contradictory to policy, which are to be discounted by closing editors.
- BLPCRIME supports the inclusion by default as Penny clears the bar of a public figure (note that LPI is an essay, not policy, but to my knowledge it remains the only definition of a "high profile individual" that we have that doesn't rely on external legal definitions). He has publicly released prepared statements and videos, he is seeking crowdfunding, he has done interviews with large media organizations. He has not only "not hidden" from the public eye, but has instead embraced it and encouraged wide dissemination of his name, likeness, and personal story in connection to this case. TL;DR It is clearly the position of Penny and his lawyer(s?) that publishing his name does not harm him and that he does not intend to pursue legal action against entities that publish his name in a neutral, unbiased manner, which is what we do here. Thus, arguments of legal peril are addressed.
- Even if Penny is or was not a public figure, the inclusion of his name did not violate BLPCRIME, not least because BLPCRIME does not have any instructions that can be "violated" in the segment that we all are referring to. I suppose BLPCRIME might be "violated" if we could look into the mind of the contributing editor and see that they did not think about their contribution seriously.
- Again, even if Penny is or was not a public figure, the inclusion of his name did not violate BLPCRIME, because saying that something happened does not indicate that anybody is guilty of anything. That Neely was killed by Penny is not an accusation of guilt in the slightest, it is the most clear and concise way to describe the situation while providing context and information about the people involved.
- The so-called "strict" interpretation (which is not a strict interpretation at all, rather it is a misreading or mischaracterization of the policy's letter) of BLPCRIME does not prevent us from publishing Penny's name. It would create an argument for avoiding mentioning the investigation, grand jury proceedings, and indictment, which I would be happy to participate in a discussion about.
- In the possible situation that Penny is acquitted, he would still warrant inclusion as a heavily involved person. This is because the tentative and non-binding 'restriction' that has been cited does not even apply to the unbiased and non-implicative description that Penny's actions were found to have resulted in the death of Neely, a situation often referred to as a "killing." If BLPCRIME were to bind us from saying Penny's name, the correct course of action would be to revert the name of the article to "Death of Jordan Neely" and scrub any statements about the involvement of ANYBODY other than Neely because describing an unnamed "accused" as having killed someone is significantly closer to "material [...] that suggests" criminality than anyone's name. This is, of course, absurd on its face, and arguments that fail to describe why the inclusion of Penny's name specifically is problematic are arguments in favor of that absurd outcome.

PriusGod (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stale chain RE:point 4
I'm sorry—I actually support inclusion on the merits—but the entire "we can include the name of killer without even suggesting the killer committed a crime" is nonsense. Yeah, I guess the article could say "By the way, some dude named Daniel Perry exists", that wouldn't imply Perry committed a crime, but no one is suggesting that.
Again, BLPCRIME bars material that even suggests a crime was committed. The very fact that the term "alleged killer" is a term that's used in society (including by reliable sources—and I don't mean those sources reporting on Neely, I mean in general) is itself evidence that describing someone as having committed a killing suggests a crime. Put it this way: Per your argument, in a case where it was not clear who the killer was, a Wikipedia article could say "authorities suspect that X was the killer"—because, after all, "killing isn't a crime".--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes a case that Wikipedia stop naming articles "Killing of [name]" completely, and that those articles should be named "Death of [name]" or "Murder of [name]," because the title "Killing of [name]" implies criminality. It is widely accepted consensus that the word "killing," on Wikipedia, is equivalent to the word "homicide," and does not imply criminality. While there is not an actual naming convention for articles about death and killing that has been established as policy, WP:KILLINGS is very widely cited and agreed with.
Per my argument, in a case where it was not clear who the killer was, a Wikipedia article should absolutely NOT say that, because the suspicion of authorities carries the implication of an ongoing investigation or future charges in a way that (by established consensus) the concept and wording of "killing" or "homicide" do not. PriusGod (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It does not at all suggest that a death can't be described by a killing. Nor does it suggest that criminality can't be suggested absent the name of a living person. What it suggests is that suggested criminality cannot be tied to a non-public-figure living person absent conviction, which is what WP:BLPCRIME states. By your argument, so long as we don't say "X killed Y, and X will have no affirmative defenses available," we're not "suggesting a crime". That's a bad and, frankly, dangerous read of the policy. The policy doesn't just cover "Many suspect X committed murder" or "X committed murder" ... it also covers suggestions that a person committed or is accused of committing a crime. "Many suspect X killed Y" and "X killed Y" would also be inappropriate, even though, in theory, there might be an affirmative defense X could present.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the last two sentences of your statement here. I think that the article should say that medical examiners found that Y's death was due to homicide, and that X has admitted that his involvement contributed to that, and that once that well-qualified statement is out of the way, wording as simple as X killed Y may be permissible.
I do not think that any article should ever say bluntly that X killed Y in wikivoice with no qualification. I recognize that the way I wrote my argument may have carried that implication, but what I meant with that sentence was that the phrasings "killing" and "homicide" are not inherently accusatory, and are dependent on context. In this case, we have the context that a medical examiner found that Y died of homicide, and that X has made an admission of contribution to that. I will strike that sentence and reword it, tagging the time to make sure it is clear that you have not made a willful misinterpretation, but that I had represented my argument inaccurately.
I do, however, take issue with your statement that BLPCRIME "bars" anything. BLPCRIME asks that "editors must seriously consider not including material," which is not the same thing as "editors must not include material." I don't intend to make a wikilawyering argument, as I do recognize that BLPCRIME is trying to imply that we should lean the exclusionist position, but the vast majority of oppose !votes here rely on the incorrect interpretation that BLPCRIME is a strict and unambiguous policy and (imply) that other arguments must rely on IAR, which is not the case. I don't think it opposes the spirit of BLPCRIME to say that both sides of the 'serious consideration' need to present convincing and specific arguments about the inclusion of covered material. (I'm not accusing you of accusing me, this is just a preemptive defense against the potential for someone to come in saying I am wikilawyering, I recognize the closeness)
You have said that the existence of the phrase "alleged killer" means that "X killed Y" is a suggestion of a crime. If that is the case, then an article named "Killing of Y" for any X is a suggestion of criminality on X's behalf. This means that ANY article named "Killing of Y" suggests criminality. This is incompatible with the consensus in favor of WP:KILLINGS and implies that the article title "Killer of [name]" be retired.
I want to be clear, while I described a similar position as "absurd," I don't think this one is! The consensus in favor of WP:KILLINGS is manifestly not strong consistently enough to have earned the title of policy (though I believe it is, but since it hasn't graduated to policy status then it must be the case), and it is essentially a constant request on contentious pages about deaths and killings that the names be moved back and forth. I apologize if I am misunderstanding your argument, but if (as I read from your comment) the existence of the phrase "alleged killer" means ("X killed Y" = an accusation), then it seems to follow that articles named ("Killing of Y" = "X killed Y") and thus ("Killing of Y" = an accusation).
(I will say - I agree in the general sense that this discussion is being rehashed too much. While I'm not going to forego an opportunity opened by someone else to make my case, as I genuinely believe that my position is best for WP, I think there should have been much more time between the failed close challenge and this new RfC. Also I'm sorry, but I'm about to get off work so I might not have done a perfect job of proofreading this. If any of my arguments above seem to be incomplete, or absurd not in the rhetorical sense but in the word salad sense please feel free to disregard them) I'll collapse this reply chain just because this is getting really long, which I recognize is mostly my fault. I just want to ensure that my argument is complete and that I am not leaving things out, as I don't want to ignore any of your concerns. PriusGod (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support inclusion for reasons I stated previously in the "Name inclusion (2)" discussion. No one, including Penny, disputes that Penny killed Neely. Penny is criminally indicted and his name is completely public, and Penny has done interviews and has done nothing to attempt to suppress his identity, and has not been at all shy to be in the spotlight. TheXuitts (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion: per WP:LOWPROFILE, he's engaged in promotional activities (i.e., a PR campaign with notable publications) such that he should be considered a public figure. Additionally, WP:BLPCRIME is not a brightline rule. It says editors should seriously consider not including a non-public figure's name, not that the person's name can never be included. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion: Maybe my reasoning will be denounced as mostly vibes-based, but it seems such an odd decision to take, that there should be an extremely compelling reason not to use his name. I can detect the existence of no such compelling reason. --RestaurantMarsupial (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion: First of all, invoking BLPCRIME is an argument against including information in an article suggesting Penny is guilty of a crime before his indictment has reached a conclusion. Scrubbing his name from the article is the least efficient way to accomplish this goal. Scrubbing Penny's name makes the article confusing to read and has the potential to make antecedents of "he/him" unclear and direct them to other named individuals, like Vazquez the journalist often quoted. Scrubbing Penny's name also means that a byproduct is having a subtitle labeled "Accused", a term implying a criminal act!
A better resolution would be to delete the paragraphs (for now) that include information about the legal proceedings or accusations of potential criminal acts, like the final paragraph in the lead. Then add them back in once resolutions take place.
Furthermore, considering Penny's outspoken nature regarding this issue, I also agree that we're looking at a self-pronounced public figure here, which further voids the argument to scrub Penny's name from the article.
Either way, I vote for inclusion and recommend replacing any occurrence of "accused" with Penny's name and stick to the current facts. Penguino35 (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include (Summoned by bot): I am not well versed in the topic, but I can’t see good reason to exclude his name by reference to BLPNAME or BLPCRIME. I personally think that given dogmatic attitudes taken here towards WP:BLPCRIME that it needs to be rewritten or extended to recommend towards including names that have been published in high-quality reliable sources, or widely published in RSs. There is, to me, a vast difference between those who have been charged (without name-suppression) and those who have not. — HTGS (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion Penny himself doesn't dispute that he killed Neely, his name is public (WP:LOWPROFILE, he's engaged in promotional activities), and he's been criminally indicted. And, WP:BLPCRIME only says we should seriously consider not including a non-public figure's name, not that the person's name can never be included? It's really weird to see his name excluded on Wikipedia.--Jacobin 357 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names suggests that it is only preferable to omit the names of private individuals (with "certain court cases" being specifically given as an example) if the individual's name "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". Daniel Penny's identity has been widely reported both before and after his indictment and his name has clearly not been deliberately concealed. Penny clearly qualifies as a public figure given that he has been named not only by high-profile political figures (including presidential candidates) but also in a proposed congressional resolution and therefore there is no obligation to conceal his identity under BLP:CRIME. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

I happened to have the list mostly compiled already. Hopefully I didn't miss or double-ping anyone.
Attn: @Comp.arch, @OhNoitsJamie, @Festucalex, @CJ-Moki, @Masem, @Salvabl, @Ekpyros, @Caeciliusinhorto, @Combefere, @Skynxnex, @A. B., @Jerome Frank Disciple, @Davey2010, @Sangdeboeuf, @HAL333, @A. Randomdude0000, @KiharaNoukan, @WikiVirusC, @PriusGod, @Springee, @Kcmastrpc, @Adoring nanny, @ActivelyDisinterested -- Xan747 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it! LoomCreek (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> I'll add that multiple references in this article include the name of the defendant in the title. So it's not like his name will be hidden if it's excluded in the body. One can easily find his name in the references section. The void century 05:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@The void century, I'd like to amplify and expand on this. Including assailant's name in the article means that search engines will pick it up -- and this is an encyclopedic need justification for inclusion of the name. On the other hand, if the finding of this RfC is that the assailant is protected from naming by BLPCRIME, perhaps that warrants removing such citations. These questions have been previously discussed numerous times elsewhere, but as a new editor it's fresh for me and perhaps this isn't the place for delving too much deeper into it. Xan747 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Penny has not been doxxed, by Wikipedia editors or the news media. I can't imagine the need to remove citations simply because his name is mentioned, and I'm not aware of a policy that states that would even be an acceptable course of action. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would just like to briefly note that while I favor removing the name from the article, I don't think it is practical or desirable to remove all citations. I don't think we need to try to police things that much--for me, it's a matter of Wikipedia's imprimatur, which I think goes beyond simple mentions. As ever, reasonable minds can differ and I trust consensus on this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few discussions relating to someone's name in a URL on BLPN, and generally the bar to remove any URLs or cites that use someone's name is much higher than the bar to avoid using their name in prose. Even in some pretty fraught situations where it would be possible to identify the minor victim of a sexual crime it came down to "use another source if available." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PriusGod > The so-called "strict" interpretation (which is not a strict interpretation at all, rather it is a misreading or mischaracterization of the policy's letter) of BLPCRIME does not prevent us from publishing Penny's name.
Yeah, I think letter and spirit of BLP are very clear that if our ex-marine isn't a public figure, we should seriously consider leaving all that out. I think it's premature to discuss it in the context of this RfC though. Happy to go elsewhere with it though. Xan747 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having a detailed discussion about it in this RfC would be premature - I am simply mentioning it because many of the arguments made here would be better suited to that theoretical discussion than this one. PriusGod (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi! I think this is pretty blatant forum shopping, for the reasons I said above (specifically, withdrawing the RFC close challenge when it became clear it would fail and then starting a new RFC as a way to directly contradict the close on the last RFC, which you also started). You think that's wrong. We can agree to disagree. We don't need to discuss this further. You just saying "you don't have any basis" and me saying "this is the basis" over and over again doesn't help anything.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your making assumptions that are untrue. Regardless of the close challenge, a new Rfc was supported by most within the discussion, so the close by me is completely irrelevant to that. The ANI got off topic, talking about the actual topic of name inclusion rather then the close decision. But the discussion could have just as easily been kept open with a new rfc. I really don't understand why your trying to make these claims when its really clear I acted with support of the very people weighing in. You don't have basis for your claims and I don't see a reason to pretend there is. - LoomCreek (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A new Rfc was supported by most within the discussion. This is simply not accurate and even some of those who said a new RfC may be necessary said there needed to be a break period. The challenge to the close was silly and recreating this RfC so soon after the last one demonstrates that you're unable to discuss this from a neutral POV. When multiple editors who supported the initial RfC are advising you to stand down it might be a good idea to take their advice. Nemov (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen to the advice being given to you here. – .Raven  .talk 17:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot has changed since the previous RfC (which was opened very early on and immediately after initial events took place), as noted numerous times in discussions here and over at WP:AN. I'm not sure it means that some of those who are strongly opposed will budge, but I'm also not sure how productive it is to attack LoomCreek simply because some of you may not want to have to continue defending your positions on the matter of name inclusion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is attacking LoomCreek. They are objecting to an improper procedure. – .Raven  .talk 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few observations. LoomCreek was not the one to reopen the topic on the talk page. By the time they filed the close challenge, there were seven other editors (including me) in the thread supporting some sort reopening the subject in light of events since the most recent comment in the RfC, which I believe was June 6, against two editors saying a close challenge or new RfC would be inappropriate. In the middle of that discussion, SFR said to LoomCreek that a close challenge is "what you are looking for," which Loom apparently took as advice on the best way to proceed (SFR later clarified that wasn't exactly his intent). In any case, we were off to the races. When it became clear to me that I misunderstood that a close challenge is not the place to relitigate the RfC, but to argue on procedural grounds that the close was invalid AND that the challenge was not likely to prevail, I asked another editor whether it might be best for LoomCreek to withdraw the close challenge so as not to waste everyone else's time, and particularly not SFR's. That editor never answered back, but LoomCreek apparently felt the argument had merit and withdrew the challenge.
TL;DR: in retrospect I think the close challenge was the wrong thing to do, but there was support from experienced editors to open another RfC, so I think LoomCreek's actions should be seen as having been done in good faith. Any criticism for withdrawing the close review should be directed at me, as it was my suggestion. Xan747 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats mostly correct. The decision wasnt made on the basis of the challenges success or not. It just became clear that there was significant support for an rfc and the challenge seemed to be just kind of going in circles, and was practically existing as rfc, which its not meant to be. So it was closed to save editors time and do what simply made the most sense. But yeah I definitely misunderstood what SFR meant originally when they proposed a close challenge, assuming it was just a helpful suggestion.LoomCreek (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "I think LoomCreek's actions should be seen as having been done in good faith. Any criticism for withdrawing the close review should be directed at me...."
We can and should assume good faith all around. I would take the "Procedural oppose" comments as referring to the procedure, not to any person who suggested or decided on it. We are not !voting on candidates for wiki-office here. – .Raven  .talk 19:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the closing editor... Any arguments by editors from the previous RfC who don't address the previous close should be discounted. Simply repeating the same arguments from the previous RfC is further evidence this RfC wasn't necessary. Nemov (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a ridiculous request. LoomCreek (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have reopened this RfC by claiming in light of the more recent developments of the case so why would you be against discounting arguments that are "repeating the same arguments from the previous RfC?" Nemov (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do really expect me to entertain this? It's implicit and implied already. Trying to create some arbitrary requirement is disingenuous and no editor should take something like that seriously. You don't get to make up your own rules. LoomCreek (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a reasonable request, but just that: a request. A closer can give it a little weight, a lot of weight, or no weight at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's reasonable. The Rfc was opened for several reasons, of which the indictment. And an expectation of different responses due to that, but to pretend that requires addressing the previous Rfc is incredibly disingenuous. And seems to only serve trying to discredit the actual opinions of other editors they disagree with, when they don't have standing or are unable to actually refute the arguments other editors have made. LoomCreek (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "standing" here? You seem to use the term very differently than I would (which is not to say you are using it incorrectly). Dumuzid (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah to be fair its usually used differently. What I mean is the facts don't back up their arguments. Standing not in terms of status but instead in terms of having aspects to back up their position. I just used it much more colloquially, so sorry about the confusion. LoomCreek (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. As I said, just want to make sure I understand what you actually intend! Thanks for the explanation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Part 2 of the original RfC. It is a fresh RfC, and hence all statements and arguments are relevant, appropriate and reasonable. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your passion for arguing, but you're helping make my point. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing editor - any arguments from myself should be interpreted to implicitly include an objection to the RfC that was closed against consensus by an editor who attempted to erase the majority of supporting arguments with a straw-man. As such, any comment I make in this discussion should be interpreted as an argument against the previous close, even if not explicitly stated. Arguments made from other editors should be interpreted in the same manner; editors should not be presumed ignorant.
Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 04:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that @ScottishFinnishRadish closed the previous RfC and a challenge to the close was quickly dismissed. Frankly, this is a poor understanding of the previous close. Nemov (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. ScottishFinishRadish closed the previous RfC, with only one reference to the "opposition" arguments (in reality, the majority arguments):
"The strength of the opposition is well summed up by Nemov, who said in their !vote to include if we're dogmatically following the guidelines then the answer would be to exclude."
This is clearly a misunderstanding of the arguments to include, as it was quite literally the only comment to make such an argument which I pointed out well before the closing. Arguments to include the name were primarily based on the fact that no part of BLP is violated by including the name. These arguments included quotations and analysis for virtually every line of text in BLP. Arguments to exclude the name were both in the minority, and were not substantive; they simply made the hollow assertion that BLP was somehow violated by including the name, but never explained how or why. The closing editor repeated the same hollow assertion, not supported by policy, and only held by a minority of involved editors.
Stating that the SFC closed the RfC against consensus and erased the majority of supporting arguments with a straw-man (yours, to be specific), is accurate. The consensus was that the inclusion of the name doesn't violate BLP. Combefere ★ Talk 15:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I supported inclusion and there was quite clearly no consensus in that RfC. To argue that there was was an consensus is frankly absurd. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I have just pointed out, your argument for inclusion was the straw-man. No other editors arguing for inclusion agreed with you that BLP was violated. Your comment was used to wash all supporting editors with the same brush and dismiss our numerous substantive arguments out of hand. To argue that you represent the dozen editors who supported inclusion is absurd. Combefere ★ Talk 15:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can ignore my point if you wish, but there was no consensus in that RfC. To argue otherwise is illogical. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a very close numerical "vote", however WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. The previous closing editor did criticize a lack of policy based arguments, so hopefully this discussion will remedy that. Regardless, here we are now, again. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree, I suppose. The ruling by the closing editor of "no consensus" does not mean that a consensus was not reached. While the discussion was long and at points tedious, anybody who takes the time to read it all can see a clear consensus that BLP was not violated. Virtually no editors made any substantive arguments there (nor here) that it was.
The closing editor miscounted the number of editors in support and in opposition, stating that the count was 12/10, when in actuality it was 15/9. Of nine opposing editors, only six cited BLP. Four of those six simply asserted that BLP was violated with no attempt at an explanation as to why. One (Caeciliusinhorto) even admitted that the letter of BLP was not violated, but that the spirit of it might be. Only Dumuzid made a real attempt to engage with the content of BLP and argue that it necessitated exclusion, and they did so very cautiously.
On the flipside, fourteen of the fifteen editors supporting inclusion believed that BLP was not violated. At least five (Fustucalex, 72.14.126.22, myself, Sangdeboeuf, and PriusGod) made numerous, substantive arguments analyzing detailed sections of BLP and explaining clearly why it was not violated. These arguments were never refuted, or even substantially addressed, there nor here.
WP:CONSENSUS is clear. Per WP:NHC these five detailed and thorough arguments should be weighted against one rather uncertain argument to arrive at the obvious consensus that BLP was not violated. Combefere ★ Talk 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on 9 !votes to exclude. I count only 14 !votes to include, but there were two apparent double-counts (72.14.126.22 and LoomCreek) and one !vote that said support, but which SFR counted as exclude (Nemov). So that's probably how SFR got to 12/10 in favor of exclusion. Xan747 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, 12/10 in favor of inclusion. Xan747 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
15/9 is the correct count.
Include: WWGB, LoomCreek, Fustucalex, CJ-Moki, 72.14.126.22, Combefere, Nemov, Skynxnex, Jerome Frank Disciple, Davey2010, voorts, Sangdeboeuf, PriusGod, A. Randomdude000, Kihara Noukan.
Exclude: comp.arch, Dumuzid, OhNoitsJamie, Masem, ElleTheBelle, Caeciliusinhorto, A. B., Hal333, Raven.
Note: If Nemov's comment is counted as a vote to exclude (because he said that BLP was technically violated), then Caeciliusinhorto's comment must be counted to include (because he said that BLP was technically NOT violated). So the count is the same either way. Combefere ★ Talk 17:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick, but Caeciliusinhorto quite explicitly voted to exclude. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Nemov quite explicitly voted to include. Hence why I have them in those columns. Combefere ★ Talk 17:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Combefere, ah, I missed the three editors from the other RfC. So by SFR's method of counting !votes, that's 14/10 in favor of include name. But SFR made it clear that his decision was not based on a straight !vote count, but how well individual arguments cohered with policy. Xan747 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So by SFR's method of counting !votes, that's 14/10 in favor of include name
Misreporting votes is not a "method of counting." The count was 15/9. Combefere ★ Talk 18:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Combefere, my only intent was to report the man's logic, not defend it. Xan747 (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling by the closing editor of "no consensus" does not mean that a consensus was not reached.If this is your POV there's no reason to continue this conversation. Nemov (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that editors on Wikipedia never make mistakes, then yes indeed this conversation is pointless. Combefere ★ Talk 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's nothing finer than a good-straw man on a Monday. Nemov (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, explain what your comment meant, if not to imply that the ruling of a closing editor was the word of God (that's genuinely the only interpretation I can fathom). But your last two vague, condescending comments are unconstructive and bordering on uncivil, and I encourage you to either engage constructively or disengage. Combefere ★ Talk 18:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One (Caeciliusinhorto) even admitted that the letter of BLP was not violated, but that the spirit of it might be. Not to get embroiled in this discussion again, but my concession was that the letter of WP:BLPCRIME arguably did not apply. This hinged on the fact that that the man in question had not been at that point charged with any crime. Since he has apparently now been charged with second-degree manslaughter then BLPCRIME is clearly relevant in letter as well as spirit. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The questions now, I think, are (and I am not going to proffer any opinion here, because both the discussion and the source coverage has spiralled beyond what I care to follow): 1. do the man's public appearances mean that he is no longer a WP:LOWPROFILE figure, 2. what are the benefits to readers of naming him, and 3. given the enormous amount of coverage naming him in articles and headlines, how severe are the disadvantages of naming him now. Given those three questions, the calculus about whether or not it is useful or appropriate to name him may have changed (though it is very soon after the previous rfc was closed!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note that none few of those opposed to including Penny's name are suggesting the removal of Jordan Neely's own arrest record on similar WP:BLPCRIME grounds, despite extensive discussion of the latter issue above. (Neely would be covered by BLP as a recently deceased person.) This only strengthens my belief that the "oppose" camp is motivated more by a desire to whitewash the deeds of a conservative right-wing cause célèbre than by any abiding concern for Wikipedia policy or the privacy of living persons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) edited 03:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of the oppose votes here supported inclusion in the previous RfC. You would be wise to withdraw such a ridiculously absurd allegation that is not in good faith. Nemov (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the article mention Neely's arrest record then? If so, why? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that have to do with your accusation? Nemov (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck the accusation. See new comment below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have taken both the positions you say that "none" have taken. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted and corrected. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If we're adhering to the letter of WP:BLPCRIME, why should we not also remove the material about Neely's own arrest record (at least those arrests that did not lead to a conviction)? Neely is covered by BLP policy as a recently deceased person. Seems like a double standard to omit Penny's name on BLPCRIME grounds while describing Neely's arrests for unprovoked assaults on women in the NYC subway ... assaulting a 68-year-old man on a subway platform ... criminal contempt ... and public lewdness, none of which appear to have resulted in a conviction. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In a way, this whole discussion is pointless – we cannot exclude Penny's name from the article. Yes, we can erase it from the main text, but it will always show up dozens of times in the references section, because practically all sources use his name, often in the headline. Unless we bowdlerize all these headlines (which would of course be a gross violation of our rules), any reader who takes a glance at the references will see Penny's name. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be true, but, to my knowledge, we've always accepted that site titles might include information that our policies would otherwise exclude. Take the name of a particular minor child which, let's hypothetically say, everyone agrees should be excluded from an article's main text on WP:BLPNAME grounds. I don't believe I've seen a discussion in which WP:BLPNAME is discarded because the child's name is referenced in headlines—even multiple source headlines. (Nor have I seen sources removed on that ground alone.)
    And I think that's fine. The main text is far more prominent than the references section. And the fact that a name can be found doesn't really control here: WP:BLPCRIME is not a question of verifiability, and I would argue that it's not even strictly a question of notoriety (Even under BLPNAME, I suppose it depends on whether you think the second sentence is a pure restriction of the first).--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, which is one reason I no longer refer to Neely's assailant by name even on the talk page or edit summaries. Xan747 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, WP:BLPNAME says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it ..." which is very clearly not the case here. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was using BLPNAME for a hypo example. Obviously WP:BLPCRIME is what controls here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jerome Frank Disciple: In general, these are reasonable points, but:
    - When basically all sources name that hypothetical minor, our article would probably also contain the name.
    - "the fact that a name can be found" – That's not an accurate description of the current situation. The point is: The name cannot not be found. Anyone who opens any source related to the incident is extremely likely to "find" Penny's name in the headline or in the first few sentences.
    - "WP:BLPCRIME is not a question of verifiability" – BLPCRIME is not a question of naming individuals. It doesn't apply. See my comment below. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm less sympathetic to that argument than I am to the argument that Penny's interviews show that he has an ability to exercise power in the press (the latter of which is a more pertinent consideration under the essay Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, which is referenced at the public-figures section). Even if a non-public figure's name is widely disseminated, I think the WP:BLPCRIME concerns still apply if, for example, they haven't engaged the press at all. Granted, as I said in the last RFC, I thought Perry qualified here, but I think this RFC is too obviously a relitigation of the last RFC for me to support it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There has been a mix up. We're discussing two different questions:
1. Should we name the person who choked Neely?
2. What should we say about this person?
This RfC is about the first question, not the second one. Let's keep them separate.
I think many participants in this discussion who argue against including the name are actually addressing the second question. They worry that the article may violate WP:BLPCRIME and/or related policies by insinuating that Penny's actions were morally wrong or even criminal. I think that concern is justified. For example, our first sentence says "Neely was killed by...". According to what we currently know, that's technically correct, but the word "kill" has connotations of intent and direct causation. I can't find any WP:RS that use pointed wording like that. We should follow WP:RS and change the first sentence to something more neutral. Similarly for the rest of the text.
But that's a different question. We should have a separate discussion about it. This RfC is about the name.
This also means that WP:BLPCRIME is of little relevance to this RfC. BLPCRIME does not mention names. BLPCRIME addresses the second question, not the first. One of the polices that are relevant for this RfC is WP:BLPNAME (right below BLPCRIME). Let's not confuse them.
— Chrisahn (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I think there are two WP links worth including in this discussion. The first is WP:DEATHS which is the policy basis for all naming conventions of articles about deaths. The policy suggests titling articles "Killing of..." in the cases of a homicide. The next is an essay titled Let the facts speak for themselves. The term "killing" is neutral and factual. The description of events leading up to the killing should also be neutral and factual. We should include these neutral, verifiable facts and allow the readers to decide whether Penny's actions were "morally wrong." We should not censor or editorialize information over a concern about how the readers will interpret neutral, verifiable facts. Combefere ★ Talk 17:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really think we shouldn't discuss this here, but in a new section. Just briefly: "Killing" is factual, but not quite neutral. "Homicide" would be neutral, "killing" not so much. There are reasons why The Killing (film), The Killing (American TV series), Killing Eve and many other dramas about criminals, spies and murderers chose the word. But as I said: Let's discuss the details elsewhere. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. The word "killing" is entirely neutral and descriptive. I suppose if you'd like to continue elsewhere, I invite you to bring your opinion over to WP:DEATHS, where the neutrality of the words like "killing" and "murder" have been thoroughly discussed and formalized into naming policy. Combefere ★ Talk 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisahn agree with you on the phasing of the lede, and last night did change it to be more neutral, but was reverted. Also agree that here's not the place for that discussion.
As for separating naming from what to say about, an argument could be made that, IF our ex-marine is to be considered a low-profile person, then no information about any potential criminal activity can be mentioned unless he's convicted of a crime -- whether he's named or not. Xan747 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have to point out the poor reading of BLPCRIME here. BLPCRIME does not prevent us from excluding any and all information about "potential" criminal activity. It precludes us from explicitly stating that the activity was a crime. These are not the same.
Example: if it is a neutral verifiable fact that a man took something from a store and left without paying, we are allowed to report it (assuming the event is notable). We are not allowed to say he "stole" the item. That's what the policy controls. Combefere ★ Talk 18:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, BLPCRIME says that editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime. Saying that they took something without paying for it clearly suggests that they committed a crime and therefore BLPCRIME would certainly be relevant. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blatant misinterpretation of BLPCRIME. Reporting neutral verifiable facts is not an assertion that those facts constituted a crime, and are certainly not covered by BLPCRIME. See every article about bombings, mass shootings, police killings of civilians, etc. while the criminal events are unfolding. Neutral verifiable facts about the actions that the accused took are always reported in the Wikipedia article. The only thing BLPCRIME precludes us from doing is from claiming that the actions are criminal. Combefere ★ Talk 18:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, explore old versions of the Killing of George Floyd page, before the trial of Derek Chauvin had even begun. The lead reads:
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, while being arrested for allegedly using a counterfeit bill. During the arrest Derek Chauvin, a white police officer with the Minneapolis Police Department, knelt on Floyd's neck for several minutes after he was already handcuffed and lying face down. Two police officers, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane, assisted Chauvin in restraining Floyd, while another officer, Tou Thao, prevented bystanders from interfering with the arrest and intervening as events unfolded. Floyd had complained about being unable to breathe prior to being on the ground, but after being restrained he became more distressed, and continued to complain about breathing difficulties, the knee in his neck, and expressed the fear he was about to die and called for his mother. After several minutes passed Floyd stopped speaking. For a further two minutes, he lay motionless and officer Kueng found no pulse when urged to check. Despite this Chauvin refused pleas to lift his knee until medics told him to.
It contains a handful of neutral, verifiable statements about Chauvin's actions, including the fact that he killed George Floyd. It did not and does not violate BLPCRIME because it does not assert that these actions are criminal. There are hundreds of articles that have followed the same logic about reporting current events surrounding BLPCRIME. This is how BLPCRIME works in both policy and common practice in Wikipedia. Combefere ★ Talk 18:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can count me in the blatant misinterpretation camp. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumuzid, that suggests the person [...] is accused of having committed, a crime [...]
My emphasis. Reporting that a person has in fact been accused of, arrested for, charged with, arraigned for and indicted of a criminal act is doing far more than simply "suggesting" that fact. Xan747 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the scope of this RfC. We're not discussing whether to include the indictment, we're discussing whether to include the name. As far as I'm aware, Daniel Penny's middle name is not "Accused." Combefere ★ Talk 19:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we name him or not, if he's not a public figure then BLPCRIME kicks in and we must seriously consider not including anything from his arrest to indictment until such time as he's been found guilty. So in my view, the exclude name contingent is not going far enough. Xan747 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I invite you to share your dissatisfaction with every other Wikipedia page that routinely uses the interpretation of BLPCRIME that I've outlined above. You've got your work cut out for you. Here's a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:PrefixIndex&prefix=Killing+of&namespace=0
Looks like a long process, but hey it could be easier than admitting that other editors might actually know what they're talking about.
Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 19:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite satisfied doping so here, but we all have our faults. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in light of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm not really persuaded by this argument. WP:BLPCRIME says we should avoid material that even "suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" (emphasis added).--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime. Nor was the fact that Chavin killed Floyd, nor the fact that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck for nine minutes, nor the fact that Chauvin refused pleas to lift his knees. All of those statements are neutral, verifiable facts, and they were included in the article because they didn't violate BLP.
The assertion that these neutral, verifiable facts are tantamount to criminal activity is your own. It's not in the voice of Wikipedia.
I'll point also to some stuff exists for a reason. Consider that the hundreds of other editors on Wikipedia every day, incorporating the neutral material facts into articles around notable deaths and killings might actually be well-aware of BLP, and that their common interpretation and usage of it is actually in line with the policy. Combefere ★ Talk 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the common interpretation seems to be that sustained naming in multiple RSs is the threshold for inclusion. But that's not the bar that's set in BLPCRIME. Xan747 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not precluded by BLPCRIME. Combefere ★ Talk 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider Neely's assailant to be a high-profile/public figure? If so, why? Please cite the specific text of the policy or guidance which supports your arguments. Xan747 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to these questions, and to you specifically, multiple times in multiple other parts of this discussion, including directly above. I suggest you read them. I do believe that Penny is a high-profile figure, and a public figure, but my argument depends on neither. If he were a low-profile figure, no part of BLPCRIME would preclude us from including his name, nor neutral, verifiable, and notable facts about his actions in relation to the subject of the article. It precludes us from characterizing those actions as crimes, which we do not do and nobody has suggested we do. Combefere ★ Talk 20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Combefere, here is the full text of your initial opinion. Nowhere in it do you argue that Neely's assailant is a public figure/high-profile individual, only that he is notable, which is not the same thing -- and was the very first thing I pointed out to you in my initial response. Now if I missed somewhere you agreeing with me that our ex-marine is indeed a public figure/high-profile individual I apologize for having missed it.

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

Xan747 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I never claimed that my argument was based on Penny being a public figure, I literally said the opposite. I said "my argument depends on neither". This is what I just explained above, and I think your repeated questions are quickly approaching WP:NOTGETTINGIT territory.
As I mentioned, my argument does not depend on the idea that Penny is a high-profile figure, nor a notable figure. To be clear, he is both. He is a high-profile figure, and he is a public figure. But even if he was a low-profile individual, BLPCRIME would not preclude us from including his name or his involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely. And I think that's important to highlight, because it shows how empty the arguments that we should exclude Penny's name are. Combefere ★ Talk 21:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand quite well your interpretation of the rules, and the rationale for it. My point was, and is, that the previous RfC was decided on a different interpretation which set public figure as the bar for naming. I also understand that interpretation of the rules, and the rationale for it ... but a closing admin's opinion counts for more than yours. Xan747 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One editor's interpretation is not the word of God, even when they decide to close an RfC. BLPCRIME policy is clear, and community consensus around Wikipedia practice of this policy is also clear. It's used to preclude what it precludes. It's not used as a bludgeon to censor any and all information that editors don't like. Combefere ★ Talk 21:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is nothing sacrosanct about a closer's opinion, and that's why challenges exist as well as why issues may be revisited. I would humbly suggest that the "BLPCRIME is useless" thread mentioned by Xan747 below might indicate that not everyone shares your view of the policy's clarity. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed seen the relevant discussion on WT:BLP. On the contrary, I think the discussion there highlights the broad community consensus and practice of including names and basic information about notable individuals even when they are suspected of crimes. This was actually the impetus for the discussion, which was initiated by an editor who wanted to change the policy in order to overturn this common understanding and practice of it. And after nearly three months, that editor and the few who want more a more stringent wording of the policy have not been able to form a consensus there to create one. Moreover, the wording that they are suggesting on that talk page isn't even restrictive enough for us to exclude Penny's name or involvement from this article.
So no, I do not believe the discussion on that talk page supports the idea that there is a broad community consensus that BLPCRIME as worded already requires us to exclude basic information like Penny's name from articles like this. Rather, I think anybody who holds such a view would find more difficulty, not less in continuing to hold it after viewing that discussion. Combefere ★ Talk 22:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with that as well. My only point is that there are competent, good faith editors who believe the policy is overly ambiguous. My point is not "you are wrong" or "I am right," my point is simply that there is not currently an overriding consensus on the issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumuzid > there is nothing sacrosanct about a closer's opinion
No, but where there's one there's bound to be another. Perhaps whoever closes this RfC won't have SFR's higher standard, thus a "notability" argument based on widespread sustained coverage in multiple RSs will suffice. But if a case can be made that clears a higher bar, why wouldn't one make that case? Xan747 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, it's likely due to complex threading and my old eyes, but I don't quite follow this in the current context. Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize. At this point it's probably best if I just let it go. Xan747 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'll offer my reasoning.
"But if a case can be made that clears a higher bar, why wouldn't one make that case?"
If somebody illegally raises the bar, you should never jump over it. Jumping over it tacitly legitimizes its position. The first, and most important thing to do is say "Hey! No, no! The bar is here!" Combefere ★ Talk 04:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime." ... I'd very much disagree with that, particularly given that it's information that even suggests a crime was committed that's the proper standard.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to try to better understand your position, would you have also argued that all neutral verifiable statements in the above quotation from the Murder of George Floyd article (such as this one: "Derek Chauvin, a white police officer with the Minneapolis Police Department, knelt on Floyd's neck for several minutes after he was already handcuffed and lying face down") should have been censored until a conviction was secured, because they "suggested" that Derek Chauvin committed a crime? Combefere ★ Talk 19:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was that text in there before the conviction? – .Raven  .talk 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. It's from a randomly selected revision I pulled from November 2020. Chauvin was convicted on April 20, 2021. I invite you to peruse the revision history.
Perhaps even more pertinent in the history here, is the move request that took place on the page in 2020. Editors argued successfully that the term "Killing of..." was a neutral, verifiable description of events that did not imply criminal culpability, and therefore did not violate BLPCRIME. Later in 2020, there was an explosion of activity around similar pages of deaths and killings (mostly by police, but some not), and WP:DEATHS was formalized as a way to standardize the naming convention and create sense and order in a highly chaotic atmosphere. The understanding that the word "killing" is a neutral term that does not imply criminal culpability is foundational to that policy.
You can examine other articles and find the same reasoning. The current Killing of Tyre Nichols page names Nichols' killers explicitly, and details all of their actions which caused his death. They are charged, but not yet convicted. This is the standard practice for high-profile killings on Wikipedia where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute. The legality or criminality of their actions is in dispute, and we cannot comment on it; but the fact of their actions is essential to include in the article. Combefere ★ Talk 05:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "This [naming charged-but-not-convicted persons as 'killers'] is the standard practice for high-profile killings on Wikipedia where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute."
Hmm. Consensus-closers are asked to weigh !votes by match to policies and guidelines, which can be cited to (and quoted from) P&G pages.
Where are closers asked to weigh by assertions of "standard practice", and how can we either cite or quote pages about it?
Someone might assert that edit-warring, move-warring, and personal attacks are "standard practice" — because they often occur — despite contravening policies and guidelines. Should we be persuaded?
Meanwhile, where does WP:BLPCRIME (I won't quote it again) say the standard is different for "high-profile killings" vs. low — rather than being different for "high-profile people" vs. low?
Or does being caught up in the first automatically make one the second? – .Raven  .talk 06:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are policies against edit-warring, move-warring, and personal attacks, and those policies are regularly used to discourage those actions or sanction the users who perpetuate them. That's practice. It's the real, material implementation of policy, which is in its own right an interpretation of that policy and how it is to be applied.
To contrast, there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles titled "Killing of..." Within these articles and their revision history, there are hundreds of examples of killers being named prior to a conviction. It doesn't always happen, but when the identify of the killer is not in dispute and is reported by a large number of RSs then it is virtually always included (I cannot find a counterexample). This is what I mean when I say it is common practice to include such information in cases where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute.
On the other hand, there are also "Killing of..." articles where RSs do not name a killer, but name somebody who is suspected of killing. In these cases, BLPCRIME and LPNAME are frequently used to protect the identity of the suspect. See this recent discussion for an example.
This is because BLPCRIME encourages us to exclude information that suggests a low-profile individual has been accused of a crime. An arrest or charge meets that criteria. A medical homicide does not; a medical homicide is not a crime or even an accusation of a crime. BLPCRIME is not written to indicate that the neutral fact of a medical homicide must be censored, and it is not practiced in this way either. Combefere ★ Talk 06:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your penultimate paragraph would apply, then. The ME's ruling, which you've repeatedly thumped, does not name anyone as the killer. The ME's spokesperson said explicitly that "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider". Naming or blaming any individual for the death is not part of the ME's job, as it's not something that can be seen in the examination of the body. – .Raven  .talk 07:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Penny is not "suspected" of killing Neely. He killed Neely. Multiple RSs have reported that he killed Neely. No RSs dispute that he killed Neely. Penny does not dispute that he killed Neely.
Your insistence that we do not know who or what killed Jordan Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It is supported by no RSs. None. It is, as I've pointed out, an invincible ignorance fallacy. Repeatedly WP:BLUDGEONING this point all over the discussion section is disruptive. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors at this point, and we are well beyond WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. I very much suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK on this point. Combefere ★ Talk 07:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "Penny does not dispute that he killed Neely."
Penny does dispute that. So does a close-up witness at the scene. – .Raven  .talk 00:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read that as saying he disputes the fact of the killing, but rather that he had no intent. As they say, your mileage may vary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Denying doing a chokehold is indeed consistent with denying intent to do a chokehold, but addresses fact as well. – .Raven  .talk 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While HuffPost certainly describes it that way, Mr. Neely never does so in the interview. A chokehold is not necessarily meant to stop breathing. Police for decades taught chokeholds for restraint, and the intent was quite obviously not to be deadly. I think people are conflating "chokehold" with an intent to do harm. They are not the same thing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlepersons, I created a thread for this topic because I think it's a worthy topic. Pretty please go there to continue it? Xan747 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the same arguments go round and round each time it's raised shows that BLPCRIME needs work to make it less ambiguous. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And there's a thread for that: BLPCRIME is useless. Xan747 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was the last editor to comment on that thread and that was back in mid April. Nothing has changed and the same arguments are still happening because of the ambiguous nature of BLPCRIME. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you did. Real shame it's not getting more traction. Xan747 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing ambiguous about the policy. It's commonly understood and has been used for years on hundreds of articles surrounding crimes: deaths, killings, bombings, shootings, etc. This is the first time in recent memory it's blown up into a huge disagreement, and it's not an accident that it's a current event surrounding a man who has become a lightning-rod for politically charged discourse. Combefere ★ Talk 19:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been many of these recently, one I can remember was someone saying that court documents could be used to name someone as a child killer and another involved three discussions at BLPN, one at ANI, and a month long RFC to come to the same conclusion as the original BLPN discussion. It's been a massive waste of editors time. If you haven't been aware of them, I feel jealous of you. And neither of those had an politics involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was just a few weeks ago. Nemov (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I can't remember if I've mixed up the details or both were about child killers. I do know we could have all been doing something more useful to the encyclopedia if the guidance was clearer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of that discussion, and even referenced it in another comment. Perhaps this discussion has so skewed my frame of reference, that I view the other as a relatively quick and civil affair :) Combefere ★ Talk 20:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Combefere: The paragraph you quoted actually doesn't say that Chauvin killed Floyd. The wording carefully avoids that claim. And that's what we should do here. We shouldn't say "Penny killed Neely" or "Neely was killed by Penny". Instead we should say something like "Neely died after Penny placed him in a chokehold". These differences may be subtle, but they are important. (Of course, we'll revisit such sentences if and when there's a conviction.) — Chrisahn (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a coronial finding of homicide, which is "a person killing another person". Killing is not necessarily a crime. Soldiers and executioners do it all the time. The word is not equivalent to criminal behaviour. WWGB (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel torn in this debate because, on the one hand, I do support inclusion in this case, but, on the other hand, I'm really skeptical of this particular argument, which I've seen mentioned a lot, and would strongly oppose it in other cases. We're supposed to avoid information that even suggests a person committed a crime. A soldier (or executioner) killing doesn't usually suggest a crime; one private citizen killing another, on the other hand, usually does.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same boat. There really was zero respect shown for the close or the closer. Plus, the case for reopening this RfC is flimsy at best. The case would have been stronger if it wasn't opened and supported by the same people who have pummeled this RfC with comments. This may finally arrive as the correct answer, but they way it got there is pretty gross from a procedural standpoint. Nemov (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah very much seconded. Given that the media appearance did predate the RFC, the only thing that seems to have occurred post-RFC is the indictment, which is plainly just an accusation. Particularly given that the close challenge was looking like it would fail, it really looks like the proposer decided to start a new RFC just to relitigate the first RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll +1 this to the extent that closing can be an onerous and unpleasant task, and largely thankless. Of course humans will make mistakes, but I think we owe any closer operating in good faith (which we should assume) a measure of respect. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerome Frank Disciple
While I understand your skepticism, I do want to provide some context. Discussion around this issue was part of a move request in May 2020, to rename the page "Death of George Floyd" to "Killing of George Floyd." Over 200 editors participated in that discussion. The result was moved and the closing editor put this statement in their summary (emphasis mine):
It's been suggested that I expand on my evaluation of the arguments advanced in this discussion. With respect to WP:COMMONNAME, the mention by reliable sources has been mixed, so that argument was not really weighed one way or the other in my evaluation. With respect to WP:BLPCRIME, as one participant who has changed their preference from oppose to support has noted: killing is not necessarily a crime. The fact is that many participants who opposed asked to wait for the ME report, which, as mentioned, has since deemed the death to be a homicide. The arguments advanced in the discussion whose strength was given most weight in this close neither concluded that this homicide was a murder nor that it was a justifiable homicide. It was rather overwhelmingly agreed that that is a matter for the courts to decide. Those arguments only posited that, for now, the the title should reflect the official finding by the ME.
In the wake of that event, and during a period of massive WP discussion and activity around pages surrounding deaths, killings, and murders, (and many more move requests, WP:DEATHS was formalized to provide guidance on page naming criteria in these cases. WP:DEATHS suggests the title "Killing of..." for articles about homicides when there is no conviction for murder. That policy is still used today to guide move request discussions, like the one that happened on this very article a few months ago. It's based on the same common understanding that the word "killing" does not imply a crime; an understanding which makes itself manifest in the ubiquitous use of the term as a neutral, non-criminal descriptor on hundreds of pages on Wikipedia. Combefere ★ Talk 18:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there's a distinction between describing an event as a killing and naming an alleged killer. (And, not for nothing, the very fact that "alleged killer" is a phrase in common vernacular suggests that there is something suggestive about describing a living person as having killed another person.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick, but in all of the articles I've linked above, a killer (not "alleged killer") is named, explicitly, even if that killer has not been convicted of a crime for the killing. Combefere ★ Talk 19:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged killer" is precisely the right term, when even the question of whether a chokehold was applied in the subway is disputed.
Chain of custody for evidence must be secure, or it can be challenged.
In this case the evidence is Neely himself, or his body.
We are told he was unconscious but alive in the subway; and that he was not pronounced dead until after he'd reached the hospital.
Between those two points, he was not in that Marine veteran's hands.
The police and paramedics had taken charge of him until then.
Of course police and paramedics have never killed helpless black men....
like George Floyd and Earl Moore, Jr.
And note the cause of death in both those cases.
Will the defense bring up that issue? We don't know. – .Raven  .talk 21:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven The appeals to ignorance have been addressed elsewhere, and are beyond disruptive at this point. This will be the last response I make to any of your comments. Please stop replying to every single comment on this thread. Combefere ★ Talk 22:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've all said more than enough for this topic. Time to let other editors have their say and walk away. Nemov (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to nitpick, but I didn't suggest otherwise :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 21:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is about whether to name Neely's assailant in the article, not how to describe Neely's manner of death. I request moving that discussion to a new topic. Xan747 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've responded to my comment, but everything I said was related to naming the assailant (and the suggestion that saying "killed by X" isn't the same as suggesting X did a crime for purposes of WP:BLPCRIME).--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jerome Frank Disciple, sorry if you felt I had singled you out, sincerely wasn't my intent. The following is also not solely directed at you. Wrangling over whether to say "killed by X" as opposed to "allegedly killed by X" or "Neely died after allegedly being put in a chokehold by X" is a minor issue compared to reporting that X has been accused of lynching Neely in the popular press, and arrested, charged, arraigned, and indicted on manslaughter charges by the proper authorities -- because those things DO very clearly and incontrovertibly suggest he's committed a crime according BLPCRIME. Xan747 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "accused... in the popular press, and arrested, charged, arraigned, and indicted... those things DO very clearly and incontrovertibly suggest he's committed a crime"
They state bluntly that he's been accused  of committing a crime.
If no-one had ever been acquitted or exonerated after being accused, that might seem like the same thing.
Central Park Five, again, among many examples. – .Raven  .talk 00:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the combination of "killed" and "by X" that's problematic. – .Raven  .talk 21:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisahn While the Floyd article doesn't include that exact verbiage, many other articles do. See Killing of Tamir Rice for example:
"On November 22, 2014, Tamir E. Rice, a 12-year-old African American boy, was killed in Cleveland, Ohio, by Timothy Loehmann, a 26-year-old white police officer."
Loehmann has not been convicted for a crime, and is certainly covered by BLPCRIME. But the neutral and factual statement that he killed Tamir Rice does not suggest that he committed a crime, and does not violate BLPCRIME. Combefere ★ Talk 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the officer agreed he fired the shot that killed the boy.
In this case, the accused does deny he used a chokehold.
Can the distinction be made any simpler or more clear? – .Raven  .talk 21:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to include from assailant's video statement

Begin previous conversation

  • @.Raven, good find, I added that detail in this diff, using a local news agency for the site. If it gets challenged, we'll take it to a different talk thread so as not to continue cluttering up this one with the same off-topic point over and over. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @.Raven and Xan747: It's all fine and good that Daniel Penny denies he used a chokehold, but what do our reliable sources say? The HuffPost article cited above by .Raven says "Penny was captured on a bystander video putting Neely in a chokehold ..." That article also says that Penny claims Neely was on drugs, but did the medical examiner's report affirm that accusation? The second source .Raven cited above (Insider), also says "Penny, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, put Neely in a chokehold ..." I would like to remind y'all that we follow what the reliable sources say. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note the actual topic here: the repeated claims on this page (worded variously) that no one (including Penny) denied that he killed Neely. Pointing to all the sources which don't mention his (and that witness's) denial  doesn't erase the sources which do mention those denials... nor make those false claims true. – .Raven  .talk 07:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End previous conversation

The assailant knows his own intentions and actions so his statements about same are due. (I have previously argued that these should be included inline with what RSs say about his actions so readers get all sides of the story in one place, but was overruled.)

He's not a toxicologist so those comments should not be given equal weight with what RSs report; however, his impressions in the moment would have influenced his decision to intervene. He's clearly using it to justify his actions, same as he's using Neely's criminal record. This is the kind of stuff judges tell juries to disregard, so I lean toward excluding it, but willing to entertain arguments to the contrary. Xan747 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We may be in territory where the best choice is to quote the man verbatim, thereby removing as many editorial and paraphrasing conflicts as possible. The following is an auto-generated transcript of what I think are the relevant parts his video statement. It has been lightly edited for caps, punct and obvious errors:
At Second Avenue a man came on, stumbled on, he appeared to be on drugs. The doors closed and he ripped his jacket off and violently threw it at the people sitting down to my left. I was listening to music at the time and he was yelling so I took my headphones out to hear what he was yelling and the three main threats that he repeated over and over was "I'm gonna kill you I'm prepared to go to jail for life and I'm willing to die."
Some people say that I was holding on to Mr Neely for 15 minutes. This is not true. I mean between stops is only a couple minutes and so the whole interaction less than less than five minutes.
Some people say I was trying to choke him to death which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him. Uh, you can see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest indicating that he's breathing. I'm trying to restrain him from him being able to carry out the threats.
I used this hold to restrain him and I did this by leaving my hand on top of his head to control his body. You could see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest indicating that he was still breathing and I'm calibrating my grip based on on the force that he's exerting.
I just I mean I was trying to keep him on the ground until the police came I was praying that the police would come and take this situation under take this situation over. Xan747 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding this entire quote would be WP:UNDUE, and would certainly violate WP:NPOV. Neely's family also released a statement, saying that Penny "wrapped his arms around Neely's neck, and squeezed, and kept squeezing." A single in-line quotation from each, in the reactions section, might be appropriate to strike a balance. Combefere ★ Talk 20:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I'm mainly interested giving other editors a chance to read his own words instead of the hacked-apart soundbites in the popular press. Then I think we can make a better informed decision about what to put in the article and where. Whatever those choices, I really think direct quotes is the best way to go. Xan747 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for Penny's claim that he was merely trying to "restrain" Neely, who was "still breathing", etc., he would say that, wouldn't he? The video statement is a primary source. It would be original research if we started picking soundbites from primary sources. Due weight means reflecting fairly what the most reliable, independent sources say about a topic. For now those are mainly news reports, but in the future there should be others like academic books and journal articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf > he would say that, wouldn't he?
That's original research. This isn't:
“Some people say I was trying to choke him to death, which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him.” Penny noted that in the video, you can see a clear rise and fall of his chest, as again, he was not trying to kill Neely but rather stop him from carrying out any of his threats.~The Blaze
“The three main threats he repeated over and over were: ‘I’m going to kill you. I’m prepared to go to jail for life, and I’m willing to die,'” Penny said. “I knew I had to act. I acted in a way that would protect other passengers, protect myself and protect Mr. Neely. I knew this chokehold [sic?] to place my hand on top of his head. His chest rising and falling. He was still breathing.” Penny said he held Neely in a chokehold for less than five minutes, not for 15 minutes, as a witness who recorded the deadly encounter had claimed.~PIX11
"I was listening to music at the time, and he was yelling, so I took my headphones out to hear what he was yelling," Penny said in his video statement. "And the three main threats that he repeated over and over was 'I'm going to kill you,' 'I'm prepared to go to jail for life,' and 'I'm willing to die.'" In the video statements, Penny also defended how he restrained Neely. He said that he adjusted his grip on Neely “based on the force that he’s exerting” and that Neely was breathing in the video.~NBC News
In newly recorded interviews released Sunday by lawyers defending him on manslaughter charges, Penny said he wasn’t “trying to choke him to death” during the May 1 F train encounter, but just wanted to hold the menacing passenger long enough for cops to intervene. “I was trying to keep him on the ground until the police came,” Penny, 24, said in the videos posted on the Law & Crime Network Youtube channel. “Some people say that I was holding on to Mr. Neely for 15 minutes,” Penny said. “This is not true. Between stops is only a couple of minutes. So the whole interaction lasted less than 5 minutes.” “Some people say I was trying to choke him to death, which is also not true,” he added. “I was trying to restrain him.”~NY Daily News via Yahoo Sports Xan747 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MANDY is a guideline used to help editors understand that some pieces of information which newspapers are obligated to report are not always necessary to include in our encyclopedia. That guideline is not original research. The guideline certainly seems pertinent to this discussion. Penny is not a neutral or reliable source on what happened, and we shouldn't treat him as such. Newspapers might be required to give him the last word, but we aren't. Combefere ★ Talk 23:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Blaze is considered generally unreliable for facts. (I'd call it a propaganda outlet.) Of the other sources, NBC News (national) is the most mainstream and reliable IMO. In general I would prefer not to just pick random quotes from Penny but to summarize what reliable sources themselves say about the subject, for instance:
  • Daniel Penny, the man charged in Jordan Neely's death, defended his actions on the subway in newly-released videos ... [Penny] said he was acting in self-defense while Neely made threats and acted erratically on the train ... In his lawyers' videos, Penny said he was not trying to end Neely's life and race was not a factor ... He also said the chokehold was only about five minutes, instead of 15 minutes, which has been alleged by some. – CBS
  • [Penny] disputed an eyewitness account that he held Jordan Neely in a chokehold ... Penny reiterated that he did not intend to choke Neely and that he was trying to restrain him. He also disputed the account of Juan Alberto Vazquez, who recorded the video ... Penny accused Neely of uttering violent threats. He said he was fearful of Neely and 'couldn't sit still' as he saw women and children being threatened ... Penny also defended how he restrained Neely. He said that he adjusted his grip on Neely 'based on the force that he’s exerting' and that Neely was breathing in the video. – NBC
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't care about him feeling fearful of Neely, couldn't sit still watching women and children being threatened, etc. I care about couple of minutes between stations, five minute hold instead of fifteen, and that "he adjusted his grip on Neely 'based on the force that he’s exerting' and that Neely was breathing in the video". However you want to hack that together would probably satisfy me. Most of it is already there I think. Xan747 (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some food for thought: Neely died from strangulation (compression of neck, causing restricted blood flow to the brain and other vital organs), not suffocation. Penny's statement that Neely was breathing in the video may give readers a false impression, both of the cause of death and of his own culpability. Combefere ★ Talk 15:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only direct quote of the autopsy report I've seen in RS is He died of "compression of neck (chokehold)" and the manner of death was ruled a homicide by the city's chief medical examiner’s office said. I didn't find anything distinguishing between strangulation and suffocation attributed to the ME in this case. The closest thing I could find (and added to the article weeks ago) is this bit attributed to former marine Gabriel Murphy:
According to the official training manual, "when executed properly, a blood choke takes between 8 to 13 seconds for the aggressor to lose consciousness."
The manual also says, When executed properly, an air choke takes between two and three minutes for the aggressor to lose consciousness, which is more consistent with how long it took Neely to go limp in the video. But it would be just as much synth to print that as it would be to interpret "compression of neck (chokehold)" as a "blood choke".
Neely's assailant knows best what he was trying to do, though it's quite possible he didn't know exactly what he was doing; the ME is best equipped to distinguish, but hasn't specified. Murphy wasn't even there and isn't a medical expert, so there's an argument to rank his opinion the lowest of the three ... yet his opinion is by far the most detailed and prominent despite being named in only two RS that I know of.
Food for thought. Xan747 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we hack together some sort of medical analysis from disparate sources. My only point is that the assertion that Neely may have been breathing in the video comes from a single source with obvious bias, and no medical expertise to validate its relevance. If a doctor or other medical expert analyzed the video and was quoted by an RS, I would be more inclined to include it.
Keep in mind this is an encyclopedia, not a courtroom. We are not obligated to platform a defendant's case. WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE require us to give weight to statements that are verifiable, and come from reliable sources who are qualified to comment on their subject matter. It does not require us to give equal weight to both sides of an incident. Combefere ★ Talk 18:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ex-marine's statements are verifiable as they are published in multiple RS. There is no prohibition against using biased sources or publishing biased opinions so long as they are properly attributed. Importantly, verifiability is not truth. As for DUE and BALANCE, I'm asking for a total of three, maybe four sentences from his video testimony, more than balanced by the ten or more I wrote on Murphy's scathing accusation of murder based on only two RSs, and someone whose only expertise is the technique Neely's assailant used.
We're not obligated to making either the prosecution's or defense's cases, but to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I believe my contributions to this article as a whole reflect my commitment to that policy, having contributed material mostly sympathetic but also critical of Neely, and content by far more critical and damning of the ex-marine than sympathetic -- which I think is a very accurate and proportional reflection of the news coverage in this case. My proposed additions here are no exception. Xan747 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and I apologize if I accidentally implied that you were not committed to doing so (I certainly think you are!). I just believe that Penny's own statement about Neely's breathing is not a "significant view." While Murphy is both qualified to talk about Marine training (which is all we quote him on) and a neutral source, Penny is neither qualified to assess the medical relevance of Neely's breathing nor a neutral source. Combefere ★ Talk 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify, I am just talking about the comment on Neely's breathing. Penny's statements about the threats that Neely yelled at passengers have been published by many RSs in their own voice, and are certainly due, and Penny is certainly qualified (if biased) to talk about "adjusting his grip." Combefere ★ Talk 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Combefere No, I apologize for getting prickly. Went for a long walk and feel much better.
The former marine doesn't need to be an expert to express an opinion on Neely's breathing. There's no requirement for a statement to be true for it to be notable enough to publish. We can, and do, publish lies.
In response to WP:MANDY (which is a horrible essay, and rightfully controversial), at the bottom the public figures section of BLP innocently lurks, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.
That's probably the best argument I can make. Unless you have a novel rebuttal, I rest my case. Xan747 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Unless you have a novel rebuttal"... I don't. I think I've made all of the points I was going to. Perhaps another editor should weigh in. Happy to go wherever consensus leads on this point. Combefere ★ Talk 00:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely time for others to weigh in. Thanks for a robust debate, I learned a lot from it. Cheers. Xan747 (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy's comments are found halfway through the § Reactions and protests section, giving them quite a bit less prominence than Penny's statement under § Accused. Let's not treat NPOV like a logrolling exercise, please. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken and understood. But now that you mention it, on the basis of expertise alone, I think that paragraph belongs at the top of the section. But I put it at the bottom because the pols got most of the press. I wanted more of it in the lead section but got reverted. Xan747 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't watched to the video but is the line "He also disputed he had applied a chokehold" from somewhere else or is it in the quoted line "Some people say I was trying to choke him to death — which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him." Cause the latter is not saying the former. Saying he wasn't tryin to choke him to death is not him saying he didn't apply a chokehold, it is him simply wasn't trying to kill him with a chokehold, and he was trying to restrain him, whether by a chokehold or whatever. If we are going to put his version in that's one thing, but wording it to claim he didn't apply chokehold shouldn't be done, unless he actually said that. Anyways his medical opinion on his chest going up and down so he was breathing is kind of meaningless since at end of day he eventually stopped breathing. His statement that Neely was on drugs also should be ignored unless there something to back that up. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the spirit of this comment. I think what is currently included in the article now is mostly fine, as it gives a quote from Penny. I don't think his version of the story should have equal weight to the account given by reliable sources, however. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very much agree with this, as I argued above. Nowhere does the assailant say "it wasn't a chokehold," he says, in so many words, that he did not intend harm and that Mr. Neely was breathing normally. As I said above, I think this is a conflation of the idea of a chokehold with the intent to choke, and they are not the same thing. To be fair, Huffington Post interpreted this as him saying it was not a chokehold, but they also flatly say this was incorrect. I edited the article last night to change the language to that of intent, and I believe it should stay that way. I do think we probably should include his comments on breathing and drugs, but somehow make clear that they go to his state of mind and not the facts? I am not even sure how we would do that, but I'll keep thinking. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing Neely of having been on drugs would seem to be a BLP violation. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The other denial I cited, Insider's "One of the people pinning Neely down... also claimed that Penny was not 'squeezing' Neely's neck", is not a statement about "intent"; he had no way to know that "intent". It is a statement about physical actions. – .Raven  .talk 16:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but note it does not say "not a chokehold." Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiVirusC, he doesn't say "not a chokehold". He describes it as a "hold" and that he was not trying to "choke [Neely] to death", but "restrain" him. See the transcript above in my 20:15, 21 June 2023 post. Xan747 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was the diff that had the wording, "He also disputed he had applied a chokehold". He said what he said, but unless he was replying to a question of was it a chokehold or not, I don't see it as disputing it. A chokehold is a "hold", him clarifying his intent isn't him saying he disputes applying a chokehold. I understand what he is saying, I'm just saying I don't see where he dispute it, he clarifies/explains his actions in his words. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was my diff, and it was wrong of me to state it that way given what he actually said. I think the simplest thing to do is blockquote him like we (and by that I mean, I) did with Vazquez, but in his own section since there are concerns about weight. I propose:
In a video statement released by his legal team, Neely's assailant said about the incident:
At Second Avenue [Neely] came on., stumbled on, he appeared to be on drugs. The doors closed and he ripped his jacket off and violently threw it at the people sitting down to my left. I was listening to music at the time and he was yelling so I took my headphones out to hear what he was yelling and The three main threats that he repeated over and over was "I'm gonna kill you I'm prepared to go to jail for life and I'm willing to die."
Some people say that I was holding on to Mr Neely for 15 minutes. This is not true. I mean between stops is only a couple minutes and so the whole interaction less than less than five minutes.
Some people say I was trying to choke him to death which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him. Uh, you can see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest indicating that he's breathing. I'm trying to restrain him from him being able to carry out the threats.
I used this hold to restrain him and I did this by leaving my hand on top of his head to control his body. You could see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest indicating that he was still breathing and I'm calibrating my grip based on on the force that he's exerting.(cite)
Multiple RS contain a fair amount of that text, or the substance of it (and we should cite them too), so I don't see any problems with fringe, undue, etc. Xan747 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:UNDUE because it's based entirely on a primary source from the subject himself as supposed to published, independent sources. Your other comments suggest you are trying to give Penny a platform to explain or justify his actions. That's the opposite of due weight and WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf > Your other comments suggest you are trying to give Penny a platform to explain or justify his actions.
Begin quote
Chokehold is an inherently dangerous technique
I think it's fair to at least say that Penny knew exactly how potentially deadly the technique was, and had the training to know when to stop. Whether he acted on that training appropriately is probably something we won't be able to talk about until such time as evidence is presented at trial. Xan747 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
End quote
For the record, what I was trying to do there WAS synth ... I was a few weeks younger then. But I manged to get the point across from several RS. The entire paragraph beginning:
Shortly after Neely's death, Gabriel Murphy, a former marine with a service record similar to the accused's, started a petition at MoveOn saying, "the individual who choked Mr. Neely to death should be prosecuted for murder."
is all me. I couldn't use the really good quote from Murphy slamming Neely's assailant for totally irresponsible use of a chokehold because it too was self-published. Them's the breaks. Xan747 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penny's own statement about his intent to squeeze Neely's neck perhaps belongs in the article with attribution. In regard to whether Penny was actually squeezing Neely's neck, neither the witnesses' statements, nor Penny's are WP:DUE.

Let's take stock of what the reliable sources say (I apologize in advance for the tedious accounting, but my experience in this discussion has taught me that this is necessary):

  • Virtually all RSs have characterized the act as a chokehold.
  • The Medical Examiner's office stated that Neely died from a chokehold.
  • The Medical Examiner's report lists the cause of death as a homicide.
  • Multiple RSs have stated explicitly that Neely was choked to death.
  • Multiple RS have stated explicitly that Penny choked Neely.
  • Multiple RSs have stated explicitly that Penny choked Neely to death.
  • Multiple RSs have stated explicitly that Penny killed Neely.
  • Multiple RSs have stated explicitly that the Medical Examiner's report determined that Penny killed Neely.
If I missed any possible formulation of the verbiage surrounding the widely reported material fact that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely with a chokehold, please do not take that as an indication that RSs have also missed that verbiage. For every possible permutation of words expressing this idea in the English language, the RSs have used it.

These are the verifiable, reliably sourced, and pertinent facts about the event: that Daniel Penny did indeed squeeze ("compress") Jordan Neely's neck so hard that Jordan Neely died. Claims that Penny did not do so are fringe, and WP:UNDUE — they do not belong in the article. Combefere ★ Talk 18:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the points in your list are correct. But the following are also correct:
  • Few RSs state explicitly that Neely was choked to death. Most use more guarded wording.
  • Few RSs state explicitly that Penny choked Neely to death. Most use more guarded wording.
  • Few RSs state explicitly that Penny killed Neely. Most use more guarded wording.
  • Few RSs state explicitly that the Medical Examiner's report determined that Penny killed Neely. Most use more guarded wording.
Here are a few examples from the top results I get when I search Google News for "Jordan Neely" (I omitted low quality sources like Fox News and the New York Post):
  • "A grand jury in Manhattan indicted 24-year-old subway rider Daniel Penny, filmed with his arm around Jordan Neely, whose death was ruled a homicide." NBC New York [17]
  • "The Marine veteran who held an unhoused Black man in a deadly chokehold ... charged with second-degree manslaughter in the killing of Jordan Neely ... He held down Neely in a fatal chokehold ... restrained him in a chokehold until he stopped breathing. A medical examiner ruled Neely’s death a homicide." CNN [18]
  • "[Penny has been] charged with manslaughter in the death of Neely ... was filmed holding Neely in a chokehold" ABC New York [19]
  • "Penny, charged with manslaughter in the killing of Jordan Neely ... The man charged with killing a homeless subway passenger in a minutes-long chokehold ... Mr. Penny placed Mr. Neely in a chokehold ..." New York Times [20]
  • "Penny has said he was defending himself and other passengers when he choked Jordan Neely to death. ... Marine veteran who was arrested last month after killing a homeless man ... Mr. Penny, apparently seeking to restrain Mr. Neely, placed him in a chokehold, killing him. The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.)" New York Times [21]
  • "The Subway Chokehold Death of Jordan Neely ... Daniel Penny choked Jordan Neely ... to death ... Penny was later charged with manslaughter" New York Times, info box in both articles listed above
  • "[grand jury voted to indict] Daniel Penny in last month's killing of Jordan Neely with a chokehold ... Penny was captured in videos putting Neely in a chokehold ... " Reuters [22]
  • "Marine veteran who held homeless man in fatal chokehold ... Penny, the Marine veteran who held ... Neely in a fatal chokehold ... Penny held Neely in a chokehold ... restrained him in a chokehold until he stopped breathing. A medical examiner ruled Neely’s death a homicide." CNN [23]
  • "Vasquez recorded a portion of the confrontation that appeared to show Penny putting Neely in a chokehold ... The city’s medical examiner said Neely died from “compression of neck (chokehold)” and declared his manner of death a homicide — a routine term used by coroners and medical examiners to mean death caused by another person, but not a finding of criminal culpability." NBC [24]
  • "Video showed Penny putting Neely in a chokehold ... Penny held Neely for several minutes, and at some point Neely stopped moving, but Penny continued to hold him for a period of time ... The medical examiner determined Jordan Neely was killed by a chokehold and his death was ruled a homicide." ABC [25]
Among these sources, only the New York Times in its second article and its info box makes the explicit statements you listed. All others use more guarded wording. As usual, we should follow WP:RS. It would be WP:UNDUE if we used wording that appears only in a minority of sources. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely a degree of variability in how RSs choose to word it, and I don't disagree with using more guarded wording in the article. However, I do not think we can reasonably interpret this variability in verbiage as a variability in their understanding of the facts. All RSs seem to be in agreement that Penny killed Neely by choking him to death, and none of them contradict those facts. As such, statements that Penny did not kill Neely, or did not choke him, or did not squeeze his neck are certainly undue. Combefere ★ Talk 20:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xan747: My comments above were the reason that I removed the witness statement about Penny "not squeezing." Care to discuss? Combefere ★ Talk 05:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Combefere, happy to discuss here, thanks. I think you are applying WP:UNDUE too heavily in this case. This is not a flat Earth scenario, so I think the relevant guidance is, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description." The following two sentences you want to strike are attributed to two literally hands-on eyewitnesses ...
One of the other men restraining Neely responded, claiming that what appeared to be new excrement was just old excrement. One of the men also responded to the warning by saying that the ex-marine had stopped "squeezing" Neely's neck.
... and don't seem like an excessive amount of detail or emphasis when compared to ... say ... how very much more ink I allotted to Gabriel Murphy, who wasn't actually there. Xan747 (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for the first statement is more of a WP:BLPRS concern. It a speculative comment that seems to denigrate Neely's character. The second statement I think is also speculative, and undue. The witness may have thought Penny stopped squeezing at some point, but had no way of knowing; he made the statement before Neely even died, let alone before knowing the ME reported that Neely died from compression of his neck. In general, I think direct quotes from anonymous witnesses should be kept to a minimum.
My other thought for both is simply: what do they add to the article? Is there a purpose to including the trivial musings of an anonymous witness who says Neely perhaps might have had excrement in his pants when he entered the train? It seems like the only function of the sentence is to attack Neely's character. Combefere ★ Talk 06:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Must. Have. Sleep. Will respond later. Xan747 (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't our job to speculate about what motivated an eye-witness to say what they did, nor to judge their statements' credibility. That's the job of RS, and these three have seen fit to quote various witnesses as seen in the video, and their comments are relevant to the questions of intent and/or negligence. My third citation has probably the best summary I've yet read:
While Penny, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, put Neely in a chokehold in a New York subway car for several minutes as bystanders helped pin the man down until he went limp, the extended video shows a person emerge from the side of the scene, noting that Neely defecated and that those restraining him should be concerned about a "murder charge."
Defecation is one of the tell-tale signs that a person being choked or strangled is close to death, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.
"Because after he's defecated himself, that's it. You've got to let him go," the bystander can be heard saying in the video.
One of the people pinning Neely down claimed that Neely did not defecate and that the stain on his pants was old. He also claimed that Penny was not "squeezing" Neely's neck. This same person later asks Neely if he can hear. When the unconscious Neely does not respond, the person pinning Neely's arms down then asks Penny to release him, which he finally does.
This establishes the significance of the alleged defecation, that the ex-Marine had been made aware that Neely may have defecated, that whether Neely had defecated due to the chokehold was contested, and that the ex-marine did not release Neely until after being told Neely was unresponsive. There is potentially incriminatory and exculpatory information here, very much warranting inclusion in the article because it is RS interpretation and synthesis of a primary source that happens to be the most detailed and indisputable evidence of what actually happened available to us.
The anonymity of most of the witnesses in the video concerns me less than would, say, whoever leaked Neely's arrest record. They are seen and/or heard in the video. Multiple RSs describe what is seen/heard. Other named eyewitnesses interviewed in RS, mainly Vazquez and Grima, corroborate many of the details. In fact, I would argue that Grima doesn't get enough press in our article. Read this:
“I saw Penny holding Neely by the neck, and another guy holding on to Neely, as if he was still resisting. Neely was staring off. But, honestly, at the moment, I didn’t know how long they had had him. The way they were holding him, it was as if they had just had the craziest fight or something. They’re holding on to him for dear life. Somebody was filming it, and this person finally said, ‘You gotta let him go.’ They finally let him go, and he just fell limp.
“There were maybe twenty-some people outside the train car. I was looking in the window, and I was, like, ‘Something is fucking wrong.’ Because I was looking at him, and he was staring off into space. His eyes were dead. He wasn’t not moving. But the thing is, these guys that choked him the fuck out were saying that he was still breathing, that he still had a pulse. They were acting in such a way that no one else could come next to him. I told them to put him on his side. I didn’t believe that he was dead. I’d never seen a dead body before. I didn’t want him choking on his own spit or vomit. I had my water bottle in my hand. I wanted to try to check him out. But I was intimidated by these people. I didn’t know anybody. I wasn’t not trying to get stabbed. I tried to move in. I poured a little water on his forehead. And Daniel Penny came over and told me to stop. He shuffled me off.
Single witness, single RS. In isolation perhaps easy to dismiss as a non-expert speculating about what he saw with his own eyes. In corroboration with others quoted in other RS, the case for inclusion becomes stronger. Xan747 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisahn, very useful list, thanks for taking the time. Xan747 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Chrisahn. One other policy snippet from WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPPUBLIC, applies even if we do count the accused as a "public figure":
  • Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.
As applied to this case, (1) we should not assert as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice that "[X] killed [Y]", only at most with the more neutral "It was alleged that..." or "... was alleged to have..."; (2) since there has been some such denial both by [X] and another passenger / witness, we should report those denials, not entirely omit them because accusations are more frequent. – .Raven  .talk 05:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to those denials? Dumuzid (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I posted 3 quotes/cites/links at 09:15, 20 June. That got hatted under "Extended replies". Here's a diff of it. – .Raven  .talk 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly disputes as to the details of what was happening, but I still see no dispute as to "killing." All the statements you mention seem to me consistent with the (widely held) idea that the named assailant was the cause-in-fact if Neely's death. Of course, that is just my opinion. If you achieve consensus for your proposed edits, then obviously make them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See reply to Combefere below. – .Raven  .talk 17:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly oppose any use of the word "alleged" to describe the sequence of actions that Penny took which led to Neely's death, which strikes me as very much WP:UNDUE. None of the sources above describe this as an 'alleged killing,' or say that Penny was 'alleged to have killed Neely,' 'alleged to have choked Neely,' or similar. Virtually all RSs state in their own voice that Penny killed Neely, that he choked Neely to death, that he put Neely in a fatal chokehold or similar. Giving undue weight to fringe theories is not "more neutral" than including the objective, verifiable, reliably sourced facts; in fact it is against our policy on neutrality. Combefere ★ Talk 22:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "Virtually all RSs state in their own voice that [X] killed Neely...." — Citing those which do so state would verify that they alleged it, parallel to WP:BLPPUBLIC's "multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the [article], citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." WP:BLP is still policy.
Meanwhile, Chrisahn above has already told you, with example links:
  • Few RSs state explicitly that Neely was choked to death. Most use more guarded wording.
  • Few RSs state explicitly that [X] choked Neely to death. Most use more guarded wording.
  • Few RSs state explicitly that [X] killed Neely. Most use more guarded wording.
  • Few RSs state explicitly that the Medical Examiner's report determined that [X] killed Neely. Most use more guarded wording.
Ignoring that is not a refutation. – .Raven  .talk 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Citing those which do so state would verify that they alleged it"
This is a deep misunderstanding of how we include information from reliable sources on Wikipedia, and would preclude us from stating any information at all in Wikivoice without the qualifier "alleged."
Indeed, I responded to Chrisahn's comment above; I clearly did not ignore it. I'll ask that this time around, you don't simply copy and paste comments or arguments that I've already responded to and addressed as if I had never addressed them. I would have hoped that a 7-day block for WP:BLUDGEONING would have taught you this lesson, but here you are 8 days later, seeming to repeat the same pattern of disruptive behavior. Combefere ★ Talk 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you posted in reply to Chrisahn is not the issue; you continue to assert as fact statements Chris already rebutted with citations. You want to switch the topic to user conduct? This isn't the proper venue. – .Raven  .talk 22:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You and Chrisahn apparently think those statements have been rebutted. Combefere and I quite disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that Chrisahn thinks those statements were "rebutted." They He thanked me for that edit 12 days ago, and didn't respond to it, so I had assumed we came to an understanding.
But perhaps @Chrisahn: would like to clarify their his position, since I don't want to presume to speak for them him, and I would caution against other users doing so as well. Combefere ★ Talk 17:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Quick replies to a few points brought up recently: We should follow RSs. If most RSs said something like "Penny killed Neely" or "Neely was killed by Penny", we should use that wording as well. But they don't, as shown by the examples I listed above. Most sources use more guarded wording, e.g. "Neely died after Penny put him in a chokehold". That's what we should do as well. – Claims like "virtually all RSs state in their own voice that Penny killed Neely" aren't correct, because most RSs don't actually say that. They use more guarded wording. – I thanked you mainly because you wrote "I don't disagree with using more guarded wording in the article", and I largely agreed with the rest of your comment. – Regarding "alleged": If many RSs used words like "alleged", we should do so too. But they don't, so we shouldn't. We shouldn't say something like "Neely allegedly died after Penny put him in a chokehold" or "Penny allegedly killed Neely", because that's not what RSs say. – BLPPUBLIC says "multiple major newspapers publish the allegations". This could be made a bit clearer by adding "... and describe them as 'allegations' or 'rumors'", because I'm sure that's what is meant. Otherwise, as you explained, we'd always have to say "alleged", even when RSs clearly say "X did Y". – My preferred pronoun is "he", not "they". — Chrisahn (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the quick response! To be extremely pedantic and clarify (mostly for another editor who I expect may jump onto this thread at any moment), my statement that "virtually all RSs state in their own voice that Penny killed Neely" is inclusive of statements such as 'Neely was choked to death by a subway rider... Penny put Neely in a chokehold,' and similar which I think clearly convey the fact of Neely's killing by Penny. It seems we're in agreement though that most RSs use this type of "guarded" wording (fatal chokehold, choked to death, etc.) instead of using the word "killed" explicitly, and that this verbiage is acceptable to use for the article. Happy to go where consensus leads on how exactly we phrase it. Combefere ★ Talk 19:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree very much with this. "X killed Y" is a perfectly acceptable substitute for "X put Y in a fatal chokehold" to me. With all due respect Chrisahn, most of your examples above, in my opinion, support the "killed" wording, but as ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from a purely logical perspective, all the quotes I listed above are consistent with the statement "Penny killed Neely". But language isn't purely logical. Words have connotations. The word "kill" has connotations of intent and morality that other descriptions (e.g. "X caused Y's death" or "X's actions lead to Y's death") may not have, although they are logically equivalent. In the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME, we should avoid these connotations and instead follow the majority of RSs and use more cautious wording. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, but I would point out that of your ten examples above, fully half of them use "kill" language, and I personally am not sure that "restrained him in a fatal chokehold" or the like has connotations that are meaningfully different. That said, I obviously won't quibble with any consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> We should follow RSs. — If the RSs in the WP:BLPPUBLIC example had articles and even blaring headlines that "Politician Z Has Affair!", as statements of fact, that would be their allegation, unless Politician Z conceded it. The policy then tells us: "The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." [emphasis added] And this is even before the next paragraph adds: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." So a denial is not required in order for us to need to stick with "alleged". The fact of there being denials only strengthens that need.
Whether or not the RSs follow our policies, WE are supposed to. – .Raven  .talk 20:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again .Raven, we must follow reliable sources, this is not optional. As Chrisahn correctly pointed out above, "We should follow RSs ... Regarding 'alleged': If many RSs used words like 'alleged', we should do so too. But they don't, so we shouldn't."
Advocating against following WP:RS is disruptive, goes against policy, and is certainly not in the spirit of how Wikipedia is intended to function. Following reliable sources is a foundational principle, there is no going around this most basic feature. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven: Please cite and quote from recent high-quality reliable sources that use such explicit language, specifically that "Penny allegedly killed Neely" etc. Can you find any?
Without WP:RS making this claim, we simply cannot include such language in the article. Your continued refusal to respect the general consensus found in reliable sources is disruptive and goes against the tenants of our editing responsibilities here at Wikipedia. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> Please cite and quote from recent high-quality reliable sources that use such explicit language, specifically that "Penny allegedly killed Neely" etc.
You're addressing this request to the wrong party, since (as visible above) another person made the firm claim that "Virtually all RSs state in their own voice that [X] killed Neely...."
By definition (in the following two bluelinks), what they "state in their own voice"  is what they allege.  (See also synonyms.) And per the policy in WP:BLPPUBLIC, even though "multiple major newspapers publish the allegations", we "should state only that the [person] was alleged to have [performed the action at issue], not that the [action alleged] actually occurred." – .Raven  .talk 01:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPUBLIC gives the example of: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal (emphasis added). We have no such denials here, and no real doubt beyond basic epistemic skepticism. This is why, for me, adding "alleged" would actually be misleading. Happy to leave it to the wisdom of consensus, however. Hope everyone is having a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would clearly be misleading and a disservice to our readers. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "We have no such denials here" — I provided you links above. – .Raven  .talk 04:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it would seem that those denials were unconvincing to myself, Combefere, and the IP. Disputing the time involved or the nature of the chokehold is not the same as denial of being the cause-in-fact of the death. You've made a perfectly reasonable case, but it does not follow that others must find it convincing. I'll stop now, since we seem to be at an impasse, but as I say, if you can establish a consensus, more power to you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> "...those denials were unconvincing to myself..." [et al.]
Not the same as their not existing, cf. "We have no such denials here".
BLP didn't ask that the politician's denials "convince" editors. – .Raven  .talk 04:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that those denials are not in fact supporting your case. As I said, Disputing the time involved or the nature of the chokehold is not the same as denial of being the cause-in-fact of the death. I am not doubting the fact of the denials, I am doubting your application of them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the hold is one of the disputes, as in:
  1. "[X] denied he had Neely in a chokehold";
  2. That eyewitness "also claimed that [X] was not 'squeezing' Neely's neck."
With those two denials on public record, we're left with an allegation by others, that per BLP we should only report as "alleged", not a fact. – .Raven  .talk 05:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. When you have consensus, change as you see fit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So which is it?
1. You don't agree that policy says that? -or-
2. You don't want to follow policy on that point?
– .Raven  .talk 05:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I think I have made abundantly clear, I disagree with your interpretation both of the substance of the relevant statements and the application of policy thereto. Dumuzid (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You "disagree with":
(1) [My] "interpretation... of the substance of the relevant statements": longer verbatim quotes of RSs with source links, followed by shorter but still verbatim quotes of RSs,
(2) [My] "interpretation... of... the application of policy thereto": a full-quote with cite-and-link of policy, followed by shorter quotes with bracketed substitutions referring to this case.
I invite you to find where I've misquoted either... (hint: bracketed text is not a "misquote")... absent which, you "disagree with" the RSs and the policy. – .Raven  .talk 07:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your invitation is declined. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven: So you have zero high-quality reliable sources to refer to then, with which to backup your concerns? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answering you (as above) seems only to indulge sea-lioning, so I'm done. – .Raven  .talk 04:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@.Raven: Right, so no reliable sources to base your proposed article changes on, got it. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you know it. We follow what the sources say, and to propose doing otherwise is disruptive. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City and country in lede?

Does the lede sentence need to include "New York City, United States" to clarify the location of Manhattan in order to avoid being "purely nationalist and myopic" according to @Zilch-nada in this diff? Xan747 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No: article's main infobox already contains the city and country; including them in the lede is therefore redundant and makes the sentence unnecessarily long. Xan747 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It hardly makes it necessarily long. It is a minor but important edition; this is an American issue, and should be presented as such. Furthermore, the style of referring to cities should - just to be informative - refer to the country. Not only does it seem obvious to Americans that NYC is in the US, it seems obvious to most English-language readers. However, that is not the point; the point is purely to be informative, and, importantly, right. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, at present the infobox isn't shown to mobile users. – .Raven  .talk 16:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point here .Raven, and it is my understanding that mobile users constitute a vast & overwhelming percentage of the readership. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's incorrect. When I open the article on Android in Firefox, Chrome or Opera, the infobox is always shown. Whether I'm logged in or not. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see the infobox shown on mobile Safari and the Wikipedia mobile app. Combefere ★ Talk 15:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I'm American and I don't believe that Manhattan's location is universal knowledge. I agree that it makes the sentence a little unwieldy but it's only five words. (If the sentence has to be shortened, I suggest removing either "the F train on" or "on the subway." To my reading, each phrase renders the other kind of pointless.) CityOfSilver 14:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Yes, on main point. On parenthesized point: perhaps "the F train of the subway" — since "the F train" by itself might not communicate "subway" to people unfamiliar with NYC; not "universal knowledge", as you put it. – .Raven  .talk 16:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think leaving the city and county in the lead sentence is fine. If length is concern, cut the F train. The important part for the lead sentence is on the subway not which particular line so: riding the subway in Manhattan, New York City, United States. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What, cut the F train? Not mention which station? Omit which car number, and which door of the car? Hey, details are the life of the novel! [Oh, we're writing an encyclopedia? Then never mind.] – .Raven  .talk 17:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – this is not uncommon on other similar articles. For example, Murder of George Floyd currently begins with "On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, was murdered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S., by Derek Chauvin, a 44-year-old white police officer." The tacit assumption that all English language readers will know where Manhattan is located is part of a broader problem of systemic Anglo-American bias on Wikipedia which is contrary to NPOV. Including the country makes Wikipedia more neutral and more accessible. We can use the abbreviation US or U.S. to make the sentence more readable. Combefere ★ Talk 07:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely&oldid=1163381596"