Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely

Name inclusion

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Comp.arch There two main points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skynxnex, to answer your question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what is sufficient for this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BarrelProof and @Combefere:

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

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

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

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

@Combefere and @BarrelProof,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

counter:

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

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

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

Chokehold is an inherently dangerous technique

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

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

should it be integrated into the article?

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

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

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

However, according to Military.com:

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

The cited document says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More RS quoting Murphy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this entire discussion has been derailed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it does not convey the risk inherent to the action.

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

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

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

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

References

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

oh hey, good recommendation.

how is this forbes article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Need clear consensus on Fox and NY Post

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of call to police

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Include Penny's version of events?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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