Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

'He would hurt anyone on train' accuracy

I don't think the sentence in paragraph 2, 'According to police, witnesses said Neely was acting in a "hostile and erratic" manner, telling riders that he would hurt anyone on the train," is representative of police and witness accounts across a range of newspapers. I have been following this story and would say the first source (4) which states the following, 'Police say witnesses described Neely as acting in a “hostile and erratic manner,' does not contradict what named witnesses have said about the incident and has been widely reported. The second source states, 'Police sources told NBC New York that Neely told riders on the train that he wanted food, that he wasn't taking no for an answer, and that he would hurt anyone on the train.' The first problem I have with this quote is that it is NBC paraphrasing anonymous sources. The second problem I have is that it does contradict what named witnesses have so far said, and is more similar to an anonymous witness account in the Washington Post. As there has been no trial yet, I would like Wikipedia to focus on what named witnesses have said, not on anonymous sources and paraphrasing. The third problem I have is that as well as not representing what has been said in the media as a whole, the NBC quote isn't representational of the article as a whole, which quotes a witness, Vasquez as great length. It seems to me that this paraphrased anonymous police quote is more sensationalist than what Vasquez has to say so it has been placed at the top of NBC's article with more accurate information underneath, and the same has happened with the Wikipedia article. I donate to wikipedia and use wikipedia a lot because I see it as unbiased and I feel placing this particular NBC quote at the top of the article, or including it at all, biases this page. 92.12.7.53 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@92.12.7.53 Could you elaborate a bit further?

Do you think the police reports of anonymous witnesses should be removed whole cloth in favor of specific witness testimony.

And also you mention Vasquez, but do you have any other potential witness accounts to include.

Thanks, LoomCreek (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that using anonymous sources is not good practice in reporting for obvious reasons, so when they are used, I think it has to be judiciously. I personally would accept the first quote being included as it is a quote, if anonymous, and fits with what Vasquez says. The other quote is paraphrased as well as being anonymous, and differs from what Vasquez says. Before these details are included, I would like to see more evidence that this is actually what witnesses said. As an online encyclopaedia, I would like to see Wikipedia trying to stick to the facts as much as is possible. As this case has not yet gone to trial, I think a lot of the facts are yet to emerge and I would like to see this article erring on the side of caution at this early stage. What do you think?

Sorry I don't have any other witness accounts to include. Sandycee11 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. That makes sense to me. I think id agree, that using witness accounts rather anonymous sources is best practice. LoomCreek (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the allegation that Neely said "he would hurt anyone on the train" is of dubious origin - the cited source, in a previous version, said that the quote "hostile and erratic" was from a witness and that he "[told] riders that he would hurt anyone on the train" was from a police source, now it has been amended to be less precise. I would suggest that anonymous, or at least testimonies that are not directly quoted be removed from the article, or if they came already paraphrased from an RS, be amended to include in-text attribution that details the specific origin of each claim. PriusGod (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Just want to add to the chorus here that I agree with the above rationales -- in a situation like this where we have multiple identified sources, there's no need to appeal to anonymous sources. I would therefore be on board with PriusGod's plan of action. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also agree, given multiple identified sources, it's better to rely on that rather than anonymous sources. LoomCreek (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing the phrase, per the above discussion. I'll also emphasize that the paraphrase is according to witnesses, according to the police. This makes the paraphrase one degree further removed from the RS, and even less relevant than a simple anonymous testimony. Combefere ★ Talk 07:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. Sandycee11 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that, when possible, it's best to specify sources. Indeed, there are numerous other, more detailed descriptions of what Neely said, including direct quotes from eyewitnesses that he was threatening to kill passengers: "He said, ‘I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet, I’ll go to jail’ because he would kill people on the train. He said, ‘I would kill a motherf—er. I don’t care. I’ll take a bullet. I’ll go to jail.’" That strikes me as a lot more relevant than the opinion of an "onlooker" who said "You're gonna kill him" followed some seconds later by "He's not gonna die."

But I think there's a bigger issue—the effect of quoting only individuals misses the simple fact that, according to multiple eyewitnesses, Neely was threatening and frightening passengers, prompting Penny to intervene. This has been acknowledged by the DA's office itself—in the context of prosecuting Penny, no less: "'Several witnesses observed Mr. Neely making threats and scaring passengers,' said Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass."

More will no doubt come to light—but as of now, I'm unaware of a single witness, named or anonymous, who has reportedly contradicted the DA's description. Given that, I strongly believe that a simple stating of that fact in the lead would make much, much more sense than quoting "freelance journalist and witness Juan Alberto Vázquez" at such length; surely, if his individual description is worthy of inclusion, it could be moved to the body of the article? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 17:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources other than WP:FOX and WP:NYP would go further, especially in a heavily politicized topic like this. PriusGod (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Your linked source makes no mention of your claims or the presumed quote. (it links to a NYP and fox news article which may be where your pulling it from) Also yes when it comes to heavily politicized topics WP:FOX and WP:NYP are not particularly reliable. LoomCreek (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For me, the Joshua Steinglass quote is not anonymous. What the 'onlooker' said was taken from video evidence. The other detailed description you have quoted is from an anonymous witness, originally in the New York Post. For me, there is a difference between this anonymous quote and the Steinglass quote. In the Steinglass quote he says Jordan Neely was making threats and scaring passengers. This is very different to threatening to kill someone. Sandycee11 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The original discussion wasn't specific to death threats—just threats. But my point was twofold:

1. I don't understand the need to quote—or even name—Vasquez in the lead, let alone to have such a long, contorted, and confusing description. It's well-established that Neely was threatening and frightening passengers, and that three men, including Penny, restrained him, and that part of the interaction was captured on video by a passenger—isn't that enough for the lead? Vasquez's statement that Neely "didn't physically attack anyone" isn't definitive, because he acknowledges that he wasn't watching when Penny put Neely into a headlock—it would be more precise to include (later in the article) that he didn't see Neely attack anyone, nor did he see Penny put Neely into a headlock. But again, none of this belongs in the lead. More will presumably be revealed, but for now our article will be clearer and far more readable if the lead sticks to the well-established and non-controversial facts and avoids getting bogged down parsing quotes by individual witnesses. Aside from whom to quote about what—does no one agree that the current lead is overly detailed, clunky, and decidedly un-encyclopedic?

2. As for specific witness statements, I fail to see why the fact that a retired woman of color who called Penny a "hero" didn't want to be identified by name means her statements to journalists should be excluded. Given the current climate and the violent and rage-fueled reactions to Neely's death, it's entirely understandable why she might wish to have her name left out. This is hardly unusual in journalism, and while readers are free to make their own conclusions, it's hardly disqualifying. I am sorry that I appear to have neglected to include the correct sources, but in fact both Fox News and the Post appear to have interviewed the same passenger, a retired woman of color in her 60's who was on the train (although without some confirmation, we can't assume or state that it's the same individual). Unless there's some reason to believe the two reporters both fabricated these similar quotes from a similarly described eyewitness out of whole cloth, there's absolutely no reason that this woman can't be quoted as having "told Fox News" what she did. While some editors no doubt disdain Fox for partisan political reasons, there's no cause to suspect that they're inaccurate in quoting an eyewitness to a death on the NYC subway. And this idea that we as editors ought to assign different weights to quotes within based on how they're identified by RS is bizarre—there's a long-established practice for these situations, such as writing that "anonymous officials told the New York Times..." While it appears that other media organizations have chosen not to report on passengers who call Penny a "hero", I'd suggest that, rather than suggesting the quotes might be inaccurate, it reveals the danger in censoring outlets like Fox and the Post—news organizations which, like any other, have made mistakes, but which are vital because they report stories and details that don't fit the standard narrative that shapes the vast bulk of our RS in media, and which might otherwise be excluded from our encyclopedia. Surely an honest and balanced picture of the passengers' reactions should include any who expressed their terror of Neely and "thanked" Penny for what they believe was a selfless and chivalrous act?

Thanks, and look forward to responses on both questions! ElleTheBelle 20:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ekpyros Fox news simply isnt considered a reliable source for politically charged events. It's well established within wikipedia at this point and is mentioned on the list wikipedia keeps track of on wikipedia editor consensus on source reliability. It's reflective of a shakey history with accurately reporting these sort of events. That's something you would have to take up there. LoomCreek (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I see the general guidance about reporting on "politics" and "science" from Fox News—but nothing about "politically charged events", which is an infinitely broad and hopelessly vague category that could include sports scores or stock prices. More specifically, the guidance says it "generally does not qualify as a 'high-quality source' for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in these topic areas". This is not in the "subject area" of either politics or science, and it's hardly an "exceptional claim"—it's simply an interview with an eyewitness to a tragic event.

Again, this type of attempt at censoring routine reporting from a major news network harms Wikipedia—which is why it's so important that we consider source material on a case-by-case basis. There is no reason to believe that the reporter fabricated or misrepresented the quotes—indeed, they're remarkably similar to quotes from a NYC newspaper that appears to have interviewed the same witness. The only legitimate reason to automatically exclude the quotes would be some genuine question as to their authenticity—and I see nothing about them that indicates they're inaccurate, let alone fictional, nor can I find anything in the extensive material about Fox News as a source suggesting that the fabrication of quotes has been an issue with their reporting. ElleTheBelle 22:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no desire to censor anything, but it appears to me that this detail is underrepresented in the reliable sources, and so it would be WP:UNDUE to include. As ever, though, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the thoughtful response! ElleTheBelle 13:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ekpyros Like it or not this case is political, the weighing in by both conservatives and liberal politicians shows that. Anything 'politically charged' is politics. Excluding or, censoring as you put it, information that is not reliable is the right response.

It's a fundamental policy of wikipedia WP:Undue. Inaccurate or unreliable views (an inherent part of it being from an unreliable source) are not entitled to being used. LoomCreek (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You're factually incorrect; WP:UNDUE, broadly speaking, is guidance about assigning weight to information, aiming to "present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." The example given in our guidance is whether to include flat-earth theories in the scientific article on the planet Earth—nothing even remotely like the instant situation, in which we're discussing not fringe views, but rather unchallenged and unambiguous quotations from eyewitness accounts of our subject. In terms of verifiability—which is the relevant test here, not WP:DUE—there is nothing the slightest bit WP:EXCEPTIONAL about such quotes.

All this underlines the fact that your claim—that the NYP and Fox are unreliable for such quotes, simply because the topic is "politically charged"—reflects neither Wikipedia guidance nor consensus. Indeed, I challenge you to find any instances in which consensus has been reached that similar quotes must be excluded from similar publications for similar reasons.

Furthermore, your assertion that censoring those quotes "is the right response" isn't just false—such a standard hasn't even been applied to our article in current form. For example:

• The People Magazine article quoting Vazquez and cited three times pulls those quotes from none other than—the NY Post: "Juan Alberto Vazquez, who filmed the encounter, told the New York Post…"
• Our source for Vazquez's claim that "the chokehold lasted for 15 minutes" is an article from The Cut]—which pulled the statement from his personal Facebook page: "On Facebook, Vázquez said…" While Facebook is not an RS in general, as it clearly falls under WP:SELFPUBLISH, it may be considered reliable for Vazquez's statements under WP:ABOUTSELF. The same article also cites the NY Post: "…a witness told the Post."
• The [WaPo article cited is an RS for quotes from Vasquez—even though they're also pulled from his personal Facebook page: "Vazquez wrote on Facebook that…"
• The NY Post is already cited numerous times as an RS in our article—here and here—making claims that it must automatically be excluded as an RS ring hollow, at best.

In short: many of the RS our article already cites simply regurgitate what the NY Post has reported—and the Post itself is currently cited as an RS on multiple occasions. One last time: for a Wikipedia article to include that "The New York Post quotes an eyewitness, who said…" is perfectly valid, because it doesn't state as fact what the NYP reports, but simply states as fact that they've reported it—exactly as People Magazine and The Cut do in the above examples. I see the guidance about "exceptional claims" and concerns about specific publications when it comes to specific subjects. But you have yet to articulate a coherent reason why our article cannot include the entirely unexceptional and utterly indisputable fact that the NYP and/or Fox has quoted an eyewitness to an event, the subject of which is not, by any stretch of imagination or definition, either "politics" or "science".

Whether the material meets the test of WP:UNDUE is entirely another matter. While it does appears that more sources have quoted Vazquez than the woman of color quoted by the NYP and Fox, as long as they're not represented in gross disproportion to their publication, there's nothing in our guidance that precludes including both. A quote from an eyewitness does not constitute a "minority view"—let alone a "fringe" perspective—simply because another eyewitness has been more frequently quoted; rather, it's simply verifiable information that has received less coverage. ElleTheBelle 14:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask that we stay away from the language of "censoring" since it mostly serves to elevate tensions and I don't think is an accurate description here. Wikipedia editors constantly make editorial decisions as to what they believe will improve the article. There are times when censorship is at issue (appropriately or inappropriately), but to me, at least, typical content disputes like this are a different beast. Just a thought for a Monday morning. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You make a fine point, and I'm more than happy not to use the word if its effect is to increase tension, as you suggest. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 20:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ekpyros I mean I made no mention of the New York post. I'm simply addressing your other claims. And I did it in the way I did because you made the wild claim that it was being "censored", when it's been established we should avoid anonymous sources.

It also, again, doesn't matter if it's "censoring" because that's what excluding information that might not be entirely reliable is. WP:UNDUE does certainly extend to the reliability of sources, even if there are more issues with it policy wise past it, such as WP:RS. LoomCreek (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You've repeatedly claimed the Post has been determined to be unreliable and must be excluded in articles involving "politically charged" topics—which is false, and demonstrably so given that it's already used twice as an RS in this article. I have no idea what you mean by "it's been established we should avoid anonymous sources". Wikipedia frequently includes statements made by unnamed sources as reported in RS. You're the one who, above, was asking for quotes from more witnesses—and both the Post and Fox have independently quoted another witness. I'm lost as to your objection—in terms of reliability and accuracy—to including the undeniable fact that "The New York Post quoted an eyewitness, a retired woman of color in her 60's, who said XYZ". ElleTheBelle 22:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That the NYPost has been cited in this article is not an indication that it should be cited in this article, or any other article -- editors do things they shouldn't, and when those things are identified, they should be rectified. To that end I have in the past hour or so removed every Fox News citation in this article and one NYPost citation: In two cases the citations were redundant, in one case I subbed in a cite that had already been used elsewhere, and in one case I dug up a new citation containing equivalent information.

I'm in the process of going after any other remaining NYPost cites, though there is one I could support leaving in with consensus.

After that there is the question of the People article which sources quotes from the NYPost. If I can find another source in support I will use that instead.

Then there is the question of Vaquez's facebook post, which is more than usually questionable because it is in Spanish. More discussion about that would be welcome. Xan747 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References

In the paragraph beginning, "There are varying accounts about the exact time that police were first notified of the incident," four references give four different values for when NYPD received the first calls about the incident:

• 2:20 pm, Truthdig
• "around" 2:25 pm, NBC New York
• 2:26 pm, NY Post
• 2:27 pm, NY Times (attributed to NYPD)

I have removed all other WP:NYPOST citations in the article. I'm inclined to let that last one remain to document that major media outlets couldn't agree on the exact timing. Not sure it really matters, but it might -- just a minute or two sooner and Neely might have lived.

For the People article that used the NY Post reporting I found a NY Times article containing equivalent information, so that takes care of that indirect citation.

We're down to the text of Vazquez's Facebook post which, significantly, seems to be the main source of the "15 minute chokehold" statement that is being used *everywhere*. I'd say it is hugely important for that number to be independently confirmed by a reputable news outlet who actually spoke to Vazquez. All the articles I've seen say, "according to his Facebook post ...", which may not be good enough. Xan747 (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think this is a moment of Wikipedia GIGO: the claim is indeed so widespread among the reliable sources that I don't see how we can leave it out of the article. That said, I think it is important to couch it properly as the report of one witness taken solely (I think?) from Facebook. Then again, happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

ON the day after the incident, the local NBC affiliate confirmed the 15 minute interval with Vazquez directly. I updated the article with the new citation, leaving in the old one which cited the Facebook post, so now one corroborates the other and I can go to bed. Cheers. Xan747 (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

While you are quite correct that Fox's unreliability applies mainly to politics (though changes may be afoot), the WP:NYPOST is considered "generally unreliable" for factual reporting post-1976. Just wanted to clarify that bit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dumuzid ah okay thanks for the heads up LoomCreek (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't be relying on WP:NYPOST, especially in preference to other sources. If other sources don't agree, we should just say that different sources are reporting different things. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Sources differ over a range of seven minutes on when the 9-1-1 got the first call, so I think we need to be specific about what the differences are and which source reported what because I think that also matters. I'll note that the earliest reported time comes from an opinion piece critical of the response time, and the latest reported time is attributed to an under-fire NYPD. It occurs to me that the police are reporting when dispatch radioed officers, not when 9-1-1 got the first phone calls. Xan747 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ekpyros Also the lead seems fine as is. It's a good summary of events without being too long. LoomCreek (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Name of killer (again)

Name inclusion should be discussed at the RfC above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey all, we discussed this above, but quite frankly, I am not sure if we ever got to a real consensus. Comp.arch just removed all reference to the suspect's name citing WP:BLPCRIME. I actually tend to agree with him on this one, but I know that many here do not. Happy to go wherever consensus leads, so I would appreciate input. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Right, I read that, and per policies I put in the edit summary (and additionally see WP:LPNAME policy on privacy), I removed the name, and see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting." I didn't see a consensus, nor a need, for the name. If it violates policy, and I think it does (others agreed), then it should be out, or people need to put forward a really good argument for having/keeping the name. Simply counting votes in favour of having his name doesn't matter. Per WP:CCC even if there had been a consensus, it can change, and that was from since before he was charged. Now justice runs its course. Protests seemingly lead to a charge, I'm not sure if his name or "marine" played a part. There's not reason to keep the name, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for protests, or naming people. Note, from above it's not a "political system", i.e. for social justice. comp.arch (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) WP:LPNAME says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" that it is "often preferable" to omit. Daniel Penny's name has been widely disseminated (not just 'leaked') by reliable sources. It WAS intentionally concealed by news and law enforcement organizations, but it is NO LONGER intentionally concealed, rather it has been deliberately released. WP:SUSPECT (which is the same as WP:BLPCRIME, not sure why you elected to cite them as though they were separate policies) discusses the presumption of innocence and then says that editors "must seriously consider not including material" that implies an accusation or a presumption of guilt. Daniel Penny has been arrested and charged with the manslaughter of Jordan Neely. OF COURSE, we should not say that Penny is guilty of any crime as that would be a blatant violation of the policy being discussed by this paragraph. BUT, it is the case that Penny has been published as the individual who choked Neely to death. If Wikipedia is to reflect reliable sources, it should include the name. WP:ASSERTN is not relevant. It is a point in an essay about deletion discussions, which this is not. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also a point in an essay about deletion discussions. That being said, I'd like to point to an essay, WP:SSE, to support my argument in favor of inclusion - there are plenty of articles that name otherwise-nonnotable accused, because naming the primary, charged suspect is NOT an accusation of guilt - it is an affirmation of what is published in reliable sources. Furthermore, I take issue with the readability - a section titled "Three or more persons, thereof one charged"? The section doesn't even include any information whatsoever about the two other people. The "Accused" are "A man who put Neely in the chokehold; in total three men, of different races, including white and black, held Neely down, and only one of was a suspect and charged." The replacement of Penny's name with just "ex-marine" as though "ex-marine" is a name or pronoun completely destroys the grammar of the "Incident" section. While this is fixable, I think it would be a much better idea to take the time to workshop the grammar (additionally, this gives the RfC more time to stretch its legs) instead of doing... this. Additionally, I'd like to see some reliable sources that there were two other people accused of taking actions that led to Neely's death as the section title and other sentence imply, otherwise this is veering very far into WP:OR territory - I considered simply reverting the edits because of this. I'd like to imagine I've been fairly ambivalent in previous discussions on this page. This time, I am not. Policy does not indicate that Penny's name "must be suppressed." I suggest if you believe that to be the case, pursue suppression or at least revdeletion. PriusGod (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) PriusGod - I am happy to go with consensus here, but just want to briefly note again my reasoning for thinking the name should still be omitted: namely that WP:BLPCRIME says that omission should be considered unless a conviction has been secured. Obviously, for a conviction, one must be charged, so it seems to me the policy expressly says charging is not enough. But I can certainly understand reasons for inclusion here (and, honestly, would like to see the policy clarified). As I like to say, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I would tend to disagree, and say that the operative text of the policy is regarding "material that suggests" that the relevant individual has committed the crime or has been accused, and that simple inclusion of the name is not that. However, I ABSOLUTELY agree with you that the policy is unclear and that it ought to be clarified - were it more strictly worded that information not be included until conviction, I wouldn't be here. PriusGod (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) The man who should not be named (even on Talk page), falls under WP:LIVE policy, which is strict on privacy (unless you can find even one exception that applies). "If Wikipedia is to reflect reliable sources, it should include the name." WP SHOULD NOT reflect WP:RS (which is actually just a guideline) here regarding the name, RS is a precondition (actually WP:V policy), but not sufficient, since other policies, e.g. those regarding privacy and crime trump it. When I or anyone removes something citing policy, then you must object by stating an exception in the same policy (not some lesser guideline or essay only) if it applies or some other policy that overrides. I'm trying to navigate this as best I can. Please WP:Assume_good_faith, as I do of you (I still welcome the noticeboard/experts on policies admining). I've edited WP for years, but never this type of article before. WP:LIVE: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to [..] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and [..] Wikipedia must get the article right. [..] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. [..] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. [this bolding is mine] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid [..] the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." There's a precedent about which name to include the Manning naming dispute, so if you can choose your name, and expect that name to be included, it seems if you value your privacy, you should be allowed to choose, privacy, i.e. no name (or say Mickey Mouse). So unless the person has clearly sought out attention, rather than defend from the attention and prosecution, he remains still not a public figure, as before. "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page. [e.g. footnotes] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." About "any material [..] challenged or likely to be challenged" is it good enough to quote the name from the many WP:RS news articles that include it? I believe not, because of WP:NOTWHOSWHO/WP:NOTNEWS policy that references BLP/LIVE on privacy (I don't believe in mistaken identity here, but hypothetically news could be wrong, so I'm thinking of the general issue too). "it is NO LONGER intentionally concealed, rather it has been deliberately released." That doesn't matter, WP:BLPCRIME also applies to the DA, at least I didn't see an exception (except for conviction), and the police (let alone news articles). About possible exceptions, or not, there's the "Presumption in favor of privacy" sub-chapter at LIVE/BLP, and it has A. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article." He (and actually neither Neely are notable, only the event is). Then it follows "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability", and he's not notable, so it means include nothing! There is B. WP:PUBLICFIGURE exception, that could apply in some cases, but not here (and the example there is about e.g. an affair of an already notable public figure, not about the serious up to 15 years in jail of a non-public figure). See also WP:BLP1E policy and WP:PERP (only a guideline). comp.arch(talk) 22:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) To mitigate WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will respond briefly to the main points in bullets. WP:LIVE - Penny's name is not challenged, and is not likely to be challenged. Daniel Penny has released a statement admitting his involvement. WP:BLP - This article "must be written conservatively with regard to Penny's privacy." It is. "Presumption in favor of privacy" (of names) - You omitted the second half of the sentence. Full quote: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. By no stretch is Penny "loosely involved." WP:NPF - Penny's involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely is notable, and is exactly the type of detail that NPF allows us to include. Your misinterpretation of how this policy works would prevent us from including Jordan Neely's name (or anything else about him) as well, which should raise an alarm bell for you that your own understanding of the policy is incorrect. Again, I'll point you to every other "Killing of..." article on Wikipedia. As other users have pointed out, some stuff exists for a reason - in this case, because the editors of those articles have a clear understanding of the wiki policies surrounding BLP and Crime. Please be more careful in reviewing wiki policies and make sure that you fully understand them before making major edits to a highly charged page without consensus. Combefere ★ Talk 05:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) You: "WP:NPF - Penny's involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely is notable". To clarify, NPF is same as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, so you are saying he was NOT – and still isn't – a public figure? If A kills B, and neither A nor B were notable before, and that means A and/or B suddenly automatically become notable, then it's a mockery of WP:BLPCRIME, i.e. waiting for conviction to publish details like the name. What NPF states: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. [Note, neither were, and neither are yet, for their own article; the event article isn't about him. Unlike George Floyd who has a separate article.] In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. [..] Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Think of it this way, if he is found not guilty, then his name never should been in the article, by adding it you are taking sides, presuming he will be found guilty, and BPF is in the "Presumption in favor of privacy" sub-chapter. I'm saying if other articles broke WP polices, then it doesn't mean we should also break (privacy) policies here. You may think you know who is the victim here, but then you're presuming. "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. [..] This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." comp.arch (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) I agree the suspect in this case should not have their own article at this time per WP:BLP1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE, however, they clearly are "notable" in the sense of multiple reliable, independent sources covers them so we can and should include details about them in appropriate articles. From WP:BLP1E: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. ... In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. so by BLP1E it's appropriate to include information about them in the event they are notable for. As I've mentioned before, I think we have (and are) seriously considering whether or not to include the material and so that satisfies WP:BLPCRIME for inclusion. For WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, it says Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. I agree with that and we should just include material that has been published in multiple high quality sources and leave out biographical details that are potentially harmful and completely unrelated to the event. But their name and core biographical history are material relevant to the person's notability. And again, the suspect is "notable" for this single event (even if no standalone page is warranted at this time) using our notability standards and so including material about them is acceptable. From WP:BIO: If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event. Skynxnex (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC) "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." I agree that it was a mistake earlier in the article's history to include his name - it was deliberately concealed by law enforcement, news, and him and his family, and it was originally 'uncovered' by an OSINT researcher on Twitter and 'confirmed' by the Daily Mail accidentally publishing the name, then removing it. His name's inclusion at that time, frankly, could have easily warranted revdeletion IMO. It will not adversely affect his reputation to include his name in the article when multiple reliable sources have published that he was the killer, when he has released a statement *workshopped with his lawyer (thus absolutely in his best interest)* acknowledging his involvement in Neely's death but denying having tried to kill him, when him and his family have his name out on a now over 2 million dollar crowdfunding campaign for legal fees. Is not a crowdfunding campaign the definition of seeking public attention? I don't think it clears the "public figure" bar but it absolutely indicates that he does not feel that his name is a secret, that he is shying away from the public eye. Even if he is exonerated of the killing (exceedingly unlikely - IMO the best it will get for him is that the homicide will be ruled not criminal as self defense/defending someone else's life), he would STILL be relevant to the article enough to warrant inclusion of his name and his hand in the event. While I am a new account, I've spent a long time prior to account creation lurking and at times throwing my hat into BLP and BLPCRIME related talks and my biggest observation about any of it is that WP:BLPCRIME is an extremely contentious and ambiguously written piece of policy that is largely interpreted on the basis of local consensus. The only thing that BLPCRIME compels us as editors to do here is "seriously consider" the omission of material that carries specific implications. It would be a gross misapplication of Wikipedia's position as an informational resource to imply or state that Penny is a murderer or that he committed manslaughter, because without a conviction, Penny must be considered innocent. It would also be a failure of that same position to assert that Neely died because of some confluence of the actions of three men, rather than the verifiable, notable, and self-admitted actions of a single one. I appreciate, as should we all, your valiant effort in explaining exactly why you believe Penny's name should be excluded, though I will admit to feeling that some of your longer citations, instructions on how policies "must" be applied, and the implication that I am not assuming good faith cross the line into wikilawyering. PriusGod (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) So, by your logic, we should never have mentioned Kyle Rittenhouse in the article Kenosha unrest since he was acquitted of all charges? WWGB (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Exactly, what I'm saying. It's a similar kind of situation, and now he's well known, despite he was found not guilty, and never should have been a public figure, at least not because of WP. Even presumed criminals have (privacy) rights. He was defending himself as he could, I mean after that event (and his case during it), but making a big deal of it "Free as fuck" T-shirt, means possibly at some point you seek out being a public figure (no similarity here). So it's less clear cut there. Kyle is now notable, I mean has his own page, for some reason, and seemingly profits from his public persona. Had his name never been made public, that might not have happened. Let's deal with the main event, Neely's for now, since it's more pressing. comp.arch (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC) If A kills B, and neither A nor B were notable before, and that means A and/or B suddenly automatically become notable This is a misunderstanding of wiki policy and practice. It's Catch-22 level logic - the people are not notable, therefore the event is not notable, therefore the people are not notable, and we can go around and around this circle to argue against every article on the encyclopedia That's not how notability works. We did not, as you suggest, independently decide that Neely and Penny were notable because Penny killed Neely. Penny and Neely are notable because multiple RSs have noted them. The event is notable, and the people involved are now notable due to the event. The Killing of Jordan Neely is notable per WP:GNG. Both Jordan Neely and Daniel Penny are notable per WP:GNG. Neither needs to have their own article to be considered notable. See Murder of Ahmaud Arbery. See Killing of Breonna Taylor. By your logic, we would have to exclude Breonna Taylor's name from the Killing of Breonna Taylor article. it's a mockery of WP:BLPCRIME, i.e. waiting for conviction to publish details like the name This is a misunderstanding of wiki policy and practice. BLPCRIME prevents us from including information that suggests a living person has committed a crime. We have not included any information that suggests Penny committed a crime. The article does not state that Penny is guilty of homicide, or manslaughter. The article states that Penny killed Neely, which is a neutral and verifiable description of events that is supported by multiple RSs and is not on its own an accusation of guilt for the charge of manslaughter that he is facing. It is both well within wiki policy, and common practice to include these types of details in high-profile killings that receive national news attention. Combefere ★ Talk 16:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Support inclusion of name for reasons mentioned here by PriusGod. Beyond that the changes need to be rolled back anyway, they contain a considerable amount of unsourced claims: everything from including the two other men involved in restraint as "accused" and claiming what their races are, to Penny wearing "civilian clothes." KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) I would support including the name. I agree per WP:BLPCRIME we should seriously consider not including the name but after doing so, the balance is to include. Given the amount of coverage including their name, the person charged is actively raising money using their own name for their defense, and the fact that similar to other cases, it is likely their name will always be associated/covered with this event in reliable sources even if acquitted/charges dropped, including the name is prudent and encyclopedic within WP:BLPCRIME. Skynxnex (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Support inclusion of Daniel Penny's name, per my comments in the discussion above, and per consensus in the discussion above. The article is about The Killing of Jordan Neely - we cannot omit the killer of Jordan Neely. I intend to restore this information when I am able. @Comp.arch: I suggest you review WP:LPNAME (it indicates that we should include Penny's name), as well as WP:RECKLESS, and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Repeatedly removing the most critical information from a politically charged article without trying to build consensus (and in spite of an emerging consensus against it) is not a useful way to edit. Combefere ★ Talk 21:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Comment do note there is an ongoing RfC above. Although that one is focused specifically on including his name in lead. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Yeah, apologies. It completely skipped my mind that it was an actual RFC above! Dumuzid (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Support Inclusion LoomCreek (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Support inclusion of name per PriusGod. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Support Inclusion – based on Combefere's analysis. Nothing about including Penny's name in this article is unique or off-track in my opinion and in terms of Wikipedia policy. In fact, including the name of the accused and charged seems quite reasonable and par for the course, especially given the international coverage by reliable sources. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Support inclusion per PriusGod and Combefere. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC) There's still an open RfC (started 6 May) on this question above that's never been closed. Someone linked to it at WP:ANI recently and now people are responding to the old RfC today as of 18 May. So we now have 2 separate discussions on the same page. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Exclude name per Wikipedia policy, like it or not. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime. This is a duplicate of the comment I left at the RfC above. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Point of order—Either this discussion should be merged into the above or the above should be merged here. (Probably the former.) This page is currently listed on WP:RFC/A; a user that clicks on its link will be taken to the above section ... but, even though that RFC is not closed, and it appears to be getting responses, it seems to me like this section has supplanted it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC) To be clear: If it were me, I'd archive this discussion, copy the !votes of every editor here who hadn't already !voted in the above discussion and pasting them (perhaps in an archive top / bottom template) into the first section, add a subsection to the above section for "Discussion", and then include a link to this archived discussion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Only problem with that is that RfC was worded as "Should the name of the killer be included in the lead section?" While it seems like the opinions would mostly be the same for the lead and body of the article, technically moving it from a specific question to a more broader question wouldn't be right without checking with every participant. Probably better to find someone uninvolved to close the previous discussion and participants who haven't participated in this one should be pinged here. In the end, both discussions seem to be leaning towards including name, so it's not as big of a deal as it could of been. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Ah fair point! (Although surely if the name can be mentioned in the lead ... it can also be mentioned other places, no? Either way, I withdraw my suggestion!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC) With the supports yeah. The only real different would be if some people opposed it being in lead specifically, but might be fine with name being under participants. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Support inclusion. While this is not a formal RfC, I will !vote to include the name of the accused. His name has been published in reliable sources around the world, so privacy is no longer an issue. He has also admitted participating in the train incident. His public notoriety means he is no longer subject to WP:BLPCRIME. To withhold his name in the face of universal publication would render Wikipedia weak and censored. WWGB (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Oppose/Exclude per my comments on ongoing RfC above; and strongly object to this duplication of ongoing RfC above. – .Raven  .talk 03:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC) That was my fault. In a rush to defuse what I perceived as a possible issue, I started this snowball downhill and should not have. Mea culpa. Dumuzid (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Then I suggest you withdraw it, so it can be closed. Let the actual RfC conclude. – .Raven  .talk 04:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC) I will happily withdraw or do whatever else is necessary to rectify my mistake. Dumuzid (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Would some uninvolved person please close this section, then? – .Raven  .talk 09:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Closed Combefere ★ Talk 16:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Prior BLPCRIME discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons For masochists dissatisfied with the brevity of this discussion, there's so much more to read! For your reference: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLPCRIME is useless There are 51 archived talk pages. I only looked at #40 to #51: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 51#BLPCRIME and naming suspects Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 50#Crimes committed by low profile individuals Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 49#BLPCRIME guidance needed Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 49#BLPCRIME revision Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48#RfC: Exception to BLPCRIME? Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48#Proposed clarification related to crime Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48#BLPCRIME Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 47#WP:BLPCRIME is ambiguous in the absence of a rule Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 46#Proposed change to "People accused of crime" Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#Interpretation of BLPCRIME Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#Is BLPCRIME requirement for conviction too restrictive? Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#RFC on BLPCRIME Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#What makes a person a public figure after the are suspected of committing a crime Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 44 - one talk archive without a BLPCRIME discussion! Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 43 - one BLPCRIME discussios that's not directly applicable here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 42 - several BLPCRIME discussions but not directly applicable here Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 41#What makes a person a public figure after the are suspected of committing a crime Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 40#WP:BLPCRIME The BLP noticeboard has many more; it's currently got 349 archive pages: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc To avoid breaking the discussion, I suggest continuing to add comments above this subsection. I just added these as further information. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC) I appreciate this, A. B. Yeah. I have followed (and I think?) taken part in more than one of these, and sought guidance elsewhere. I can say thus far it's still ambiguous to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"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 time
• 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)

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)

"Marine" capitalization

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

@PriusGod, see WP:MARINE:

-----

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

Correct: The soldiers landed on the beach.

Incorrect: John Doe is a Marine

-----

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

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

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

Quote in "Accused" section

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

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

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

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

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

Include Penny's version of events?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name inclusion (2)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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