Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Name inclusion

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Comp.arch There two main points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skynxnex, to answer your question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC "Name Inclusion, reopened" has not been closed

Resolved

@LoomCreek has now named Neely's assailant even though the active RfC has not been closed. The edit summary says, There is now overwhelming consensus 29 to 9, with arguments for exclusion largely focusing on a narrow interpretation of policy addressed by the inclusion side on several different points of policy. While I tend to agree with that argument, unless I grossly misunderstand procedure, RfC closures should only be done by uninvolved editors--particularly not by an editor in favor of their own !vote, and almost certainly not by the editor who opened it in the first place.

Several hours ago, I strongly suggested on their talk page that they self-revert, but was told to bring the discussion here. Xan747 (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify for the record. I did not formally close the discussion. You are allowed as an editor to make informal changes based on talk discussions. See WP:CLOSE.

If a shift in opinion happens it is open to be changed. However given the current overwhelming rough consensus, as is the standard, the article should represent that in the meantime.

With the final close decision happening sometime in the future, by someone else. -LoomCreek (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment was more helpful to me. In bold it says, If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Why have a formal process that can be informally closed is beyond me, but this is Wikipedia.

So, my apologies to you for suggesting that you had in any way violated policy because clearly you have not.

And no, you didn't formally close it, you implicitly did with you edit. I think a formal close by you, with the justification you used in your edit summary, would be good for the record and to take it off the backlog as a courtesy to RfC patrollers. Xan747 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC has not been closed as admins appear reluctant to overturn a decision by one of their own. With a very wide margin to include, why delay the inevitable? WWGB (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is wp:iar territory yet, @WWGB, nothing is on fire. -Xan747 (talk)

What rule has been "ignored"? Over 75% of the interested Wikipedia community favour inclusion of Penny's name. Formal closure of the RfC is just a formality. There's no rule that says we must wait for formal closure of a clear consensus. Justice delayed is justice denied. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on how formally the previous RfC was handled, I was under the mistaken impression that only formal third-party closures were accepted. Having now reviewed actual policy has put me right. If you really think justice served is being named on Wikipedia, I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the word. But other than that I think our view on why to name Penny is pretty much the same, so I will drop the stick now. Xan747 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries, glad it could be resolved. - LoomCreek (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Penny is not a serving marine

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once a marine, always a marine. You dont need to be a currently-serving marine to be addressed as a marine. Unless someone is dishonorably discharged, its not "ex marine", its "marine".

Also, its pretty sad to see how pages like this involve some of the most BS information in them, like how Daniel Penny supposedly choked Neely for 15-min, a statement that is patently false. The words of an eye witness are irrelevant to that matter, eye witness testimony is INCREDIBLY unreliable, ESPECIALLY when they try to determine how long an incident occurred. You can clearly see on video that it didnt last that long, and you can also see that Daniel rolled Neely over to his side to make sure he didnt choke while he was unconscious, which clearly shows that he had the well-being of Neely in mind. But it seems like the people that have edited this page only care about making Penny look as bad as possible, while simultaneously trying to make Neely look as innocent as possible (like using a 10-year-old photo of him). If we're going to talk about Penny being an "ex-marine", why tf then would people be acting like Neely was a "Michael Jackson impersonator", when he hadnt done that for years? XD3vlLx (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name him - I don't see why we wouldn't. His name is the most accurate and neutral word. The void century 22:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Policy discussion at BLP mentioning this article

There is an ongoing policy discussion at WP:BLP entitled Naming accused perpetrators of crimes debating the question of whether articles about high-profile criminal cases should name any known suspect(s) prior to conviction, especially when they are only known for their involvement with the event in question. This article is featured as one example of four fitting these criteria which either did not name the suspect(s) after being published by reliable sources, or not until after consensus to name was obtained by discussion. I will be copying this message to the other articles so that interested editors have an opportunity participate in the debate. Xan747 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

House Resolution 448

I've been told to seek consensus before making changes to this article, so here goes. Should the section on reactions and protests refer to House Resolution 448, a bill in the House of Representatives to recognise and honor Daniel Penny for his "courage in apprehending a threat to public safety"? A proposed congressional resolution about the case seems relevant and noteworthy. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Truecrimefan22, I agree that the proposed resolution is relevant and noteworthy. However, the only secondary source you gave is Fox. There is strong consensus on this page (see the archives) that Fox should not be cited in this article for factual reporting due the politicized nature of this event--not even for attributed opinion, which WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS says is acceptable. Your other two sources were primary and shouldn't be used on their own without RS to interpret and establish notability.

In this case I could !vote for a weak include on the basis of citations given because the primary sources validate the Fox story. But knowing the past consensus, I would not do so without the support of other editors. For the record, here is the edit of yours that I reverted, with the citations, so everyone is clear what you propose:

On May 25, Republican politician Andy Ogles proposed House Resolution 448 in the United States House of Representatives to "recognize and honor Daniel Penny...for his heroism and courage in apprehending a threat to public safety". The resolution was supported by Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republican representatives. The text of House Resolution 448 made reference to Neely's arrest record and stated that descriptions of Penny as a vigilante and white supremacist "[had] no basis in fact". Neely's death was not referred to in the resolution.

References

Xan747 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also this source, which while from local news isn't Fox and would likely be considered reliable. This should probably be included. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Elli, good find. I forgot to mention that I searched for other sources before I reverted and didn't find any. This puts me in the "solid include" camp. I'll add back the content but change the citation accordingly. Xan747 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok here is my edit: On May 25, Republican politician Andy Ogles proposed House Resolution 448 in the United States House of Representatives to "recognize and honor Daniel Penny...for his heroism and courage in apprehending a threat to public safety". The resolution was supported by Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republican representatives. The text of the resolution made reference to Neely's arrest record. On the same day, Ogles wrote on Twitter, "In Democrat-run cities across the nation, crime is rampant, and the desperate cry for order is loud. Rather than take action to protect everyday citizens, Leftist government leaders prioritize political agendas over justice." Tennessee State Rep. Gloria Johnson responded to the resolution on Twitter, saying, "Maga republicans sure love criminals." I removed some text that was supported by the Fox story, but not in the WSMV-TV source, and added the two tweets. Xan747 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747 Which content was not supported by this WSMV-TV report? The "no foundation in fact" comment is the only part I can see that you've removed, and it is included in the article (the resolution's full text being shown at the bottom). Truecrimefan22 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That one, and "Neely's death was not referred to in the resolution." I have been warned a few times on this talk page about WP:SYNTH and "cherry-picking" statements found in WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. One editor went so far as to completely remove a primary source citation linked to by a secondary RS, which irked me because as a reader of Wikipedia articles, I *want* to be able to examine the ultimate source material when it is readily available so I can form my own conclusions. /rant

TL;DR: I'm cautious about quoting pieces of a primary source not quoted by a secondary RS. And I've learned to absolutely never interpret a primary source. If you want to restore some content only found in the text of the resolution itself, I won't stand in your way--just be warned it might be challenged. Xan747 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)