Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for creating the article, I have reviewed it. I encourage you to write more articles! Have a good day today!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. per WP:SNOW (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 08:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Death of Jordan Neely → Killing of Jordan Neely – It has already been ruled a homicide, several reliable sources call it a killing (e.g., [1], [2], [3], etc.), and the article clearly mentions Jordan being killed. This is usually the norm followed in similar articles at this stage of the investigation, when it has been established as a killing but not necessarily as a murder, e.g., for Eric Garner. (See also this discussion.) Bubka42 (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Support It is an objective truth (the medical examiner's office has confirmed that it was a homicide), so it would be a more accurate article's title. Salvabl (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Support It's extrajudicial and has already been ruled a homicide. The evidence that it's a killing is also overwhelming with footage of the incident. LoomCreek (talk) 01:28, 5 May 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.

Background section?

I think it may be worth adding a short background section to this article. For example, the NY Times mentions that this occurred amid a trend of rising perceptions of crime in the New York City Subway. Also, there are plenty of sources about how the number of homeless subway riders increased significantly in the run-up to Neely's death. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius Only one the sources you used mentions rising numbers of homeless subway riders and it's a quote from resident rather then a claim of the paper.
However I think a background on it would be inappropriate. It would be inviting biased framing.
In my opinion the response section can cover people opinions. Whether it be criticisms towards Mayor adam for increased subway patrols and criminalization of homelessness by AOC, or Adams criticism of AOC. LoomCreek (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was also thinking about the death of Michelle Go when I was writing this comment, but that article doesn't contain background info on homelessness/crime in the subway, either. So I'll leave this be. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Epicgenius Okay sounds good LoomCreek (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the nation in which the incident occurred be somewhere in the lead paragraph?

Should the nation in which the incident occurred be somewhere in the lead paragraph? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 Previously this type of edit has been reverted by someone else. I think a couple days ago?
Since its implied where they are based on the location and citizen status is not relevant to the case per WP:Undue. Hopefully that clears things up. I understand it was in good faith, it's just the identifier isn't necessary and hasn't been the focus of reputable sources either. LoomCreek (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Penny statement

An exceedingly widely-covered part of Penny's statement, through his attorneys, was edited out here, with the summary "this is not an 'explanation,' it's the basis of a future legal argument which we do not need to amplify here".

That's personal opinion—the fact is that Penny's sole statement since the event is obviously WP:DUE and the excised part of it has been covered by innumerate media, including, to name just a few, The New York Times, Newsweek, Gothamist, NBC, and NY1.

Further, I fail to understand the concern about "amplifying" what may or may not be a "future legal argument"—much of what is discussed in the article falls under that rubric, and, even were it to eventually be the case, I'm unaware of any articulable reason that such a potential "future argument" ought not be included in our encyclopedia.

Although I disagree that there's any issue with describing Penny's statement as an "explanation" for his actions—it seems to me obvious that this is exactly what it is—in the interests of consensus, I have removed the term but restored the rest of the material here.

Thanks, and look forward to discussion here! ElleTheBelle 14:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Public officials" section includes people who aren't

Neither "Jawanza Williams, a director of Voices Of Community Activists & Leaders" nor "community activist Johnny Grima" are "public officials" in even the most expansive definition of the term. In addition, I fail to see what their quoted statements add to the article or a reader's understanding of its subject. For those reasons, I propose removing them.

Thanks! ElleTheBelle 17:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ekpyros I don't support the removal. Its notable as it's quotes from the Guardian and adds context for community responses to the killing. I've changed the subheader to include them. LoomCreek (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I disagree—it seems odd to include random citizens along with public officials—and would like more input for others. That said—if you want to open it up to the reaction of not-particularly-notable locals, it might also be worth including some with different perspectives. In the meantime, I've made an edit to include the fact that "community activist Johnny Grima" was in fact on the train with Neely during part of the event, and can be seen and heard on some of the most widely circulated video. It seems dicey, at best, to leave that bit out, no? ElleTheBelle 00:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ekpyros I mean reputable sources thought they were prominent/relevant enough. That's my view. LoomCreek (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ekpyros In other words I see no basis to remove those sections. Nor give WP:Undue to other perspectives. LoomCreek (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I've added a bit about the widely reported divide in public opinion here, citing the NYT and Daily News. As I've made clear, I think it's a mistake to include broader public opinion in a section that was originally about "Public officials"—but I trust you'll agree that if there is to be information about the larger "community" response, then it's vital that we accurately represent the broader picture. I hope it goes without saying that to only include the views and statements of those who assert that Neely was "murdered" and want to see Penny prosecuted would be an obvious failure to provide WP:NPOV. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 16:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ekpyros WelI I think the majority of people probably see this as an unjust killing? But I could be wrong. I don't know if that is represented fairly in newspapers, not out of malice obviously but just because different opinions make good article pieces.
So I worry about providing WP:Undue to other community opinions. Since there are no present polls as far as I'm aware. But we should probably ask the broader editors to get a better idea. LoomCreek (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting sentences

This has become a high-profile case receiving North-American media attetnion. To me, these two sentences are inconsistent:

(introductory section) “According to witnesses, Neely was acting in a 'hostile and erratic' manner, and yelled that he was hungry and thirsty, and that he would hurt anyone on the train.”

(Incident section) “No violence or direct threats [by Neely] were reported." (no direct threats)

I've added the italics and brackets to indicate the portions offering different accounts of facts.Joel Russ (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That seems to have been resolved. But it seems clear that police investigators reported Neely was threatening passengers on the train prior to the incident. And I'm unaware of any evidence that those initial reports have been directly contradicted, let alone disproven or retracted. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 16:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Throwing garbage

I'm pretty sure Neely threw garbage at passengers. There are many articles which say this. Even the police said this. It should be added so as to not make one side seem more in the right. Throwing things at people is illegal, and threatening, so I think it should be added. Bingus46 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could direct us towards the articles that say this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/jordan-neely-everything-to-know-subway-death-new-york
https://abc7ny.com/subway-death-chokehold-jordan-neely-nyc/13214440/
https://nypost.com/2023/05/05/nyc-subway-choke-victim-jordan-neely-was-medicating-with-k2/
https://www.okayplayer.com/news/jordan-neely-subway-choking.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/jordan-neely-chokehold-death-legal-expert-anna-cominsky-whats-next/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12045021/Eric-Adams-starts-war-words-AOC-Jordan-Neely-death.html
https://www.rawstory.com/daniel-penny/
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-f-train-quarrel-argument-dispute-subway-train-northbound-fight-20230502-gykvrqgwszbhnell4qhpvehv34-story.html?ref=foreverwars.ghost.io
You can just type it in and a very large amount of articles come up with it. Bingus46 (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
That seems abundantly clear—it's in the lead and I've just edited it slightly to remove the redundant and weaselly "some" and to make clear the contrast with the journalist's reported claim that no one was "physically attacked" by Neely (it may also be worth noting that he admitted he didn't actually see Penny put Neely in a chokehold). Thanks! ElleTheBelle 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Johnny Grima's personal opinions

@LoomCreek: You have been edit warring to include the following: {{quote|In an interview with the The Guardian, Johnny Grima a witnesses & formerly homeless activist stated, "Jordan Neely to [the police] is a piece of garbage. And it's fucking sad 'cause he isn't a piece of garbage. Had it been a white woman that was choked for 15 minutes, [the assailant] probably would've been arrested on sight." in reference to Penny's release.[1]

References

  1. ^ Rios, Edwin. "Jordan Neely killing: lack of arrest highlights racial disparities in charging". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 May 2023.

Grima is not notable. He just happened to be in that subway car when this unfortunate incident happened, but that in itself does not make his personal opinions encyclopedic. Please explain why the personal opinions of this non-notable subway rider so desperately need inclusion in this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 how is it edit warring to revert it once?????? LoomCreek (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 I will say once again, to be more careful with your accusations LoomCreek (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@LoomCreek: Why do the personal opinions of a non-notable subway rider need inclusion in this article? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 It's about the arrest. It's directly linked to actually events. The comment is about (as an opinion of the person) that if it was someone else, say a white person. The chokehold would've been stopped earlier. LoomCreek (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 As someone who didn't make the initial addition I'm not sure why "[the police]" is added in because I don't really know if it's clear from the quote. A more appropriate inclusion would probably be "[to others]" LoomCreek (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I've since changed it to just use the full quote instead of replacing 'them' with '[the police]'. But regardless the opinion would absolutely be relevant to the arrest/lack there of, as a witness regardless of how charged it may be. Because that opinion is about all the events leading up to it (which they were witness to), not just after. LoomCreek (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@LoomCreek: Just because Johnny Grima—an otherwise-random passenger—just happened to be riding in the same subway car, does not magically elevate his personal opinions about this event to encyclopedic status, deserving of inclusion alongside the mayor and other notable officials. WP:GEVAL states:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

Will you consider reverting your edit and removing this entire quote? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 I mean I wouldn't describe it a radical or fringe view that homeless people and black people are less protected in society and that probably played a role in the lack of an arrest?
I really don't know why you think that's controversial. LoomCreek (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 You also removed Al Sharpton, who is a very notable public figure. What I've largely noticed is the removals from you of quotes critical of the response. Rather then on any principal of noteworthiness, (which again I think this meets). LoomCreek (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Being notable, and having an opinion, are not unique to Al Sharpton, and not everyone who have those two things automatically get their opinion added to an article. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 In addition you removed sections of statement of public officials such as AOC that were critical of New York Mayor Adams. Which seems fairly relevant to the case since they are the mayor of the city. In other words potentially slanted editing and removal. LoomCreek (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't remove a word about AOC. Read my edit summaries. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed with Magnolia667 on this one. Grima isn't notable himself, and unless there's rather more coverage of his views than just being quoted in the Guardian in an article which quotes the opinions of a bunch of different people (as an aside, it doesn't look to me as though the source supports the claim that the quote comes from "an interview with the Guardian") I don't see how it merits inclusion. We shouldn't just quote everyone whose opinion on the event has been mentioned in a newspaper. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Also agree with Magnolia667; WP:UNDUE to include that much commentary from a non-notable individual. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Also agree that Grima's thoughts are not noteworthy. He is not speaking in any official capacity, and is just one of many riders on the same subway car. WWGB (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
What about Al Sharpton, then? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Sharpton is is an American civil rights and social justice activist, Baptist minister, politician, radio talk show host, TV personality, and the founder of the National Action Network civil rights organization. I think he has more credibility than Grima. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@WWGB and Magnolia677: Then can this removal of Sharpton's comments please be reversed, and included back into the article again? Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree with LoomCreek. This is how the New Yorker describes Grima: "Last year, after Mayor Eric Adams stepped up sweeps of homeless encampments in New York, Johnny Grima became one of the most visible homeless activists in the city."[1] CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lach, Erich. "An Eyewitness to Jordan Neely's Death". New Yorker. Retrieved 9 May 2023.
I'm leaning include here - while the opinions of advocates for the homeless may not be notable enough for a separate article in their own right, they are ultimately relevant to the situation, especially in that so much of the public conversation (even among individuals who have their own articles, to which standards of notability actually apply) is about homelessness. It is not a fringe theory to think that Neely was killed because of the presumption that homeless = dangerous. There's definitely something to be said about the WP:BALANCE of the reactions and protests section, but to dismiss out of hand the opinions of the people with the most complete understanding of the situation simply because they haven't earned a Wikipedia article seems shortsighted. PriusGod (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but are the views of Johnny Grima relevant? Does anyone apart from the Guardian article which is the source of that quote include his views rather than just his eyewitness account? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, I note that the article already quotes AOC as explicitly discussing the killing in relation to Neely's homelessness, and other politicians discussing the stigmatisation of poverty, Neely's mental ilness, and race as contributing to the failure to prosecute the killer. It's not as though the views Grima expresses are not represented in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I would go so far as to say that Grima's position is more relevant than those of some of the politicians quoted in the article, given his prominence as a local activist and the fact that he was a direct witness to the event. The above cited New Yorker article gives different quotes from Grima that also express his opinion on it, as well as this Villager article. Grima also has been interviewed by the NYT and the New Yorker in the past about his homeless activism - he isn't some random person off the street. I will say I'm not married to the specific inclusion of any particular quote from any particular activist, just that opinions expressed by the people doing work on the ground wrt the subject may be more representative of public views than even people who are more notable. PriusGod (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Add to MJ impersonator article?

I’m writing here as this article is seen by more. Should Jordan Neely be added to the list of well-known Michael Jackson impersonators? He’s probably the globally most well-known MJ impersonator by now (tragically not because of his art, but still…) 85.81.1.247 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

He has already been added to Category:Michael Jackson impersonators. That is sufficient. He is noteworthy for the manner of his death, not his impersonation. WWGB (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
OK. Someone did add him to the article, though… 128.77.131.222 (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Homeless activist" Johnny Grima's involvement — need to get details correct

The actions and views of Johnny Grima, a "homeless activist" have now been included in a couple places in the article. This piece in The New Yorker seems to be pretty comprehensive and should help clarify a few things. From what I can glean, at least some of what's in the current article is erroneous—for example, I don't believe Grima is "homeless" today. My best, but of course limited understanding is that:

I don't pretend to have the full picture, but it definitely seems worth getting the details right—and there's no question that there's something unusual and perhaps notable about a formerly homeless "homeless activist" inserting himself into the Neely situation and then giving a series of interviews to press.

Thanks! ElleTheBelle 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ekpyros Important aspect to note "supportive housing facility" often in the US just means shelter. Which typically only allow overnight stays, and kick them back out in the morning, rinse and repeat.
In other words depending on what that means Grima is likely still very much homeless. LoomCreek (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm quite sure you're incorrect about this. I happen to have quite a bit of personal knowledge about supportive housing for homeless in NYC, and it's far more likely that the term refers to a longer-term arrangement, possibly permanent housing. But, in case you didn't actually read the article in The New Yorker, it clearly states at the beginning that Grimes has (emphasis mine) "secured an apartment in a supportive-housing facility, where he has lived since." That's not a "homeless shelter" by any accepted definition of the term. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 16:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ekpyros Ah okay. I suppose this is an exception then. I don't have knowledge about NYC specifically more so in general.
And no most articles I've read are NYT or others but not the New Yorker article. LoomCreek (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ekpyros Also no I don't find it unusual for someone who is formerly homeless to care about a homeless person being killed. Especially since Johnny Grima was homeless until last year https://www.amny.com/news/street-sweep-showdown-east-village-homeless-encampment-continues-battle-as-city-looks-to-clear-them-out-again/. LoomCreek (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't suggesting it was unusual for Grimes "to care". I was simply questioning the inclusion of reactions from random members of the public along with those of officials—it strikes me that "official responses" and "public reaction" would be better as separate sections. Thanks! ElleTheBelle 13:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
The opinions--opinions--of non-notable members of the public like Johnny Grima are irrelevant, per WP:VNOT. The comments Grima made during the incident are relevant, and have been moved to the appropriate section; Grima's opinions about the police or the price of eggs are irrelevant and have no place in this article. Cherrypicking biased comments from random members of the public is unencyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 He is witness? The opinions of someone who was there is absolutely relevant. Also I was not the one to add Grima to the Wikipedia.
Nonetheless It is absolutely relevant. You cite WP:VNOT but that's not why it's included. A witness viewpoint on whether an event is brutal or not remains completely.
Also you've made vast controversial edits/removals without consulting anyone on the talk pages which seems frankly disruptive. LoomCreek (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
See WP:BOLD. WWGB (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@WWGB I understand be bold, but we already were discussing the very issue on the talk page. That they were well aware of. They also made a frankly inappropriate accusation on my talk page right before their edits. LoomCreek (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
If he is a witness, then his observations of the event are relevant. Aside from that, his opinion about anything else--including his feelings about the police, or the price of eggs--is irrelevant and unencyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@LoomCreek It's kind've sad how blind you are to your own confirmation biases. You really shouldn't be involved with Wikipedia with a mindset like yours, it somewhat defeats the purpose. 2601:1C2:F81:530:6432:F6BB:376B:8416 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@2601:1C2:F81:530:6432:F6BB:376B:8416 Given the inflammatory remarks in Talk:Race in lead I have trouble believing this is in good faith. I hope you have a nice rest of your day. LoomCreek (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Mayor's Response

The response and messaging Eric Adams has used in the aftermath of the killing currently feels incompletely paraphrased. It warrants mention that Adams held a May 10 press conference calling for passage of the Supportive Interventions Act (a bill that strengthens Kendra's Law and other legal mechanisms for involuntary institutionalization), and that on May 4th he stated "we cannot blankelty tell passengers what they should or should not do" when asked by CNN's Abby Phillip about the issue of vigilantism. May 4 Interview: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/us/new-york-subway-chokehold-death/index.html May 10 Pressrr: https://www.youtube.com/live/tXjJqzuyE1s TheMiddleWest (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheMiddleWest I thinks it'd be perfectly fine even non-controversial to include that information, as long as relevant reputable sources are included.
I would say feel free to add it, although others may disagree with me.
As a note see WP:Bold. For something like this that is a minor addition, presumably a few paragraphs at most. Rather then a broad deletion or structural change. A talk pages is not always necessary. Since it's chance of being disruptive/not easily reversible is slim. Although the courtesy is certainly always appreciated
Thanks, LoomCreek (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding a possible image in the infobox/lead

According to Template:Infobox event, the "image=" is for "Name of the image of the event". The picture showing him over a decade earlier (as a dancer, MJ impersonator), isn't about or an image "of the event". I have no source saying he was dancing in the train for the people in the train during the event that day; in fact from elsewhere he wasn't dancing for a decade (that might be wrong info). So the picture is WP:NPOV. The only possible picture I see valid there if from that day, or at least recent. So I'm reinstating my move of it. comp.arch (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Comp.arch I really don't understand how a picture of a person can be considered NPOV. They are the central focus of this event. And it remains the only photo we have of him that can be used as either of public domain or the exceedingly rare cases where fair use is permitted in Wikipedia LoomCreek (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I can support e.g. a picture from https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-trump-organization-prosecutor-heading-jordan-neely-probe-subway-20230505-a3wwhvev2zg3xnv5a6be6sehci-story.html the one on the right with the caption "Video footage shows a former U.S. Marine putting Jordan Neely in a chokehold while aboard a New York City subway, as it pulls into the Broadway-Lafayette St. station in Manhattan on Monday, May 1, 2023. (Juan Alberto Vazquez/Juan Vazquez)". The video footage is already linked from the page. I don't know if ok to take that photo from that news page. It seems fair use, or to extract a photo from the video. The "picture of a person" is the person in the event, yes, but from 2011. A lot of news coverage makes a deal of it, since he was a MJ impersonator. "Dancing" shouldn't be in the caption of the image used. It's not what he was doing during "the event". It seems better to have no picture than the wrong picture, e.g. the picture I just moved (to main text where it's more relevant). comp.arch (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Comp.arch Fair use guidelines are very strict when comes to Wikipedia. Typically it's preferred to have one at most in an article in the rare cases where it's an important topic. For this you would also have to go through a specific Wikimedia process.
The focus is the death of Jordan Neely which necessarily means focusing on Jordan Neely. That's not violating WP:NPOV.
Again I don't know what to tell if you think that showing a picture that shows they were a real person that died is WP:NPOV. Whether or not the death was justified has no relation to it being a tragedy, even the person's attorneys acknowledges it. LoomCreek (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an odd statement: "The focus is the death of Jordan Neely which necessarily means focusing on Jordan Neely". While that's somewhat true, by definition this isn't a biography but an article about an event—and so it's more true that the focus should be on the death of Jordan Neely than on Neely, writ large. A photo taken as close as possible to the time of his death, and showing as much of the circumstances of his death as possible obviously gives the best context—and is far preferable to one of him a decade prior. ElleTheBelle 14:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Comp.arch I think until an adequate substitute closer to the day, before the chokehold, is found It absolutely should remain there. If a picture of the person who died is considered WP:NPOV I don't really know what to tell you. LoomCreek (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Why "closer to the day, before the chokehold"? I mean why not the actual chokehold that killed him, it seems? comp.arch (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I would argue no to the chokehold per MOS:SHOCK, but it's certainly a judgment call on which people might differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, my preferences, in that order:
A. [I.e. until agreement on a picture] "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the top", note also "The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there."
B. "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or [..]—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
For some topics, selecting the lead image can be difficult. While Wikipedia is not censored, lead images should be selected with care".
C. "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" [..] MOS:SHOCK "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred." The man was killed, I think that is always shocking, so a picture fitting that isn't inappropriate. It could be the least shocking of that day.
I looked at to compare Murder_of_George_Floyd, but from an earlier time-point before conviction, when it stated "killed" there, like here, and it's the same picture as currently there, and similar short description "May 2020 police killing of an unarmed man". Note the picture for George Floyd is totally different. comp.arch (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Comp.arch Mainly copyright, I think we only have one set of footage at the moment. LoomCreek (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Also yes MOS:SHOCK, it just seems unnecessary LoomCreek (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the most convenient thing to do is to add an picture showing the chokehold because the title of this article is "Killing of Jordan Neely", but choosing one not too shocking (it is plenty of pictures of different moments of the chokehold). If we go to the article Murder of George Floyd we can see a more shocking picture than this case.
Regarding copyright, correct me if I am wrong, but I think "fair use" can be applied to illustrate this event that is already part of New York City's history. Salvabl (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Salvabl Yes fair use can apply its just restrictive in terms of Wikipedia. There is a process in other words and I'm not sure where that boundary is for Wikipedia in this case. Basically Wikipedia holds more restrictive boundaries then what is legally fair use out of caution.
Again I also oppose it on the basis of the SHOCK guidelines. LoomCreek (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
We're allowed to use a picture of an event to illustrate an article on that event. If there aren't any videos available under an appropriate free license, then fair use would be fine here. Also MOS:SHOCK doesn't beat out WP:UNCENSORED; a picture of someone in a chokehold is not particularly graphic and isn't at all shocking for an article such as this. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Murder of George Floyd has such a photo in the infobox. WWGB (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. This is a very comparable situation. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Elli I know its certainly always up to editor consensus. I just have a difference of opinion for this case. I think the link to external video is sufficient if that makes sense. And for that reason mention MOS:SHOCK.
I believe a photo of Jordan Neely when they're not in a chokehold would be the best option for the infobox header. LoomCreek (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
And also just to be clear I will respect the consensus as always LoomCreek (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
If this were an article about Jordan Neely, then your argument would apply (obviously we shouldn't use a photo of someone being killed as their infobox picture). However, this is an article about Jordan Neely being killed, so using a picture of that event is relevant and not shocking at all. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, clearly true. This isn't a biography, but rather an article about a specific event. Showing photos of Neely break-dancing moonwalking [edited to correct wrong dance term and to avoid offending anyone, per below] and Penny having medals pinned to his chest would tell us very little about the subject of the article. ElleTheBelle 14:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ekpyros Sorry breakdancing?
What is this continual mention about that, it seems inappropriate to what is a very serious subject.
If your referring to him to being a Michael Jackson impersonator, neither have every break danced or been break dancers. And your mention of it seems like a frankly racist stereotype of black dancers. That might not have been your intention but please be more careful with your future comments. LoomCreek (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry—I meant "moonwalking"! Not my area of expertise. And obviously it was a hypothetical—see the "would"—but I wholeheartedly apologize if accidentally mentioning the wrong dance move offended anyone. That was the furthest thing from my intent, which is nothing more than the improvement of our article. Thanks for your understanding! ElleTheBelle 15:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ekpyros There's a history around mentioning breakdancing in certain contexts, that come off as derogatory. Which is why I felt the need to mention. I assume your acting on good will, just keep it in mind. I appreciate the change. LoomCreek (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
You're more than welcome. It would be hard to find a topic about which I know less than dance moves! ElleTheBelle 15:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
A picture of him in a chokehold seems very warranted now that Penny will be charged. The other discussion about race will then be moot since skin color (of both) will be very obvious. I'm ok with it then skipped since obvious (and not relevant). I don't care much if it stays, since it then will be obvious anyway. I feel (homeless and) mental illness should stay in the lead since it seems to explain throwing garbage. I realize Penny is innocent until found guilty, but WP isn't a court, and he admitted to killing ("never intended to harm"; did not admit culpability) so I don't see his part should be censored. comp.arch (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The relevance of skin color?

I don't want to come off as an awful human being, so please don't misinterpret what I'm asking as a racist question, I'm only requesting information, as I'm relatively new on certain Wikipedia policy. Why is Neely's and the killer's skin color specified? This isn't done for every killing, and as far as I'm aware, his skin color hasn't been confirmed as a reason he was placed in the choke hold. We could guess that the killer had prejudice, but without the full story, it would just be speculation. I'm not requesting a change be made, I'm simply wondering if someone could let me know if there's a policy involved. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

If you take the time to review the "Reactions and protests" section, you'll see that race is frequently discussed in numerous sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
oh yes, sorry, that makes sense. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
It's relevant enough to be included in the article, but not the lead & certainly not its first sentence. Including Neely & Penny's races in the lead strongly implies a racial motive, which there's no evidence of. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about motive, but it does help identify issues related to class & socio-economic status. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
In that case we should include race related information on every single page about a killing, but we don't. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, it is often mentioned, even in articles about the killing of a black man who was beat to death by black cops. Maybe there needs to be better policy to help inform more consistent editing practices regarding race and ethnicity etc? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
We usually don't include the races of those involved in the lead unless there's a racial motive. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion It's frequently mentioned by reputable sources. And under the assumption of no racial motive, it remains a relevant context to the discussion around the topic and the immediate response after the killing. Since a frequent topic is the lack of an initial arrest. To pretend otherwise I think is flippant, we don't live in a 'colorblind' world. LoomCreek (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It comes off as very unusual to me that the article currently alternates between referencing skin color and ethnicity. Should be "African American" and "Caucasian" instead of "African American" and "White" 165.166.140.210 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Race in the lead

This was discussed a bit above, but I think specificity will assist us here. Jim Michael 2 and LoomCreek have gone back and forth (not in an edit warring way, to be clear) on whether the races of the participants belong in the first sentence. I will put my cards on the table; personally, I think race was absolutely a factor here, but I don't know that I see it enough in the sources to justify its inclusion so prominently. LoomCreek, maybe you could provide some examples? Dumuzid (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, the Killing of Rayshard Brooks is a reasonable example of this. (which as a disclosure I've edited ocassionally, but not to include the race thats been there unchallenged since it's inception 3 years ago) LoomCreek (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It being in the lead implies a racial motive, which has not been confirmed. I'm not familiar with that case of Brooks, but if there was no racial motive in that case, it should be removed as well, but that's beside the point. Should we include the race of everyone involved, in the lead for every article on a killing? LukFromTheWiki (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
It been there entirely uncontested for three years over a hundred some editors. It is absolutely relevant in the context of police brutality, which many reputable studies have shown to be more likely the victims of police violence and death despite making a small portion of the population. As a reminder this isn't a colorblind world and to pretend so is facetious. LoomCreek (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I think all that including race in the beginning does is support confirmation bias. A lot of people in our society will immediately play the racism card when it comes to a white person killing a black person. Whether you believe it's relevant to be included in the lead or not, it's apparent that it does at least somewhat imply a racial motive. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Racism card? LoomCreek (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, that wording was a bit strange. What I mean, is so many people will immediately blame racism as the motive, when this isn't often the case. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I know what it means, I'm just frankly shocked by it. LoomCreek (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Have I said something inappropriate? That wasn't my intention. I can see this conversation isn't appropriate to have here, so I'll stop having it. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
As an answer to second questions, its obviously context dependent. There is no hard rule when it should and shouldn't. Nor should there be.
But as a general rule of thumb if the possibility exists for it have had an effect either on:
a) the killing happening (racial motivation or possibility of it)
b) responses to the killing (by the legal systems, broader public, or whether there were attempts to stop the killing)
It should generally be included. Coincidentally this rule of thumb typically also aligns whether reputable sources discuss race as a factor. LoomCreek (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Also I think there are several reasons to include it. As I said above, "...under the assumption of no racial motive, it remains a relevant context to the discussion [by the broader public] around the topic and the immediate response after the killing. Since a frequent topic is the lack of an initial arrest. To pretend otherwise I think is flippant, we don't live in a 'colorblind' world." LoomCreek (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I completely agree with what you say here, and it absolutely has to be mentioned in the article. I just don't see it nearly so front-and-center in the reliable sources, but it's entirely possible I have missed it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I mean this in the kindest way possible, but its kind of the center of the entire discussion, isn't it?
There was massive uproar in terms of black lives matter, police response and homelessness' disproportionate effect on black Americans. Its like the entire reason it became such a big story in the first place, a black American was killed (in the medical sense, not as opinion) on a public subway car without any arrest. I think there is no way to ignore race upfront, without it being partially dishonest (even if not intentionally.) LoomCreek (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Again, I completely agree. But I am not seeing it presented that way in reliable sources (which might well be a failing on their part). At this point, I guess I would appreciate anyone else's thoughts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
In terms of sources, here are some discussing it.
Black Americans say white vigilantism played a role in Jordan Neely’s homicide
Jordan Neely’s cry for help should not have been his death sentence
How Jordan Neely’s subway killing has divided New York City
Some of the very first sentences mention race. LoomCreek (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The first two absolutely back up your point and the Vox piece a bit, but not as much. Thanks for those. Dumuzid (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I mean the second paragraph of the Vox article directly says "Neely, a 30-year-old Black homeless man known to New Yorkers for his impersonations of Michael Jackson, was put in a chokehold by another passenger, 24-year-old Daniel Penny, a white Marine veteran from Long Island." LoomCreek (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. Dumuzid (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
As a second aspect the Vox article also has a discussion about the challenges black men face living in America in terms of their treatment and how that relates to Jordan Neely. But even for articles without explicit explorations of the factors race could've played. Pretty much all of them at least mention it, acknowledging it's important to mention. LoomCreek (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Including race in the first sentence strongly implies that race was central to the killing, for which there's no evidence, despite some people & orgs claiming it to be. There's also no evidence that Penny wasn't arrested due to him being white. The racial focus of the protesters & some of the media coverage are relevant, but not enough to be in the lead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I can see this argument, and while all the factors surrounding any event are extremely complex, I do think it's quite difficult if not impossible to untangle race as being a compounding element to all of this. If not directly in relation to the killing, then in the multitude of life events leading up to this moment, especially perhaps in the case of Neely, who may not have received the care he needed for various socio-economic reasons.
The opening paragraphs do not state that this was a hate crime, and mentioning race is a fact and also perhaps a factor. How strongly this is implied is somewhat up to the reader to decide, but we are not using wikivoice to make any assumptions about motive or motivation, nor should we. I don't think mentioning race should be taboo, and as long as we aren't stating that it was a central element in the killing, then I don't think we are leading anyone down a wrong path or wrong understanding of what happened on that day.
How readers interpret the mention of race will widely vary, but the fact is that we don't live in a colorblind society. I'm not sure how to strike a balance here, but I do see the omission of race from the leading paragraphs as highly problematic. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Implying a racial motive for Penny is far more problematic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Stating the facts about race/ethnicity does not imply this was a hate crime. That's apparently your interpretation of race being mentioned in the lead? Or is an expression of concern that it would be interpreted as such by others? Reliable sources don't shy away from mentioning race very early on in their articles which cover the story, which is simply a factual retelling of the situation, not an implication of racial motive. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@LoomCreek Quit projecting your own racist views onto everyone in the world. 2601:1C2:F81:530:6432:F6BB:376B:8416 (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@2601:1C2:F81:530:6432:F6BB:376B:8416 Please refrain from WP:Aspersions or baseless accusations. It's contradicts all the principles of Wikipedia and is disruptive.
If you're upset with the consensus that race should be included within the lead, say that instead.
I'll maintain politeness but won't entertain bad faith. In the case further disruption it might be necessary to contact an administrator. LoomCreek (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Neely's race is mentioned by virtually every source linked in the article. It should be included. See WP:DUE. Combefere ★ Talk 16:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is arguing for non-inclusion. The only question is whether it belongs in the first sentence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Yup, I meant included in the lead -- similar to the other details mentioned by virtually every RS (Neely's name, the fact that he was homeless, the date of the incident, the cause of death, and the location). Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 17:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, race has been discussed by international sources as a fact of the matter (a factual telling of the events which also involves the identities of these individuals). Detailing this in the opening paragraphs does not imply this was a hate crime of any sort, these are just the facts and should be presented as such. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Just an opinion here, without race being a proven factor in a court of law, as being a reason for the crime, it seems irresponsible to have it in the article and as of right now Daniel Penny is being charged with second degree manslaughter, not a hate crime. We are in a hyper racialized society in America, due to a myriad of factors, and labeling races for every incident of a crime being committed against someone (almost always when a white person is a perpetrator and a black person is a victim), helps contribute to racism. If Daniel Penny was charged with a hate crime for example I would support the races being labeled in the article. But right now it seems unnecessary, I mean we don't include the races of people involved in crimes if the perpetrator is black, and the victim white, so Wikipedia editors could possibly be acting in bad faith and a racist manner with that respect either knowingly or unknowingly. Also I would like to add that there are videos and photos of 3 people holding down Jordan Heely including Daniel Penny, so there's more to the story than what's being told and it is likely to continue developing. Completely Random Guy (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Completely Random Guy I mean hopefully I don't have to explain the structural aspects of racism? There is no evidence to support ' reverse racism's ' existence. White people don't face structural barriers on the basis of their race. Its silly to even entertain that.
You acknowledged we live in 'hyper-racialized'/racist society. We don't live in a colorblind world.
It doesn't have to be racially motivated for race to have effects, before or after. Media response, the fact black Americans or more likely to be homeless due to socioeconomic status, etc. To say that acknowledging the race of the people involved somehow contributes to racism is ridiculous on its face. LoomCreek (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello! @LoomCreek, It's best not to talk as if your a teacher, here to teach, and I or other editors are students, here to learn from you. We are a community of like minded people united simply in trying to inform the world. We are an encyclopedia. I would just like to respond to your belief in structural racism, by saying that I agree, different groups face different advantages and disadvantages. However, we live in a society of redefinement; what I mean by that is that definitions are constantly changing. The definition of racism according to the Oxford dictionary: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." To say one group can't face racism, is in fact racism. I have heard your definition of racism before, not in any dictionary, but by left-leaning ideologues in positions of power, mostly in educational institutions. Circling back to "redefinement", the first time I think I ever heard your definition of racism, was by one of my high school English teachers. That being the definition of racism as being based solely on power. I will agree with you that it can be based on power, however I will have to disagree that it can only go one way. As a victim of racism myself, as well as my mother who works in a mostly black institution, where she has been held at the same level for over 30 years, while people who don't look like her go on multiple vacations a year, don't show up to work, inwardly promote themselves, give themselves raises (but not her) and make racist comments towards here, I believe evidence can support your definition of racism as being based on power, but can rebuff your belief that it can only go one way. But getting back to the topic at hand, this doesn't seem to relate to what were talking about here, which is a civilian killing another civilian, on a NYC train. Looking at it from your angle, would be seeing it as, an institution placed Jordan on a train, and an institution had Daniel Penny kill him. That's a very narrow way of looking at it. I believe it is still too early to see if it was race based, as we speak Daniel Penny has plead not guilty to second degree manslaughter, so the case will develop. What we have to establish before making it a racial issue, is if there was any racial aspect in the incident. As we know there are videos and photos of 3 people holding Jordan Heely down, did an ex-marine start randomly choking out a homeless man and did 2 other people start holding him down randomly? There's more to the story that we will find out sooner rather than later. But for now there is no evidence that race played a factor. So to emphasize race, helps contribute to societal racism and animosities. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Completely Random Guy ? I'm not teacher obviously? But that doesn't mean I entertain fringe or potentially harmful beliefs. LoomCreek (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Racism doesn't mean having a systemic disadvantage, racism is having a prejudice towards someone. It's completely possible for people to have prejudice towards white people. I'm not saying I believe this article is racist towards white people, or whatever, but yes, you can have prejudice towards white people, and there are plenty of people like that if you put in the research. I believe there was a man recently who almost shot a few white children, before supposedly saying he hated white people." There was a white man killed recently by a two black men who where just "looking for a white man to kill." LukFromTheWiki (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I support inclusion, but not in the lead. Why? It doesn't seem relevant, and even if it if for Neely, it's unclear if was for for the other guy who was charged. I took a look at the other case mentioned above, the killing of a black man who was beat to death by black cops, and in fact the color of the skin of the cops were omitted in that lead, even though all of them happened to be black. Strangely the victim there is mentioned to be a "black man", yes, in the lead (should be omitted too there?), while the really strange thing is upper-casing in the main text "The five Black Memphis Police Department (MPD) officers"; and black omitted from the lead, as it should (or not? then people might assume white?). What we can say at the end of the lead is that there were protests, since no one was charged, then it was decided to charge (so protests may have been effective, or possibly these matters simply take time, I'm not sure there was an unreasonable wait). I don't know that a hate crime has been charged or will be so drop those irrelevant terms from the lead? People can still read further if they are curious why there were protests. comp.arch (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Comp.arch I mean I'm perfectly fine with including the race of the cops for the Killing of Tyre Nichols feel free to add it. But I will also add in addition to the 5 black cops, 2 other white cops later were revealed to be a part of the killing.
I still think race should still be included in the lead here. LoomCreek (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The two's "race" (actually their skin-colour) should not be included in the lead. It immediatedly reduces both to types of their supposed "races" and for many that is all they need to know about the event. The results of that kind of thinking could be observed over the last few years. As to the complaint, that we do not live in a "colour-blind" society: maybe you should reflect the contribution of such "black and white" (no pun intended) narratives have in actually creating or hardening the hyper-racialisation these days.
It should be mentioned further down when the two are introduced in a more comprehensive manner, alongside other information.
BTW, "It's in sources" cannot be the deciding factor of whether something should be mentioned in the lead, not even to mention something at all. Sourecs mention a lot of things but it is us editors who write the article. Still, it wouldn't be a good idea avoid the "elephant in the room" alltogether. However, that is has come to this that "races" are highlighted in such cases (but only in some sort of case) should make us a bit more cautious. Sources are not bound by policies like NPOV, this article is. Str1977 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Cause célèbre of the right

This case has now jumped the shark from a mere murder case to a cause célèbre of the right. [4]: "Top conservatives are celebrating Daniel Penny.. the case has won Penny a degree of celebrity status among some national conservative politicians.. The National Police Association, an advocacy group representing cops, called Penny the 'NY subway good Samaritan'". Of course it's also possible his politically connected Republican defense lawyers are accelerating this angle partly to help Penny and partly to help the Republican cause. Whatever the case, we will need to eventually discuss it, ignoring the politics in an attempt to be "neutral" would be POV. -- GreenC 02:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Washington Post:
Conservatives hail Daniel Penny as 'hero' after killing man on subway
The New Republic:
Conservatives: It's "Anti-Hero" to Arrest Daniel Penny for Killing Jordan Neely
Forbes:
DeSantis And Gaetz Applaud 'Hero' Daniel Penny—Charged With Manslaughter For Killing Jordan Neely
Maybe this should be added to the reactions section, with a new sub-heading specifically addressing the right-wing cheerleading from politicians and talking heads? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
plus Added. WWGB (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation 25

Citation 25 (the ABC news article) doesn't mention anything about Neely throwing trash. Bardbrain (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Vázquez's statement of a 15 minute chokehold in lede

Should the lede include Vázquez saying the chokehold was for 15 min? It appears to be from a comment Vázquez made in a facebook post. There has been no release of the chokehold time from relevant authorities. Vázquez has stated in subsequent interviews that he was not a witness for the entire event. When discussing the length of the chokehold, some RS have been rather careful to only mention the verifiable time of at least 3 minutes via video instead of repeating Vazquez's comments of 15 minutes: AP, Guardian Reuters. Others mention "several" minutes. NYT, BBC, NPR. The claim of a 15 minute chokehold is probably not due in the lede. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is in the middle of the second paragraph, and attributed to Vázquez, not stated as a fact in wikivoice. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, and it should be mentioned (with attribution) in the body. But it doesn't seem due to put it in the lead, when many RS that discuss time of chokehold either mention only the verifiable at least 3 minutes, or use "several minutes." I would advocate for it to be replaced in lead with something a long the lines of "The chokehold lasted for several minutes, at least 3 of which were recorded on video." KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I support inclusion since it's it's not in wikivoice, but instead makes it clear where the statement comes.
If other witness come forward that contradict it then those would also have to be included. As currently stands however there isn't more information to go off. LoomCreek (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
"15 minutes" may be more direct than anything else available, but we have other time descriptions more commonly used across RS, which should have greater weight in inclusion in the lead. "Several minutes" is often used in an authoritative tone by RS (rather than "witness says"), to layer on top of earlier examples: CNN, LA Times, Politico, Time, PBS Newshour, while others play it even safer and mention only the verified at least 3 minutes from video. By contrast, Vazquez's statement of 15 minutes is often not mentioned at all, let alone with attribution, even when the articles specifically touch on the time of the chokehold. Lead should reflect this, with 15 minute statement moved down to body, while lead should have the more widely utilized descriptor, ie. "The chokehold lasted for several minutes, with 3 minutes captured on video." KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I oppose inclusion in the lead. The NYT article indicates that the chokehold lasted in the ballpark of five minutes. Despite the fact that we aim for verifiability, not truth, we should not include an inaccurate statement attributed to a single witness in the lead. Poppa shark (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Why do you assume the statement is inaccurate? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion in the lead, with qualification. Multiple RSs include the 15-minute estimation in their own voice, or with attribution. Some examples:
It's clearly part of the discourse now, on both sides, and is an important detail to include. "Could have lasted up to 15-minutes," is a way to qualify it similar to how most RSs have treated it. Combefere ★ Talk 02:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning behind that. Although I would argue that's already effectively stated (that it could've lasted 15 minutes) by qualifying "According to Vázquez" LoomCreek (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, qualifying it through attribution to Vázquez is also a perfectly fine way to do it. Combefere ★ Talk 09:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The NBC News piece utilized 15 minutes believing it to be a statement of police/multiple witnesses, but they issued a correction to point out that it was actually one witness.
While the Yahoo article from days ago states 15 minutes with attribution, their most recent one now utilizes "several minutes" and states it more authoritatively in their own voice.
The ABC News article says "Protesters have promised 15 nights of marching for the estimated 15 minutes Jordan Neely found himself in that chokehold," which is a statement on protestor POV at most, not a comment on the reliability of using 15 minutes as a time of the chokehold.
The New Republic article states "he was filmed placing Jordan Neely in a fatal choke hold on the subway for 15 minutes," which is factually incorrect and is contradicted by the body of articles I posted earlier that said that the chokehold was filmed for ~3 minutes.
USA Today's article actually uses "Penny held him in a chokehold for several minutes" when talking in their own voice, and only states 15 minutes as a statement of an attorney: "'... be assaulted for 15 minutes straight and never receive any help, never receive any assistance? The MTA needs to answer for that,' said attorney Donte Mills."
Vox's article stating 15 minutes was published May 5, relatively early on, before much info was available (updated later on to add info on new charges).
The New Yorker article says "Three minutes, five minutes, ten minutes, fifteen minutes," which does not inspire considerable confidence as a descriptor of the time.
By contrast, the substantial amount of RS that are utilizing "several minutes" do so as a reliable and authoritative descriptor of the time of the chokehold, often used in articles' own voices. It should be reflected in the lead as such. We particularly see this in the most up-to-date articles published by news orgs, which would have more info available.
That being said, as a compromise, I would suggest for the lead: "The chokehold lasted for several minutes and at least 3 minutes are recorded on video. According to Vazquez, the chokehold lasted for 15 minutes in total." This would better reflect the overall body of sources on how they describe the time of the chokehold. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
That works for me. Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 03:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Name of killer

NO ACTION
Closing stalled out discussion. This one started before charges being filed, and there is now an RfC and second discussion below WikiVirusC(talk) 21:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

None of the sources cited, as of this moment, name Daniel Penny as the killer. The name was added to the article by Bill3602, citing no sources. There are threads on twitter identifying him based on an apparent editorial slip-up, but that's no reliable source. I thus removed the name until a reliable source names him. 〜 Festucalex • talk 06:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I can find no RS for now. WWGB (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 Comment: The name was published by Daily Mail, but it was later removed. How should we proceed in this case? Salvabl (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Wait until the name is published in RS. WWGB (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Salvabl: not only is the Daily Mail not a reliable source (see: WP:DAILYMAIL), this information was retracted as you mentioned. This is the editorial slip-up I was referring to above. 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Is this anything: https://newsone.com/4575202/daniel-penny-jordan-neely-report/
Not a confirmation of his name but confirmation that his name is known but withheld by the media and police? local friendtalk 12:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple social media accounts claim to have identified the man

Not reliable, especially in homicide cases. We don't want Wikipedia to be responsible for spreading misinformation about potentially innocent people. Social media sleuths have been known to make massive mistakes in the past. Wait for reliable sources. 〜 Festucalex • talk 12:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
There should be no rush to name the perpetrator. This isn't a news site, this is an online encyclopedia and repository of information and history. Our focus should be accuracy and maintenance, not speed. Just not our job. 173.70.24.118 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree that it's not necessary right now. I made an edit taking out the killer's name, but leaving in his basic characteristics. The name still appears in the source URLs, but that's not really up to us. I think that's the best position for us to take right now, but I am just one old guy with opinions. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a good chance the name will eventually be published in stronger sources; per WP:RSP, New York Post and Daily Mail do not qualify as RS; Business Insider is flagged as questionable. WP:BLPCRIME policy would apply here (though the individual involved hasn't been charged with a crime at this time, they are not a public figure either).OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The number of sources that have published the name is growing. One of them is New York (magazine) (link here). Salvabl (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME still applies here regardless of sourcing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie Would this be covered by WP:BLPCRIME policy?
That it was a killing (that the chokehold caused the death) is at this point completely uncontroversial. Which is a separate discussion from the legal realm.
So, I think as long as terms such as murder and other legal terms are avoided I feel like it's permissable. (With WP:BLPCrime allowing those terms if a guilty conviction occurs.)
Its just ID'ing of the person and that it resulted in the death. LoomCreek (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect LoomCreek, this strikes me as parsing a bit too closely. The named person is still well within the realm of criminal jeopardy. If time goes by and it is cleared he won't be charged, or if a grand jury returns a no bill, or some such, then I very much agree with your analysis. But in the immediate aftermath, I think we are best to err on the side of caution. That said, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid Respectfully, I disagree. I think given that several reputable sources have confirmed the identity, with pretty highly reputable internal sources. It should be included.
I understand if others want to wait till there are more corroborating sources (for example NYT or the Washington Post) just to be extra careful. But I think it would be a mistake to exclude it on the basis of WP:BLPCrime alone. LoomCreek (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I will also add that previously the guidelines was the inclusion of reputable sources and the discussion has since moved from that.
WP:BLPCrime is not relevant for this. It most definitely could be a crime. But describing events is not an accusation.
Also the NYT just came out with an article on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/05/nyregion/jordan-neely-chokehold-death-subway.html LoomCreek (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME is very relevant for this. Though he hasn't been charged with anything yet, it's quite clear in the article you just linked to that charges a possible in the near future. 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. When in doubt, we err on the side of WP:BLP policy, regardless of what's published in sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Ohnoitsjamie I think its a misapplication of the policy and it's intent. But I'll abide by whatever the consensus ends up being reached. LoomCreek (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
LoomCreek - can you expand on how you think it's a misapplication? Simply because there has been no charge yet? I'd be curious to hear. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid Sure my opinion is basically the same as @Salvabl. And for that reason it's a misapplication.
I think the policies goal is to prevent defamation and smearing. While plainly describing the events is neither an accusation or speculation.
This inclusion is not taking a side in whether that event is a crime or not. It just describing the events. I think it's a stretch to say WP:BLPCrime applies to that. LoomCreek (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
LoomCreek - I think this make sense as a policy rationale, and Wikipedia could go that way (though me, being the nervous nelly I am, would argue against it), but I think the application of WP:BLPCRIME is appropriate here because that policy doesn't just cover insinuations that someone has committed a crime, but crucially, also the insinuations that someone has been accused of committing a crime. A straightforward recitation of facts will often include the latter, and while I certainly grant you that there has been no formal accusation to this point, again, I think that while criminal jeopardy is still a live issue, best that Wikipedia prioritize privacy. But having said that, I'm happy to agree to disagree, and if consensus goes your way, no worries. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Now that Daniel Penny's attorney has released a statement that acknowledges he was the other person I also feel like its even more reasonable to include his name. LoomCreek (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
This is a fair point, though I am still not sure there's a consensus for inclusion (though there may be). This may be a case where we need to go the full RFC route, unfortunately. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, do you mind establishing that talk section? LoomCreek (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I understand the differences in your perspectives; and it is clear that we should properly discern in a case like this. However, we have to understand that adding the Marine's name does not mean that we are labeling him as "guilty". It is not our job to assert whether or not he is guilty or not guilty of something. We are not a law enforcement agency. However, one thing is clear: a white Marine veteran is part of this incident. Adding his name means adding information (as does stating that he is a Marine veteran). Salvabl (talk) 23:09, 5 May 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.

K2

It was all objected to when it was removed twice, but I guess we can discuss here too. Anything that is "according to xyz", is borderline for inclusion imo.

"According to outreach workers, Neely used K2, a synthetic marijuana"

vs

"According to outreach workers, "Neely heavily used K2, the powerful, unpredictable synthetic marijuana [..] and threatened to kill [a woman] according to the worker's notes [and the next year in March 2020] was taken to Bellevue Hospital [a safety net hospital] for a week", a designer drug (illegal in NY, and every state) that can make you paranoid."

Entire sentence can probably be removed, but I was fine with just the first version. Heavily, lightly doesn't matter. I'm not sure how much hearsay we want to include in the article, but the threat is BLPCRIME territory for recently deceased. Why are we adding in details of the legality of K2 in all states and what it does in his subsection, was there any indication he was using or had in his possession at the time of death? WikiVirusC(talk) 00:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I mean, how relevant would it be if Penny has a drug history of his own? Not significant, unless it directly contributed to events on the subway that day. Was either individual intoxicated or in an altered state due to drugs or alcohol at the time of the killing? That seems to be where such information would be more appropriately considered for addition to the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't add K2 to the article, but I expanded language on it and enlarged to quote from NY Times. The question[s] is really: A. Should K2/Spice be included in the article the first place? and B. that Neely threatened to kill. C. I would want to know how dangerous K2/Spice really is (so I looked up more); D. does the use have long-term effects (then relevant in the article, since it was heavy use), or only short-term (then if he had it in his system). It IS claimed to be very dangerous (is that just a moral panic that Obama and many states criminalised it? Countries have been getting more strict on it, but notably UK and Canada are not (yet?) as strict, Class B drug in the UK and Schedule II in Canada):

The case of David Mitchell Rozga, an American teenager from Indianola, Iowa, brought international attention to K2. Rozga shot himself in the head with a family-owned hunting rifle in an apparent suicide on June 6, 2010. [..] The death of Rozga influenced political lobbying against K2, and other legal synthetic drugs such as bath salts. Following the incident, the "David Mitchell Rozga Act" to ban the use and distribution of K2 was introduced by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley. It was passed by the United States Congress in June 2011.[1] On July 10, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 into law. It banned synthetic compounds commonly found in synthetic marijuana, placing them under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.[2]

[..]

Several states independently passed acts making it illegal under state law, including On June 8, 2010, the US Air Force issued a memorandum that banned the possession and use of Spice [..]

comp.arch (talk) sometime before 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • A. I was iffy on whether it should be include or not, but originally was fine with simplified version. In end I don't see point of it even being referenced at all, unless we.
  • B. I already mentioned above it's BLPCRIME territory for recently deceased.
  • C. If you or other people want to know more about K2 they would click the wikilink to it for more details like always.
  • D. Same as above, wikilink. Also minor reason I removed it completely, if it's not there, no need to wonder or speculate about it at all.
WikiVirusC(talk) 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
On B. WP:BLPCRIME/WP:SUSPECT doesn't apply to Neely, since it's under the heading "People accused of crime" AND he's not alive; the policy states: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. [..]". I've never heard of a posthumous conviction, only a such a pardon. So it's more about (potential) victim-blaming, but that's POV, since the other (live guy that BLPCRIME applies to) guy is presumed innocent, and thus Neely the aggressor, killed in self-defence. On C. yes, you can click on the link and see "illegal", but that doesn't mean Neely is accused of a crime(?). It's illegal to sell it, possession or using likely isn't. So "illegal" is simply to inform about the drug, not as much Neely, vs the regular marijuana. That's why I rather want just K2/spice, skipping "marijuana" altogether, since it's misleading, and people can actually clik the link and then see the full story. So you logic goes both ways. The WP:RS NY Times source article was quoted misleadingly. comp.arch (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
BLP applies to recently deceased, whether we talking specifically about BLPCRIME or simply the accusations in general. Never talked about conviction or pardon or courts at all, its the simple hearsay accusation that is the BLP issue. Someone's death does not simply allow hearsay accusations to be put in articles. He was arrested and charged with several crimes, there is no reasons to add random accusations in. Its not POV, as no where in my response did I victim blame or talk about who the aggressor is, this threat was years(?) ago with no relation to his to his death, how did you relate it to that? BLPCRIME says people are presumed innocent, it in no way translate thus someone else is aggressor/killed in self-defense. No clue why you are bringing up clicking wikilink would mean Neely is or isn't accused of crime, that has no relation to anything and not sure what that response is directed out. It's not my logic nor do I care which way it goes. You will have to say what you mean about NY Times quote, cause idk which one or what you are referring to. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it completely now as it keeps getting expanded with nick names of the drug, and legality of regular marijuanna and class this and that status, all of which is completely irrelevant information for the article. Unless it was found in his system or in his possession at time of death, mention of it isn't warranted. If it comes out one of those two things is the case, then that should be added to the summary of incident, and we should revert back to the original version that he used K2 according to outreach workers in his bio subsection. The extra details are not needed there. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Just want to note that I also agree with this removal. It doesn't seem due to me given a (admittedly limited) review of the sources, and I agree with the already-noted relevance concerns. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I added Spice, the "nick name" you say (the only one I added, can't confirm "names" added), since it seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME, is in bold at target article. I've never heard of K2, not sure it's any kind of official name. comp.arch (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "The David Mitchell Rozga Act (S.605 - Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011)". Opencongress.org. Archived from the original on August 23, 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-09.
  2. ^ Vashi, Sonam (September 26, 2012). "K2 Trend Not Slowing Down".

This revert seems pedantic. Marijuana IS legal in NY. I can drop "synthetic marijuana" from the article, it seems misleading having it in the article, people might think the illegal K2 is similar to regular marijuana. I didn't even know so I investigated, and quoted verbatim from NY Times (though yes I added "aka spice", and designer drug; and into on paranoia, that I later commented out).

I want to be very careful what's included, but also fair. I didn't even add K2 to the article, I'm not sure I would have. But it seems justified. Then also clarifying it (the general knowledge on it vs regular)? Is anyone willing to admit having used K2? Right now I just believe the NY Times wording on it. Non-synthetic was Schedule I/illegal too, unfairly likely from the start. Much more potent strains have been made over time, but still legal, I believe, since just plants. The non-synthetic kind is something more, and I'm not a chemist (while I have an expert in my house). I want to know if I'm focusing on the wrong thing, and should just drop this angle. More importantly Neely threatened to kill a person, maybe under the influence of K2, or not. I added that part verbatim in a quote, and it got reverted with other that got reverted, and the edit summary didn't mention it. I will be adding at back. comp.arch (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don't readd; per the section immediately above, the current consensus seems to be against this. Consensus can change, of course, but for the moment, I don't think this is called for. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Please see discussion above for mention of threat. Discuss things here per WP:BRD, edit comments only go so far, and I really think you should avoid the practice of leaving notes and comments in commented out(<-- -->) bits in article, as they are even more likely to be missed later than edit comments. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant info, e.g. past and possible *future* employment

I believe I filled my revert quota (WP:3RR), but I removed ex-"Marine" from the lead twice now (it was reverted for other reasons, i.e. for "black"; and "white"?). So what is the point of e.g. (unsourced?) he was "looking for work as a bartender in New York City"? <sarcasm mode on> Was he also looking to get laid? Was he full of hormones, and becuase he's male he must be a criminal he just had to kill someone? <sarcasm off> I mean we should provide minimal info on him, at least per: WP:SUSPECT "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." So what's the point of "Marine"? That he was a killing machine? I've seen that in sources that "he was trained to kill", but maybe he was taught restraint too (though he was not successful).

He has been charged, so we can include his name (and age I guess), that's it. Ideally that's the only info we would include on Neely also. I'm sure people want to remember him as an MJ impersonator. But only what we know happened that day, and seems relevant, about the event should be in the lead. Jenny didn't kill him, just because he could. That's at least for a jury to decide, and not even the charge. He wasn't even killed because he was homeless, that was at best inferred by Penny. More likely he figured he was dangerous, had a mental illness, what is in the article already (from his aunt). If you had to guess, that should be in the lead since he was shouting and acting that way (and thus homeless inferred as likely). comp.arch (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

An argument can be made that his military service has relevance given that he'd likely have combat training. However, I certainly don't think it belonds in the lede. Beyond that, I'd agree with you that it violates BLP privacy policy to include other biographical info beyond the basics as he is not a public figure. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
He is now, most certainly, a public figure, named and described in reliable sources around the world. He achieved that be inserting himself into the situation. WWGB (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I would just pop in briefly to say that I disagree with this interpretation. Being a "public figure," to my mind, must include some aspect of the person in question seeking out such attention. Otherwise, this interpretation would make WP:NPF nothing more than surplusage which could never actually apply. While Mr. Penny certainly inserted himself into this situation, there is no reason to think that he did so for the purpose of achieving fame or notoriety. I therefore think we should, in accordance with that policy, pare back the information quite a bit. I am, however, mindful that the policies in question do not make this an ineluctable conclusion, so happy to go wherever consensus takes us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
On the flip side though is the question of Jordan Neely, who also didn't seek to become a public figure. Now, just because this individual is deceased, we feel comfortable detailing aspects of that person's life here as well. I think BLP applies to both Neely and Penny, but neither is warranted any more or less privacy than the other. Obviously some detail about both of their lives is necessary, but to what extent? Do we simply follow what reliable sources say about each of them, and then try to balance that with what information is relevant and WP:DUE etc? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
So, unfortunately BLP policy is informed by (though not identical to!) defamation concepts, for what should be obvious reasons. It is generally true in common law depositions that you cannot defame a deceased person. There is also less danger obviously in presenting details about Mr. Neely. Morally, I quite agree with you that neither should have superior privacy rights, but that is the way things turn out given practical considerations. As anyone could probably tell you, I am an err-on-the-side-of-privacy guy, but I also have faith in the wisdom of consensus. So between me being a fuddy-duddy and smarter people, we should end up somewhere near the right conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if convicted he, or at least the average criminal, would not be a public figure, i.e. not worthy of privacy. But he's now a WP:SUSPECT, presumed innocent, and for sure not a public persona. So I agree with you his combat training doesn't belong in the lead, and probably not in the article at all. If people would want to think of it that way, he had Neely in a chokehold, what killed him, for 15 minutes, and if Penny had wanted to kill him, I would guess people with combat training could do it in 2 minutes. Or people with grappling training, even from high school. And maybe even (male) ballet dancers, but had he been one, we would not find his profession and training relevant. Including "Marine" in any way (in his case former!), seems to me, to imply some kind of intent. comp.arch (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Almost every RS linked on the page mentions the fact that Penny is an ex-marine. Many include it in the titles of their articles. It's clearly one of the most important details about the killing of Jordan Neely, and should be included in the lead, per MOS:INTRO. Combefere ★ Talk 10:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Combefere I don't know if I think it's the most important detail but it does provide context on Penny's potential training with restraints, including lethal ones.
I'm somewhat neutral on the subject. So I'm perfectly fine with including it as it's inclusion seems to fit wikipedia policy. LoomCreek (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I still don't think we should even name Penny (a ship which has long since sailed), but yes, his status as an ex-marine (or however they put it) is both widely reported and relevant to the killing, so yes, I think it should be in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree the ex-Marine thing definitely belongs and in the lead as reflected in RS. I don't see why we need the name though, it's not particularly important. Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Neely wasn't simply "placed on his side"

The page cites that Neely was placed on his side after a passenger warns that he'll choke on his spit. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to include a reference to the Recovery position, as that's a more specific description of what was done. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be WP:SYNTH to add that unless a reliable source explicitly mentioned the "recovery position." OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Added, BBC article confirms it as a "recovery position." KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@KiharaNoukan The article judgement of that seems entirely based on the video. In other word no new information
I dont think that's confirmation enough to include it. LoomCreek (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The reason it was not added earlier was because, as Jamie mentioned, WP:SYNTH in the absence of an RS. There are a number of important details that are entirely based on the footage, but not necessarily WP:V the instant the footage itself is available. For instance, I added the info of 50s of restraint after Neely became motionless the same day as I did the recovery position after there was an RS confirming that detail. Both are based on the same footage released days earlier, with no "new" info. It just takes time for more info to be verifiable. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Well my reason for mentioning it is the BBC explicitly states in the article it made the recovery position judgment based off the video. Which while is from a generally reliable source, I don't think constitutes conclusively listing it as the recovery position. That's just my position though, it might be useful to ask other editors. LoomCreek (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
He was placed in the recovery position. Whether or not it was intentional or on accident is up for debate, but you can place someone in the recovery position without intending on doing so. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the argument breaks down to, yes, it was the recovery position, yes they teach it in first aid, yes a marine would likely know it, yes credible publications have mentioned it...
... but no, they aren't including it because it doesn't fit the political narrative they are pushing. (12:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)) 2603:300A:1D11:4700:D99E:2080:918:F300 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It's been in article for two days since KiharaNoukan added in the BBC source he mentioned above. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"mentally ill man, with criminally violent history" description

Do we want to use this to describe Neely? "Jordan Neely was a 30-year-old black mentally ill man, with criminally violent history..". It was added to first sentence of lead and to the Neely subsection.[5] I reverted it[6], it was added back into his subsection but left out of lead[7](then just mentality ill part added back in[8]). I believe the previous wording Jordan Neely was a 30-year-old black man who grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey was better, and then describing his diagnosis and altercations he had in the past in the following sentences/paragraphs. Guess can also discuss necessity of the additional one sentence paragraph of Neely has spent over a year in jail for aggression. that was added as well. Feel that can be added into currently prose where we describe the incident of assault. I have my opinions on how it should be, Comp.arch (talk · contribs) has his. Maybe others can chime in. Thanks. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"I believe the previous wording Jordan Neely was a 30-year-old black man who grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey" is of course factual for his section, also as I did it. NY Times has MJ impersonator as his historical past. It's of course debatable what to have there in HIS section, but mental history seems very relevant, and criminal history, there, is no less true than "MJ impersonator". Mental and criminal seem very relevant to the lead, is in sources, will be brought up at trial, as more relevant than MJ (MJ might though be mentioned then... but it wasn't relevant at the event, or after). comp.arch (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with including mentally ill in the lead for a couple reasons. First it's often used as a highly subjective term so using it in wikivoice seems like a violation of Wikipedia policy. You'd have to point to some official diagnosis rather then such a non-concrete term.
Secondly when using that wide brush, it's not a neutral term but comes with a wide swath of connotations and in my opinion violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. LoomCreek (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
For my money, I think we need to get those descriptors in there, but I am not sure it belongs in our introduction (for lack of a better term) to Mr. Neely. Include it in the body, but not straight away in the lead is my feeling, but happy to go with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, this is important information and well sourced. It is not undue. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
"Mentally ill" is a no-go without RS indicating diagnosis. "criminally violent" is unambiguously POV-pushing language, especially in the lead or the first sentence of the section, as it carries the implication that criminal violence was a core aspect of Neely's existence - it may warrant some inclusion, but do recall that this article is about Neely's death and the circumstances that led to it, not every aspect of every involved person's life. Should we then include descriptions of how Marines are trained in hand-to-hand combat, or how Penny's parents were Trump supporters which must make them (in magical POV-land) violent racists who raised a son in the same vein? We need to strike a WP:BALANCE in the "People involved" section that currently doesn't exist, and going on about how Neely was violent and a psycho and a criminal does not do that. PriusGod (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
"Mentally ill" is true (I stopped short of "drug addict"), multiple sources say so, the article already stated it (I didn't put it in, nor K2/spice drug, I just clarified that) before I added this in the lead (e.g. "schizophrenia" and "depression", already in the article; according to his aunt), and people who aren't mentally ill and/or criminals do not urinate "inside a subway car" (about a month before), and punch a 67-year-old woman in the street breaking her nose and spend 15 months in jail for it, and spend a week in a mental hospital. I think this is beyond doubt, and WP:DUE. This is probably the closest you get (as WP:RS) without the actual papers on the diagnosis (that likely exist). And his mother was murdered put into a suitcase, so it's not really surprising he is "troubled"/has mental health issues. All this doesn't mean you need to be homeless, and homeless alone explains nothing (e.g. Dr. Phil was homeless, and he has repeatedly stated it) about his aggressive behavior in the subway (that day nor before in the subway). My "POV-pushing language" is the truth, that seems relevant. There's nothing right or wrong about him being homeless, but it's a WP:WEASEL word (only put in at the time when something explaining it wasn't clear and yet in the news), implies mentally ill to many, and it's better to just state it. If mentally ill stays out so should the home or lack there of stay out. We are silent on the situation of Penny regarding that, his address or none (his state is in and probably should be out). Also [un]employment situations of all involved should stay out. About WP:BALANCE: "lynching" is in the article and "Jordan Neely was murdered." (so the bar of inclusion in the article, is a random person's POV, just because it's a reaction and AOC?). comp.arch (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
As to your last sentence here, I don't think these are balance problems at all, but I don't know that we should be including tweets unless they get coverage in secondary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Because of WP:SUSPECT WP:POLICY ("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.") so "lunching" and "murder" is out, according to my reading (I added the bold), unless to restore WP:BALANCE something is added to explain why not murder (i.e. killing). It seems very due to include info on Neely. And very little must be stated about Penny, only really relating to his arrest. comp.arch (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't his arrest tend to suggest that he is accused of committing a crime? Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The argument isn't about him being mentally ill or having a criminal history. It was about overly defining him as just that. As I had said in my edit comments, the article is about the killing, stating Penny killed Neely, and describing it is what lead sentence needs. Most sources that I read describe basic overview of the events, and then they talk about his history of mental illness and arrest. In regards to the homeless descriptor in lead, that probably isn't needed in describing the events. In regards to his subsection, we introduce who he was, a black man in 30s who grew up in Jersey. In the opening paragraph, as you said, already mentions his depression, schizophrenia and PTSD. His arrests and description of the more violet incidents are described in the largest paragraph in his subsection. So no one is hiding this information it is all stated. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Very much in agreement. And echoing other comments, this article is about the killing of Jordan Neely, not a biography on the individual. Opening sentences should focus on the core basics of said unfortunate event.
I am also concerned about the WP:OR & WP:SYNTH style arguments coming from user comp.arch, for example this statement: people who aren't mentally ill and/or criminals do not urinate "inside a subway car" (about a month before), and punch a 67-year-old woman in the street breaking her nose and spend 15 months in jail for it, and spend a week in a mental hospital. I understand the reasoning and thinking here, but this is not how Wikipedia works.
We must follow reliable sources, not edit based on our opinion about what does or doesn't signify that a person suffers from significant mental health issues. We'd also need some kind of official diagnosis to boldly declare this as a defining characteristic of an individual. WP:BLP rules still apply, even for someone who is deceased.
Quoting from the BLP policy: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
You can't quote WP:BLP policy that applies (most strongly) to living persons, unless it applies; "unsourced or poorly sourced" doesn't apply. It's best that you remove that part of comment (and the rebuttal from mine) from the discussion, since it's a distraction, using the same IP address (or someone else can do it for you?). About WP:SYNTH, I don't believe I did that, I'm aware of that concept, and I'm a very experienced Wikipedia editor, familiar with most policies, and difference with e.g. guidelines. The concept apples to main article space, and I don't think I did it, if I did, then point it out. Nor did I do WP:OR, i.e. not go by WP:RS. I believe SYNTH and OR is ok in Talk space as a discussion, to talk about a revert. comp.arch (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Sad that it has to be spelled out - no, we should not be describing a recently deceased individual as "mentally ill" or "criminally violent" without an overwhelming majority of RSs using the same language. @Comp.arch:, please review WP:CONTENTIOUS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLPSTYLE. Combefere ★ Talk 07:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The man had previous history of violence including an arrest for hitting an elderly woman on a subway car. Given where he was and that every witness has supported the restraint, it is credible...
... unless the intent is to frame the article in a politically bias way, which is about par for Wikipedia (12:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)) 2603:300A:1D11:4700:D99E:2080:918:F300 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is politically biassed, wtf are you reading and commenting for. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, add WP:SYNTH to the list of policies this wording violates. Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 01:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an issue of relevance. His violent history is more pertinent than his race. Yet right now his race is in the introduction, but not his violent history. This is a violation of guidelines in relation to relevance.
In fact, he was a wanted criminal in relation to violent assault. This should be one of the first descriptions used, and is also more important than his race or the Daniel Penny's race. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Most RSs lead with Neely's race and introduce him in their articles as a 30-year-old Black man. None lead with speculations about his mental health. When mental health is discussed in RSs, it is far down in the article, speculative, and never used as some sort of synonym for his identity. You're entitled to your own opinions about which is more relevant, but as editors we have to follow the RSs. See WP:UNDUE. Combefere ★ Talk 04:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Adding the character judgement is WP:OFFTOPIC.
It has nothing to do with why someone would decide to murder him, it is merely "he wasn't an angel" style of rhetoric.
That style of rhetoric is empty, because no one is an angel.
and no one deserves to die for having a bad day while starving. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Improving Public officials and community reactions section

I have several issues with how this section stands now, but I think the most pressing one is that there is essentially only one paragraph devoted to figures on the political right, and of the four who are named, only Ramaswamy is a local.

Compare to five named persons on the left, who are all local, who each got their own paragraph, and who all roundly condemned Penny's actions to put it mildly.

Then there are three local politicians/administrators who are paraphrased as "expressing concern" and not much else, which is fine -- the point is that prominent local figures on the right haven't gotten their day in Wikipedia's public court, and I think that's an issue which needs rectification.

I'd have already gotten started, but there's an issue: WP:NYPOST, and to a lesser but not trivial extent, WP:FOX. Yes, that whole can of worms ... hence my reticence.

Having read some policies and talk threads about policies, and talk threads about talk threads, and slept on it two nights, here's where I'm at: The reason citations to the Post and Fox were all but completely scrubbed from this article was for their questionable reliability when it comes to factual information on politically-charged stories, and in particular when it comes to quoting anonymous eye-witnesses.

Policy seems pretty clear that when a source is not deprecated or blacklisted it can be used for statements of opinion so long as the person expressing the opinion is cited inline. That seems to me to be the best way to add balance to that section I think it needs, but I'd like some feedback first before jumping in and starting another edit war. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely/Archive_1&oldid=1159260800"