Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Name of article redux

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

---

I propose to reopen the discussion about whether the title of the article should be reverted to "Death of Jordan Neely," or remain "Killing of Jordan Neely".

• Revert to Death of: although the medical examiner has ruled Neely's death a homicide by compression of the neck, and his assailant has not denied applying the chokehold, there is no court ruling that Neely's assailant did indeed cause his death. As the current title strongly implies in Wikipedia's voice that the assailant caused Neely's death, the name of the article should be changed. This does NOT imply that the article itself cannot report on the medical finding, properly attributed in-line to the appropriate authority, only that the title should be changed to be more neutral.

Xan747 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I apologize for constantly repeating myself, but I would oppose this change. Courts determine legal liability, not reality. There is no serious dispute that this death was a 'killing.' Whether it was an act attracting criminal culpability, we don't know yet. But there is no evidence for any theory but one: the indicted caused the death of Mr. Neely. As such, I would consider this a step too far, but happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't know yet THAT there is no evidence for any other theory. Perhaps there will be no re-examination. Perhaps a re-examination will merely confirm the ME's initial ruling. But on the other hand, perhaps there will be one and it won't. We don't know yet. We don't know yet. We would be wrong to assume until we DO know, from the court, not anywhere else.. – .Raven  .talk 20:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

With due respect, this strikes me as a textbook case of needlessly multiplying possibilities. Human epistemological faculties are obviously limited. Saying "perhaps we will have evidence in the future" is the same as saying "we have no evidence now." If we accept that our knowledge might change, that would mean Wikipedia could never assert anything. Is it possible that evidence will be discovered that Amelia Earhart lived to a very old age in Indonesia? It's certainly possible. Should we give that theory credence, in the absence of evidence? Could Osama bin Laden have had a massive stroke and died moments before he was shot? In theory, sure. But even beyond that, again courts do not determine reality. Criminal courts especially purposefully limit themselves in terms of evidence allowed and the burden of proof. What would happen, for instance, if the indicted here were held not criminally guilty, but later civilly liable? Would we then have Heisenberg's 50/50 killing? But what really persuades me is that there is literally no suggestion from anyone, including the accused, that the manner of death was something other than personal violence. If consensus ends up in your favor, I won't complain, but it seems problematic to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

What "that would mean" is that "Wikipedia could never assert" someone committed a killing until the court so declared after both the prosecution and defense had a chance to present evidence — including about cause-of-death — and the court (most likely with a jury) decided the fact as well as the law. Because until then the outcome is uncertain. – .Raven  .talk 20:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There are circumstances where I would absolutely agree with you. But here, we have the police, the witnesses, the prosecutors, the medical examiner, and the accused himself all on one side of the evidence ledger--while on the other side we have you saying "but maybe not." And I am curious: just how would you deal with a situation where the defendant was found not criminally guilty but civilly liable? Dumuzid (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem because in both cases there's been a court ruling, and the person's name can be associated with both criminal and civil suits. Trickier is if the person has been found liable in the civil suit, but the criminal case is ongoing. Or vice versa; it's essentially the same problem. A strict reading of the rules probably requires that the defendant cannot be named until both trials have concluded.

But then there are appeals... Xan747 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Appeals were going to be my next question! And it's very rare to have a civil trial prior to the criminal (theoretically possible, but I am not personally familiar with it happening). There's a good reason for that: criminal trials have a preclusive effect on civil liability, but not the other way around. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Overall I think it would be most sensible to simply follow the lead of RSs on BLPCRIME issues, that seems to be what happens most of the time. But now I'm really talking more about naming Neely's assailant than I am about what to name the article, and Combefere just pointed me to WP:DEATHS, which may change my opinion. Fun times! Xan747 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Killing of, is absolutely the boiler plate standard for articles like this. LoomCreek (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

As I've been learning, some standard practices may not be compliant with policy. Xan747 (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the reluctance but this is a well trodden and established policy itself. I can assure you it is compliant with broader policy. LoomCreek (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Support – Exactly on the grounds stated. If and when the ME's initial ruling is upheld in court, the title can be changed again. – .Raven  .talk 20:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, if the medical examiner's findings are somehow (magically!) determined to be in error, then the title of the article can be reverted to "Death of ..." 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutral/lean oppose: I largely agree with User:Dumuzid. It makes far more sense to go by the medical examiner report, which I understand is thus far undisputed, until it is disputed. In addition to the issues he noted in terms of treating court rulings as gospel, it's also worth pointing out that such a finding wouldn't necessarily be obvious! Sure, if someone is found guilty, that's one thing, but let's suppose a defendant is found not guilty. That could be because a jury didn't find causation ... or it also could be because they found an affirmative defense ... or because they found lack of intent. Without a special verdict form, we wouldn't know. Granted, this all said ... in general, I'm actually in favor of using "Death of" in all articles, because for all the debates that the phrasing has inspired, I don't think an article about a killing is actually affected at all if it's titled "Death of"—"death of" is a catch all, and even if someone is adjudicated guilty, you can describe that in the first sentence of the article if need be.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Dumuzid: There is no serious dispute that this death was a 'killing.' How exactly would the article describe Neely's death otherwise? "Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, died after being placed in a chokehold by a 24-year-old white ex-marine"? Died of what? Old age? Compare Killing of Gabby Petito, a similarly high-profile case where Petito's boyfriend Brian Laundrie admitted to killing her, and is named in the article as the killer, even though no trial occurred. (Laundrie would still be covered under BLP policy as a recently deceased person.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

> How exactly would the article describe Neely's death otherwise? "Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, died after being placed in a chokehold by a 24-year-old white ex-marine"

Yes, exactly. Immediately followed by, The medical examiner found that the cause of death was "compression of neck (chokehold)" and ruled that it was a homicide.

Doing it that way takes it out of Wikipedia's voice. And you'll note that the RSs who reported the ME's findings didn't put it in their own voice either, but attributed the opinion to an authority. There are good reasons for that, and this is a case where following their lead is a good idea. Xan747 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The proposed wording is dancing around the plain fact that Penny killed Neely by choking him. This is not in dispute, and the effort to couch the incident in passive voice terms strikes me as plain obfuscation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I repeat; there are reasons news outlets phrase things such ways, and Wikipedia strives to be even more cautious. Xan747 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose reverting to "Death of..." This was a homicide, and the title of the article should be "Killing of Jordan Neely," per WP:DEATHS. WP policy is very clear here. There is no justification for changing the name to imply that the death was not a homicide. Combefere ★ Talk 01:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that one yet, it bears serious consideration against my position. Will sleep on it, thanks. Xan747 (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: I suggest you revert the request and close this discussion. Two points I encourage you to take away here:

• Requested Moves are the formal process for changing the title of a page. Opening a discussion on a talk page like this is disruptive because it creates the necessity for a duplicate formal discussion later. I believe all of us on this talk page have recently seen how disruptive duplicate discussions can be. If you think a page should be moved, just make the move request and have the discussion there.
• WP:DEATHS is the policy that guides virtually all Requested Moves around articles with the titles "Death of..." "Killing of..." "Murder of..." etc. The policy was formalized in 2020 during a surge of activity around these types of articles after the Murder of George Floyd. I suggest reviewing the policy, and looking over a number of the requested move discussions that have already taken place over similar articles. A couple that I can link off the top of my head:

• Shooting of Breonna Taylor → Killing of Breonna Taylor
• Death of Tyre Nichols → Killing of Tyre Nichols
• Death of Eric Garner → Killing of Eric Garner
• Shooting of Tamir Rice → Killing of Tamir Rice
• Killing of George Floyd → Murder of George Floyd
• Death of Meredith Hunter → Killing of Meredith Hunter
• Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer → Murder of Asher and Yonatan Palmer
• Death of Yehuda Shoham → Killing of Yehuda Shoham

All of these discussions (and many more!) use WP:DEATHS as the guiding principle for understanding how articles about deaths should be named on Wikipedia. By all means, make a formal move request, but it will not pass. WP:DEATHS is very clear that the title "Killing of..." should be used when the manner of death is a homicide. The coroner's report has determined the manner of death was a homicide, and there is a conviction for manslaughter (which has been used in the past as a basis for "Killing of..." title when a coroner's report was unavailable). This is as cut-and-dry of a naming situation as possible. WP policy is that the title of this article should be "Killing of Jordan Neely."

Combefere ★ Talk 03:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose – This is getting absurd, and goes against policy! Per Combefere's point, the WP:DEATHS flowchart is very clear on naming conventions in relation to deaths / killings / murders etc. For now, the appropriate title of this article is "Killing of ..." because the manner of death has been determined a homicide by the medical examiner, and a conviction of Penny for murder has not been obtained. If Penny is convicted of murder, then the correct title for this article will become "Murder of ..." 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Penny won't be convicted of murder, because the DA is not even perusing that charge. He's only being charged with second-degree manslaughter. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. However, manslaughter is still a form of unlawful homicide. What does that mean in terms of the WP:DEATHS flowchart? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@72.14.126.22 In that case it can either remain killing of, or sometimes manslaughter of but that's incredibly uncommon from what I've seen. LoomCreek (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A manslaughter conviction still equates to a "Killing of..." title on the flowchart. This is an ongoing matter of debate, with some editors believing that "Murder of..." is appropriate when there is a conviction for any form of homicide, and on the other side at least one editor arguing that a conviction for Second-Degree Murder should not be enough for a "Murder of..." title. Combefere ★ Talk 02:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow, Wikipedia policy certainly is a can of worms! Thanks for your reply. :) 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Elli Yes, killing does not mean murder (edit: ah my mistake, I understand now tou were just addressing their second point) It's a medical term, meaning the actions of Penny caused Jordan Neely's death. If you'd like some examples from other articles Id be happy to provide them. LoomCreek (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Daniel Penny

Duplicate discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think people deserve to read the name of the person who is charged with killing Neely. Daniel Penny. Not just “marine” Razzmatazz Max (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC) @Razzmatazz Max: There is an ongoing discussion about this at the talk section above. If you would like to participate in that discussion, make a comment there. I will hat this duplicate discussion to prevent confusion. Combefere ★ Talk 00:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Chokehold is an inherently dangerous technique

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

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

should it be integrated into the article?

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

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

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

However, according to Military.com:

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

The cited document says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More RS quoting Murphy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this entire discussion has been derailed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it does not convey the risk inherent to the action.

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

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

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

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

References

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

oh hey, good recommendation.

how is this forbes article?

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

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

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

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

Penny (backed by another passenger) denies using a chokehold on Neely. – .Raven  .talk 09:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ruled a death by chokehold by coroner. There is video evidence. undue weight.

I'm done argueing this you guys.

How is it that you can murder a man in broad day light over basically nothing with a heap of witnesses and video evidence and still have people throw doubt on whether they actually murdered him? Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I remind you: backed by another passenger (and he was right there, close up); that's a witness too. – .Raven  .talk 20:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Who, by sheer coincidence, just so happens to be accessory to the extrajudicial killing.

I'm sure this won't affect the credibility of what he has to say /s Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Really? Has he been so charged? – .Raven  .talk 21:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

oh sorry "he helped someone restrain a person which resulted in their un-being alive which was decided to be a death by chokehold by a person trained in medical examination of corpses" Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Not charged, let alone convicted, but here presumed guilty of being an accessory — my goodness, presumption of guilt does abound here. – .Raven  .talk 23:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The last four or five comments here don't contribute to the improvement of the article. Stop it. See WP:TALK. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Categories

@Sangdeboeuf and WWGB: See Jordan Neely, where biographical categories are included. This article is about an event. So categories that apply to a biography, such as Category:1992 births and Category:2023 deaths are included. The killing of Jordan Neely did not die in 2023, Jordan Neely did. This conversation has been had many times before and unless you have some policy or guidelien where I'm ignorant (definitely possible), please do not add categories about events to biographies or vice versa. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Neely arrest record

If we're going by WP:BLPCRIME in other areas, then we should also omit most of Neely's arrest record, apart from incidents that led to a criminal conviction. (Neely is covered under this policy as a recently deceased person.) Neely was not a public figure, and the source for this information is given as an unnamed "law enforcement source", which in addition to being dubious in itself (see Police perjury), runs afoul of WP:BLPGOSSIP: Be wary of relying on sources ... that attribute material to anonymous sources. In particular, the 2019 assault case records were sealed according to the Daily News. I question whether describing Neely's prior arrests is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Frankly it strikes me as character assassination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The text in contention appears to be this block, which was removed by Sangdeboeuf alongside the opening of this section on the talk page:

According to a police officer, Neely had been arrested 42 times by the NYPD. Most the arrests were for petty offenses, such as loitering and trespassing; however, three of the arrests were for unprovoked assaults on women in the NYC subway, and one was for assaulting a 68-year-old man on a subway platform in 2019. Other arrests, in 2020 and 2021, included those for criminal contempt, after violating a restraining order, and public lewdness, for exposing himself to a female stranger.

Per WP:BLPCRIME, editors must seriously consider not including information suggesting that a person has been accused of a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Reports of these specific arrests certainly fall under that category. Given that Neely's killer was not privy to his alleged arrest record, I do not consider the information to be essential to an article about the killing of Jordan Neely, so I would lean toward excluding the information. The article is about the killing, not about Neely. Combefere ★ Talk 00:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf, why stop there? Same justification could be used to lose most of this as well:

In 2015, Neely pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child after dragging a 7-year-old girl down a street; he was sentenced to four months in jail. At the time of his death, he was subject to a 15-month alternative to incarceration program after pleading guilty in February 2023 to felony assault of a 67-year-old woman, whom he had punched as she exited a train station in November 2021, breaking her nose and fracturing an orbital bone. Under the terms of the program, Neely was to live in a treatment facility in the Bronx. He had a warrant issued for his arrest after he missed a court date to update a judge on his progress and abandoned the treatment facility 13 days after he started the program.

In March 2023, Neely was spotted and taken to a homeless shelter by an outreach worker, who described him as calm and subdued. His last interaction with law enforcement was on April 9, 2023; outreach workers called police after witnessing Neely urinating inside a subway car, and he was ejected from the train. Five days later, an outreach worker spotted Neely in Coney Island, and noted him as aggressive and incoherent, writing that "He could be a harm to others or himself if left untreated." Xan747 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources

@Xan747: Your reference [4] shows up blank in the reflist. – .Raven  .talk 04:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven that's because it's defined elsewhere on the main page. Xan747 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I intentionally left in statements that refer to a guilty plea, which implies a criminal conviction. The outreach worker's perception of Neely as "aggressive and incoherent" doesn't imply any crime occurred. The statement about public urination is borderline; I don't think it adds anything meaningful and I'd be fine with removing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC) edited 00:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but there's still a question of relevance. I could be persuaded to go either way with this. One argument is that the former marine wouldn't have known about Neely's arrests and conviction records, so those details are irrelevant and should be excluded per BLPCRIME. Another argument is that Neely's history of violent assault bolsters the assailant's contention that Neely's behavior was threatening enough to warrant physical intervention, and leaving that information out biases public opinion against a presumed innocent person. Xan747 (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The argument that Neely's history of violent assault bolsters the assailant's contention that Neely's behavior was threatening is pure WP:SYNTH. It's not Wikipedia's job to help Penny's legal case, let alone by besmirching a deceased person's name. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Then unless you can think of another reason why his guilty pleas and convictions are relevant, you should delete that information as well. Same for "aggressive and incoherent" behavior and "could be a harm to others" with the same justification. Pissing on the subway car is pure fluff. Xan747 (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree that the guilty pleas for assault etc. should be omitted. As stated, homeless people often commit petty crimes for the sake of a bed and warm meal in jail. For the same reason, homeless people might plead guilty to things they didn't do, or plead guilty to a worse criminal act than they actually committed. We should seriously consider not including information portraying Neely as some kind of violent criminal without more in-depth sourcing that goes into the context of these incidents. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf > I agree that the guilty pleas for assault etc. should be omitted.

OK I took the hatchet to it. Xan747 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this removal, which amounts to whitewashing. I have reverted to WP:QUO until a clear consensus emerges. WWGB (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Neely's not on trial here, his assailant is. The thing that's most relevant is what Neely did when he got on the train, and we won't find that in his rap sheet. The best defense I could come up with for keeping that material is that Neely's record of assault might bolster his assailant's testimony that Neely was behaving in a way that warranted such an extreme intervention, but that got shot down rather forcefully. Xan747 (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What may or may not be used in court is not our concern. We publish in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Many reliable, independent sources have published Neely's record, therefore so should we. WWGB (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Understood, but judging relevance isn't completely out of our purview; BLP contains seven instances of the word. I see your WP:QUO and raise you a WP:ONUS. Xan747 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies, as does the "living persons" exeption to WP:QUO, which links to WP:BLP, which specifically applies to "recently deceased" persons as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is the usual standard, but material relating to living (and recently deceased) persons demands special consideration. HuffPost comments, "The practice of leaking criminal records to reporters after a public incident is a habit for the NYPD, deployed after the arrests of countless defendants ― but not usually for homicide victims." Neely's criminal record is evidently being used by the police and media to shape a particular narrative, which is against the spirit if not the letter of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia has a policy of taking special care with material that might damage the reputation of little-known persons, which Neely was up until his death. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't we run some of that under Journalists in the Reactions section? And in Neely's bio section something along the lines of, "Shortly after Neely was killed, the NYPD leaked Neely's arrest records to the press, most of which were for minor crimes related to homelessness." As for the violent assault convictions, the letter of BLP says we can include it. Can we do it in a way that which makes the point that the wide publication of those details is part of the outrage over his killing, and part of why this story is notable? Xan747 (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: This is a good idea, in regards to including something about the NYPD leaking his records. Thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, added this diff, characterizing it as an op-ed with inline attribution to HuffPo as I'm concerned about general reliability of the source, and specifically about some details in the rest of the article. There may also be some objections along the lines of NPOV/UNDUE, COATTRACK, etc. Xan747 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Neely's 40+ arrests on the subway are widely cited in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. This information is relevant and important to the article as it demonstrates that Neely was not a model subway rider, but had history as a difficult and aggressive passenger. WWGB (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue the arrest number itself isn't indicative of anything given how homeless people are often arrested on petty charges such as loitering (for the crime of being homeless). You could try to make a case for specific arrests though, but on the condition of them having actual guilty convictions that go through. LoomCreek (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

and also as goes without saying being from reliable, and in this case non-anonymous/identified with few exceptions, sources LoomCreek (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the reliable sources listed by @WWGB: make any claim that Neely actually committed any of the acts that precipitated his arrests. They only make the claim that he was arrested, e.g. "accused of a crime," which is information we are encouraged to exclude. Per WP:BLPCRIME, Neely is presumed innocent unless there is a conviction, and this information is encouraged to be excluded from the article. For instance, one of the sources says Neely was arrested for dodging fares. Without a conviction for that case, or without a reliable source saying that Neely actually did bypass a subway turnstile, we shouldn't include the information. The arrest itself cannot be a basis for inclusion.

Furthermore its pertinence to the article is questionable. Neely's status as a "model subway rider" is not the subject of the article. Nobody else on the subway had knowledge of his arrest record at the time of his death. His behavior on the train precipitating Penny's attack on him is relevant. His entire life history is not. Combefere ★ Talk 03:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

WWGB: those sources seem to be getting their info from the same anonymous police source as CNN ("police say", "according to a police statement"). Or they are simply repeating what CNN and others already published ("according to US media", "police reportedly arrested"). There's always reason to be skeptical of anonymous police statements like these. I'm not sure what Neely being a difficult and aggressive passenger has to do with the topic unless to justify his killing, which would violate WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. A history of arrests by itself doesn't even prove that, given that unhoused people often intentionally commit crimes in order to receive food and shelter in jail; indeed, one of Neely's friends says young homeless men are often advised they can get "a bed and a warm meal" if arrested. It suggests Neely may just have been trying to survive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the coverage in the sources, I think it might be appropriate to make a generalized statement about something like a "history of minor offenses" or the like, but I see no reason to list them or describe them in detail. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd support language like that although that seems to imply a bit too strongly that he actually committed those crimes ("offenses") where he was never indicted, let along convicted for those, in the unnamed sources giving the "40+" arrests info. And just in general we need to be careful to use cautious using anonymous sources about the victim in this case that might be undue and "justifying" actions of others without solid, reliable sources. Skynxnex (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Skynxnex (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume you mean to be careful about using anonymous sources, in which case I agree fully. I'd be OK with a generalized statement once there is some retrospective secondary source analysis to go on, rather than relying on immediate news coverage (I'm aware that immediate news coverage is the only reason we have an article at all right now, but the BLPCRIME issue demands special consideration and sensitivity IMO). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. I've edited to hope it's more clear. Skynxnex (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion, from the HuffPost:

How The Media Made A Villain Out Of Jordan Neely - Anonymous police sources quickly set the narrative after Daniel Penny put Neely in a deadly chokehold on the subway, by Matt Shuham on 16 May 2023.

72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Relevant to Sangdeboeuf's "be careful about using anonymous sources" two comments above, you mean? – .Raven  .talk 15:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion thread overall, regarding inclusion or exclusion of Neely's arrest records. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

City and country in lede?

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.

---

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

• No: article's main infobox already contains the city and country; including them in the lede is therefore redundant and makes the sentence unnecessarily long. Xan747 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  It hardly makes it necessarily long. It is a minor but important edition; this is an American issue, and should be presented as such. Furthermore, the style of referring to cities should - just to be informative - refer to the country. Not only does it seem obvious to Americans that NYC is in the US, it seems obvious to most English-language readers. However, that is not the point; the point is purely to be informative, and, importantly, right. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, at present the infobox isn't shown to mobile users. – .Raven  .talk 16:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Good point here .Raven, and it is my understanding that mobile users constitute a vast & overwhelming percentage of the readership. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's incorrect. When I open the article on Android in Firefox, Chrome or Opera, the infobox is always shown. Whether I'm logged in or not. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I also see the infobox shown on mobile Safari and the Wikipedia mobile app. Combefere ★ Talk 15:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hm. I must have had old or incorrect information. Okay then! – .Raven  .talk 05:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. I'm American and I don't believe that Manhattan's location is universal knowledge. I agree that it makes the sentence a little unwieldy but it's only five words. (If the sentence has to be shortened, I suggest removing either "the F train on" or "on the subway." To my reading, each phrase renders the other kind of pointless.) CityOfSilver 14:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, Yes, on main point. On parenthesized point: perhaps "the F train of the subway" — since "the F train" by itself might not communicate "subway" to people unfamiliar with NYC; not "universal knowledge", as you put it. – .Raven  .talk 16:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think leaving the city and county in the lead sentence is fine. If length is concern, cut the F train. The important part for the lead sentence is on the subway not which particular line so: riding the subway in Manhattan, New York City, United States. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  What, cut the F train? Not mention which station? Omit which car number, and which door of the car? Hey, details are the life of the novel! [Oh, we're writing an encyclopedia? Then never mind.] – .Raven  .talk 17:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes – this is not uncommon on other similar articles. For example, Murder of George Floyd currently begins with "On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, was murdered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S., by Derek Chauvin, a 44-year-old white police officer." The tacit assumption that all English language readers will know where Manhattan is located is part of a broader problem of systemic Anglo-American bias on Wikipedia which is contrary to NPOV. Including the country makes Wikipedia more neutral and more accessible. We can use the abbreviation US or U.S. to make the sentence more readable. Combefere ★ Talk 07:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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.

What to include from assailant's video statement

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.

---

This conversation got blown way off course, by myself included, without any clear resolution. The article currently reads:

In video recorded statements released by his lawyers on June 11, the accused said, "Some people say this was about race, which is absolutely ridiculous. I didn't see a Black man threatening passengers. I saw a man threatening passengers. A lot of whom were people of color. A person who helped restrain Neely was a person of color."[55][56][57]

In the same video, the accused said about Neely, "The three main threats that he repeated over and over was, 'I'm going to kill you,' 'I'm prepared to go to jail for life,' and 'I'm willing to die.'" The accused also disputed his intent, and that he had restrained Neely for 15 minutes, saying, "Between stops, it was only a couple of minutes, so the whole interaction, less than five minutes. Some people say I was trying to choke him to death – which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him. You can see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest, indicating that he's breathing."[58][59][60]

This has been the status quo for several weeks now, and with no talk comments on it for over a week, I think we've got tacit consensus for no further change, so I am closing the topic. If any disagree, feel free to reopen. Xan747 (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Begin previous conversation

• @.Raven, good find, I added that detail in this diff, using a local news agency for the site. If it gets challenged, we'll take it to a different talk thread so as not to continue cluttering up this one with the same off-topic point over and over. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• @.Raven and Xan747: It's all fine and good that Daniel Penny denies he used a chokehold, but what do our reliable sources say? The HuffPost article cited above by .Raven says "Penny was captured on a bystander video putting Neely in a chokehold ..." That article also says that Penny claims Neely was on drugs, but did the medical examiner's report affirm that accusation? The second source .Raven cited above (Insider), also says "Penny, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, put Neely in a chokehold ..." I would like to remind y'all that we follow what the reliable sources say. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Please note the actual topic here: the repeated claims on this page (worded variously) that no one (including Penny) denied that he killed Neely. Pointing to all the sources which don't mention his (and that witness's) denial  doesn't erase the sources which do mention those denials... nor make those false claims true. – .Raven  .talk 07:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

End previous conversation

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

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

We may be in territory where the best choice is to quote the man verbatim, thereby removing as many editorial and paraphrasing conflicts as possible. The following is an auto-generated transcript of what I think are the relevant parts his video statement. It has been lightly edited for caps, punct and obvious errors:

At Second Avenue a man came on, stumbled on, he appeared to be on drugs. The doors closed and he ripped his jacket off and violently threw it at the people sitting down to my left. I was listening to music at the time and he was yelling so I took my headphones out to hear what he was yelling and the three main threats that he repeated over and over was "I'm gonna kill you I'm prepared to go to jail for life and I'm willing to die."

Some people say that I was holding on to Mr Neely for 15 minutes. This is not true. I mean between stops is only a couple minutes and so the whole interaction less than less than five minutes.

Some people say I was trying to choke him to death which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him. Uh, you can see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest indicating that he's breathing. I'm trying to restrain him from him being able to carry out the threats.

I used this hold to restrain him and I did this by leaving my hand on top of his head to control his body. You could see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest indicating that he was still breathing and I'm calibrating my grip based on on the force that he's exerting.

I just I mean I was trying to keep him on the ground until the police came I was praying that the police would come and take this situation under take this situation over. Xan747 (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I think adding this entire quote would be WP:UNDUE, and would certainly violate WP:NPOV. Neely's family also released a statement, saying that Penny "wrapped his arms around Neely's neck, and squeezed, and kept squeezing." A single in-line quotation from each, in the reactions section, might be appropriate to strike a balance. Combefere ★ Talk 20:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point I'm mainly interested giving other editors a chance to read his own words instead of the hacked-apart soundbites in the popular press. Then I think we can make a better informed decision about what to put in the article and where. Whatever those choices, I really think direct quotes is the best way to go. Xan747 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

As for Penny's claim that he was merely trying to "restrain" Neely, who was "still breathing", etc., he would say that, wouldn't he? The video statement is a primary source. It would be original research if we started picking soundbites from primary sources. Due weight means reflecting fairly what the most reliable, independent sources say about a topic. For now those are mainly news reports, but in the future there should be others like academic books and journal articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf > he would say that, wouldn't he?

That's original research. This isn't:

“Some people say I was trying to choke him to death, which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him.” Penny noted that in the video, you can see a clear rise and fall of his chest, as again, he was not trying to kill Neely but rather stop him from carrying out any of his threats.~The Blaze

“The three main threats he repeated over and over were: ‘I’m going to kill you. I’m prepared to go to jail for life, and I’m willing to die,'” Penny said. “I knew I had to act. I acted in a way that would protect other passengers, protect myself and protect Mr. Neely. I knew this chokehold [sic?] to place my hand on top of his head. His chest rising and falling. He was still breathing.” Penny said he held Neely in a chokehold for less than five minutes, not for 15 minutes, as a witness who recorded the deadly encounter had claimed.~PIX11

"I was listening to music at the time, and he was yelling, so I took my headphones out to hear what he was yelling," Penny said in his video statement. "And the three main threats that he repeated over and over was 'I'm going to kill you,' 'I'm prepared to go to jail for life,' and 'I'm willing to die.'" In the video statements, Penny also defended how he restrained Neely. He said that he adjusted his grip on Neely “based on the force that he’s exerting” and that Neely was breathing in the video.~NBC News

In newly recorded interviews released Sunday by lawyers defending him on manslaughter charges, Penny said he wasn’t “trying to choke him to death” during the May 1 F train encounter, but just wanted to hold the menacing passenger long enough for cops to intervene. “I was trying to keep him on the ground until the police came,” Penny, 24, said in the videos posted on the Law & Crime Network Youtube channel. “Some people say that I was holding on to Mr. Neely for 15 minutes,” Penny said. “This is not true. Between stops is only a couple of minutes. So the whole interaction lasted less than 5 minutes.” “Some people say I was trying to choke him to death, which is also not true,” he added. “I was trying to restrain him.”~NY Daily News via Yahoo Sports Xan747 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is a guideline used to help editors understand that some pieces of information which newspapers are obligated to report are not always necessary to include in our encyclopedia. That guideline is not original research. The guideline certainly seems pertinent to this discussion. Penny is not a neutral or reliable source on what happened, and we shouldn't treat him as such. Newspapers might be required to give him the last word, but we aren't. Combefere ★ Talk 23:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The Blaze is considered generally unreliable for facts. (I'd call it a propaganda outlet.) Of the other sources, NBC News (national) is the most mainstream and reliable IMO. In general I would prefer not to just pick random quotes from Penny but to summarize what reliable sources themselves say about the subject, for instance:

• Daniel Penny, the man charged in Jordan Neely's death, defended his actions on the subway in newly-released videos ... [Penny] said he was acting in self-defense while Neely made threats and acted erratically on the train ... In his lawyers' videos, Penny said he was not trying to end Neely's life and race was not a factor ... He also said the chokehold was only about five minutes, instead of 15 minutes, which has been alleged by some. – CBS
• [Penny] disputed an eyewitness account that he held Jordan Neely in a chokehold ... Penny reiterated that he did not intend to choke Neely and that he was trying to restrain him. He also disputed the account of Juan Alberto Vazquez, who recorded the video ... Penny accused Neely of uttering violent threats. He said he was fearful of Neely and 'couldn't sit still' as he saw women and children being threatened ... Penny also defended how he restrained Neely. He said that he adjusted his grip on Neely 'based on the force that he’s exerting' and that Neely was breathing in the video. – NBC

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

So I don't care about him feeling fearful of Neely, couldn't sit still watching women and children being threatened, etc. I care about couple of minutes between stations, five minute hold instead of fifteen, and that "he adjusted his grip on Neely 'based on the force that he’s exerting' and that Neely was breathing in the video". However you want to hack that together would probably satisfy me. Most of it is already there I think. Xan747 (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Some food for thought: Neely died from strangulation (compression of neck, causing restricted blood flow to the brain and other vital organs), not suffocation. Penny's statement that Neely was breathing in the video may give readers a false impression, both of the cause of death and of his own culpability. Combefere ★ Talk 15:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The only direct quote of the autopsy report I've seen in RS is He died of "compression of neck (chokehold)" and the manner of death was ruled a homicide by the city's chief medical examiner’s office said. I didn't find anything distinguishing between strangulation and suffocation attributed to the ME in this case. The closest thing I could find (and added to the article weeks ago) is this bit attributed to former marine Gabriel Murphy:

According to the official training manual, "when executed properly, a blood choke takes between 8 to 13 seconds for the aggressor to lose consciousness."

The manual also says, When executed properly, an air choke takes between two and three minutes for the aggressor to lose consciousness, which is more consistent with how long it took Neely to go limp in the video. But it would be just as much synth to print that as it would be to interpret "compression of neck (chokehold)" as a "blood choke".

Neely's assailant knows best what he was trying to do, though it's quite possible he didn't know exactly what he was doing; the ME is best equipped to distinguish, but hasn't specified. Murphy wasn't even there and isn't a medical expert, so there's an argument to rank his opinion the lowest of the three ... yet his opinion is by far the most detailed and prominent despite being named in only two RS that I know of.

Food for thought. Xan747 (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we hack together some sort of medical analysis from disparate sources. My only point is that the assertion that Neely may have been breathing in the video comes from a single source with obvious bias, and no medical expertise to validate its relevance. If a doctor or other medical expert analyzed the video and was quoted by an RS, I would be more inclined to include it.

Keep in mind this is an encyclopedia, not a courtroom. We are not obligated to platform a defendant's case. WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE require us to give weight to statements that are verifiable, and come from reliable sources who are qualified to comment on their subject matter. It does not require us to give equal weight to both sides of an incident. Combefere ★ Talk 18:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The ex-marine's statements are verifiable as they are published in multiple RS. There is no prohibition against using biased sources or publishing biased opinions so long as they are properly attributed. Importantly, verifiability is not truth. As for DUE and BALANCE, I'm asking for a total of three, maybe four sentences from his video testimony, more than balanced by the ten or more I wrote on Murphy's scathing accusation of murder based on only two RSs, and someone whose only expertise is the technique Neely's assailant used.

We're not obligated to making either the prosecution's or defense's cases, but to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I believe my contributions to this article as a whole reflect my commitment to that policy, having contributed material mostly sympathetic but also critical of Neely, and content by far more critical and damning of the ex-marine than sympathetic -- which I think is a very accurate and proportional reflection of the news coverage in this case. My proposed additions here are no exception. Xan747 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and I apologize if I accidentally implied that you were not committed to doing so (I certainly think you are!). I just believe that Penny's own statement about Neely's breathing is not a "significant view." While Murphy is both qualified to talk about Marine training (which is all we quote him on) and a neutral source, Penny is neither qualified to assess the medical relevance of Neely's breathing nor a neutral source. Combefere ★ Talk 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And to clarify, I am just talking about the comment on Neely's breathing. Penny's statements about the threats that Neely yelled at passengers have been published by many RSs in their own voice, and are certainly due, and Penny is certainly qualified (if biased) to talk about "adjusting his grip." Combefere ★ Talk 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere No, I apologize for getting prickly. Went for a long walk and feel much better.

The former marine doesn't need to be an expert to express an opinion on Neely's breathing. There's no requirement for a statement to be true for it to be notable enough to publish. We can, and do, publish lies.

In response to WP:MANDY (which is a horrible essay, and rightfully controversial), at the bottom the public figures section of BLP innocently lurks, If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.

That's probably the best argument I can make. Unless you have a novel rebuttal, I rest my case. Xan747 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

"Unless you have a novel rebuttal"... I don't. I think I've made all of the points I was going to. Perhaps another editor should weigh in. Happy to go wherever consensus leads on this point. Combefere ★ Talk 00:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Definitely time for others to weigh in. Thanks for a robust debate, I learned a lot from it. Cheers. Xan747 (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Murphy's comments are found halfway through the § Reactions and protests section, giving them quite a bit less prominence than Penny's statement under § Accused. Let's not treat NPOV like a logrolling exercise, please. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Point taken and understood. But now that you mention it, on the basis of expertise alone, I think that paragraph belongs at the top of the section. But I put it at the bottom because the pols got most of the press. I wanted more of it in the lead section but got reverted. Xan747 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Agree with the spirit of this comment. I think what is currently included in the article now is mostly fine, as it gives a quote from Penny. I don't think his version of the story should have equal weight to the account given by reliable sources, however. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Very much agree with this, as I argued above. Nowhere does the assailant say "it wasn't a chokehold," he says, in so many words, that he did not intend harm and that Mr. Neely was breathing normally. As I said above, I think this is a conflation of the idea of a chokehold with the intent to choke, and they are not the same thing. To be fair, Huffington Post interpreted this as him saying it was not a chokehold, but they also flatly say this was incorrect. I edited the article last night to change the language to that of intent, and I believe it should stay that way. I do think we probably should include his comments on breathing and drugs, but somehow make clear that they go to his state of mind and not the facts? I am not even sure how we would do that, but I'll keep thinking. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Accusing Neely of having been on drugs would seem to be a BLP violation. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The other denial I cited, Insider's "One of the people pinning Neely down... also claimed that Penny was not 'squeezing' Neely's neck", is not a statement about "intent"; he had no way to know that "intent". It is a statement about physical actions. – .Raven  .talk 16:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, but note it does not say "not a chokehold." Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC, he doesn't say "not a chokehold". He describes it as a "hold" and that he was not trying to "choke [Neely] to death", but "restrain" him. See the transcript above in my 20:15, 21 June 2023 post. Xan747 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My concern was the diff that had the wording, "He also disputed he had applied a chokehold". He said what he said, but unless he was replying to a question of was it a chokehold or not, I don't see it as disputing it. A chokehold is a "hold", him clarifying his intent isn't him saying he disputes applying a chokehold. I understand what he is saying, I'm just saying I don't see where he dispute it, he clarifies/explains his actions in his words. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes that was my diff, and it was wrong of me to state it that way given what he actually said. I think the simplest thing to do is blockquote him like we (and by that I mean, I) did with Vazquez, but in his own section since there are concerns about weight. I propose:

In a video statement released by his legal team, Neely's assailant said about the incident:

At Second Avenue [Neely] came on., stumbled on, he appeared to be on drugs. The doors closed and he ripped his jacket off and violently threw it at the people sitting down to my left. I was listening to music at the time and he was yelling so I took my headphones out to hear what he was yelling and The three main threats that he repeated over and over was "I'm gonna kill you I'm prepared to go to jail for life and I'm willing to die."

Some people say that I was holding on to Mr Neely for 15 minutes. This is not true. I mean between stops is only a couple minutes and so the whole interaction less than less than five minutes.

Some people say I was trying to choke him to death which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him. Uh, you can see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest indicating that he's breathing. I'm trying to restrain him from him being able to carry out the threats.

I used this hold to restrain him and I did this by leaving my hand on top of his head to control his body. You could see in the video there's a clear rise and fall of his chest indicating that he was still breathing and I'm calibrating my grip based on on the force that he's exerting.(cite)

Multiple RS contain a fair amount of that text, or the substance of it (and we should cite them too), so I don't see any problems with fringe, undue, etc. Xan747 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE because it's based entirely on a primary source from the subject himself as supposed to published, independent sources. Your other comments suggest you are trying to give Penny a platform to explain or justify his actions. That's the opposite of due weight and WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf > Your other comments suggest you are trying to give Penny a platform to explain or justify his actions.

Begin quote

Chokehold is an inherently dangerous technique

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

End quote

For the record, what I was trying to do there WAS synth ... I was a few weeks younger then. But I manged to get the point across from several RS. The entire paragraph beginning:

Shortly after Neely's death, Gabriel Murphy, a former marine with a service record similar to the accused's, started a petition at MoveOn saying, "the individual who choked Mr. Neely to death should be prosecuted for murder."

is all me. I couldn't use the really good quote from Murphy slamming Neely's assailant for totally irresponsible use of a chokehold because it too was self-published. Them's the breaks. Xan747 (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Virtually all RSs have characterized the act as a chokehold.
• The Medical Examiner's office stated that Neely died from a chokehold.
• The Medical Examiner's report lists the cause of death as a homicide.
• Multiple RSs have stated explicitly that Neely was choked to death.
• Multiple RS have stated explicitly that Penny choked Neely.
• Multiple RSs have stated explicitly that Penny choked Neely to death.
• Multiple RSs have stated explicitly that Penny killed Neely.
• Multiple RSs have stated explicitly that the Medical Examiner's report determined that Penny killed Neely.

If I missed any possible formulation of the verbiage surrounding the widely reported material fact that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely with a chokehold, please do not take that as an indication that RSs have also missed that verbiage. For every possible permutation of words expressing this idea in the English language, the RSs have used it.

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

As far as I can tell, all the points in your list are correct. But the following are also correct:

• Few RSs state explicitly that Neely was choked to death. Most use more guarded wording.
• Few RSs state explicitly that Penny choked Neely to death. Most use more guarded wording.
• Few RSs state explicitly that Penny killed Neely. Most use more guarded wording.
• Few RSs state explicitly that the Medical Examiner's report determined that Penny killed Neely. Most use more guarded wording.

Here are a few examples from the top results I get when I search Google News for "Jordan Neely" (I omitted low quality sources like Fox News and the New York Post):

• "A grand jury in Manhattan indicted 24-year-old subway rider Daniel Penny, filmed with his arm around Jordan Neely, whose death was ruled a homicide." NBC New York [7]
• "The Marine veteran who held an unhoused Black man in a deadly chokehold ... charged with second-degree manslaughter in the killing of Jordan Neely ... He held down Neely in a fatal chokehold ... restrained him in a chokehold until he stopped breathing. A medical examiner ruled Neely’s death a homicide." CNN [8]
• "[Penny has been] charged with manslaughter in the death of Neely ... was filmed holding Neely in a chokehold" ABC New York [9]
• "Penny, charged with manslaughter in the killing of Jordan Neely ... The man charged with killing a homeless subway passenger in a minutes-long chokehold ... Mr. Penny placed Mr. Neely in a chokehold ..." New York Times [10]
• "Penny has said he was defending himself and other passengers when he choked Jordan Neely to death. ... Marine veteran who was arrested last month after killing a homeless man ... Mr. Penny, apparently seeking to restrain Mr. Neely, placed him in a chokehold, killing him. The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.)" New York Times [11]
• "The Subway Chokehold Death of Jordan Neely ... Daniel Penny choked Jordan Neely ... to death ... Penny was later charged with manslaughter" New York Times, info box in both articles listed above
• "[grand jury voted to indict] Daniel Penny in last month's killing of Jordan Neely with a chokehold ... Penny was captured in videos putting Neely in a chokehold ... " Reuters [12]
• "Marine veteran who held homeless man in fatal chokehold ... Penny, the Marine veteran who held ... Neely in a fatal chokehold ... Penny held Neely in a chokehold ... restrained him in a chokehold until he stopped breathing. A medical examiner ruled Neely’s death a homicide." CNN [13]
• "Vasquez recorded a portion of the confrontation that appeared to show Penny putting Neely in a chokehold ... The city’s medical examiner said Neely died from “compression of neck (chokehold)” and declared his manner of death a homicide — a routine term used by coroners and medical examiners to mean death caused by another person, but not a finding of criminal culpability." NBC [14]
• "Video showed Penny putting Neely in a chokehold ... Penny held Neely for several minutes, and at some point Neely stopped moving, but Penny continued to hold him for a period of time ... The medical examiner determined Jordan Neely was killed by a chokehold and his death was ruled a homicide." ABC [15]

Among these sources, only the New York Times in its second article and its info box makes the explicit statements you listed. All others use more guarded wording. As usual, we should follow WP:RS. It would be WP:UNDUE if we used wording that appears only in a minority of sources. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is definitely a degree of variability in how RSs choose to word it, and I don't disagree with using more guarded wording in the article. However, I do not think we can reasonably interpret this variability in verbiage as a variability in their understanding of the facts. All RSs seem to be in agreement that Penny killed Neely by choking him to death, and none of them contradict those facts. As such, statements that Penny did not kill Neely, or did not choke him, or did not squeeze his neck are certainly undue. Combefere ★ Talk 20:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: My comments above were the reason that I removed the witness statement about Penny "not squeezing." Care to discuss? Combefere ★ Talk 05:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere, happy to discuss here, thanks. I think you are applying WP:UNDUE too heavily in this case. This is not a flat Earth scenario, so I think the relevant guidance is, "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description." The following two sentences you want to strike are attributed to two literally hands-on eyewitnesses ...

One of the other men restraining Neely responded, claiming that what appeared to be new excrement was just old excrement. One of the men also responded to the warning by saying that the ex-marine had stopped "squeezing" Neely's neck.

... and don't seem like an excessive amount of detail or emphasis when compared to ... say ... how very much more ink I allotted to Gabriel Murphy, who wasn't actually there. Xan747 (talk) 06:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

My reasoning for the first statement is more of a WP:BLPRS concern. It a speculative comment that seems to denigrate Neely's character. The second statement I think is also speculative, and undue. The witness may have thought Penny stopped squeezing at some point, but had no way of knowing; he made the statement before Neely even died, let alone before knowing the ME reported that Neely died from compression of his neck. In general, I think direct quotes from anonymous witnesses should be kept to a minimum.

My other thought for both is simply: what do they add to the article? Is there a purpose to including the trivial musings of an anonymous witness who says Neely perhaps might have had excrement in his pants when he entered the train? It seems like the only function of the sentence is to attack Neely's character. Combefere ★ Talk 06:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Must. Have. Sleep. Will respond later. Xan747 (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It isn't our job to speculate about what motivated an eye-witness to say what they did, nor to judge their statements' credibility. That's the job of RS, and these three have seen fit to quote various witnesses as seen in the video, and their comments are relevant to the questions of intent and/or negligence. My third citation has probably the best summary I've yet read:

While Penny, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, put Neely in a chokehold in a New York subway car for several minutes as bystanders helped pin the man down until he went limp, the extended video shows a person emerge from the side of the scene, noting that Neely defecated and that those restraining him should be concerned about a "murder charge."

Defecation is one of the tell-tale signs that a person being choked or strangled is close to death, according to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.

"Because after he's defecated himself, that's it. You've got to let him go," the bystander can be heard saying in the video.

One of the people pinning Neely down claimed that Neely did not defecate and that the stain on his pants was old. He also claimed that Penny was not "squeezing" Neely's neck. This same person later asks Neely if he can hear. When the unconscious Neely does not respond, the person pinning Neely's arms down then asks Penny to release him, which he finally does.

This establishes the significance of the alleged defecation, that the ex-Marine had been made aware that Neely may have defecated, that whether Neely had defecated due to the chokehold was contested, and that the ex-marine did not release Neely until after being told Neely was unresponsive. There is potentially incriminatory and exculpatory information here, very much warranting inclusion in the article because it is RS interpretation and synthesis of a primary source that happens to be the most detailed and indisputable evidence of what actually happened available to us.

The anonymity of most of the witnesses in the video concerns me less than would, say, whoever leaked Neely's arrest record. They are seen and/or heard in the video. Multiple RSs describe what is seen/heard. Other named eyewitnesses interviewed in RS, mainly Vazquez and Grima, corroborate many of the details. In fact, I would argue that Grima doesn't get enough press in our article. Read this:

“I saw Penny holding Neely by the neck, and another guy holding on to Neely, as if he was still resisting. Neely was staring off. But, honestly, at the moment, I didn’t know how long they had had him. The way they were holding him, it was as if they had just had the craziest fight or something. They’re holding on to him for dear life. Somebody was filming it, and this person finally said, ‘You gotta let him go.’ They finally let him go, and he just fell limp.

“There were maybe twenty-some people outside the train car. I was looking in the window, and I was, like, ‘Something is fucking wrong.’ Because I was looking at him, and he was staring off into space. His eyes were dead. He wasn’t not moving. But the thing is, these guys that choked him the fuck out were saying that he was still breathing, that he still had a pulse. They were acting in such a way that no one else could come next to him. I told them to put him on his side. I didn’t believe that he was dead. I’d never seen a dead body before. I didn’t want him choking on his own spit or vomit. I had my water bottle in my hand. I wanted to try to check him out. But I was intimidated by these people. I didn’t know anybody. I wasn’t not trying to get stabbed. I tried to move in. I poured a little water on his forehead. And Daniel Penny came over and told me to stop. He shuffled me off.

Single witness, single RS. In isolation perhaps easy to dismiss as a non-expert speculating about what he saw with his own eyes. In corroboration with others quoted in other RS, the case for inclusion becomes stronger. Xan747 (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chrisahn, very useful list, thanks for taking the time. Xan747 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Chrisahn. One other policy snippet from WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPPUBLIC, applies even if we do count the accused as a "public figure":

• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.

As applied to this case, (1) we should not assert as "fact" in Wikipedia's voice that "[X] killed [Y]", only at most with the more neutral "It was alleged that..." or "... was alleged to have..."; (2) since there has been some such denial both by [X] and another passenger / witness, we should report those denials, not entirely omit them because accusations are more frequent. – .Raven  .talk 05:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point me to those denials? Dumuzid (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I posted 3 quotes/cites/links at 09:15, 20 June. That got hatted under "Extended replies". Here's a diff of it. – .Raven  .talk 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There are certainly disputes as to the details of what was happening, but I still see no dispute as to "killing." All the statements you mention seem to me consistent with the (widely held) idea that the named assailant was the cause-in-fact if Neely's death. Of course, that is just my opinion. If you achieve consensus for your proposed edits, then obviously make them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

See reply to Combefere below. – .Raven  .talk 17:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any use of the word "alleged" to describe the sequence of actions that Penny took which led to Neely's death, which strikes me as very much WP:UNDUE. None of the sources above describe this as an 'alleged killing,' or say that Penny was 'alleged to have killed Neely,' 'alleged to have choked Neely,' or similar. Virtually all RSs state in their own voice that Penny killed Neely, that he choked Neely to death, that he put Neely in a fatal chokehold or similar. Giving undue weight to fringe theories is not "more neutral" than including the objective, verifiable, reliably sourced facts; in fact it is against our policy on neutrality. Combefere ★ Talk 22:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

> "Virtually all RSs state in their own voice that [X] killed Neely...." — Citing those which do so state would verify that they alleged it, parallel to WP:BLPPUBLIC's "multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the [article], citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." WP:BLP is still policy.

Meanwhile, Chrisahn above has already told you, with example links:

• Few RSs state explicitly that Neely was choked to death. Most use more guarded wording.
• Few RSs state explicitly that [X] choked Neely to death. Most use more guarded wording.
• Few RSs state explicitly that [X] killed Neely. Most use more guarded wording.
• Few RSs state explicitly that the Medical Examiner's report determined that [X] killed Neely. Most use more guarded wording.

Ignoring that is not a refutation. – .Raven  .talk 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"Citing those which do so state would verify that they alleged it"

This is a deep misunderstanding of how we include information from reliable sources on Wikipedia, and would preclude us from stating any information at all in Wikivoice without the qualifier "alleged."

Indeed, I responded to Chrisahn's comment above; I clearly did not ignore it. I'll ask that this time around, you don't simply copy and paste comments or arguments that I've already responded to and addressed as if I had never addressed them. I would have hoped that a 7-day block for WP:BLUDGEONING would have taught you this lesson, but here you are 8 days later, seeming to repeat the same pattern of disruptive behavior. Combefere ★ Talk 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Whether you posted in reply to Chrisahn is not the issue; you continue to assert as fact statements Chris already rebutted with citations. You want to switch the topic to user conduct? This isn't the proper venue. – .Raven  .talk 22:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You and Chrisahn apparently think those statements have been rebutted. Combefere and I quite disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Chrisahn thinks those statements were "rebutted." They He thanked me for that edit 12 days ago, and didn't respond to it, so I had assumed we came to an understanding.

But perhaps @Chrisahn: would like to clarify their his position, since I don't want to presume to speak for them him, and I would caution against other users doing so as well. Combefere ★ Talk 17:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Quick replies to a few points brought up recently: We should follow RSs. If most RSs said something like "Penny killed Neely" or "Neely was killed by Penny", we should use that wording as well. But they don't, as shown by the examples I listed above. Most sources use more guarded wording, e.g. "Neely died after Penny put him in a chokehold". That's what we should do as well. – Claims like "virtually all RSs state in their own voice that Penny killed Neely" aren't correct, because most RSs don't actually say that. They use more guarded wording. – I thanked you mainly because you wrote "I don't disagree with using more guarded wording in the article", and I largely agreed with the rest of your comment. – Regarding "alleged": If many RSs used words like "alleged", we should do so too. But they don't, so we shouldn't. We shouldn't say something like "Neely allegedly died after Penny put him in a chokehold" or "Penny allegedly killed Neely", because that's not what RSs say. – BLPPUBLIC says "multiple major newspapers publish the allegations". This could be made a bit clearer by adding "... and describe them as 'allegations' or 'rumors'", because I'm sure that's what is meant. Otherwise, as you explained, we'd always have to say "alleged", even when RSs clearly say "X did Y". – My preferred pronoun is "he", not "they". — Chrisahn (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick response! To be extremely pedantic and clarify (mostly for another editor who I expect may jump onto this thread at any moment), my statement that "virtually all RSs state in their own voice that Penny killed Neely" is inclusive of statements such as 'Neely was choked to death by a subway rider... Penny put Neely in a chokehold,' and similar which I think clearly convey the fact of Neely's killing by Penny. It seems we're in agreement though that most RSs use this type of "guarded" wording (fatal chokehold, choked to death, etc.) instead of using the word "killed" explicitly, and that this verbiage is acceptable to use for the article. Happy to go where consensus leads on how exactly we phrase it. Combefere ★ Talk 19:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree very much with this. "X killed Y" is a perfectly acceptable substitute for "X put Y in a fatal chokehold" to me. With all due respect Chrisahn, most of your examples above, in my opinion, support the "killed" wording, but as ever, reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, from a purely logical perspective, all the quotes I listed above are consistent with the statement "Penny killed Neely". But language isn't purely logical. Words have connotations. The word "kill" has connotations of intent and morality that other descriptions (e.g. "X caused Y's death" or "X's actions lead to Y's death") may not have, although they are logically equivalent. In the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME, we should avoid these connotations and instead follow the majority of RSs and use more cautious wording. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, but I would point out that of your ten examples above, fully half of them use "kill" language, and I personally am not sure that "restrained him in a fatal chokehold" or the like has connotations that are meaningfully different. That said, I obviously won't quibble with any consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

> We should follow RSs. — If the RSs in the WP:BLPPUBLIC example had articles and even blaring headlines that "Politician Z Has Affair!", as statements of fact, that would be their allegation, unless Politician Z conceded it. The policy then tells us: "The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred." [emphasis added] And this is even before the next paragraph adds: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." So a denial is not required in order for us to need to stick with "alleged". The fact of there being denials only strengthens that need.

Whether or not the RSs follow our policies, WE are supposed to. – .Raven  .talk 20:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello again .Raven, we must follow reliable sources, this is not optional. As Chrisahn correctly pointed out above, "We should follow RSs ... Regarding 'alleged': If many RSs used words like 'alleged', we should do so too. But they don't, so we shouldn't."

Advocating against following WP:RS is disruptive, goes against policy, and is certainly not in the spirit of how Wikipedia is intended to function. Following reliable sources is a foundational principle, there is no going around this most basic feature. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: Please cite and quote from recent high-quality reliable sources that use such explicit language, specifically that "Penny allegedly killed Neely" etc. Can you find any?

Without WP:RS making this claim, we simply cannot include such language in the article. Your continued refusal to respect the general consensus found in reliable sources is disruptive and goes against the tenants of our editing responsibilities here at Wikipedia. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

> Please cite and quote from recent high-quality reliable sources that use such explicit language, specifically that "Penny allegedly killed Neely" etc.

You're addressing this request to the wrong party, since (as visible above) another person made the firm claim that "Virtually all RSs state in their own voice that [X] killed Neely...."

By definition (in the following two bluelinks), what they "state in their own voice"  is what they allege.  (See also synonyms.) And per the policy in WP:BLPPUBLIC, even though "multiple major newspapers publish the allegations", we "should state only that the [person] was alleged to have [performed the action at issue], not that the [action alleged] actually occurred." – .Raven  .talk 01:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPUBLIC gives the example of: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal (emphasis added). We have no such denials here, and no real doubt beyond basic epistemic skepticism. This is why, for me, adding "alleged" would actually be misleading. Happy to leave it to the wisdom of consensus, however. Hope everyone is having a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it would clearly be misleading and a disservice to our readers. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

> "We have no such denials here" — I provided you links above. – .Raven  .talk 04:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

And it would seem that those denials were unconvincing to myself, Combefere, and the IP. Disputing the time involved or the nature of the chokehold is not the same as denial of being the cause-in-fact of the death. You've made a perfectly reasonable case, but it does not follow that others must find it convincing. I'll stop now, since we seem to be at an impasse, but as I say, if you can establish a consensus, more power to you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

> "...those denials were unconvincing to myself..." [et al.]

Not the same as their not existing, cf. "We have no such denials here".

BLP didn't ask that the politician's denials "convince" editors. – .Raven  .talk 04:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean that those denials are not in fact supporting your case. As I said, Disputing the time involved or the nature of the chokehold is not the same as denial of being the cause-in-fact of the death. I am not doubting the fact of the denials, I am doubting your application of them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The nature of the hold is one of the disputes, as in:

1. "[X] denied he had Neely in a chokehold";
2. That eyewitness "also claimed that [X] was not 'squeezing' Neely's neck."

With those two denials on public record, we're left with an allegation by others, that per BLP we should only report as "alleged", not a fact. – .Raven  .talk 05:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. When you have consensus, change as you see fit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

So which is it?
1. You don't agree that policy says that? -or-
2. You don't want to follow policy on that point?
– .Raven  .talk 05:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

As I think I have made abundantly clear, I disagree with your interpretation both of the substance of the relevant statements and the application of policy thereto. Dumuzid (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You "disagree with":
(1) [My] "interpretation... of the substance of the relevant statements": longer verbatim quotes of RSs with source links, followed by shorter but still verbatim quotes of RSs,
(2) [My] "interpretation... of... the application of policy thereto": a full-quote with cite-and-link of policy, followed by shorter quotes with bracketed substitutions referring to this case.

I invite you to find where I've misquoted either... (hint: bracketed text is not a "misquote")... absent which, you "disagree with" the RSs and the policy. – .Raven  .talk 07:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Your invitation is declined. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: So you have zero high-quality reliable sources to refer to then, with which to backup your concerns? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Answering you (as above) seems only to indulge sea-lioning, so I'm done. – .Raven  .talk 04:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@.Raven: Right, so no reliable sources to base your proposed article changes on, got it. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you know it. We follow what the sources say, and to propose doing otherwise is disruptive. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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.