Template:BLP noticeboard

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Black Lives Matter Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City: Public Transportation Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Actually Beyond (a) reasonable doubt isn't the standard for Libel, it is a "legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction [i.e., yes, for the defendant in the case here, but not regarding Wikipedia or its editors] in most adversarial legal systems.^[1] It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities", which is the standard for libel cases, and I thought WP might be in the hot seat, but WP editors (four at that time) have actually been sued for $10 million dollars for libel, for repeating false claims..[2] I'm not sure how that went, nor saying such will happen here, I'm certainly not threatening it, I have no case. It seems the special legal policy WP:LIBEL was established by Jimmy Wales at the time, for the users, rather than (just) for WP (or himself). 01:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Comp.arch There two main points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skynxnex, to answer your question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be WP:SYNTH to add that unless a reliable source explicitly mentioned the "recovery position." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added, BBC article confirms it as a "recovery position." KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KiharaNoukan The article judgement of that seems entirely based on the video. In other word no new information

I dont think that's confirmation enough to include it. LoomCreek (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was not added earlier was because, as Jamie mentioned, WP:SYNTH in the absence of an RS. There are a number of important details that are entirely based on the footage, but not necessarily WP:V the instant the footage itself is available. For instance, I added the info of 50s of restraint after Neely became motionless the same day as I did the recovery position after there was an RS confirming that detail. Both are based on the same footage released days earlier, with no "new" info. It just takes time for more info to be verifiable. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well my reason for mentioning it is the BBC explicitly states in the article it made the recovery position judgment based off the video. Which while is from a generally reliable source, I don't think constitutes conclusively listing it as the recovery position. That's just my position though, it might be useful to ask other editors. LoomCreek (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was placed in the recovery position. Whether or not it was intentional or on accident is up for debate, but you can place someone in the recovery position without intending on doing so. LukFromTheWiki (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument breaks down to, yes, it was the recovery position, yes they teach it in first aid, yes a marine would likely know it, yes credible publications have mentioned it...

... but no, they aren't including it because it doesn't fit the political narrative they are pushing. (12:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)) 2603:300A:1D11:4700:D99E:2080:918:F300 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in article for two days since KiharaNoukan added in the BBC source he mentioned above. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An argument can be made that his military service has relevance given that he'd likely have combat training. However, I certainly don't think it belonds in the lede. Beyond that, I'd agree with you that it violates BLP privacy policy to include other biographical info beyond the basics as he is not a public figure. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is now, most certainly, a public figure, named and described in reliable sources around the world. He achieved that be inserting himself into the situation. WWGB (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would just pop in briefly to say that I disagree with this interpretation. Being a "public figure," to my mind, must include some aspect of the person in question seeking out such attention. Otherwise, this interpretation would make WP:NPF nothing more than surplusage which could never actually apply. While Mr. Penny certainly inserted himself into this situation, there is no reason to think that he did so for the purpose of achieving fame or notoriety. I therefore think we should, in accordance with that policy, pare back the information quite a bit. I am, however, mindful that the policies in question do not make this an ineluctable conclusion, so happy to go wherever consensus takes us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side though is the question of Jordan Neely, who also didn't seek to become a public figure. Now, just because this individual is deceased, we feel comfortable detailing aspects of that person's life here as well. I think BLP applies to both Neely and Penny, but neither is warranted any more or less privacy than the other. Obviously some detail about both of their lives is necessary, but to what extent? Do we simply follow what reliable sources say about each of them, and then try to balance that with what information is relevant and WP:DUE etc? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, unfortunately BLP policy is informed by (though not identical to!) defamation concepts, for what should be obvious reasons. It is generally true in common law depositions that you cannot defame a deceased person. There is also less danger obviously in presenting details about Mr. Neely. Morally, I quite agree with you that neither should have superior privacy rights, but that is the way things turn out given practical considerations. As anyone could probably tell you, I am an err-on-the-side-of-privacy guy, but I also have faith in the wisdom of consensus. So between me being a fuddy-duddy and smarter people, we should end up somewhere near the right conclusion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if convicted he, or at least the average criminal, would not be a public figure, i.e. not worthy of privacy. But he's now a WP:SUSPECT, presumed innocent, and for sure not a public persona. So I agree with you his combat training doesn't belong in the lead, and probably not in the article at all. If people would want to think of it that way, he had Neely in a chokehold, what killed him, for 15 minutes, and if Penny had wanted to kill him, I would guess people with combat training could do it in 2 minutes. Or people with grappling training, even from high school. And maybe even (male) ballet dancers, but had he been one, we would not find his profession and training relevant. Including "Marine" in any way (in his case former!), seems to me, to imply some kind of intent. comp.arch (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every RS linked on the page mentions the fact that Penny is an ex-marine. Many include it in the titles of their articles. It's clearly one of the most important details about the killing of Jordan Neely, and should be included in the lead, per MOS:INTRO. Combefere ★ Talk 10:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Combefere I don't know if I think it's the most important detail but it does provide context on Penny's potential training with restraints, including lethal ones.

I'm somewhat neutral on the subject. So I'm perfectly fine with including it as it's inclusion seems to fit wikipedia policy. LoomCreek (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think we should even name Penny (a ship which has long since sailed), but yes, his status as an ex-marine (or however they put it) is both widely reported and relevant to the killing, so yes, I think it should be in. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the ex-Marine thing definitely belongs and in the lead as reflected in RS. I don't see why we need the name though, it's not particularly important. Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to use this to describe Neely? "Jordan Neely was a 30-year-old black mentally ill man, with criminally violent history..". It was added to first sentence of lead and to the Neely subsection.[6] I reverted it[7], it was added back into his subsection but left out of lead[8](then just mentality ill part added back in[9]). I believe the previous wording Jordan Neely was a 30-year-old black man who grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey was better, and then describing his diagnosis and altercations he had in the past in the following sentences/paragraphs. Guess can also discuss necessity of the additional one sentence paragraph of Neely has spent over a year in jail for aggression. that was added as well. Feel that can be added into currently prose where we describe the incident of assault. I have my opinions on how it should be, Comp.arch (talk · contribs) has his. Maybe others can chime in. Thanks. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe the previous wording Jordan Neely was a 30-year-old black man who grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey" is of course factual for his section, also as I did it. NY Times has MJ impersonator as his historical past. It's of course debatable what to have there in HIS section, but mental history seems very relevant, and criminal history, there, is no less true than "MJ impersonator". Mental and criminal seem very relevant to the lead, is in sources, will be brought up at trial, as more relevant than MJ (MJ might though be mentioned then... but it wasn't relevant at the event, or after). comp.arch (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with including mentally ill in the lead for a couple reasons. First it's often used as a highly subjective term so using it in wikivoice seems like a violation of Wikipedia policy. You'd have to point to some official diagnosis rather then such a non-concrete term.

Secondly when using that wide brush, it's not a neutral term but comes with a wide swath of connotations and in my opinion violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. LoomCreek (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For my money, I think we need to get those descriptors in there, but I am not sure it belongs in our introduction (for lack of a better term) to Mr. Neely. Include it in the body, but not straight away in the lead is my feeling, but happy to go with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is important information and well sourced. It is not undue. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentally ill" is a no-go without RS indicating diagnosis. "criminally violent" is unambiguously POV-pushing language, especially in the lead or the first sentence of the section, as it carries the implication that criminal violence was a core aspect of Neely's existence - it may warrant some inclusion, but do recall that this article is about Neely's death and the circumstances that led to it, not every aspect of every involved person's life. Should we then include descriptions of how Marines are trained in hand-to-hand combat, or how Penny's parents were Trump supporters which must make them (in magical POV-land) violent racists who raised a son in the same vein? We need to strike a WP:BALANCE in the "People involved" section that currently doesn't exist, and going on about how Neely was violent and a psycho and a criminal does not do that. PriusGod (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentally ill" is true (I stopped short of "drug addict"), multiple sources say so, the article already stated it (I didn't put it in, nor K2/spice drug, I just clarified that) before I added this in the lead (e.g. "schizophrenia" and "depression", already in the article; according to his aunt), and people who aren't mentally ill and/or criminals do not urinate "inside a subway car" (about a month before), and punch a 67-year-old woman in the street breaking her nose and spend 15 months in jail for it, and spend a week in a mental hospital. I think this is beyond doubt, and WP:DUE. This is probably the closest you get (as WP:RS) without the actual papers on the diagnosis (that likely exist). And his mother was murdered put into a suitcase, so it's not really surprising he is "troubled"/has mental health issues. All this doesn't mean you need to be homeless, and homeless alone explains nothing (e.g. Dr. Phil was homeless, and he has repeatedly stated it) about his aggressive behavior in the subway (that day nor before in the subway). My "POV-pushing language" is the truth, that seems relevant. There's nothing right or wrong about him being homeless, but it's a WP:WEASEL word (only put in at the time when something explaining it wasn't clear and yet in the news), implies mentally ill to many, and it's better to just state it. If mentally ill stays out so should the home or lack there of stay out. We are silent on the situation of Penny regarding that, his address or none (his state is in and probably should be out). Also [un]employment situations of all involved should stay out. About WP:BALANCE: "lynching" is in the article and "Jordan Neely was murdered." (so the bar of inclusion in the article, is a random person's POV, just because it's a reaction and AOC?). comp.arch (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to your last sentence here, I don't think these are balance problems at all, but I don't know that we should be including tweets unless they get coverage in secondary sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:SUSPECT WP:POLICY ("editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.") so "lunching" and "murder" is out, according to my reading (I added the bold), unless to restore WP:BALANCE something is added to explain why not murder (i.e. killing). It seems very due to include info on Neely. And very little must be stated about Penny, only really relating to his arrest. comp.arch (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't his arrest tend to suggest that he is accused of committing a crime? Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument isn't about him being mentally ill or having a criminal history. It was about overly defining him as just that. As I had said in my edit comments, the article is about the killing, stating Penny killed Neely, and describing it is what lead sentence needs. Most sources that I read describe basic overview of the events, and then they talk about his history of mental illness and arrest. In regards to the homeless descriptor in lead, that probably isn't needed in describing the events. In regards to his subsection, we introduce who he was, a black man in 30s who grew up in Jersey. In the opening paragraph, as you said, already mentions his depression, schizophrenia and PTSD. His arrests and description of the more violet incidents are described in the largest paragraph in his subsection. So no one is hiding this information it is all stated. WikiVirusC^(talk) 00:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very much in agreement. And echoing other comments, this article is about the killing of Jordan Neely, not a biography on the individual. Opening sentences should focus on the core basics of said unfortunate event.

I am also concerned about the WP:OR & WP:SYNTH style arguments coming from user comp.arch, for example this statement: people who aren't mentally ill and/or criminals do not urinate "inside a subway car" (about a month before), and punch a 67-year-old woman in the street breaking her nose and spend 15 months in jail for it, and spend a week in a mental hospital. I understand the reasoning and thinking here, but this is not how Wikipedia works.

We must follow reliable sources, not edit based on our opinion about what does or doesn't signify that a person suffers from significant mental health issues. We'd also need some kind of official diagnosis to boldly declare this as a defining characteristic of an individual. WP:BLP rules still apply, even for someone who is deceased.

Quoting from the BLP policy: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't quote WP:BLP policy that applies (most strongly) to living persons, unless it applies; "unsourced or poorly sourced" doesn't apply. It's best that you remove that part of comment (and the rebuttal from mine) from the discussion, since it's a distraction, using the same IP address (or someone else can do it for you?). About WP:SYNTH, I don't believe I did that, I'm aware of that concept, and I'm a very experienced Wikipedia editor, familiar with most policies, and difference with e.g. guidelines. The concept apples to main article space, and I don't think I did it, if I did, then point it out. Nor did I do WP:OR, i.e. not go by WP:RS. I believe SYNTH and OR is ok in Talk space as a discussion, to talk about a revert. comp.arch (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sad that it has to be spelled out - no, we should not be describing a recently deceased individual as "mentally ill" or "criminally violent" without an overwhelming majority of RSs using the same language. @Comp.arch:, please review WP:CONTENTIOUS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLPSTYLE. Combefere ★ Talk 07:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The man had previous history of violence including an arrest for hitting an elderly woman on a subway car. Given where he was and that every witness has supported the restraint, it is credible...

... unless the intent is to frame the article in a politically bias way, which is about par for Wikipedia (12:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)) 2603:300A:1D11:4700:D99E:2080:918:F300 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is politically biassed, wtf are you reading and commenting for. WWGB (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, add WP:SYNTH to the list of policies this wording violates. Cheers! Combefere ★ Talk 01:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue of relevance. His violent history is more pertinent than his race. Yet right now his race is in the introduction, but not his violent history. This is a violation of guidelines in relation to relevance.

In fact, he was a wanted criminal in relation to violent assault. This should be one of the first descriptions used, and is also more important than his race or the Daniel Penny's race. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most RSs lead with Neely's race and introduce him in their articles as a 30-year-old Black man. None lead with speculations about his mental health. When mental health is discussed in RSs, it is far down in the article, speculative, and never used as some sort of synonym for his identity. You're entitled to your own opinions about which is more relevant, but as editors we have to follow the RSs. See WP:UNDUE. Combefere ★ Talk 04:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

vs

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

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

Yes, exactly. I mean, how relevant would it be if Penny has a drug history of his own? Not significant, unless it directly contributed to events on the subway that day. Was either individual intoxicated or in an altered state due to drugs or alcohol at the time of the killing? That seems to be where such information would be more appropriately considered for addition to the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add K2 to the article, but I expanded language on it and enlarged to quote from NY Times. The question[s] is really: A. Should K2/Spice be included in the article the first place? and B. that Neely threatened to kill. C. I would want to know how dangerous K2/Spice really is (so I looked up more); D. does the use have long-term effects (then relevant in the article, since it was heavy use), or only short-term (then if he had it in his system). It IS claimed to be very dangerous (is that just a moral panic that Obama and many states criminalised it? Countries have been getting more strict on it, but notably UK and Canada are not (yet?) as strict, Class B drug in the UK and Schedule II in Canada):

The case of David Mitchell Rozga, an American teenager from Indianola, Iowa, brought international attention to K2. Rozga shot himself in the head with a family-owned hunting rifle in an apparent suicide on June 6, 2010. [..] The death of Rozga influenced political lobbying against K2, and other legal synthetic drugs such as bath salts. Following the incident, the "David Mitchell Rozga Act" to ban the use and distribution of K2 was introduced by Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley. It was passed by the United States Congress in June 2011.^[2] On July 10, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 into law. It banned synthetic compounds commonly found in synthetic marijuana, placing them under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.^[3]

[..]

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

comp.arch (talk) sometime before 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A. I was iffy on whether it should be include or not, but originally was fine with simplified version. In end I don't see point of it even being referenced at all, unless we.
• B. I already mentioned above it's BLPCRIME territory for recently deceased.
• C. If you or other people want to know more about K2 they would click the wikilink to it for more details like always.
• D. Same as above, wikilink. Also minor reason I removed it completely, if it's not there, no need to wonder or speculate about it at all.

WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On B. WP:BLPCRIME/WP:SUSPECT doesn't apply to Neely, since it's under the heading "People accused of crime" AND he's not alive; the policy states: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. [..]". I've never heard of a posthumous conviction, only a such a pardon. So it's more about (potential) victim-blaming, but that's POV, since the other (live guy that BLPCRIME applies to) guy is presumed innocent, and thus Neely the aggressor, killed in self-defence. On C. yes, you can click on the link and see "illegal", but that doesn't mean Neely is accused of a crime(?). It's illegal to sell it, possession or using likely isn't. So "illegal" is simply to inform about the drug, not as much Neely, vs the regular marijuana. That's why I rather want just K2/spice, skipping "marijuana" altogether, since it's misleading, and people can actually clik the link and then see the full story. So you logic goes both ways. The WP:RS NY Times source article was quoted misleadingly. comp.arch (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to recently deceased, whether we talking specifically about BLPCRIME or simply the accusations in general. Never talked about conviction or pardon or courts at all, its the simple hearsay accusation that is the BLP issue. Someone's death does not simply allow hearsay accusations to be put in articles. He was arrested and charged with several crimes, there is no reasons to add random accusations in. Its not POV, as no where in my response did I victim blame or talk about who the aggressor is, this threat was years(?) ago with no relation to his to his death, how did you relate it to that? BLPCRIME says people are presumed innocent, it in no way translate thus someone else is aggressor/killed in self-defense. No clue why you are bringing up clicking wikilink would mean Neely is or isn't accused of crime, that has no relation to anything and not sure what that response is directed out. It's not my logic nor do I care which way it goes. You will have to say what you mean about NY Times quote, cause idk which one or what you are referring to. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just want to note that I also agree with this removal. It doesn't seem due to me given a (admittedly limited) review of the sources, and I agree with the already-noted relevance concerns. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added Spice, the "nick name" you say (the only one I added, can't confirm "names" added), since it seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME, is in bold at target article. I've never heard of K2, not sure it's any kind of official name. comp.arch (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K2/spice designer drug, and pedantic revert[s] related to it; and Neely threatening to kill a woman

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

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

Please don't readd; per the section immediately above, the current consensus seems to be against this. Consensus can change, of course, but for the moment, I don't think this is called for. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion above for mention of threat. Discuss things here per WP:BRD, edit comments only go so far, and I really think you should avoid the practice of leaving notes and comments in commented out(<-- -->) bits in article, as they are even more likely to be missed later than edit comments. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, we discussed this above, but quite frankly, I am not sure if we ever got to a real consensus. Comp.arch just removed all reference to the suspect's name citing WP:BLPCRIME. I actually tend to agree with him on this one, but I know that many here do not. Happy to go wherever consensus leads, so I would appreciate input. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I read that, and per policies I put in the edit summary (and additionally see WP:LPNAME policy on privacy), I removed the name, and see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting." I didn't see a consensus, nor a need, for the name. If it violates policy, and I think it does (others agreed), then it should be out, or people need to put forward a really good argument for having/keeping the name. Simply counting votes in favour of having his name doesn't matter. Per WP:CCC even if there had been a consensus, it can change, and that was from since before he was charged. Now justice runs its course. Protests seemingly lead to a charge, I'm not sure if his name or "marine" played a part. There's not reason to keep the name, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for protests, or naming people. Note, from above it's not a "political system", i.e. for social justice. comp.arch (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LPNAME says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" that it is "often preferable" to omit. Daniel Penny's name has been widely disseminated (not just 'leaked') by reliable sources. It WAS intentionally concealed by news and law enforcement organizations, but it is NO LONGER intentionally concealed, rather it has been deliberately released.

WP:SUSPECT (which is the same as WP:BLPCRIME, not sure why you elected to cite them as though they were separate policies) discusses the presumption of innocence and then says that editors "must seriously consider not including material" that implies an accusation or a presumption of guilt. Daniel Penny has been arrested and charged with the manslaughter of Jordan Neely. OF COURSE, we should not say that Penny is guilty of any crime as that would be a blatant violation of the policy being discussed by this paragraph. BUT, it is the case that Penny has been published as the individual who choked Neely to death. If Wikipedia is to reflect reliable sources, it should include the name.

WP:ASSERTN is not relevant. It is a point in an essay about deletion discussions, which this is not. WP:OTHERSTUFF is also a point in an essay about deletion discussions. That being said, I'd like to point to an essay, WP:SSE, to support my argument in favor of inclusion - there are plenty of articles that name otherwise-nonnotable accused, because naming the primary, charged suspect is NOT an accusation of guilt - it is an affirmation of what is published in reliable sources.

Furthermore, I take issue with the readability - a section titled "Three or more persons, thereof one charged"? The section doesn't even include any information whatsoever about the two other people. The "Accused" are "A man who put Neely in the chokehold; in total three men, of different races, including white and black, held Neely down, and only one of was a suspect and charged." The replacement of Penny's name with just "ex-marine" as though "ex-marine" is a name or pronoun completely destroys the grammar of the "Incident" section. While this is fixable, I think it would be a much better idea to take the time to workshop the grammar (additionally, this gives the RfC more time to stretch its legs) instead of doing... this.

Additionally, I'd like to see some reliable sources that there were two other people accused of taking actions that led to Neely's death as the section title and other sentence imply, otherwise this is veering very far into WP:OR territory - I considered simply reverting the edits because of this.

I'd like to imagine I've been fairly ambivalent in previous discussions on this page. This time, I am not. Policy does not indicate that Penny's name "must be suppressed." I suggest if you believe that to be the case, pursue suppression or at least revdeletion. PriusGod (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PriusGod - I am happy to go with consensus here, but just want to briefly note again my reasoning for thinking the name should still be omitted: namely that WP:BLPCRIME says that omission should be considered unless a conviction has been secured. Obviously, for a conviction, one must be charged, so it seems to me the policy expressly says charging is not enough. But I can certainly understand reasons for inclusion here (and, honestly, would like to see the policy clarified). As I like to say, reasonable minds can differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to disagree, and say that the operative text of the policy is regarding "material that suggests" that the relevant individual has committed the crime or has been accused, and that simple inclusion of the name is not that. However, I ABSOLUTELY agree with you that the policy is unclear and that it ought to be clarified - were it more strictly worded that information not be included until conviction, I wouldn't be here. PriusGod (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The man who should not be named (even on Talk page), falls under WP:LIVE policy, which is strict on privacy (unless you can find even one exception that applies). "If Wikipedia is to reflect reliable sources, it should include the name." WP SHOULD NOT reflect WP:RS (which is actually just a guideline) here regarding the name, RS is a precondition (actually WP:V policy), but not sufficient, since other policies, e.g. those regarding privacy and crime trump it. When I or anyone removes something citing policy, then you must object by stating an exception in the same policy (not some lesser guideline or essay only) if it applies or some other policy that overrides. I'm trying to navigate this as best I can. Please WP:Assume_good_faith, as I do of you (I still welcome the noticeboard/experts on policies admining). I've edited WP for years, but never this type of article before. WP:LIVE: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to [..] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and [..] Wikipedia must get the article right. [..] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. [..] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. [this bolding is mine] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid [..] the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." There's a precedent about which name to include the Manning naming dispute, so if you can choose your name, and expect that name to be included, it seems if you value your privacy, you should be allowed to choose, privacy, i.e. no name (or say Mickey Mouse). So unless the person has clearly sought out attention, rather than defend from the attention and prosecution, he remains still not a public figure, as before. "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page. [e.g. footnotes] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." About "any material [..] challenged or likely to be challenged" is it good enough to quote the name from the many WP:RS news articles that include it? I believe not, because of WP:NOTWHOSWHO/WP:NOTNEWS policy that references BLP/LIVE on privacy (I don't believe in mistaken identity here, but hypothetically news could be wrong, so I'm thinking of the general issue too). "it is NO LONGER intentionally concealed, rather it has been deliberately released." That doesn't matter, WP:BLPCRIME also applies to the DA, at least I didn't see an exception (except for conviction), and the police (let alone news articles). About possible exceptions, or not, there's the "Presumption in favor of privacy" sub-chapter at LIVE/BLP, and it has A. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article." He (and actually neither Neely are notable, only the event is). Then it follows "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability", and he's not notable, so it means include nothing! There is B. WP:PUBLICFIGURE exception, that could apply in some cases, but not here (and the example there is about e.g. an affair of an already notable public figure, not about the serious up to 15 years in jail of a non-public figure). See also WP:BLP1E policy and WP:PERP (only a guideline). comp.arch(talk) 22:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To mitigate WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will respond briefly to the main points in bullets.

• WP:LIVE - Penny's name is not challenged, and is not likely to be challenged. Daniel Penny has released a statement admitting his involvement.
• WP:BLP - This article "must be written conservatively with regard to Penny's privacy." It is.
• "Presumption in favor of privacy" (of names) - You omitted the second half of the sentence. Full quote: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. By no stretch is Penny "loosely involved."
• WP:NPF - Penny's involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely is notable, and is exactly the type of detail that NPF allows us to include. Your misinterpretation of how this policy works would prevent us from including Jordan Neely's name (or anything else about him) as well, which should raise an alarm bell for you that your own understanding of the policy is incorrect.

Again, I'll point you to every other "Killing of..." article on Wikipedia. As other users have pointed out, some stuff exists for a reason - in this case, because the editors of those articles have a clear understanding of the wiki policies surrounding BLP and Crime. Please be more careful in reviewing wiki policies and make sure that you fully understand them before making major edits to a highly charged page without consensus. Combefere ★ Talk 05:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You: "WP:NPF - Penny's involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely is notable". To clarify, NPF is same as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, so you are saying he was NOT – and still isn't – a public figure? If A kills B, and neither A nor B were notable before, and that means A and/or B suddenly automatically become notable, then it's a mockery of WP:BLPCRIME, i.e. waiting for conviction to publish details like the name. What NPF states: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. [Note, neither were, and neither are yet, for their own article; the event article isn't about him. Unlike George Floyd who has a separate article.] In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. [..] Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Think of it this way, if he is found not guilty, then his name never should been in the article, by adding it you are taking sides, presuming he will be found guilty, and BPF is in the "Presumption in favor of privacy" sub-chapter. I'm saying if other articles broke WP polices, then it doesn't mean we should also break (privacy) policies here.

You may think you know who is the victim here, but then you're presuming. "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. [..] This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." comp.arch (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the suspect in this case should not have their own article at this time per WP:BLP1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE, however, they clearly are "notable" in the sense of multiple reliable, independent sources covers them so we can and should include details about them in appropriate articles. From WP:BLP1E: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. ... In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. so by BLP1E it's appropriate to include information about them in the event they are notable for. As I've mentioned before, I think we have (and are) seriously considering whether or not to include the material and so that satisfies WP:BLPCRIME for inclusion. For WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, it says Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. I agree with that and we should just include material that has been published in multiple high quality sources and leave out biographical details that are potentially harmful and completely unrelated to the event. But their name and core biographical history are material relevant to the person's notability. And again, the suspect is "notable" for this single event (even if no standalone page is warranted at this time) using our notability standards and so including material about them is acceptable. From WP:BIO: If, however, there is only enough information about one notable event related to the person, then the article should be titled specifically about that event. Skynxnex (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."

I agree that it was a mistake earlier in the article's history to include his name - it was deliberately concealed by law enforcement, news, and him and his family, and it was originally 'uncovered' by an OSINT researcher on Twitter and 'confirmed' by the Daily Mail accidentally publishing the name, then removing it. His name's inclusion at that time, frankly, could have easily warranted revdeletion IMO.

It will not adversely affect his reputation to include his name in the article when multiple reliable sources have published that he was the killer, when he has released a statement *workshopped with his lawyer (thus absolutely in his best interest)* acknowledging his involvement in Neely's death but denying having tried to kill him, when him and his family have his name out on a now over 2 million dollar crowdfunding campaign for legal fees. Is not a crowdfunding campaign the definition of seeking public attention? I don't think it clears the "public figure" bar but it absolutely indicates that he does not feel that his name is a secret, that he is shying away from the public eye.

Even if he is exonerated of the killing (exceedingly unlikely - IMO the best it will get for him is that the homicide will be ruled not criminal as self defense/defending someone else's life), he would STILL be relevant to the article enough to warrant inclusion of his name and his hand in the event.

While I am a new account, I've spent a long time prior to account creation lurking and at times throwing my hat into BLP and BLPCRIME related talks and my biggest observation about any of it is that WP:BLPCRIME is an extremely contentious and ambiguously written piece of policy that is largely interpreted on the basis of local consensus. The only thing that BLPCRIME compels us as editors to do here is "seriously consider" the omission of material that carries specific implications. It would be a gross misapplication of Wikipedia's position as an informational resource to imply or state that Penny is a murderer or that he committed manslaughter, because without a conviction, Penny must be considered innocent. It would also be a failure of that same position to assert that Neely died because of some confluence of the actions of three men, rather than the verifiable, notable, and self-admitted actions of a single one.

I appreciate, as should we all, your valiant effort in explaining exactly why you believe Penny's name should be excluded, though I will admit to feeling that some of your longer citations, instructions on how policies "must" be applied, and the implication that I am not assuming good faith cross the line into wikilawyering. PriusGod (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, by your logic, we should never have mentioned Kyle Rittenhouse in the article Kenosha unrest since he was acquitted of all charges? WWGB (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, what I'm saying. It's a similar kind of situation, and now he's well known, despite he was found not guilty, and never should have been a public figure, at least not because of WP. Even presumed criminals have (privacy) rights. He was defending himself as he could, I mean after that event (and his case during it), but making a big deal of it "Free as fuck" T-shirt, means possibly at some point you seek out being a public figure (no similarity here). So it's less clear cut there. Kyle is now notable, I mean has his own page, for some reason, and seemingly profits from his public persona. Had his name never been made public, that might not have happened. Let's deal with the main event, Neely's for now, since it's more pressing. comp.arch (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If A kills B, and neither A nor B were notable before, and that means A and/or B suddenly automatically become notable

This is a misunderstanding of wiki policy and practice. It's Catch-22 level logic - the people are not notable, therefore the event is not notable, therefore the people are not notable, and we can go around and around this circle to argue against every article on the encyclopedia That's not how notability works. We did not, as you suggest, independently decide that Neely and Penny were notable because Penny killed Neely. Penny and Neely are notable because multiple RSs have noted them. The event is notable, and the people involved are now notable due to the event. The Killing of Jordan Neely is notable per WP:GNG. Both Jordan Neely and Daniel Penny are notable per WP:GNG. Neither needs to have their own article to be considered notable. See Murder of Ahmaud Arbery. See Killing of Breonna Taylor. By your logic, we would have to exclude Breonna Taylor's name from the Killing of Breonna Taylor article.

it's a mockery of WP:BLPCRIME, i.e. waiting for conviction to publish details like the name

This is a misunderstanding of wiki policy and practice. BLPCRIME prevents us from including information that suggests a living person has committed a crime. We have not included any information that suggests Penny committed a crime. The article does not state that Penny is guilty of homicide, or manslaughter. The article states that Penny killed Neely, which is a neutral and verifiable description of events that is supported by multiple RSs and is not on its own an accusation of guilt for the charge of manslaughter that he is facing. It is both well within wiki policy, and common practice to include these types of details in high-profile killings that receive national news attention. Combefere ★ Talk 16:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion of name for reasons mentioned here by PriusGod. Beyond that the changes need to be rolled back anyway, they contain a considerable amount of unsourced claims: everything from including the two other men involved in restraint as "accused" and claiming what their races are, to Penny wearing "civilian clothes." KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support including the name. I agree per WP:BLPCRIME we should seriously consider not including the name but after doing so, the balance is to include. Given the amount of coverage including their name, the person charged is actively raising money using their own name for their defense, and the fact that similar to other cases, it is likely their name will always be associated/covered with this event in reliable sources even if acquitted/charges dropped, including the name is prudent and encyclopedic within WP:BLPCRIME. Skynxnex (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion of Daniel Penny's name, per my comments in the discussion above, and per consensus in the discussion above. The article is about The Killing of Jordan Neely - we cannot omit the killer of Jordan Neely. I intend to restore this information when I am able. @Comp.arch: I suggest you review WP:LPNAME (it indicates that we should include Penny's name), as well as WP:RECKLESS, and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Repeatedly removing the most critical information from a politically charged article without trying to build consensus (and in spite of an emerging consensus against it) is not a useful way to edit. Combefere ★ Talk 21:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment do note there is an ongoing RfC above. Although that one is focused specifically on including his name in lead. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, apologies. It completely skipped my mind that it was an actual RFC above! Dumuzid (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Inclusion LoomCreek (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion of name per PriusGod. 〜 Festucalex • talk 03:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Inclusion – based on Combefere's analysis. Nothing about including Penny's name in this article is unique or off-track in my opinion and in terms of Wikipedia policy. In fact, including the name of the accused and charged seems quite reasonable and par for the course, especially given the international coverage by reliable sources. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support inclusion per PriusGod and Combefere. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's still an open RfC (started 6 May) on this question above that's never been closed. Someone linked to it at WP:ANI recently and now people are responding to the old RfC today as of 18 May.

  So we now have 2 separate discussions on the same page.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Exclude name per Wikipedia policy, like it or not. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime. This is a duplicate of the comment I left at the RfC above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of order—Either this discussion should be merged into the above or the above should be merged here. (Probably the former.) This page is currently listed on WP:RFC/A; a user that clicks on its link will be taken to the above section ... but, even though that RFC is not closed, and it appears to be getting responses, it seems to me like this section has supplanted it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear: If it were me, I'd archive this discussion, copy the !votes of every editor here who hadn't already !voted in the above discussion and pasting them (perhaps in an archive top / bottom template) into the first section, add a subsection to the above section for "Discussion", and then include a link to this archived discussion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Only problem with that is that RfC was worded as "Should the name of the killer be included in the lead section?" While it seems like the opinions would mostly be the same for the lead and body of the article, technically moving it from a specific question to a more broader question wouldn't be right without checking with every participant. Probably better to find someone uninvolved to close the previous discussion and participants who haven't participated in this one should be pinged here. In the end, both discussions seem to be leaning towards including name, so it's not as big of a deal as it could of been. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah fair point! (Although surely if the name can be mentioned in the lead ... it can also be mentioned other places, no? Either way, I withdraw my suggestion!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With the supports yeah. The only real different would be if some people opposed it being in lead specifically, but might be fine with name being under participants. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support inclusion. While this is not a formal RfC, I will !vote to include the name of the accused. His name has been published in reliable sources around the world, so privacy is no longer an issue. He has also admitted participating in the train incident. His public notoriety means he is no longer subject to WP:BLPCRIME. To withhold his name in the face of universal publication would render Wikipedia weak and censored. WWGB (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prior BLPCRIME discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

For masochists dissatisfied with the brevity of this discussion, there's so much more to read!

For your reference:

• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLPCRIME is useless

There are 51 archived talk pages. I only looked at #40 to #51:

• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 51#BLPCRIME and naming suspects
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 50#Crimes committed by low profile individuals
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 49#BLPCRIME guidance needed
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 49#BLPCRIME revision
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48#RfC: Exception to BLPCRIME?
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48#Proposed clarification related to crime
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48#BLPCRIME
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 47#WP:BLPCRIME is ambiguous in the absence of a rule
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 46#Proposed change to "People accused of crime"
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#Interpretation of BLPCRIME
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#Is BLPCRIME requirement for conviction too restrictive?
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#RFC on BLPCRIME
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#What makes a person a public figure after the are suspected of committing a crime
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 44 - one talk archive without a BLPCRIME discussion!
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 43 - one BLPCRIME discussios that's not directly applicable here
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 42 - several BLPCRIME discussions but not directly applicable here
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 41#What makes a person a public figure after the are suspected of committing a crime
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 40#WP:BLPCRIME

The BLP noticeboard has many more; it's currently got 349 archive pages: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/archive toc

To avoid breaking the discussion, I suggest continuing to add comments above this subsection. I just added these as further information.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this, A. B. Yeah. I have followed (and I think?) taken part in more than one of these, and sought guidance elsewhere. I can say thus far it's still ambiguous to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]