Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely/Archive 6

Neely's criminal record redux
I have reverted two edits by @FMSky which restored information about Neely's criminal record that had been removed by consensus at Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely/Archive_3. As part of that discussion, there was support for adding to the Reactions section of the article a criticism of the NYPD for having released details of Neely's record, and of the press for publishing it, in a way that villainized a homicide victim. That addition remains in the current version, and says in part, That record included dozens of arrests, some for assault and many for lesser charges like fare evasion. So we've not completely scrubbed the criminal history; it's been given less prominence and contextualized.

Courtesy ping editors involved in the previous discussion: @Sangdeboeuf, @Combefere, @WWGB, @LoomCreek, @Dumuzid, @Skynxnex -- Xan747 (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read my edit summary? The current version (1) only contains stuff he was actually convicted for, so its not a violation of WP:BLPCRIME or any other guidelines. It just states the facts on his situation prior to the murder --FMSky (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @FMSky No I hadn't seen that as I was busy writing up this talk section. In my edit summaries reverting your changes I clearly referred you to the discussion where it was overwhelmingly decided to remove even the details of the charges for which he'd been convicted or plea bargained. Please self-revert you latest addition until such time as a new consensus emerges to restore it. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason to rehash this debate. From the discussion you linked, we should also omit most of Neely's arrest record, apart from incidents that led to a criminal conviction. It's pretty clear the material being disputed in the most recent edit was in relation to incident(s) that lead to conviction, which is not a policy violation, and has long-standing consensus. Would you consider closing this discussion, or are there other issues to be addressed? -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kcmastrpc, the same editor reversed their opinion later downthread, On reflection, I agree that the guilty pleas for assault etc. should be omitted. As stated, homeless people often commit petty crimes for the sake of a bed and warm meal in jail. For the same reason, homeless people might plead guilty to things they didn't do, or plead guilty to a worse criminal act than they actually committed. We should seriously consider not including information portraying Neely as some kind of violent criminal without more in-depth sourcing that goes into the context of these incidents. Xan747 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see that. However, it's difficult to see how any strong consensus was formed in the brief discussion you've linked. Nevertheless, it sounds like an actual RfC might come out of this, which is the correct course of action. Cheers. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There was one editor strongly in favor of including everything RS had to say about Neely's criminal record. One neutralish, two if you count the IP. And finally five editors, including me, solidly for excluding most (but not all) of it. I'm perfectly ok that other editors want to revisit the issue with the aim to change consensus, not so ok with suggestions that a consensus didn't exist which clearly did. Xan747 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont think punching an old woman in the face, breaking her nose and fracuring a bone in her skull can considered a "petty crime". He also spent 4 months in jail for assaulting a 7-year-old ---FMSky (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think felony assault is considered a petty crime either, and I'm quite sure it was not that editor's intent to imply such a thing. The question now is relevance of Neely's felony convictions. In the original discussion thread, I made one argument for relevance to include, and it was emphatically rejected as WP:SYNTH. But maybe you can find more compelling reasons than I or the one editor wholly in favor of inclusion did. Xan747 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I will start a RfC on this later, these are just facts about Neely that shouldnt simply be ignored. --FMSky (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * They aren't simply ignored, they're addressed in the Reactions section as I mentioned in my first post. Thank you for reverting pending the outcome of further discussion. Xan747 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The facts are that Neely entered certain guilty pleas and was sentenced. Last time I checked the sources, there was no independent confirmation of the crimes themselves. As stated, it's doubtful whether a 's criminal record is relevant to a disinterested article about their killing without more in-depth sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article isn't Neely's biography (and even if it was, many of the same concerns would apply); it's about his death and the circumstances around it. So even well-sourced details about him need to be weighted and balanced under WP:DUEWEIGHT in terms of the amount of coverage reliable sources give them, and just general Wikipedia principles about biographical details to ensure the article stays focused as an encyclopedia. I haven't had time to consider these particular additions but that is the general principle I was working under with my earlier comments about his past. Skynxnex (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "... these are just facts about Neely that shouldn't simply be ignored". Excuse me, but this is an article about the killing of Jordan Neely. This isn't an article about Neely (or Penny's) arrest record. I thought that was all made very clear in previous conversations, of which there was strong consensus against in-depth inclusion of details surrounding such past events. Context is given in the article, and weighted with considerations of what is WP:DUE to include. Were there a biography page about Neely, perhaps more details could be given there, but then again it would have to be balanced with the rest of the content about his life. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * why even have his background section / biography at all then if we're just gonna pick and choose --FMSky (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please consider other editors' comments about needing better sourcing, proportionality, WP:DUEWEIGHT, etc. For example, the bit that quoted from previous conversations is especially relevant here: "We should seriously consider not including information portraying Neely as some kind of violent criminal without more in-depth sourcing that goes into the context of these incidents."
 * Having some background on both Penny and Neely seems relevant, but keeping things to a minimum — and in balance — is also important as well. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything ever published in reliable sources. I'll restate what I said in the earlier discussion: Neely's criminal record is evidently being used by the police and media to shape a particular narrative, which is against the spirit if not the letter of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia has a policy of taking special care with material that might damage the reputation of little-known persons, which Neely was up until his death; and I'd be OK with a generalized statement [about Neely's arrest record] once there is some retrospective secondary source analysis to go on, rather than relying on immediate news coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Neely's criminal record should be covered in the "People involved" section as it's highly relevant to this incident. If he was randomly gunned down, it wouldn't be. But his 42 arrests include "three unprovoked assaults on women in the subway between 2019 and 2021" {cf. here. Such behavior is consistent with the behavior he was displaying before Penny put him in a chokehold. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Totally agree --FMSky (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Such behavior is consistent with the behavior he was displaying before Penny put him in a chokehold – got a published source for this analysis, or is this original research? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Penny knew nothing of Neely's criminal record when he killed him, so how is it "highly relevant" to the killing? WWGB (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of any arrests without convictions is discouraged by WP:BLPCRIME. Further, no RSs state unequivocally that Neely was arrested 42 times; they report that an anonymous police source alleges that Neely was arrested 42 times. The lack of reliable sourcing for the claim makes me further inclined to exclude it. Combefere  ★  Talk  17:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * here 1 its stated outright: "Prior to the incident, Neely had been arrested 42 times on charges that included theft and unprovoked assault."
 * Sangdeboeuf, sources are required to support content in articles. They are not required for rationales about editing choices. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WWGB, Penny did not have knowledge of Neely's criminal record, but he knew he was the presence of a unstable, belligerent person. No one should be surprised that Neely had a track record of assaulting random people in the subway. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, "no one should be surprised" does not strike me as a compelling argument for inclusion. Happy Friday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument for inclusion is not "no one should be surprised". The argument is the wide reporting in RSs of the content. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The wide reporting certainly means something has to be included. My concern is that lavishing too much attention and detail on it will lead to the exact kind of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning that seems to worry many of the contributors here.  But as ever, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The wide reporting is based on a single anonymous police source. As stated in the earlier discussion, in addition to being dubious in itself (see Police perjury), [the sourcing] runs afoul of WP:BLPGOSSIP: Be wary of relying on sources ... that attribute material to anonymous sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the arrests – not convictions – are also covered by WP:BLPCRIME: Reasons to be cautious with this material have been amply stated here and at Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely/Archive 3. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources are also required to support any made by adding content to articles. You argued that Neely's alleged behavior before his killing was consistent with his past behavior. Using his arrest record to support this implication  would be original research without a source directly supporting it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't suggested we put anything in the article like "Neely's alleged behavior before his killing was consistent with his past behavior". I'm suggesting we merely note his criminal record, which includes assaults in the subway system, which is to state relevant, verifiable facts from the sources that cover this incident. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf, also, shouldn't you require yourself to have sourcing to support to claim that the reporting of Neely's wrap sheet is dubious? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is the source of the "42 arrests" claim. I see no reason to doubt it. WWGB (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the article citing an unnamed "law enforcement source", thus falling within the purview of BLPGOSSIP. I think more independent fact-checking is needed before we add material that could potentially damage Neely's reputation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because material from the article as I (and others) suggest does not violate WP:OR. You continue to claim Neely's prior arrests are relevant without acknowledging any of the policy-based rationales for excluding them. Rather than continuing to go in circles like this, a formal RFC is probably warranted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, at any rate, a statement of Neely's arrest record is certainly not OR, as it's been published in many RSs. Asserting that a statement from an official police spokesperson, one that has been reported as fact by many RSs, should be deprecated as gossip strikes me as an exercise is gymnastic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was WP:OR. I said the implication you are trying to insert, that such behavior is consistent with the behavior he was displaying before Penny put him in a chokehold, is. Your protest that the arrests are merely verifiable facts doesn't wash; we can presume some readers will conclude the two are related. At any rate, Wikipedia is not a compendium of all known facts.An official spokesperson would likely be named in the article. Instead, this was merely an anonymous "law enforcement source". That sounds like an unofficial leak to the press, not an official announcement. We shouldn't treat it as gospel. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, I'm not seeing many RSes reporting the previous arrests as fact. Most careful to use qualifying language such as "police say", "according to a police statement", "according to US media", "reportedly arrested", etc. Stating Neely's arrests as fact in Wikipedia's voice would indeed be WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * " Prior to the incident, Neely had been arrested 42 times on charges that included theft and unprovoked assault. " https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/05/12/jordan-neely-killing-daniel-penny-charged-with-manslaughter-released-on-bond/ ---FMSky (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming the information is factual, how would you expect it to be released? Police do not hand out criminal records to the media; rather, a spokesperson or source provides such information. I understand the information is not attributed to a named official, but how would you see it done to satisfy your concerns? WWGB (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, who is this spokesperson? Police are not exempt from ordinary concerns about verifiability regarding anonymous sources. By contrast, Penny's arrest and arraignment were publicly announced by the Manhattan DA. No such announcement was made regarding Neely's prior arrests. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Minor proposal — something like this could be added to the section about Neely, perhaps in conjunction with the bit about him being on the city's top 50 list of those in need of support:
 * According to The Guardian, once Neely became homeless in 2013, he slipped "into a cycle of mental health crises, arrests and hospitalization that would continue until his death".
 * Thoughts from others? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK with this (at least for now). It avoids sensationalism and doesn't abuse the reputation of someone who was little known before their death. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK by me. WWGB (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC (withdrawn)
Should Neely's criminal record be mentioned in his short biography at Killing of Jordan Neely? --FMSky (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC) --FMSky (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, since many reliable sources are reporting about it and its very relevant to his topic. "Prior to the incident, Neely had been arrested 42 times on charges that included theft and unprovoked assault. " https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/05/12/jordan-neely-killing-daniel-penny-charged-with-manslaughter-released-on-bond/ --FMSky (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * btw i'd be ok with keeping it very short and just having one sentence about it, like the one above. it doesnt need to be long and drawn out --FMSky (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Since not a lot of people seem to be aware. There's also this, so WP:Crime isnt an issue as he was actually convicted:

""In 2015, Neely pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child after dragging a 7-year-old girl down a street; he was sentenced to four months in jail. .

At the time of his death, Neely was subject to a 15-month alternative to incarceration program after pleading guilty in February 2023 to felony assault of a 67-year-old woman, whom he had punched as she exited a train station in November 2021, breaking her nose and fracturing an orbital bone. Under the terms of the program, Neely was to live in a treatment facility in the Bronx. He had a warrant issued for his arrest after he missed a court date to update a judge on his progress and abandoned the treatment facility 13 days after he started the program."" --FMSky (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So are you proposing we mention these two convictions, the 42 earlier arrests, the open warrant, or all of the above? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes (invited by the bot) Per FMSky.   And this is a section about him, and this is relevant and important info about him, doubly so regarding his mental health and record and arrests related to that. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes per FMSky and as I argued above. Neely's criminal record is relevant and widely reported in sources covering this topic. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only if the mention complies with WP:WEIGHT. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All of Wikipedia's contents must comply with WP:WEIGHT. What specific text do you propose? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — Would like to see a proposal with specific language, that takes WP:BLP concerns into account.
 * For anyone voting on this RfC, please see the above related discussion thread, as well as this archived thread on the topic of Neely's police file.
 * WP:BLPCRIME considerations need to be addressed by this RfC, especially in relation to including information about any arrests that lack convictions etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

--FMSky (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No It is not relevant to his killing; for that the person killing him would have had to know about it. It does not contribute to understanding the topic. The fact that sources mention it is irrelevant: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." (WP:VNOT) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The provided sources are just passing mentions, which aren't enough to breach the WP:BLPCRIME requirement that 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. If these absolutely minimal mentions were enough to merit inclusion for a recently-deceased low-profile individual, in a context with clear BLP-sensitive implications, then what would BLPCRIME mean? The arguments above seem to be saying that the even the absolute bare minimum of coverage necessary to pass WP:V is enough to require inclusion, which isn't what BLPCRIME says at all. --Aquillion (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC).
 * He was actually convicted""In 2015, Neely pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child after dragging a 7-year-old girl down a street; he was sentenced to four months in jail. . At the time of his death, Neely was subject to a 15-month alternative to incarceration program after pleading guilty in February 2023 to felony assault of a 67-year-old woman, whom he had punched as she exited a train station in November 2021, breaking her nose and fracturing an orbital bone. Under the terms of the program, Neely was to live in a treatment facility in the Bronx. He had a warrant issued for his arrest after he missed a court date to update a judge on his progress and abandoned the treatment facility 13 days after he started the program.""

--FMSky (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No - essentially per Aquillion. While I think a passing reference might be workable, if forced into the dichotomy, I think the article is better off without it.  While it does show up in reliable sources, drawing a direct connection to the incident would tend to create the appearance that the record was directly relevant, which it was not.  Hope everyone had a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ""Penny's attorneys argued Neely 'had a documented history of violent and erratic behavior' that was the 'apparent result' of untreated mental illness, while witnesses told the New York Times that Neely was acting hostile while on the subway train"."
 * Comment: I'm not sure why this RfC is needed; the above discussion under seemed to be approaching an informal consensus to include the text: According to The Guardian, once Neely became homeless in 2013, he slipped "into a cycle of mental health crises, arrests and hospitalization that would continue until his death". This seems like sufficient mention of Neely's record to me. It's hard to know what users are actually !voting on without a proposal of specific language. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not as proposed. A one-sentence recitation of an impressive-sounding 42 arrests may actually be worse than a fuller treatment of the topic which would include things like:
 * He pleaded guilty [to assaulting a 67-year-old woman] on Feb. 9 of this year, in a carefully planned strategy between the city and his lawyers to allow him to get treatment and stay out of prison. Even the victim signed off on the plan.
 * "The NYPD has a long history of treating people with mental disabilities as threats to be met with force instead of people in need of care," Beth Haroules, director of disability justice litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, told Newsweek. "It is because of this mindset that the NYPD so quickly disclosed Jordan Neely's criminal and medical history, in what seems like a perverse bid to vilify him, all while protecting the identity of his killer. There is a direct line from the kind of fear-mongering rhetoric from our elected leaders and law enforcement about people living with mental illness, and the kind of vigilantism that took Jordan Neely's life."
 * For others, the treatment of the 24-year-old man showed how police identified with the intervention against an unhoused person. Neely’s entire medical and criminal history were released to the public, but police won’t give out any information about the alleged assailant. [...] In line with the media’s preoccupation with a purported crime wave and Adam’s demonization of the unhoused, coverage framed Neely’s killing as the result of a bystander doing something honorable. The attack on Neely is just the most recent example of violence against people without housing in cities where similar anti-homeless rhetoric has taken hold.
 * HuffPost reporter Matt Shuham wrote that local and national media villainized Neely almost immediately following his death by highlighting his history of homelessness and mental illness, as well as publishing details of his criminal record:
 * That record included dozens of arrests, some for assault and many for lesser charges like fare evasion. And police sources appeared to immediately leak Neely's rap sheet to news outlets after his death, despite Neely having just been killed in public. The practice of leaking criminal records to reporters after a public incident is a habit for the NYPD, deployed after the arrests of countless defendants – but not usually for homicide victims. (Already in the article, see Reactions section.)
 * Obviously all the above is too much material to include in the article, but I wanted to highlight it in discussion. I could maybe live with something like, The day after his death, unnamed NYPD sources said Neely had been arrested 42 times, and had a history of mental illness. The sources said most arrests were for things like petty theft and fare evasion, and four were for assault. Members of the media and community were critical of what they described as the NYPD's attempt to villainize Neely while simultaneously protecting Penny, whom they had yet to identify. --Xan747 (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "not as proposed"? i didnt propose a text at all --FMSky (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just the problem; it's impossible to know whether a given addition is WP:DUE without a concrete proposal for what text to specifically include. We can't just decide on a whim that a certain topic belongs or doesn't belong based on how users personally feel about it. I would suggest withdrawing this RfC and starting again with a specific proposal, or just letting the above discussion under play out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the manner described by Sangdeboeuf. No if the mention will be anything more than that.  The specifics of Neely's criminal record are of limited relevance to who he is, and the sources are vague (and the ones I've seen only reliably report an unreliable, anonymous statement).  As mentioned by Xan747 in the first post of, any fuller mention should be made later in the article in the Reactions and Protests section, as that is where its relevance is greatest, and where the fact of the statement is as important as its veracity. Carleas (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Noassuming we're talking about the claim that Neely had been "arrested 42 times"per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE (" exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability ... material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care"), WP:BLPCRIME ("For individuals who are not public figures ... editors must seriously consider not including material ... that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured"), and WP:BLPGOSSIP ("Be wary of relying on sources that ... attribute material to anonymous sources").The above policies apply to Neely as a person who was mostly unknown until their death. The claim that the arrests are specifically relevant appears to be based on routine news coverage rather than in-depth secondary sources about Neely's life. We should seriously consider  including information portraying Neely as some kind of violent criminal without more in-depth sourcing that goes into the context of these incidents. The anonymous "law enforcement source" which is evidently the origin point of this information shouldn't be treated as gospel. According to HuffPost,  Neely's criminal record is evidently being used by the police and media to shape a particular narrative, which is against the spirit if not the letter of WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No except for the text quoted above "According to The Guardian, once Neely became homeless in 2013, he slipped "into a cycle of mental health crises, arrests and hospitalization that would continue until his death"." (direct reference higher up in this discussion). Putting a number without context seems like UNDUE weight to a sensationalized line of opinion. And, based on available context shown above, providing too much context seems like a violation of WP:BLPBALANCE for recently deceased persons. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about balance and sources in Incident
The description of events in the body of the article feature a lengthy quote upfront from Vasquez from his interview with Curbed, which was primarily a real estate and urban design magazine before being bought and folded into New York magazine. This seems to be an over-reliance on Vasquez as witness and an unusual choice as a source for this national news story.Parkwells (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have any other specific accounts from reliable sources that you would like to see included? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that Vasquez is the first major witness. I don't understand why the first two paragraphs of this section have two sources' accounts of interviews with Vasquez that are so repetitious in detail. It is not as if different witnesses are being quoted, or that his material differs so much in these accounts. Is there a reason these cannot be combined in some way? Or maybe introduce Vasquez's additional content as quoted in the next paragraphs of the Curbed interview without repeating what is so similar to the quote in the NY Times?Parkwells (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Parkwells, I was the one who introduced the long Vázquez blockquote. One reason is that it tells events in a linear, chronological order in a way that other sources don't--thus somewhat sparing us from having to stitch together various witness statements from multiple sources with all the cumbersome attribution that entails. Another reason I featured that quote so prominently is that he really is the main named witness, very widely cited: CNN, Curbed, NBC, NY Times, NPR, Washington Post, ABC, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, People, NY Daily News, Business Insider, plus Fox and NY Post. Some outlets cite Vázquez in multiple articles. Some outlets interviewed him directly, some attributed his statements to reporting by other outlets.
 * In at least one case, an outlet wrote something like, "Penny reportedly held Neely in the chokehold for 15 minutes" without attribution; AFAIK Vázquez is the only named witness making that claim. And while we're on it, Vázquez told CNN The two men were on the floor for about seven minutes [...], adding he started recording about three or four minutes after the chokehold began., but CNN didn't point out the apparent discrepancy. We do, and AFAIK, ours is the only article that does.
 * Another reason to keep the Vázquez blockquote is that it contains some phrases of uncertainty not found in other sources: "From what I understood ..." referring to what Neely was shouting, "I couldn't see anything – it was too crowded" by virtue of which he only heard Neely throw his jacket to the floor, and then "I think –  I didn't see, but I think" in reference to Penny placing Neely in the chokehold, after which both fell to the floor of the train. However, CNN, citing Vázquez, said, "In the minutes before the deadly chokehold, Neely had been 'acting erratically,' but he did not attack anyone".
 * One thing Vázquez told the NY Times which he didn't tell Curbed is that Neely had also yelled/screamed that he was "ready to die" (the Times uses both descriptors, our article says screamed).
 * TL;DR: the article can use some cleanup. Where Vázquez says conflicting things to different outlets should definitely be noted, and where one outlet contains details Vázquez mentioned that others don't should probably be included. Also, when multiple witnesses say the same or different things than Vázquez does about the same event, that should definitely be included even if it seems redundant. My inclination is a wholesale rewrite of the entire section, which I'm willing to do, but it would take a couple of days at least. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Lede is too long
The Lede seems too long and detailed, with quotes from Vasquez and bystanders, references to his Facebook page, details about times - seconds and minutes of actions during the incident. The incident is fully described, with multiple quotes and even more details, in the body of the article. I think the Lede should be a shorter summary of the main issues.Parkwells (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The Lede devotes nearly two paragraphs almost exclusively to Vasquez's accounts, including such details as how many minutes related to different stages of the incident he stated to various media, and referring to his Facebook page. One sentence of the Lede says his FB was "widely cited" but gives only one source, a Mexican newspaper in Spanish.Parkwells (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe Vázquez is one of the main witnesses to have come forward publicly, and speak with the media. If there are other good first-hand accounts of the events that have been covered by quality sources, those should of course be included as well. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand he was a main witness but am not sure why quotes by him and others are included in the Lede. I thought this section was customarily for summarizing main points in the body of the article.Parkwells (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely redid the lede section, reducing description of the event to a single (though largish) paragraph, and moved some of that nitty gritty detail of Vazquez's video to the Incident section. I also summarized some other parts of the article I thought needed some love in the lede. The description of the incident might still contain too much detail. OTOH, the duration of the chokehold is disputed: Vazquez is widely quoted as saying it was 15 minutes, but contradicted himself by telling CNN it was only 7, while Penny claims no more than 5. That might deserve a mention. Open to discussion. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and trimmed the lede paragraph in half. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 00:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Use of Liberals and Conservatives
the opinions listed were labeled to be help by these groups, would it be more appropriate to say some hold one opinion, and some hold the other? 97.113.24.250 (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I changed it to, Liberal opinions included: calling Penny a vigilante and a murderer; that Neely's death was a lynching; that policies which criminalized homelessness, and rhetoric which demonized the poor, the mentally ill, and people of color were to blame. Conservatives generally hailed Penny as a hero who selflessly risked his own safety to protect his fellow passengers, and some further justified Penny's actions on the basis of Neely's mental illness and criminal record. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But is that language supported by the sources? Do sources say these opinions are generally divided along partisan lines? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * About the libs, I basically just summarized this passage from the reactions section. The bolded bits support the wording I used in the lede: Many left-leaning activists, including Democratic Party representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have described Neely's killing as a murder, pointing to what they say are deficiencies in the city's response to homelessness and mental illness. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: "Jordan was houseless and crying for food in a time when the city is raising rents and stripping services to militarize itself" and accused the Adams administration of "trying to cut the very services that could have helped" Neely. City Council member Tiffany Cabán said the killing was "the inevitable outcome of the dangerous rhetoric of stigmatizing mental health issues, stigmatizing poverty and the continued bloated investment in the carceral system at the expense of funding access to housing, food and health". New York state Senator Julia Salazar labeled Neely's killing a lynching, arguing that Neely would not have been perceived as threatening if he were not black, referencing news and social media coverage demonizing the homeless and mentally ill. Salazar tweeted, "The constant demonization of poor people and people in mental health crisis in our city allows for this barbarism. It is making our city sick." Other officials expressed frustration that DA Bragg's office had not already criminally charged Penny, claiming that if he had been black, the situation would have unfolded differently. City Council speaker Adrienne Adams stated, "The initial response by our legal system to this killing is disturbing and puts on display for the world the double standards that black people and other people of color continue to face."
 * And also: New York City comptroller Brad Lander said, "We must not become a city where a mentally ill human being can be choked to death by a vigilante without consequence."
 * As for the conservatives: with some conservatives – including Republican politicians Ron DeSantis and Matt Gaetz – labeling him a hero and celebrating his actions. Republican politician Nikki Haley was very critical of the DA charging Penny, and said "the governor needs to pardon Daniel Penny ... no question about it [...] right away". On May 25, Republican politician Andy Ogles proposed House Resolution 448 in the United States House of Representatives to "recognize and honor Daniel Penny...for his heroism and courage in apprehending a threat to public safety". The resolution was supported by Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republican representatives. The text of the resolution made reference to Neely's arrest record.
 * My "selflessly risked his own safety to protect his fellow passengers" isn't supported in the text of the article, but I didn't make it up. I'll track that down and add it to the main body text ... the conservatives reaction section is pretty small and could use some beefing up (harder to do when I can't use WP:FOX though).
 * As for liberals and conservatives being split along largely partisan lines: no, I don't have a ready reference which says that, so I'll drop that bit unless I can find a source. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you for your diligence! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Penny's five-minute claim
Post-creation note: there are two previous talk threads addressing this same topic: What to include from assailant's video_statement and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely/Archive_2#Include_Penny's_version_of_events? Include Penny's version of events?]. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 10:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yesterday I added to the lede section, "Penny said less than five", in reference to duration of the chokehold. I knew that was against consensus, and should not have added it without discussion. @LoomCreek rightfully reverted me; however, I strongly wish to revisit the issue.

In their edit summary reverting my change, Loom's edit summary says in part, "Penny is not a neutral or bystander source to include in the lead [...]" I find this argument unconvincing. I don't know of any rule which stipulates that only "neutral" sources can be cited in the lede. I do know of rules such as WP:NPOV, that we are to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Penny's view, however biased, is published in several RS and it is significant. As for proportionality, Vázquez is the only source I know of for the widely-published 15 minute claim (as well as the seven minutes he told to CNN, who nobody else but us picked up on). So there are basically only two dueling opinions here; I argue if we include one in the lede, npov demands us to include the other. Finally, under WP:BLPPUBLIC we find, If the subject has denied [...] allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. I think that applies to disputes over salient facts as we have here, and as it is on a policy page, it trumps any appeals to (the horrible) essay, WP:MANDY.

And if it goes in the lede, it should also go in the Incident section. We could then remove it from Penny's section as redundant. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it being included in the article just not lead. We've had this discussion before and ultimately putting it in the beginning is a violation of NPOV and more importantly UNDUE even if mentioned in reliable sources. LoomCreek (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record here's the previous discussion. Then as now, you simply assert that putting Penny's claim next to Vazquez's violates NPOV without saying how. Nowhere does that policy page say anything like, "put non-neutral opinions further down in the article and only neutral ones in the lede". (That would be silly: opinions are not neutral by definition.) Further, we don't get to decide that Vazquez is a more credible witness than Penny--and let's be clear, the neutrality argument *is* questioning his credibility. We can only appeal to RS to do that, and AFAIK there are no articles which do so. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 01:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with LoomCreek's take here; there is a hint of WP:MANDY--not a perfect fit, but I think the self-serving nature of the claim takes it down just a notch or two. As such, I am also a member of the "in the article but not the lead" camp.  That said, happy to go wherever consensus leads.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with and  about this one. If Penny's time estimate is in the lead, I feel like it would need to be qualified or weighted somehow. However, I'm not sure of a way to do that which doesn't seem as though his 5-minute claim is being questioned in Wikivoice (something we of course should not do!). Simply leaving it out of the lead seems the best solution to me. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @72.14.126.22, let's be clear: keeping Penny's claim out of the lede while leaving Vazquez's there *is* downweighting the former, very much implying that the 5-minute claim is being questioned. In addition to other parts of NPOV I've already cited, there is WP:STRUCTURE to think about: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself [...] may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false.
 * @Dumuzid, disputing a key piece of inculpatory evidence is in essence saying, "I didn't do what you said I did", so MANDY applies. I categorically reject the entire premise of the essay, which is that the subject of an accusation is ipso facto an unreliable source expressing a fringe opinion, and thus should not be given the same weight as their accusers. This flies in the face of jurisprudence everywhere (except banana republics and Salem, Massachusetts), upon which BLPCRIME is firmly based.
 * There is no basis in any known RS to doubt Penny's counter-assertion; they simply report the dispute, which by inviolable rule is what we should be doing. Thus far in this thread, just as in the previous ones, nobody has pointed to any policy which says otherwise. (Note: I earlier neglected to include this thread on the same topic.) Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 10:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We definitely shouldn't be including the statement of someone with such a big conflict of interest in the lead.
 * We can't just uncritically prop a claim without evidence by someone with a clear COI. It would be UNDUE (and as a result NPOV). It fundamentally makes it a potentially highly unreliable claim.
 * We can include it in their section because it's their claim. But we can't include it in the general description of events when we have actual neutral witnesses. LoomCreek (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I find no COI stipulation in NPOV. If multiple RS cast doubt on Penny's claim with something better than MANDY, then the calculus would be different. But they don't. I don't know how NPOV could be any clearer that it is NOT for us to decide who is the more reliable witness. For like the third time now, please point to the specific wording in policy which supports your position. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 13:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to argue it's not a violation because it isnt said super explicitly in policy summary doesn't make it any less valid. That's not how wikipedia operates and never will. It's intentionally left up to consensus and interpretation. Personally I'm not a big fan of arguing policy for policy's sake. But instead the spirit of a rule and what would improve wikipedia.
 * And clearly other editors disagree with you, which you quietly re-added after a consensus had already formed against it. LoomCreek (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a fair amount of guidance about how to handle reliably-sourced, but biased and/or opinionated content, under which COI would qualify. It doesn't support your argument. Some examples:
 * opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources
 * If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
 * Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
 * Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased.
 * A statement such as "Vazquez said X, but Penny said Y" is perfectly compliant with those points, as well as every other policy I've quoted.
 * One more thing I have learned about since our last debate on this topic is the following clause near the top of WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
 * Then in WP:BLPBALANCE we find: The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.
 * Discounting what a living subject says about themself, when multiple RS quote them saying it, seems pretty unfair.
 * You're right, I should not have silently reinserted Penny's claim into the lede. I already said as much in my first comment in this thread. That said, by the policies I have just quoted verbatim--on top of the other verbatim citations I made earlier--I not only can, but should, immediately add well-sourced and due information to balance a BLP article.
 * Or ... you could do the right thing and add it back yourself now that I've spelled out as many of the relevant policy points I know about. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Xan747 -- You make fair points, and as I said above, I don't actually think MANDY is directly on point; to me, it applies more in situations where the evidence is much more tilted (e.g., the well-known white supremacist denying that affiliation). And it's a bit of a funny situation--I agree with you it's a piece of inculpatory evidence, but not dispositive.  That is, a jury could, in theory, credit Neely's account and nonetheless find him guilty of second degree manslaughter, or indeed credit the 15-minute account and find him not guilty.  If we were talking about excluding the statement entirely, I would very much be on your side.  But, as I say, the self-serving nature of the statement combined with the stress of the situation compels me to say that I trust it a little less, and therefore don't think it should be in the lead.  But reasonable minds can always differ!  Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My opinion--which I officially don't have when writing in mainspace--is that it's mostly going to come down to the 2:50 minutes seen in Vazquez's video, in particular the 50 seconds after which Neely was clearly incapacitated. Not that prior minutes are totally irrelevant, just that what the public has seen on tape is IMO enough to prove negligence--especially given Penny's training.
 * All that aside, Penny apparently thinks it's in his interests to very publicly dispute the 15 minutes claim. As his own statements are reliably sourced, we MUST give it parity with Vazquez's statements. It would be different if five named witnesses all said 15 minutes (or even consistently and significantly more than five). That's not the case here.
 * Since I'm deep into OR territory now, may as well keep going.
 * IIRC, Penny's lawyers released his videotaped statements on the Sunday following his second arraignment, when the grand jury indictment was unsealed, which was a Wednesday. That same day, June 28, prosecutors released their list of discovery; p.6 contains a slew of evidence that very plausibly would allow an up-to-the-second reconstruction of events, and Penny's counsel had up to three full days to review it. If he was your client, would you really allow him to say in a prepared statement something that is provably false? And given that those MTA records almost certainly document when the train left 2nd Ave. and arrived at Broadway-Lafayette, plus the fact that MTA system time is frequently visible in Vazquez's video, don't you think it at least plausible that Penny can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the chokehold couldn't have lasted more than 5 minutes? Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it's plausible! And may very well be true.  I'll nitpick for a moment (sorry) and say that Penny does need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.  That said, you make a compelling case.  I would slightly caution that while it's possible the discovery provided allows for a moment-by-moment reconstruction, it's more likely (to my mind) that there will be some indications but probably some ambiguity left.  I stand by my position (pending new information, of course), but as I say, you're not wrong in any way.  It's more a matter of emphasis.  That said, if consensus goes your way, no worries on this end.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * > Penny does need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
 * No nitpick inferred. He does need, or does not need? (This is OT for the subject of the thread, I just want to understand the legalities better.)
 * Again I'm just spitballing here; a few weeks ago I found out that MTA started installing security cameras on subway cars some years back, and that as of very recently not all cars have had the treatment. If the interests of Justice are lucky, that car has some camera coverage of the event, but it was a crowded car, etc. So it's virtually certain Vazuqez's video will be the best look the jury will get of the chokehold, but they might get some pretty good indications of exactly when Penny first applied it even if there's not as good a direct view. Main point is, from the discovery list I'm pretty confident Penny's team can put an upper bound on the duration of the hold, and that they've determined it's five minutes, not fifteen, or even Vazquez's revised seven.
 * That is all, always a pleasure, Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Time will tell, based on what Penny's lawyers assert in a court of law. What is said outside of the courts may not be the same as what will be presented in front of a judge and jury, while under oath etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh! Yes.  Bad typo!  Does not need to prove.  There are cases where an affirmative defense is raised (such as self defense or defense of others) where the defendant does, indeed, bear the burden of proof.  However, in New York and most jurisdictions of which I am aware, that standard is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.  And again, I see no need at all to quibble with your interpretation here.  For me, however, it's just a bit early to be putting that in the Wikipedia article.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, my own searches seem to confirm. And just to note, the state's standard on the manslaughter charge is also preponderance.
 * I still think I'd be justified making the edit against consensus, but that would almost certainly trigger a trip to the dramaboards. Time might be better spent taking a weed-whacker to the "bloated lead". Cheers. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alleged murder
He has not been convicted. This should reflect that with alleged. 75.166.194.168 (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any place in the article that his actions are described as "murder" in Wikivoice--such descriptions are always attributed. The closest we come is in the lede, "[Neely] was killed by Daniel Penny". This has been discussed extensively on this talk page. The consensus is that "killing" is not necessarily a criminal act and that Penny killed Neely with the chokehold is an established medical fact that not even Penny himself disputes. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The title “Marine” is a proper noun.
Would an editor with privs correct the lack of capitalization?

Many thanks! 2603:9000:F300:4FE0:FD04:5BAB:4D04:2FB2 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry but no, see: MOS:MARINE. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Resuscitate a dead man, italian source
Under "Incident" Last Sentence: "According to some sources, when attempts were made to resuscitate him inside the subway car, Neely was already dead." with a link to an italian language source.

This sentence seems somewhat bizarre and should be removed in my opinion. Of course, he was dead when attempts were made to resuscitate. You do not resuscitate living persons. What information is this sentence trying to convey? (I don't know italian, so I can't check what the source is saying. Might be a translation issue?)

Writing "some sources" while only a link to a single source is cited is also weird. 2003:C7:EF17:4600:1154:8C52:D7DF:1F53 (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree about the "some sources" language, but "resuscitation" can certainly be attempted on the living. The normal use of CPR, for instance, is not to bring someone back from the dead, but to preserve basic functions during a cardiac arrest that would otherwise lead to death.  Our page on resuscitation defines it as ". . . the process of correcting physiological disorders (such as lack of breathing or heartbeat) in an acutely ill patient."  Therefore, I think the basic logic of the resuscitation bit is sound, but I do agree the sentence could be reworked so as to be better.  The important bit of information, I think, is the timing of Neely's death (i.e., rather immediate per the source).  Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misinformed on either death or resuscitation. Resuscitation is performed on unconscious and unresponsive people who may or may not be dead. Death means the irreversible cessation of biological life (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death), so if the person is dead he can't be brought back to life. Sometimes in common speech people may say a person is dead before resuscitated because the heart has stopped beating but a lack of heart beat isn't considered death anymore. 84.231.33.176 (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Racist content.
Why the need for words like black and white? One man died, another man defending himself and others. Unfortunately people like to stir it up and make it more than just an unfortunate incident. By people I mean WIKI folks. 2601:198:4101:69D0:BD7C:31B4:1B92:AD21 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The 'need,' such as it is, can be found in the coverage of the incident by reliable sources. The racial context of the incident and reactions thereto are prominent in the reporting.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Mentioning someone's race is not "racist". Take a chill pill. WWGB (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple reliable sources mention both men's races when talking about the incident. In any case, mentioning their race as an objective fact is not "racist" - we are merely reflecting what is mentioned in the sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2024
Remove the term “white” from Daniel Penny’s description and “black” from Jordan Neely’s description. Vanillawolf98 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ❌ - this has been discussed previously, and whether rightly or wrongly, race has been seen as an important facet of the narrative. Consensus can change, however.  Obviously, if you can establish a consensus for this change, it will be made.  Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)