This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing this on behalf of originator LoomCreek, who restored Daniel Penny's name to the article 13 days after the most recent comment in this thread with the edit summary, There is now overwhelming consensus 29 to 9, with arguments for exclusion largely focusing on a narrow interpretation of policy addressed by the inclusion side on several different points of policy. I have hatted the !votes and extended comments for the sake of reducing clutter. Xan747 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Should the name of the person who killed (medically speaking) Jordan Neely be included?
Survey and Extended discussion 29 to 9 in favor of naming
Survey
Support inclusion as I've argued in the previous discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion on a few bases:
1. Article is descriptive, not an accusations of criminality. Whether the killing was illegal remains up to the court.
2. For remaining sections, Daniel Penny is a public figure, cited in numerous reliable sources and with a platform to argue for himself through his lawyers. Whether they are notable because of this event or not is irrelevant to them now being a public figure.
3. We lose context when we exclude his name, he is a significant part of this event. To exclude his name gives the impression to an average reader he didn't perform the chokehold when he did. It warps the articles ability to actually accurately cover the topic. --LoomCreek (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion -- Neely's assailant fits the definition of a high-profile figure by seeking media attention, and self-promotion:
On May 20 he gave a scheduled on-camera interview with the New York Post that went beyond mere defense of his actions during the incident. Included in the piece were biographical details dating to his childhood, information about his siblings, parents, grandparents and great-grandparents and their ancestry, details of his foreign travels as an adult including photos, and details of his military service, also including a photo.
On June 11 his legal team released a video interview they had themselves produced in which he defends his actions.
Shortly after the incident, his legal team started a GiveSendGo campaign using his real name on his behalf, which to date has raised nearly three-million dollars.
These are not the actions of a person reluctant to have their name, likeness, or details of their life publicized, but rather someone who willingly embraces the opportunity to tell his side of the story apparently believing that so-doing will improve public opinion of his actions. As such the Wikipedia article about the incident warrants the inclusion of his name. Xan747 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven has raised the question whether the video interview Neely's assailant gave to the NY Post can be used here in support of the contention that he's a public figure when there's consensus that the NY Post can't be cited in the article itself due to reliability concerns. My answer is that there's a distinction between using the Post's reporting in the article for things that are not easily verifiable -- such as the anonymous 65 year-old black woman who allegedly hailed the assailant as a hero, said that Neely had been threatening to kill people, and that she's willing to testify on his behalf -- and using the Post on a talk page to show a named person well-known to multiple RSs engaging in a self-promotional public relations campaign. Everybody knows what Neely's assailant looks like. There's little question it's him on camera saying things which are clearly self-promotional. I see no problem using that citation here to argue for classifying the former marine as a public figure. Xan747 (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended replies (1/10 collapsed by starship.paint)
Is "the anonymous 65 year-old black woman" then a public figure? She appeared in the same source. Perhaps her name can be discovered and printed here, since she's lost the considerations a non-public figure would have? – .Raven.talk 16:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
She's a witness to an alleged crime, not alleged to have committed a crime. Therefore her hypothetical status as a public figure is not relevant. Xan747 (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jerome Frank Disciple: If she voluntarily came forward as a named witness, then it would be appropriate to name her in the article same as we did for Grima and Vazquez. The value-add argument would be that using names makes it easier for readers to keep track of who said what. There's no need for the public figure test in that scenario. Xan747 (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Huh. I guess what's throwing me is I'm not sure what "voluntarily came forward as a named witness" means ... unless it's "voluntarily spoke to the press as a witness and provided their name" ... but then it's Perry's interview with the press that I considered to have made him a public figure. So the tests end up looking the same to me.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The tests of whether or not to name either individual are not the same because the witness isn't the one indicted on felony charges. One could argue that if she came forward, that would make her a public figure, but that test is irrelevant because she's not the one who has been indicted on felony charges. See red herring. Xan747 (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
... I don't think that's responsive to my point.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Obviously I'm missing something. Perhaps you could restate. Xan747 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't strike me as all that strange; BLPNAME issues can range all the way from the positive to negative, while BLPCRIME issues are always negative for the subject. Thus a higher level of protection. But reasonable minds can certainly differ! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh I agree with you. I thought Xan was suggesting the opposite—that a witness would be afforded more protection.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah. Well hopefully I've cleared things up. Xan747 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Xan747 - I would agree with you that the Post couldn't be used for the substance of what was said, but the fact of the interview is fine. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you mean that the substance of the interview cannot be used here in the talk page to establish Neely's assailant as a public figure? Xan747 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
No, sorry. Bit of an appeal to hearsay concepts -- we couldn't use the interview as evidence of anything the assailant said or asserted (or anyone else, for that matter), but noting that the interview exists is perfectly fine as part of an overall argument. So yes, as part of saying he's a public figure, I think that's well within bounds. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Just making sure. A reason given to exclude what the Post wrote about the anonymous witness was their history of making shit up. Publishing a video interview of a now well-recognized named individual should obviate any concerns that he's a figment of the Post's imagination. At best, one might argue that they dishonestly edited the video for whatever reason, but that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Xan747 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I supported the original RfC, but nothing has really changed per WP:BLPCRIME. This RfC should never have been be opened so close after the last one was closed correctly. The last challenge at ANI went down in flames and now a new RfC has been created far too fast. I am unmoved by arguments that this person is now a public figure or anything changed to overturn the last RfC. Since no one has made a compelling argument as to why this RfC was opened 3 days after the last one was closed this should be withdrawn. There needs to be a very clear and compelling reason to open a new RfC after one just closed and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason. Nemov (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Replies
That is... not what IDONTLIKEIT says. The fact that many editors think the situation has changed is more than enough reason to revisit the RfC. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I don't find those arguments compelling. The editors didn't like the outcome, challenged the outcome, and then rusted to create a new RfC. This could have been opened up again in a few weeks, but 3 days is not enough. Nemov (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion. By his own media-seeking actions, Daniel Penny is now a high profile individual. His identity is central to the killing of Jordan Neely. Penny is named in reliable sources around the world. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose/Exclude unless and until a conviction is reached – and then the reference should match the conviction, i.e. no reference to "murder" if that wasn't the charge convicted on. I presume you'd all insist on the same if it were your own name at issue. I know I would. WP:BLPCRIME and the presumption of innocence ask no less. We don't know what the state of evidence will be until the trial is over. E.g. will the ME's report be challenged, a second examination made, the cause of death changed? Too soon the conclusions here. – .Raven.talk 02:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended replies
Umm, what? Penny killed Neely, period. This is factual and relevant info. Whether guilty of a crime or not, why are we censoring Wikipedia, and making it intentionally more difficult for a reader to find out information about who Penny is, what his background story and perspective is, etc? As has been mentioned previously, we don't exclude the names of people in other articles about similar events, so I don't see what makes this event special or why Penny's name should be suppressed and omitted? What is special or different here, when compared to other articles where a person's name is included for having participated in killing someone? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, the nature of Wikipedia is that local consensus is about the best we can do; articles will vary on any number of issues. For me, it simply comes down to my belief that Wikipedia should be less of a news source and more interested in conclusions. I agree that there's no doubt that Penny killed Neely, though the question of criminal culpability is out there. At any rate, that's the way I feel, but I certainly get it if my position ends up on the wrong end of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@72.14.126.22What is special or different here, when compared to other articles where a person's name is included for having participated in killing someone?
Yeah, I asked SFR that and he told me that dog won't hunt. And indeed the argument is discouraged enough to warrant its own shortcut WP:OTHERCONTENT. The question is interesting in its own right, but here's not the place. Drop a note on my chat if you want to chew on it a bit. Xan747 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid and Xan747: Yes, I am aware of the WP:OTHERCONTENT guidelines. But it strikes me as extremely odd that some editors here are very concerned about Penny in particular, and aren't vocal in other instances where a similar situation has arisen, and an article is written that includes the name of an accused / defendant / assailant / etc. sort of scenario. I'm not questioning motives, but the lack of consistency is why I thought challenging the close, and clarifying BLP policy could have been productive, to get opinions from outside of the deeply entrenched local consensus bubble here. It also just makes the article less informative, to intentionally exclude relevant information, based on a concern for Penny's well-being and reputation, when this individual is already speaking publicly and has been reported on internationally, in dozens of sources. Excluding Penny's name seems fruitless & pointless at this juncture, per the WP:CATOUTOFTHEBAG situation we are currently finding ourselves in, heh. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, I would support this policy across the board. But my Wikipedia time (especially for anything requiring in-depth research or attention) is sadly limited. I often duck into recent stories that attract a lot of attention mainly in an attempt to ward off outright vandalism, and sometimes to try to remind everyone that we're all on the same encyclopedic team. So I absolutely understand your point, and it is valid. But I hope you understand mine, as well. As the best saxophonist I ever knew liked to say, "nobody has enough time, but we all have all there is." Just a weekend thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid Granted I think there is a point in mentioning it as, in my opinion it seems to be a misuse of WP:BLPCRIME. People have, in good faith, been pushing an interpretation of it which hasn't been used before as if it's a hard rule. It's not and never has been, there's so much language in it that makes several intentional exceptions. For public figures, on editor discretion, and for topic accuracy. LoomCreek (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
> "For public figures" — See Wikipedia's Public figure:
A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to a public figure status. Typically, they must either be:
a public figure, a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
a limited purpose public figure, those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted....
I would argue that this subject did not so much "thrust himself forward" as get dragged against his will. He is certainly not "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs". – .Raven.talk 10:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven It's undeniable that he was not the first to reveal his true identity to the press; I believe it was the police. However, he was not forced to actively engage in a public relations campaign using his real name, leveraging his military service, and the litany of things irrelevant to any criminal or civil culpability he might have in relation to Neely's death. (Indeed, criminal defendants are often counseled to not make public statements and to keep as low profile as possible.) The standards set in WP:LOWPROFILE are "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication. [...] Need not be a 'household name', simply self-promotional." The results of his self-promotion include being hailed as a hero, and $3 million in donations to his legal defense. One might even argue that not including his name does him a disservice. Xan747 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
> "he was not forced to actively engage in a public relations" — No? He'd been subjected to massive vilification, a public campaign to prosecute him, and this didn't put him in the position of having to speak out in his own defense? Hm. I certainly hope neither you nor I nor anyone else here is caught up in such an event (as the young Central Park Five were — and they got falsely convicted, arguably due entirely to that public vilification and advance assumption of guilt), but we might feel some considerable pressure to so defend ourselves. – .Raven.talk 18:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
He was also turned into a hero by the right-wing talking heads. So it goes both ways, in terms of his becoming a notable public figure in the media spotlight. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
> "He was also turned into a hero by the right-wing talking heads."Do we now base our decisions on what right-wing talking heads say? – .Raven.talk 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The point is that he's been vilified AND lionized in the popular press, which makes your one-sided complaint about the vilification fall a little flat, as it does your argument that he was somehow compelled to go on a pubic relations campaign. He was not, that was a choice. And it has worked to the tune of three-million dollars. There's no need to protect the man from his own self-promotion. Xan747 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
LoomCreek - forgive the ping, but this talk page has become quite convoluted! I don't really disagree with what you say here, but I have two small reactions: first is just to note Wikipedia's reliance on local consensus rather than global. I understand everyone is aware of this, but it's something I think actually worthwhile. The second is the policy itself. As I keep saying, I guess I kind of favor it in its current form? But it could certainly use clarification. And I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were changed to something more of a notability test. But I feel like that's a conversation that should be had directly, rather than arguing for exceptions, if that makes sense. As ever, certainly one where people can differ in all good faith, and if consensus should decide my thoughts are immaterial, it's probably for the best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
> "some editors here are very concerned about Penny in particular, and aren't vocal in other instances where a similar situation has arisen" In my case, that would be due to not seeing those pages when the discussion occurred. Wikipedia is large, and I haven't a chance of watching all that goes on. – .Raven.talk 09:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
In 2018 CMGLaw reported, "Studies from various states show that somewhere between 30-50% of death certificates list incorrect causes of death."A 2017 study at the NLM/NIH website reported: "Of 601 original death certificates... A total of 580 (93%) death certificates had a change in ICD-10 codes between the original and mock certificates, of which 348 (60%) had a change in the underlying cause-of-death code."Don't assume too much, too early. – .Raven.talk 07:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Trying to argue this is ridiculous on its face. But If you want to discuss this start a new talk section, as it's irrelevant to the discussion on criminality vs medical terms. As it's best to prevent the thread from becoming unnecessarily long. LoomCreek (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it's one of many factors going into why we wait for a conviction, not just an indictment or even the start of a trial. Too much can happen. It's not over 'til it's over. Many a slip 'twixt cup and lip. Don't count your chickens 'til they're hatched. And many other sayings born of people's experiences with jumping to premature conclusions. – .Raven.talk 09:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
One other thing: potential jurors, not yet called, read Wikipedia. Do you want to have it turn out that they got prejudiced in the case (or any case) by what Wikipedia said about a named defendant? Tell me you have some idea what the potential fallout could be. – .Raven.talk 09:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
There is no potential fallout. Potential jurors read lots of sources besides Wikipedia, and allWP:RS name Penny, often in headlines. The idea that our naming of Penny will affect jurors is rather far-fetched. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Please read more carefully: "by what Wikipedia said about a named defendant".We've had several talkpage comments rather too forcefully assert this named person "definitely killed" someone. No trial has started yet to establish even that as a proven fact. In many other cases, perhaps around half of them, re-examinations have changed the cause of death. We don't know whether this will turn out to be one, if the defense asks for a re-examination. It is far too soon for us to name him as a killer, let alone as a murderer. That some newspapers may have done so, without even the fig-leaf of "alleged", does not relieve any other "publication" (like Wikipedia) of responsibility — if the allegation fails to be proven in a court of law. Changing the article after acquittal or dismissal on the grounds there was a different cause of death (e.g. some brain disease or injury that perhaps had also caused such erratic behavior shortly before death) would be too late. This is one reason we should wait to see whether there's a conviction. – .Raven.talk 17:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
.Raven: Daniel Penny killed Neely by putting him in a chokehold that lasted several minutes, restricting his ability to breath.
Neely's manner of death was determined to be due to homicide: "A spokesperson for the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner explained that 'manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider'." The source for that is from CNN, and it's cited in our article. Please drop the legal blah blah blah. Guilty or not of a crime, Penny killed Neely, end of story. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I hate to keep repeating myself, but initial cause-of-death decisions are frequently changed on re-examination, which is why defense attorneys frequently ask courts to order such re-examinations. We don't know yet whether this defense will request, or the court grant, such a re-examination, or (if it takes place) what its outcome will be. That leaves us still, now, without a final determination of that fact. In short words, it's too soon to say that for sure. – .Raven.talk 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
This is going off-topic. This discussion is about whether to name Neely's assailant, not what or who killed him. I'd suggest taking that discussion here. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
If all that happened was "assailing" Neely, and someone gets convicted of it, then name that person in an article not titled "The killing of Jordan Neely", and don't let the lede's first sentence state Neely "was killed by ___". – .Raven.talk 20:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll just point out that per WP:DEATHS, a coroner's report determining that the cause of death is a homicide is enough to justify the title of an article being "Killing of..." instead of "Death of..." The assertion that all coroner's reports must be verified in the course of a legal proceeding (when the vast majority of them don't even precipitate court cases) before they can be used by Wikipedia is so far removed from Wikipedia policy and practice and would be so incalculably detrimental to our ability to report the most basic and easily verifiable facts about an article that it cannot be taken seriously. Combefere★Talk 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose/Exclude essentially per Nemov. Indictment does not, for me, change the analysis under WP:BLPCRIME. Also, as I have said many times, while I understand the public figure argument, it would make the policy seem to me to be surplusage, so I would oppose on those grounds, though as I like to say, reasonable minds can certainly differ. Happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all, and hope everyone is enjoying the weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Replies
"while I understand the public figure argument, it would make the policy seem to me to be surplusage"
I have to disagree with this interpretation, which as you note has been repeated often by editors arguing for exclusion. As I note in this comment, there are still cases where BLP precludes editors from including certain information about certain people. The identity of Neely's killer (not suspected killer, not alleged killer, his undeniable, widely named and reported actual killer) is just not one of them.
I view this argument as a particularly unconvincing straw-man. It is not my position (nor any of the other editors arguing for inclusion that I can see) that BLP has no applicability to any information on Wikipedia. Combefere★Talk 15:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support Inclusion - Sorry, Neely has voluntarily made himself a public figure by seeking attention and trying to build sympathy for himself. He should be named. I would go so far as to argue that anyone accused of a notable crime should be named as they become a public figure, but even a conservative reading of BLP indicates that he has forfeited any right to not be named. --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Include. No one, including Penny, is disputing that Penny killed Neely. As others have mentioned, Penny voluntarily said this and gave interviews about it. Name him. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - I supported the last RFC and still support the name inclusion here however nothing has changed since the last RFC - WP:BLPCRIME states "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." and according to sources (examples [1][2]) an indictment is not a conviction .... It's the first step to a criminal prosecution but it's not a conviction .... so therefore nothing has really changed since the last RFC and what has changed doesn't appear to be enough to meet BLPCRIME. –Davey2010Talk 11:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended replies
@Davey2010: You appear to support inclusion of Penny's name but you !voted "oppose"? This is a fresh RfC, not a review of the old one. WWGB (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Well yeah .... It makes sense to include his name .... but BLPCRIME forbids it .... Wasn't that obvious enough to you?, I didn't state anywhere in my !vote that it was a review either. I simply took note of BLPCRIME and the last RFC-closers comments. –Davey2010Talk 12:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
BLPCRIME does not forbid anything. Rather "editors must seriously consider not including material". It is that consideration that we are deliberating in this section. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you're missing the larger point. There was a RfC about this already. A few of us supported inclusion and the close pointed out the BLPCRIME policy. Nothing has changed in 3 days except a few of the supporters of inclusion now back the closer's comments. Nemov (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
^^ What Nemov said. Seems like everyone has read and understand the closers comments except for the OP and WWGB who are still bringing up everything that was already discussed to death in the last RFC. Makes no sense. –Davey2010Talk 14:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
What the hell? Including Penny's name alone, and stating the facts about the event, does not in any way whatsoever imply that Penny committed a crime. Some folks here are really missing the point of this discussion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The article opens with "Jordan Neely, a homeless 30-year-old black man, was killed by..." — which is a definite statement on OUR part, in advance of a court establishing that fact. If the court finds otherwise, for example due to a re-examination changing the cause of death (which I've already cited sources saying happens in many other cases), then legally we would have asserted a false accusation. Bad enough as it is, with the sentence completed by a general description. Worse if we've actually named him. – .Raven.talk 18:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The killing here is about as close to fact as we are ever likely to come. It is not disputed by anyone at all, even the indicted person. We are well within our rights to say "killed by." Criminal culpability is still an open question, so it would only be wrong if we assigned some sort of legal category or consequence to the act. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven: We follow reliable sources, which all say, very definitively, that Penny killed Neely. It was also ruled a homicide by a medical examiner. These are the facts at hand, and can't be contradicted simply because you are worried that things may change in the future. If new information comes to light, and if reliable sources begin to report on these events differently, then the article will be edited and updated accordingly. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I repeat: "If the court finds otherwise, for example due to a re-examination changing the cause of death (which I've already cited sources saying happens in many other cases), then legally we would have asserted a false accusation."That others may have stated "killed by X" as a definite fact is no comfort. Such others (including Donald Trump in full-page signed newspaper ads) definitely stated that a woman was beaten and raped by the Central Park Five — but later evidence exonerated them.Accordingly, reliable sources often hedge their bets by saying "alleged" — "X was alleged to have killed Z", "the alleged killer" — and that's a better (if still imperfect) approach. – .Raven.talk 19:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
All good arguments, but out of place for this discussion. Suggest you go here instead. Xan747 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
If we don't have the confidence to say "was killed by", we shouldn't be saying it regardless of if we name Penny or not. Also, the court finding that Penny didn't kill Neely wouldn't make that not true. We go by what reliable secondary sources say, not what courts say. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Elli Just as heads up, we do have the confidence to say it was a killing as it was ruled a homicide (medically) by a medical examiner. It's also fairly clear that the chokehold was the cause of death. Hopefully that clarifies things! LoomCreek (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we do. I was just responding to .Raven's argument. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah okay, noted LoomCreek (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Jordan Neely was killed by Daniel Penny. This is a widely reported material fact that is substantiated by dozens if not hundreds of reliable secondary sources, and a coroner's report. It is also not information that suggests that Daniel Penny is guilty of a crime. Daniel Penny has been charged with manslaughter, not "killing." No part of the article implies that Penny is guilty of a crime. Combefere★Talk 15:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Where does the actual coroner's report say "killed by [name of person]"? – .Raven.talk 06:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Public figures says, In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. A public figure is a person who has achieved notoriety, prominence or fame within a society. Both seem to apply here. The public celebration of Penny by Republicans indicates notoriety if not fame, does it not? Penny's New York Post interview justifying his actions also seems to satisfy the more restrictive criteria of Penny having "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved". How exactly is Penny not a public figure under these criteria? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I dont know if we can seriously consider a NY post interview as meeting the criteria of being a public figure since this material would not be acceptable on the basis of reliable sourcing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
They released a video interview through their lawyers, among many statements through many different reliable sources. So even excluding the NY Post, they meet the criteria easily. LoomCreek (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Whether the New York Post is a reliable source is not really relevant. It's a notable and widely read tabloid that is itself at the center of a great many public controversies: [3][4][5] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
So instead of "a multitude of reliable published sources", it's acceptable to count on a notably UNreliable source?I don't think so. – .Raven.talk 17:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven: Multiple reliable sources have published the video released by his lawyers, and his Internet fundraising campaign. Either one of those on its own would satisfy the self-promotion clauses in WP:LOWPROFILE. That there are two makes the case stronger.
Note that I am using the NY Post interview in my argument for naming him. My comment here is not a concession that I shouldn't use it. Xan747 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
.Raven knows that, it's said above. Don't worry about explaining something over again when a person leads you into a circular argument. LoomCreek (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
> "Note that I am using the NY Post interview in my argument for naming him" — Already noted and responded to, above. – .Raven.talk 18:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, and? LoomCreek (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Talk about circular arguments! – .Raven.talk 18:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Point of order: an argument going in circles is not the same as circular reasoning. IRL calls, so I'll add my justifications for using the NY Post interview under my own section later tonight. Xan747 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good - LoomCreek (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven: no one is suggesting we use the NY Post as a source. The argument is that Penny himself used his interview in the NY Post to gain publicity and influence the resolution of his case. How does that not make him a public figure? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment I agree that Penny's actions make him both a high-profile individual, and a public figure. I have refrained from making this statement thus far, because I believe it has been (and is still) irrelevant to the discussion; editors arguing for opposition have not yet even made a substantial case that Penny's name should be removed from the article if he were a low-profile individual. I believe it is important for BLP interpretation for us to have the discussion on those grounds. However, I will reiterate that I do agree that Penny is both a high-profile individual and a public figure at this point. Combefere★Talk 17:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Procedural oppose: @LoomCreek: This is too much. You're in WP:DROPTHESTICK territory. You started the last RFC, which closed three days ago. You then opened a challenge to that close, based on both (1) alleged error by the closer and (2) new information since the close. A majority of participants were opposing that challenge. You then withdrew that challenge and started a new RFC here. How is that not WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I want to second Nemov's and User:Davey2010's comments and reiterate what I said at the close challenge: While I supported inclusion in the original RFC, largely based on Perry's press interaction (the public statement and later interview), I do not think it was unreasonable that other editors disagreed, particularly because, on the spectrum of public figures, Perry would certainly be a minor one. I also don't think anything that has happened since the RFC affects the WP:BLPNAME analysis. To be clear: I still think Perry's name should probably be included: In Kenosha unrest shooting, we include Rittenhouse's name (as we should) even though he was tried and (controversially) found innocent. But I also think treating the absence of Perry's name as a 5-alarm fire worthy of several RFCs (and even more talk-page sections) is overkill. Per WP:CCC, "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." I think this is falling on the latter side of the line.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Clarification: In light of the fact that I think the prior close was valid and that the information that has emerged since the last RFC would not have shifted that RFC (and thus the only reason for a distinct outcome would be a different audience), I oppose.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I think WP:DROPTHESTICK is relevant given what I discussed above, and the propriety of opening a second RFC three days after the last one ended is absolutely pertinent to the topic at hand.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
It might be untypical, but the closing of the discussion was too. I opened the Rfc after careful consideration and after the suggestion of several editors in the very ANI & discussions you mentioned. There's a reason I linked both discussions above. You don't have basis for WP:DROPTHESTICK, this isn't me acting on my own or trying force discussion. Editors took serious issue with the decision, even though it was made in good faith.
I ask that you move this or further parts about this to the discussion section below, we don't want to clog up the actual topic with stuff like this. LoomCreek (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
"It might be untypical, but the closing of the discussion was too." See, there. By my read, that lets the cat out of the bag. The propriety of the close was something to be brought up at WP:AN (which will result in the close being tested on a reasonableness standard, not a good-faith standard). You did bring it up there, and you received very little support—it was very obvious that there wasn't a consensus to overturn the close. But before a closer could close that discussion, you "withdrew" it, closed the discussion, and then started this discussion here, and now you're citing the propriety of the close as a reason you've started another RFC. But that's WP:FORUMSHOPPING.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
See response below. (in discussion section) - LoomCreek (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Challenging a close is not forum shopping. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Did you actually read the comment I replied to? – .Raven.talk 18:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
For the record, I did not see this request at WP:AN. Had I seen it, I would have supported it there. The fact that it was not vigorously defended in its less than 24 hour life there was likely due to its limited visibility. Editors engaged in this discussion over policy should not be assumed to scour every AN every day. Combefere★Talk 15:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I pinged you (and others involved) for that very reason. However, I've noticed that notifications aren't always reliable. Xan747 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate the ping. It was after the initial round of pings by LoomCreek. I saw it after the AN closed, at the same time that I saw the ping on this discussion here. Combefere★Talk 21:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome. Things moved pretty fast then. Still are. Xan747 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose on procedure and policy. Rittenhouse was very different as he showed up at a very public protest, with a rifle, and gave interviews right before the incident. In this situation it was a random dude on a subway interacting with what appears to be a mentally unstable individual. Nevertheless BLP is governed by policy and we've entered forum shopping territory here (I wasn't even involved in the original RfC yet I was ping summoned). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply
Most of the "include" !votes are themselves based on procedure and policy. Users' personal opinions about the circumstances of the incident are beside the point. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose — including his name does not give, or help, our readers have a better understanding of the topic. Maybe in the future it can be included, but we are not on a deadline, we are not a newspaper. It is always best to err on the side of exclusion.Isaidnoway(talk) 19:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion. BLP is not violated by including Daniel Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely. There is no clause in BLP which precludes us from including this information. Editors who are arguing for exclusion seem to have the misguided interpretation of BLP that implies that we must censor any and all information about notable people who have ever been charged with any crime. This is not how BLP works, and nothing in BLP implies that it does or should work that way. We are only precluded from stating or implying that Penny is guilty of a crime (such as manslaughter). We are not precluded from including his name, or his involvement in the event that is the subject of the article. I invite all opposing editors to actually quote the relevant clause in BLP that prevents us from including the name, rather than simply asserting without explanation that BLP has somehow been violated. Thus far, no such explanation or analysis has been provided by any of the opposing editors. Combefere★Talk 01:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended replies
Notable person and public figure are not the same concept, and SFR was very clear in his close that the public figure standard is the hurdle to clear, and wasn't, because arguments in support of naming Neely's assailant mostly did so on the basis of his notability due to sustained coverage in multiple RSs. He specifically said he downweighted those arguments in his ruling. So it's public figure to name, otherwise not. Xan747 (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
That is not a meaningful response to my argument. SFR stated that Penny was not a public figure, and cited WP:NPF but did not explain how NPF precludes us from including Penny's name or involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely from the article. The assertion that we "must clear the hurdle of proving Penny is a public figure" is one without basis. We must do no such thing. Penny is notable, and notability is enough to include him in the article.
From NPF:
"In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). 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."
NPF is very clear that we are allowed to include notable people who are not public figures in the article. Nothing about the inclusion of Penny's name or the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely violates any part of NPF. What specific sentence do you think is violated here, and how? Combefere★Talk 02:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME gives more specific and stricter guidance when it comes to criminal acts:
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.
I won't bother quoting SFR's close here, it's at the top of the page as of this writing. He's very clear that Neely's assailant must pass the public figure test to be named in the article. I don't know what else to tell you except that I was rudely surprised by a) the ruling and b) what I found when I read the policy more closely and compared it to the arguments for inclusion. Xan747 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Starship.paint, I saw that and we are in exact agreement; see my arguments near the top of the thread. The point I'm making with Combefere is that he leaves out any mention of the public figure test -- he only mentions notability, which is not the same thing, and isn't sufficient to name Neely's assailant. Xan747 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Xan747 There is no "public figure test" to leave out. BLPCRIME does not preclude us from including any and all information about notable individuals who are not public figures. It encourages (not even requires) us to exclude assertions about a person's guilt in relation to a crime if they are not a public figure. These things are not the same. Not remotely. Combefere★Talk 08:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Which makes the lede paragraph's "Neely was killed by X" problematic. If we could rely on the first ME's ruling (homicide) as final, we could at least say "killed" — but that so many cause-of-death findings are changed after re-examination suggests at least the possibility of it happening if the defense requests and gets a re-examination, and we won't know that until the defense rests. – .Raven.talk 18:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
This is WP:CRYSTAL. It is a neutral, verifiable fact that Neely was killed. The ME's report is beyond sufficient evidence, and hundreds of secondary reliable sources corroborate it. The out of hand dismissal of this evidence is a fringe interpretation that is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The ME ruled it a homicide. The reliable sources call it a killing. We are obliged to follow suit. Combefere★Talk 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
> "The ME ruled it a homicide." — If and when the court finally agrees to homicide being a "material fact", we can say so. Stating it as a fact before then runs up against the problem that re-examinations have changed the initial cause-of-death declarations in 30%-50% of cases varying by state, and 60% in one study cited here. If the defense does NOT request or present a re-examination before it rests, I'd call that ruling a safe bet. – .Raven.talk 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
If and when the court finally agrees to homicide being a "material fact", we can say so.
Incorrect. We can say it is a killing as soon as the ME report is published, per WP:DEATHS. We can also say it is a killing without an ME report at all, if a "preponderance of secondary reliable sources" call it so (and they have!), per WP:DEATHS. See recent discussion on this point after the Killing of Tyre Nichols here.
I'll ask that you strike all of these continued, bludgeoning comments, which are clearly opposed by WP policy, and refrain from making them in the future. Combefere★Talk 19:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The article lede sentence follows "killing" with "by X" — a combination not ruled by the ME, who did not presume to name a responsible party.That ruling would be made by the court, not the ME (nor the papers, nor even the prosecutors).In the meantime, to combine the two is what WP calls synthesis. – .Raven.talk 02:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This would be a valid analysis, if not for the inconvenient fact that reliable secondary sources have stated outright, in no uncertain terms that Penny killed Neely.
Here's one that lays it out in no uncertain terms:
"Mr. Penny, apparently seeking to restrain Mr. Neely, placed him in a chokehold, killing him. The city medical examiner’s office ruled his death a homicide two days later. (That ruling determines that Mr. Penny killed Mr. Neely but is not a finding of criminal culpability.)"
We are not synthesizing material from separate sources here. Dozens, if not hundreds of RSs are in agreement on the undeniable conclusion that Penny killed Neely. We are simply including the analysis from RSs, as we do for all information on all articles. Combefere★Talk 03:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
You are misapplying WP:SYNTH. Reliable sources get to synthesize. They did. We get to use their synthesis. End of story. Xan747 (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
We have other sources saying the ME's report did not assign culpability [='blame'] for Neely's death. If instead we follow one that claims it did — and it turns out it really didn't — are we not "culpable" for ignoring the discrepancy in reports to get a desired outcome? Central Park Five again. – .Raven.talk 04:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The city’s medical examiner said Neely died from “compression of neck (chokehold)” and declared his manner of death a homicide — a routine term used by coroners and medical examiners to mean death caused by another person, but not a finding of criminal culpability.
My emphasis. Xan747 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing that we must assign criminal culpability to Penny. This is a straw man. Combefere★Talk 04:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The ME's spokesperson, as quoted, did not specify 'criminal culpability'. – .Raven.talk 04:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Which is not under dispute. Xan747 (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting we assign "culpability" to Penny in any sense. Nobody has suggested an edit to the article that says "Penny is culpable for Neely's death." This is a straw man.
RSs say plainly that Penny killed Neely. We can as well. Combefere★Talk 04:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Saying "X killed Y" does say that X is to blame for Y's death.WP's rules are different from newspapers' rules. WP:NOTNEWS – .Raven.talk 06:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven: I agree with you, which is why I changed the lede last night. I was then overruled. This is not the thread to have that argument, however. Xan747 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, this does not address the substance of my argument. I'll remind you that SFR's closing argument is not WP policy, and should not be cited as such. That editor's assertion that Penny must pass the public figure test is a hollow assertion with no basis in WP policy.
As to your quotation of BLPCRIME, it still does not include an analysis of which part of BLPCRIME you believe has been violated and by what. Daniel Penny's name is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime or is accused of a crime. Stating the material fact that Daniel Penny killed Jordan Neely is not a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime or is accused of a crime. There has never been any sentence in the article that suggests Penny has committed a crime. BLPCRIME is not violated here. Combefere★Talk 03:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
So that I can better understand, would you then omit any mention of the indictment? Dumuzid (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Your reading of BLPCRIME is far too strict. It's meant for circumstances such as, say, an unsolved murder, where someone is arrested as a suspect. We wouldn't want to name them. Likewise, let's say a minor celebrity is arrested for a crime. There's a good argument for not mentioning that.
This isn't either of those cases. Our article is about an incident and we 100% know that Penny was the person involved here (no one is denying this). The indictment is part of the incident, so it should be mentioned, but adding that information should not mean we need to remove other information (Penny's name). Sure, we should consider not including that information (as in the cases I mentioned above) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include that information! Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You might be right, but for the moment, I am just going on a plain reading of the words of the policy. And you're right, "must consider" does not mean "must not include." And I confess I have a couple biases here: I think Wikipedia should take a slower approach to its articles, and I tend to side with criminal defendants of all stripes. Your mileage may certainly vary, and if consensus goes against me here (and it may), then so be it! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
As for no one (including Penny) denying that he killed Neely:
"Penny denied he had Neely in a chokehold, claiming he was restraining him to protect others." (HuffPost, June 12)
“Some people say that I was holding on to Mr. Neely for 15 minutes. This is not true — between stops is only a couple of minutes. So the whole interaction lasted less than 5 minutes,” Penny said. “Some people say I was trying to choke him to death — which is also not true. I was trying to restrain him. You can see in the video there’s a clear rise and fall of his chest, indicating that he’s breathing. I’m trying to restrain him from being able to carry out the threats.” (Matzav.com, June 12)
"One of the people pinning Neely down ... also claimed that Penny was not 'squeezing' Neely's neck." (Insider, May 5)
@.Raven, good find, I added that detail in this diff, using a local news agency for the site. If it gets challenged, we'll take it to a different talk thread so as not to continue cluttering up this one with the same off-topic point over and over. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven and Xan747: It's all fine and good that Daniel Penny denies he used a chokehold, but what do our reliable sources say? The HuffPost article cited above by .Raven says "Penny was captured on a bystander video putting Neely in a chokehold ..." That article also says that Penny claims Neely was on drugs, but did the medical examiner's report affirm that accusation? The second source .Raven cited above (Insider), also says "Penny, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, put Neely in a chokehold ... I would like to remind y'all that we follow what the reliable sources say. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Please note the actual topic here: the repeated claims on this page (worded variously) that no one (including Penny) denied that he killed Neely. Pointing to all the sources which don't mention his (and that witness's) denial doesn't erase the sources which do mention those denials... nor make those false claims true. – .Raven.talk 07:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I would not. I would, as BLPCRIME demands, "seriously consider" omitting any mention of the indictment, and after such serious consideration I would conclude that in this particular case, such an omission would be ridiculous given the widely reported material fact that Penny killed Neely, and the obvious necessity of reporting the material fact of his indictment in the light of our obligation to include the former fact.
BLPCRIME is obviously meant to protect people whose involvement in the crime at all is still a matter of contention. It's not meant to shield anybody and everybody who have done something notable, when that notable thing also precipitates a criminal procedure. We don't censor the names of bombers, or mass shooters while the criminal procedures are still unfolding. The bombing or mass shooting itself is the notable event, and the people who carried out those acts must be named and included. The criminal procedures following that event are then not protected by BLPCRIME, because at that point the suspects are already named because of their undeniable inclusion in the event itself.
Contrast with the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German where the name of the suspect is protected. Why? Because there's no widely reported material fact about the suspect that we can include about him. It's not a widely reported material fact that he killed them, or that he was involved at all. There's no notable material fact that we could include here, except that he was accused of a crime.
Penny's privacy is not protected by BLPCRIME in the same way. He attacked and killed a homeless man on a subway. That's true, widely reported, and undisputable. That's why he's named in hundreds of news articles. That's why he's notable. Whether that act was a crime is just the next part of that story. But his involvement in the story, and our certainty of his involvement in the story do not in any way hinge on his conviction for a crime.Combefere★Talk 04:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
But would you agree with me that reporting the indictment would be a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime or is accused of a crime? As you note, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be included, but I want to make sure we are working from the same basic propositions. Dumuzid (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree that reporting the indictment is certainly a suggestion that Penny has been accused of a crime. Combefere★Talk 04:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
> "the material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely" — He's been arrested for it, after an ME's ruling on cause-of-death (homicide, not stating the actor)... but a court has not found on your "material fact", and cause-of-death declarations have been changed by re-examinations before now. Wikipedia is not under any deadline; we can wait to see what the court finds. – .Raven.talk 18:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I've responded to your WP:CRYSTAL argument elsewhere that this fringe theory is both WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. No RSs are casting doubt upon the veracity or the relevance of the ME's ruling. This is a Wikipedia article, not an exercise in the invincible ignorance fallacy. Combefere★Talk 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, "the material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely" was not ruled by the ME; the ME didn't name [X]. Others did. Your combining the two is WP:SYNTH. – .Raven.talk 02:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I did not combine the two. Hundreds of RSs did. Combefere★Talk 03:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The crime was splashed across front pages for months, with the teens depicted as symbols of violence and called “bloodthirsty,” “animals,” “savages” and “human mutations,” the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism and research organization, reports.Newspaper columnists joined in. The New York Post 's Pete Hamill wrote that the teens hailed “from a world of crack, welfare, guns, knives, indifference and ignorance…a land with no fathers…to smash, hurt, rob, stomp, rape. The enemies were rich. The enemies were white.”Adding fuel to the fire, weeks after the attack, in May 1989, real estate developer (and future U.S. president) Donald Trump took out full-page ads in The New York Times, the New York Daily News, the New York Post and New York Newsday with the headline, "Bring Back The Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!"“It was a media tsunami,” former New York Daily News police bureau chief David Krajicek tells Poynter. “It was so competitive. The city desk absolutely demanded that we come up with details that other reporters didn’t have.”
And those RSs got it wrong. Perhaps one of the reasons why WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say to wait until "hundreds of RSs" accuse him; it talks about a court conviction instead.A "reliable" source should separate its verifiable facts from its (hasty) opinions. – .Raven.talk 03:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
And those RSs got it wrong. Perhaps one of the reasons why WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say to wait until "hundreds of RSs" accuse him; it talks about a court conviction instead.
BLPCRIME does not require a court conviction to include Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely. It only requires a court conviction to assert that he committed a crime. The article does not accuse Penny of committing a crime, and nobody is suggesting to add such an accusation to the article.
The insinuation that we must not include any information from Reliable Sources, and can only report information that is ruled on by a court flies in the face of all standard practices of Wikipedia reporting and cannot be taken seriously. Reliable sources are the backbone of our encyclopedia. Combefere★Talk 04:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
"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."
Because at present the firm statement some editors wish placed on the article in Wikipedia's voice would indeed suggest that. – .Raven.talk 04:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The statement that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that Penny has committed a crime.
As a matter of fact, there is already an ongoing discussion at WT:BLP which was initiated because one editor was (like you) very displeased about this reality. It's been ongoing for almost three months, and no consensus about changing the verbiage of BLPCRIME has been released; the verbiage proposed would not even preclude us from including the neutral and verifiable statement that Penny killed Neely.
If you have issues with the policy, I suggest contributing there. Combefere★Talk 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
> "neutral and verifiable statement that [X] killed Neely"You have several times thumped the ME's ruling as asserting that.Nowhere in the ruling is that asserted, per the ME's spokesperson.If any other source falsely claims it does assert that... this would be one data point toward regarding the source as unreliable. – .Raven.talk 06:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, ok. If a Reliable Source disagrees with you, then it must be unreliable, huh? Sorry to say I don't find that argument very convincing :)
Sadly I have to say that the more I engage with you on here, the less convincing I find your arguments. The interpretation that the ME's report does not find that Penny killed Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It's found in no RSs. None.
If you think that any RSs that disagree with you on this point must therefore be unreliable, I suggest you take them up individually at WP:RSP. Trying to dismiss the sources here is outside of the scope of this RfC, and disruptive. Combefere★Talk 07:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
> "If a Reliable Source disagrees with you, then it must be unreliable, huh?"I said nothing about "if it disagrees with me" — rather, I said, if it "falsely claims", i.e. says something factually untrue... and I'll add in this case, something that was knowably untrue at the time... as in asserting that the Medical Examiner's ruling said something the Medical Examiner's spokesperson explicitly contradicted.This wasn't an inquest, or a coroner's court/jury, nor was it Quincy, M.E.> "The interpretation that the ME's report does not find that Penny killed Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It's found in no RSs. None."72.14.126.22 and I both quoted above the CNN article already cited in the article: "A spokesperson for the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner explained that 'manner of death was ruled a homicide, but that determination is not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider'." [emphasis added] – .Raven.talk 07:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
RS's interpretations of the ME report are usable in the article, and as a basis for discussion on the talk page. Your interpretation is not. If you have a problem with RS's reliability, go take it up at WP:RSP. Combefere★Talk 08:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
So CNN is now not a reliable source when quoting the ME's spokesperson verbatim? Wow. – .Raven.talk 08:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Editing your comment after I've responded to it is bad form.
I suppose graduating from fringe, nonsense interpretations of the ME report onto fringe nonsense interpretations of the RSs reporting the ME report is the next obvious step in the stepwise devolution of your analysis here. I don't find it particularly convincing.
CNN is indeed a reliable source. They do not in any article deny that Penny killed Neely, nor that the ME report found that Penny killed Neely, nor did the ME spokesperson. Combefere★Talk 08:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
In fact, I was editing it WHILE you were editing. You posted before I did, is all.> "CNN... do not in any article deny that [X] killed Neely, nor that the ME report found that Penny killed Neely, nor did the ME spokesperson.""deny that [X] killed Neely" is not what I said. As with "If a Reliable Source disagrees with you" above, you continue to deploy strawmen.The ME's spokesperson said of the ME's determination that it was "not a ruling on intent or culpability, which is for the criminal justice system to consider".IOW, it did not assert "that [X] killed Neely".Quite a different matter.The fact that some reporters could not understand that, just like you... says much worse about them than about you. It is their professional responsibility not to misrepresent statements, especially on important matters like death and its blame. Wikipedia editors are unpaid, and of a wide variety of educational and training backgrounds: "amateurs" in the non-pejorative sense; mistakes are to be expected... and corrected. – .Raven.talk 08:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Take it up at WP:RSP. Your refusal to accept a consensus of hundreds of RSs is not within the scope of the discussion at this RfC. Combefere★Talk 18:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
For thousands of years, the value of pi (π) was given wrong, e.g., the Babylonians had it at 3, the Egyptians at about 3.1605. I could cite those millennia of estimates, but they would still be wrong.Did the medical examiner's ruling actually, factually, name [X] as the killer? The ME's spokesperson said no. Anyone who claims otherwise should cite and quote that ruling, not some other people's claims unsupported and even contradicted by the very agency they thump.Good grief, how many hundreds of sources uncritically repeated Donald Trump's falsehoods?Would citing all those sources "verify" Trump's statements?Let's have a little more critical thinking skill here, please. – .Raven.talk 00:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Support based on procedure and policy. New information emerged to warrant a new discussion. WP:BLPCRIME links to WP:PUBLICFIGURE which links to WP:LOWPROFILE, stating: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. The defendant has sought out public attention via interviews and the fundraiser. I would think that the defendant qualifies as a limited purpose public figure under the definition of U.S. Supreme Court case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. that has “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” [6]starship.paint (exalt) 02:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended replies
This is a reasonable line of argument, but I would note that defamation law can be instructive for Wikipedia purposes, but is not a perfect analog; and I would point to Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (1976), in which the court took a criminal indictment as the paradigmatic case of someone who had not voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye, and also noted that one should not "equate 'public controversy' with all controversies of interest to the public." But that is again, not a perfect match--and Penny has certainly taken some proactive media steps. Just food for thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the indictment by itself does not make the defendant a public figure. That is why I did not mention anything about the indictment. It is the interviews plus fundraiser. starship.paint (exalt) 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely so! But then we get into a very gray area (as with all the best cases). Is a legal fundraiser really voluntary in this day and age? Aren't interviews defending oneself at least somewhat compelled in the face of so much publicity? I could honestly argue either way. Interesting borderline issues. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: - to my knowledge, Derek Chauvin did not give interviews, and only spoke in court. I would think that is example enough. starship.paint (exalt) 03:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair, but Chauvin was not responsible for his own legal fees, which would change the calculation quite a bit, I should think. Either way, as I say, I believe there are reasonable arguments to be made on either side of the question. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Not only did Penny advocate for his legal defense, but took pains in his New York Post interview to say Neely's killing had "nothing to do with race" and that it's "comical" to say he is "white supremacist", claiming to "love all people" as evidenced by his planned "road trip through Africa", etc. I would say this amounts to someone thrust[ing] themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies, or as the Post puts it, the "political and racial firestorm" currently surrounding Penny. It's more than a simple argument against the manslaughter charge. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC) edited 21:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion of Penny's name. WP:BLPNAME says: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, [...] it is often preferable to omit it." Both conditions are clearly not met. All WP:RS use his name, often in headlines. Penny has given multiple interviews: New York Post (May 20) [7], Fox News (June 8) [8], and in a video released through his lawyers (June 12) [9]. According to WP:LOWPROFILE, he is a high-profile individual: "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication..." Given that Penny doesn't try to conceal his name (rather the contrary) and our policies, I see no reason to omit his name. But we should make sure that our wording is neutral and not accusatory in any way. For example, the first sentence should be something like "Neely died after Penny held him in a chokehold" instead of "Neely was killed by Penny", since "kill" carries a connotation of intent. The sources given by Sangdeboeuf above provide some good examples of careful wording, as they avoid anything like "Penny killed Neely". — Chrisahn (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd be fine with Neely died after Penny held him in a chokehold or similar wording, as long as we don't censor Penny's identity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion of Daniel Penny's name in the lead and throughout article on the killing of Jordan Neely, for the following reasons:
Per Xan747, WWGB, Sangdeboeuf — who argued correctly that Penny has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities and that "Neely's assailant fits the definition of a high-profile figure by seeking media attention, and self-promotion".WP:LOWPROFILE states that an individual is high-profile if they have "given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program" which Penny has done.
Per Starship.paint — who cited WP:LOWPROFILE, which says that "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable", as Penny has engaged in public fundraising activities, given an interview, and released a video statement via attorneys.
Per Combefere — who pointed out that "BLP is not violated by including Daniel Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely."
Further, Penny has become a cause célèbre and has been promoted, defended, and honored very publicly by some members of the right, including Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, Republican politicians Matt Gaetz, Nikki Haley, and others.
WP:BLP is not violated by including Penny's name, which is an important piece of information to include in the article, and should not be omitted based on the far-too-stringent readings and interpretations of BLP policy as have been made by some who are opposed to naming Penny. Needless to say, I do not believe the previous RfC discussion or close fully took into account these points. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion. I don't agree with the idea that the individual is a high profile individual or find the arguments so to be very convincing. Their lawyers released interviews in response to sensational reporting as part of his legal defence. This is not someone providing multiple interviews to different outlets, it is only in relation to the ongoing criminal proceedings, and I don't believe reporting of the case can ever make someone a high profile individual. However I believe there is reason for inclusion. I would see the normal application of BLPCRIME as being to keep the names of non-notable individuals out of the article. So if someone is later found not guilty Wikipedia hasn't published their name unnecessarily. In this case though the subject will always be notable to the article, whether they are found guilty or not, as their involvement is not disputed. The issue is how that name is included, which must not state guilt or imply guilt (until there is a verdict). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I largely agree, but... "This is not someone providing multiple interviews to different outlets" – In addition to the interview published by his lawyers, he gave interviews to the New York Post (May 20) [10] and Fox News (June 8) [11]. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I missed that, but I still feel this is now a normal part of a mounting a defence in modern high visibility cases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion. The point of BLP policy in general is to prevent Wikipedia from having an inappropriate negative effect on the lives of people who have the misfortune to be written about here. In the case of low-profile accused criminals, these harms might come from misidentification, from actual innocence, or simply from the accused not having access to appropriate ways to defend themselves. None of these apply in this case: as Adoring nanny notes, no one disputes that Penny killed Neely, and as starship.paint observes, there is no sense in which Penny can be viewed as low-profile any longer. It would have been reasonable to feel differently about whether Penny was low-profile some weeks ago, but it seems to me that that time is long past. --JBL (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended replies (10/10 collapsed by starship.paint)
> "no one disputes that [X] killed Neely" — We have not yet seen the defense portion of the trial. The trial has not yet even begun. To say what "no one disputes" before that courtroom dispute is WP:CRYSTALBALL. – .Raven.talk 18:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It looks to me like you have made 30+ comments in the last three days, repeating the same (frankly rather inane) point over and over again. Maybe you could stop? --JBL (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I second this, it's bludgeoning. LoomCreek (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You've made roughly twice the comments I have on this page. – .Raven.talk 03:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
That's patently false, it's laughable you would even suggest that.- LoomCreek (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't say "edits", I said "comments". Are we now counting typo corrections against me? Also, I made further comments after posting that, which will have changed the ratio. – .Raven.talk 04:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm counting comments, it's not even close. This should be taken to the discussion section. LoomCreek (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Here I am increasing my comment-count again. Last of the night, I hope.What were your page search parameters? Username alone (which picks up mentions), or .sig with username/talkpage, which narrows it down? Also, does your UI collapse threads? – .Raven.talk 04:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Take this to the discussion section. Keeping it here adds needless effort for the closing editor. LoomCreek (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
People keep repeating things like the "The fact that [X] killed Neely...", and "[X] killed Neely, period. This is factual and relevant info", and "... material fact that [X] killed Jordan Neely...", and "plain fact acknowledged in reliable sources: that X caused the death of Y through his actions", and "It remains an indisputable (and undisputed) fact that XkilledY" [emphasis in original] — and citing the ME's ruling as though it identified the person responsible, which it did not.Combining that report with other sources (e.g. news agencies') is WP:SYNTH. Taking the prosecutors' charges as a source (even if cited by news agencies) is a classic violation of WP:BLPCRIME.People have been charged with crimes, yet exonerated. People have been widely accused in media, yet exonerated. Once again, take the Central Park Five for example — a massive public campaign of vilification and assumption of guilt took place, yet it turned out they had had nothing to do with the crime... or, if you prefer, the actual physical beating and rape, even before charges were filed. It was a tremendous rush to (false) judgment.I for one would prefer that Wikipedia not rush to judgment. We have no deadline, and judgment is the court's job.And... have you made the same request of Combefere? Loomcreek? Anyone else? Or just me?Consider counting up how many of my edits were typo corrections. – .Raven.talk 03:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment There are now three overlapping discussions about this subject on the talk page, creating more needless confusion. I have closed and hatted one of them. Users @Nfutvol: and @Razzmatazz Max: have indicated support for including the name in discussions above and below. Their support should not be erased due to the overlapping discussions, as supporting editors' comments were erased in the first RfC. Combefere★Talk 00:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, because both of their comments were made after the indictment occurred they should be included as part of the support for name inclusion LoomCreek (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per BLPCRIME, not convinced by arguments to support.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion on the basis that he is not a low profile figure anymore based on his wiling participation in activity within the media, and the circus this has created. WP:BLPCRIME no longer applies. Fieari (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion per my support in the previous RFC and I haven't seen any oppose arguments that have made me re-evaluate it. If anything, I'm somewhat swayed that name or not should be controlled primarily by WP:BLPNAME which is a clear include and then other prose around either the name or placeholder name is what WP:BLPCRIME is about. But this case, both the amount of media coverage, the way his identity was made public, and the amount he himself has been public about the case, makes me support inclusion. Skynxnex (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion of name - per my response to the discussion above. it's a bit confusing that there are multiple open discussions on the same topic The void century 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll add that multiple references in this article include the name of the defendant in the title. So it's not like his name will be hidden if it's excluded in the body. One can easily find his name in the references section. The void century 05:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Strong support inclusion - Seems like most people opposing are doing so on b/c of WP:BLPCRIME's provision against suggesting a "person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". Those people are probably confused by the difference between "killing" and criminal offenses like homicide, murder, and manslaughter. Lots of "killing" is done is a legal way, and saying "Person X killed person Y" doesn't mean a crime has occurred. Exclusion when this guy is named by so many other sources just makes WP look plain dumb. This is another good example of the WP:BLP facists making this project look incompetent. NickCT (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion: Some points:
- (I suppose this is more of a comment to the closer, but it also includes an argument) This discussion is about name inclusion only. BLPCRIME does not prevent by default the inclusion of even the types of information covered by the policy, and does not govern other types of information. Arguments that simply cite BLPCRIME without further explanation as to exactly why the name inclusion ALONE is "material [...] that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" are arguments contradictory to policy, which are to be discounted by closing editors.
- BLPCRIME supports the inclusion by default as Penny clears the bar of a public figure (note that LPI is an essay, not policy, but to my knowledge it remains the only definition of a "high profile individual" that we have that doesn't rely on external legal definitions). He has publicly released prepared statements and videos, he is seeking crowdfunding, he has done interviews with large media organizations. He has not only "not hidden" from the public eye, but has instead embraced it and encouraged wide dissemination of his name, likeness, and personal story in connection to this case. TL;DR It is clearly the position of Penny and his lawyer(s?) that publishing his name does not harm him and that he does not intend to pursue legal action against entities that publish his name in a neutral, unbiased manner, which is what we do here. Thus, arguments of legal peril are addressed.
- Even if Penny is or was not a public figure, the inclusion of his name did not violate BLPCRIME, not least because BLPCRIME does not have any instructions that can be "violated" in the segment that we all are referring to. I suppose BLPCRIME might be "violated" if we could look into the mind of the contributing editor and see that they did not think about their contribution seriously.
- Again, even if Penny is or was not a public figure, the inclusion of his name did not violate BLPCRIME, because saying that something happened does not indicate that anybody is guilty of anything. That Neely was killed by Penny is not an accusation of guilt in the slightest, it is the most clear and concise way to describe the situation while providing context and information about the people involved.
- The so-called "strict" interpretation (which is not a strict interpretation at all, rather it is a misreading or mischaracterization of the policy's letter) of BLPCRIME does not prevent us from publishing Penny's name. It would create an argument for avoiding mentioning the investigation, grand jury proceedings, and indictment, which I would be happy to participate in a discussion about.
- In the possible situation that Penny is acquitted, he would still warrant inclusion as a heavily involved person. This is because the tentative and non-binding 'restriction' that has been cited does not even apply to the unbiased and non-implicative description that Penny's actions were found to have resulted in the death of Neely, a situation often referred to as a "killing." If BLPCRIME were to bind us from saying Penny's name, the correct course of action would be to revert the name of the article to "Death of Jordan Neely" and scrub any statements about the involvement of ANYBODY other than Neely because describing an unnamed "accused" as having killed someone is significantly closer to "material [...] that suggests" criminality than anyone's name. This is, of course, absurd on its face, and arguments that fail to describe why the inclusion of Penny's name specifically is problematic are arguments in favor of that absurd outcome.
I'm sorry—I actually support inclusion on the merits—but the entire "we can include the name of killer without even suggesting the killer committed a crime" is nonsense. Yeah, I guess the article could say "By the way, some dude named Daniel Perry exists", that wouldn't imply Perry committed a crime, but no one is suggesting that.
Again, BLPCRIME bars material that even suggests a crime was committed. The very fact that the term "alleged killer" is a term that's used in society (including by reliable sources—and I don't mean those sources reporting on Neely, I mean in general) is itself evidence that describing someone as having committed a killing suggests a crime. Put it this way: Per your argument, in a case where it was not clear who the killer was, a Wikipedia article could say "authorities suspect that X was the killer"—because, after all, "killing isn't a crime".--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Your argument makes a case that Wikipedia stop naming articles "Killing of [name]" completely, and that those articles should be named "Death of [name]" or "Murder of [name]," because the title "Killing of [name]" implies criminality. It is widely accepted consensus that the word "killing," on Wikipedia, is equivalent to the word "homicide," and does not imply criminality. While there is not an actual naming convention for articles about death and killing that has been established as policy, WP:KILLINGS is very widely cited and agreed with.
Per my argument, in a case where it was not clear who the killer was, a Wikipedia article should absolutely NOT say that, because the suspicion of authorities carries the implication of an ongoing investigation or future charges in a way that (by established consensus) the concept and wording of "killing" or "homicide" do not. PriusGod (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It does not at all suggest that a death can't be described by a killing. Nor does it suggest that criminality can't be suggested absent the name of a living person. What it suggests is that suggested criminality cannot be tied to a non-public-figure living person absent conviction, which is what WP:BLPCRIME states. By your argument, so long as we don't say "X killed Y, and X will have no affirmative defenses available," we're not "suggesting a crime". That's a bad and, frankly, dangerous read of the policy. The policy doesn't just cover "Many suspect X committed murder" or "X committed murder" ... it also covers suggestions that a person committed or is accused of committing a crime. "Many suspect X killed Y" and "X killed Y" would also be inappropriate, even though, in theory, there might be an affirmative defense X could present.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the last two sentences of your statement here. I think that the article should say that medical examiners found that Y's death was due to homicide, and that X has admitted that his involvement contributed to that, and that once that well-qualified statement is out of the way, wording as simple as X killed Y may be permissible.
I do not think that any article should ever say bluntly that X killed Y in wikivoice with no qualification. I recognize that the way I wrote my argument may have carried that implication, but what I meant with that sentence was that the phrasings "killing" and "homicide" are not inherently accusatory, and are dependent on context. In this case, we have the context that a medical examiner found that Y died of homicide, and that X has made an admission of contribution to that. I will strike that sentence and reword it, tagging the time to make sure it is clear that you have not made a willful misinterpretation, but that I had represented my argument inaccurately.
I do, however, take issue with your statement that BLPCRIME "bars" anything. BLPCRIME asks that "editors must seriously consider not including material," which is not the same thing as "editors must not include material." I don't intend to make a wikilawyering argument, as I do recognize that BLPCRIME is trying to imply that we should lean the exclusionist position, but the vast majority of oppose !votes here rely on the incorrect interpretation that BLPCRIME is a strict and unambiguous policy and (imply) that other arguments must rely on IAR, which is not the case. I don't think it opposes the spirit of BLPCRIME to say that both sides of the 'serious consideration' need to present convincing and specific arguments about the inclusion of covered material. (I'm not accusing you of accusing me, this is just a preemptive defense against the potential for someone to come in saying I am wikilawyering, I recognize the closeness)
You have said that the existence of the phrase "alleged killer" means that "X killed Y" is a suggestion of a crime. If that is the case, then an article named "Killing of Y" for any X is a suggestion of criminality on X's behalf. This means that ANY article named "Killing of Y" suggests criminality. This is incompatible with the consensus in favor of WP:KILLINGS and implies that the article title "Killer of [name]" be retired.
I want to be clear, while I described a similar position as "absurd," I don't think this one is! The consensus in favor of WP:KILLINGS is manifestly not strong consistently enough to have earned the title of policy (though I believe it is, but since it hasn't graduated to policy status then it must be the case), and it is essentially a constant request on contentious pages about deaths and killings that the names be moved back and forth. I apologize if I am misunderstanding your argument, but if (as I read from your comment) the existence of the phrase "alleged killer" means ("X killed Y" = an accusation), then it seems to follow that articles named ("Killing of Y" = "X killed Y") and thus ("Killing of Y" = an accusation).
(I will say - I agree in the general sense that this discussion is being rehashed too much. While I'm not going to forego an opportunity opened by someone else to make my case, as I genuinely believe that my position is best for WP, I think there should have been much more time between the failed close challenge and this new RfC. Also I'm sorry, but I'm about to get off work so I might not have done a perfect job of proofreading this. If any of my arguments above seem to be incomplete, or absurd not in the rhetorical sense but in the word salad sense please feel free to disregard them) I'll collapse this reply chain just because this is getting really long, which I recognize is mostly my fault. I just want to ensure that my argument is complete and that I am not leaving things out, as I don't want to ignore any of your concerns. PriusGod (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Strongly support inclusion for reasons I stated previously in the "Name inclusion (2)" discussion. No one, including Penny, disputes that Penny killed Neely. Penny is criminally indicted and his name is completely public, and Penny has done interviews and has done nothing to attempt to suppress his identity, and has not been at all shy to be in the spotlight. TheXuitts (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion: per WP:LOWPROFILE, he's engaged in promotional activities (i.e., a PR campaign with notable publications) such that he should be considered a public figure. Additionally, WP:BLPCRIME is not a brightline rule. It says editors should seriously consider not including a non-public figure's name, not that the person's name can never be included. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion: Maybe my reasoning will be denounced as mostly vibes-based, but it seems such an odd decision to take, that there should be an extremely compelling reason not to use his name. I can detect the existence of no such compelling reason. --RestaurantMarsupial (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion: First of all, invoking BLPCRIME is an argument against including information in an article suggesting Penny is guilty of a crime before his indictment has reached a conclusion. Scrubbing his name from the article is the least efficient way to accomplish this goal. Scrubbing Penny's name makes the article confusing to read and has the potential to make antecedents of "he/him" unclear and direct them to other named individuals, like Vazquez the journalist often quoted. Scrubbing Penny's name also means that a byproduct is having a subtitle labeled "Accused", a term implying a criminal act!
A better resolution would be to delete the paragraphs (for now) that include information about the legal proceedings or accusations of potential criminal acts, like the final paragraph in the lead. Then add them back in once resolutions take place.
Furthermore, considering Penny's outspoken nature regarding this issue, I also agree that we're looking at a self-pronounced public figure here, which further voids the argument to scrub Penny's name from the article.
Either way, I vote for inclusion and recommend replacing any occurrence of "accused" with Penny's name and stick to the current facts. Penguino35 (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Include (Summoned by bot): I am not well versed in the topic, but I can’t see good reason to exclude his name by reference to BLPNAME or BLPCRIME. I personally think that given dogmatic attitudes taken here towards WP:BLPCRIME that it needs to be rewritten or extended to recommend towards including names that have been published in high-quality reliable sources, or widely published in RSs. There is, to me, a vast difference between those who have been charged (without name-suppression) and those who have not. — HTGS (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion Penny himself doesn't dispute that he killed Neely, his name is public (WP:LOWPROFILE, he's engaged in promotional activities), and he's been criminally indicted. And, WP:BLPCRIME only says we should seriously consider not including a non-public figure's name, not that the person's name can never be included? It's really weird to see his name excluded on Wikipedia.--Jacobin 357 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Support inclusion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names suggests that it is only preferable to omit the names of private individuals (with "certain court cases" being specifically given as an example) if the individual's name "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". Daniel Penny's identity has been widely reported both before and after his indictment and his name has clearly not been deliberately concealed. Penny clearly qualifies as a public figure given that he has been named not only by high-profile political figures (including presidential candidates) but also in a proposed congressional resolution and therefore there is no obligation to conceal his identity under BLP:CRIME. Truecrimefan22 (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
@LoomCreek: Since you created a brand new RfC 3 days after the last one closed, you should ping the editors who participated in the previous discussion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I happened to have the list mostly compiled already. Hopefully I didn't miss or double-ping anyone.
Appreciate it! LoomCreek (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
> I'll add that multiple references in this article include the name of the defendant in the title. So it's not like his name will be hidden if it's excluded in the body. One can easily find his name in the references section. The void century 05:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@The void century, I'd like to amplify and expand on this. Including assailant's name in the article means that search engines will pick it up -- and this is an encyclopedic need justification for inclusion of the name. On the other hand, if the finding of this RfC is that the assailant is protected from naming by BLPCRIME, perhaps that warrants removing such citations. These questions have been previously discussed numerous times elsewhere, but as a new editor it's fresh for me and perhaps this isn't the place for delving too much deeper into it. Xan747 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Penny has not been doxxed, by Wikipedia editors or the news media. I can't imagine the need to remove citations simply because his name is mentioned, and I'm not aware of a policy that states that would even be an acceptable course of action. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I would just like to briefly note that while I favor removing the name from the article, I don't think it is practical or desirable to remove all citations. I don't think we need to try to police things that much--for me, it's a matter of Wikipedia's imprimatur, which I think goes beyond simple mentions. As ever, reasonable minds can differ and I trust consensus on this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I've seen a few discussions relating to someone's name in a URL on BLPN, and generally the bar to remove any URLs or cites that use someone's name is much higher than the bar to avoid using their name in prose. Even in some pretty fraught situations where it would be possible to identify the minor victim of a sexual crime it came down to "use another source if available." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@PriusGod > The so-called "strict" interpretation (which is not a strict interpretation at all, rather it is a misreading or mischaracterization of the policy's letter) of BLPCRIME does not prevent us from publishing Penny's name.
Yeah, I think letter and spirit of BLP are very clear that if our ex-marine isn't a public figure, we should seriously consider leaving all that out. I think it's premature to discuss it in the context of this RfC though. Happy to go elsewhere with it though. Xan747 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that having a detailed discussion about it in this RfC would be premature - I am simply mentioning it because many of the arguments made here would be better suited to that theoretical discussion than this one. PriusGod (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jerome Frank Disciple, I did the ANI in the first place because ScottishFinishRadish's suggestion of it.
By closing of he discussion I mean the RFC, not ANI. Trying to interpret my words that way is incredibly disingenuous. It was simply to clarify the reason for opening the rfc soon. If you read the discussion many of the people suggested a new RFC, including some who opposed the challenge. Of the people who supported a new RFC were @Starship.paint, @Springee, @WWGB, @Festucalexand @Xan747.
Again you have no any basis to claim WP:DROPTHESTICK or WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This decision was made following support from the actual people in the discussion. -LoomCreek (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I think this is pretty blatant forum shopping, for the reasons I said above (specifically, withdrawing the RFC close challenge when it became clear it would fail and then starting a new RFC as a way to directly contradict the close on the last RFC, which you also started). You think that's wrong. We can agree to disagree. We don't need to discuss this further. You just saying "you don't have any basis" and me saying "this is the basis" over and over again doesn't help anything.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, your making assumptions that are untrue. Regardless of the close challenge, a new Rfc was supported by most within the discussion, so the close by me is completely irrelevant to that. The ANI got off topic, talking about the actual topic of name inclusion rather then the close decision. But the discussion could have just as easily been kept open with a new rfc. I really don't understand why your trying to make these claims when its really clear I acted with support of the very people weighing in. You don't have basis for your claims and I don't see a reason to pretend there is. - LoomCreek (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
A new Rfc was supported by most within the discussion. This is simply not accurate and even some of those who said a new RfC may be necessary said there needed to be a break period. The challenge to the close was silly and recreating this RfC so soon after the last one demonstrates that you're unable to discuss this from a neutral POV. When multiple editors who supported the initial RfC are advising you to stand down it might be a good idea to take their advice. Nemov (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Please listen to the advice being given to you here. – .Raven.talk 17:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
A lot has changed since the previous RfC (which was opened very early on and immediately after initial events took place), as noted numerous times in discussions here and over at WP:AN. I'm not sure it means that some of those who are strongly opposed will budge, but I'm also not sure how productive it is to attack LoomCreek simply because some of you may not want to have to continue defending your positions on the matter of name inclusion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is attacking LoomCreek. They are objecting to an improper procedure. – .Raven.talk 18:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I have a few observations. LoomCreek was not the one to reopen the topic on the talk page. By the time they filed the close challenge, there were seven other editors (including me) in the thread supporting some sort reopening the subject in light of events since the most recent comment in the RfC, which I believe was June 6, against two editors saying a close challenge or new RfC would be inappropriate. In the middle of that discussion, SFR said to LoomCreek that a close challenge is "what you are looking for," which Loom apparently took as advice on the best way to proceed (SFR later clarified that wasn't exactly his intent). In any case, we were off to the races. When it became clear to me that I misunderstood that a close challenge is not the place to relitigate the RfC, but to argue on procedural grounds that the close was invalid AND that the challenge was not likely to prevail, I asked another editor whether it might be best for LoomCreek to withdraw the close challenge so as not to waste everyone else's time, and particularly not SFR's. That editor never answered back, but LoomCreek apparently felt the argument had merit and withdrew the challenge.
TL;DR: in retrospect I think the close challenge was the wrong thing to do, but there was support from experienced editors to open another RfC, so I think LoomCreek's actions should be seen as having been done in good faith. Any criticism for withdrawing the close review should be directed at me, as it was my suggestion. Xan747 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Thats mostly correct. The decision wasnt made on the basis of the challenges success or not. It just became clear that there was significant support for an rfc and the challenge seemed to be just kind of going in circles, and was practically existing as rfc, which its not meant to be. So it was closed to save editors time and do what simply made the most sense. But yeah I definitely misunderstood what SFR meant originally when they proposed a close challenge, assuming it was just a helpful suggestion.LoomCreek (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
> "I think LoomCreek's actions should be seen as having been done in good faith. Any criticism for withdrawing the close review should be directed at me...." We can and should assume good faith all around. I would take the "Procedural oppose" comments as referring to the procedure, not to any person who suggested or decided on it. We are not !voting on candidates for wiki-office here. – .Raven.talk 19:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Note to the closing editor... Any arguments by editors from the previous RfC who don't address the previous close should be discounted. Simply repeating the same arguments from the previous RfC is further evidence this RfC wasn't necessary. Nemov (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous request. LoomCreek (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You have reopened this RfC by claiming in light of the more recent developments of the case so why would you be against discounting arguments that are "repeating the same arguments from the previous RfC?" Nemov (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Do really expect me to entertain this? It's implicit and implied already. Trying to create some arbitrary requirement is disingenuous and no editor should take something like that seriously. You don't get to make up your own rules. LoomCreek (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It's a reasonable request, but just that: a request. A closer can give it a little weight, a lot of weight, or no weight at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's reasonable. The Rfc was opened for several reasons, of which the indictment. And an expectation of different responses due to that, but to pretend that requires addressing the previous Rfc is incredibly disingenuous. And seems to only serve trying to discredit the actual opinions of other editors they disagree with, when they don't have standing or are unable to actually refute the arguments other editors have made. LoomCreek (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "standing" here? You seem to use the term very differently than I would (which is not to say you are using it incorrectly). Dumuzid (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah to be fair its usually used differently. What I mean is the facts don't back up their arguments. Standing not in terms of status but instead in terms of having aspects to back up their position. I just used it much more colloquially, so sorry about the confusion. LoomCreek (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
No worries. As I said, just want to make sure I understand what you actually intend! Thanks for the explanation. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
If you're unable to respond to my point there's no sense in communicating further. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
This is not Part 2 of the original RfC. It is a fresh RfC, and hence all statements and arguments are relevant, appropriate and reasonable. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I admire your passion for arguing, but you're helping make my point. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Note to the closing editor - any arguments from myself should be interpreted to implicitly include an objection to the RfC that was closed against consensus by an editor who attempted to erase the majority of supporting arguments with a straw-man. As such, any comment I make in this discussion should be interpreted as an argument against the previous close, even if not explicitly stated. Arguments made from other editors should be interpreted in the same manner; editors should not be presumed ignorant.
It's worth noting that @ScottishFinnishRadish closed the previous RfC and a challenge to the close was quickly dismissed. Frankly, this is a poor understanding of the previous close. Nemov (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. ScottishFinishRadish closed the previous RfC, with only one reference to the "opposition" arguments (in reality, the majority arguments):
"The strength of the opposition is well summed up by Nemov, who said in their !vote to include if we're dogmatically following the guidelines then the answer would be to exclude."
This is clearly a misunderstanding of the arguments to include, as it was quite literally the only comment to make such an argument which I pointed out well before the closing. Arguments to include the name were primarily based on the fact that no part of BLP is violated by including the name. These arguments included quotations and analysis for virtually every line of text in BLP. Arguments to exclude the name were both in the minority, and were not substantive; they simply made the hollow assertion that BLP was somehow violated by including the name, but never explained how or why. The closing editor repeated the same hollow assertion, not supported by policy, and only held by a minority of involved editors.
Stating that the SFC closed the RfC against consensus and erased the majority of supporting arguments with a straw-man (yours, to be specific), is accurate. The consensus was that the inclusion of the name doesn't violate BLP. Combefere★Talk 15:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I supported inclusion and there was quite clearly no consensus in that RfC. To argue that there was was an consensus is frankly absurd. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
As I have just pointed out, your argument for inclusion was the straw-man. No other editors arguing for inclusion agreed with you that BLP was violated. Your comment was used to wash all supporting editors with the same brush and dismiss our numerous substantive arguments out of hand. To argue that you represent the dozen editors who supported inclusion is absurd. Combefere★Talk 15:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You can ignore my point if you wish, but there was no consensus in that RfC. To argue otherwise is illogical. Nemov (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There was a very close numerical "vote", however WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. The previous closing editor did criticize a lack of policy based arguments, so hopefully this discussion will remedy that. Regardless, here we are now, again. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree to disagree, I suppose. The ruling by the closing editor of "no consensus" does not mean that a consensus was not reached. While the discussion was long and at points tedious, anybody who takes the time to read it all can see a clear consensus that BLP was not violated. Virtually no editors made any substantive arguments there (nor here) that it was.
The closing editor miscounted the number of editors in support and in opposition, stating that the count was 12/10, when in actuality it was 15/9. Of nine opposing editors, only six cited BLP. Four of those six simply asserted that BLP was violated with no attempt at an explanation as to why. One (Caeciliusinhorto) even admitted that the letter of BLP was not violated, but that the spirit of it might be. Only Dumuzid made a real attempt to engage with the content of BLP and argue that it necessitated exclusion, and they did so very cautiously.
On the flipside, fourteen of the fifteen editors supporting inclusion believed that BLP was not violated. At least five (Fustucalex, 72.14.126.22, myself, Sangdeboeuf, and PriusGod) made numerous, substantive arguments analyzing detailed sections of BLP and explaining clearly why it was not violated. These arguments were never refuted, or even substantially addressed, there nor here.
WP:CONSENSUS is clear. Per WP:NHC these five detailed and thorough arguments should be weighted against one rather uncertain argument to arrive at the obvious consensus that BLP was not violated. Combefere★Talk 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree on 9 !votes to exclude. I count only 14 !votes to include, but there were two apparent double-counts (72.14.126.22 and LoomCreek) and one !vote that said support, but which SFR counted as exclude (Nemov). So that's probably how SFR got to 12/10 in favor of exclusion. Xan747 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, 12/10 in favor of inclusion. Xan747 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
15/9 is the correct count.
Include: WWGB, LoomCreek, Fustucalex, CJ-Moki, 72.14.126.22, Combefere, Nemov, Skynxnex, Jerome Frank Disciple, Davey2010, voorts, Sangdeboeuf, PriusGod, A. Randomdude000, Kihara Noukan.
Note: If Nemov's comment is counted as a vote to exclude (because he said that BLP was technically violated), then Caeciliusinhorto's comment must be counted to include (because he said that BLP was technically NOT violated). So the count is the same either way.Combefere★Talk 17:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but Caeciliusinhorto quite explicitly voted to exclude. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and Nemov quite explicitly voted to include. Hence why I have them in those columns. Combefere★Talk 17:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Combefere, ah, I missed the three editors from the other RfC. So by SFR's method of counting !votes, that's 14/10 in favor of include name. But SFR made it clear that his decision was not based on a straight !vote count, but how well individual arguments cohered with policy. Xan747 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
So by SFR's method of counting !votes, that's 14/10 in favor of include name
Misreporting votes is not a "method of counting." The count was 15/9. Combefere★Talk 18:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Combefere, my only intent was to report the man's logic, not defend it. Xan747 (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The ruling by the closing editor of "no consensus" does not mean that a consensus was not reached.If this is your POV there's no reason to continue this conversation. Nemov (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
If you believe that editors on Wikipedia never make mistakes, then yes indeed this conversation is pointless. Combefere★Talk 17:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, there's nothing finer than a good-straw man on a Monday. Nemov (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
By all means, explain what your comment meant, if not to imply that the ruling of a closing editor was the word of God (that's genuinely the only interpretation I can fathom). But your last two vague, condescending comments are unconstructive and bordering on uncivil, and I encourage you to either engage constructively or disengage. Combefere★Talk 18:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
One (Caeciliusinhorto) even admitted that the letter of BLP was not violated, but that the spirit of it might be. Not to get embroiled in this discussion again, but my concession was that the letter of WP:BLPCRIME arguably did not apply. This hinged on the fact that that the man in question had not been at that point charged with any crime. Since he has apparently now been charged with second-degree manslaughter then BLPCRIME is clearly relevant in letter as well as spirit. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The questions now, I think, are (and I am not going to proffer any opinion here, because both the discussion and the source coverage has spiralled beyond what I care to follow): 1. do the man's public appearances mean that he is no longer a WP:LOWPROFILE figure, 2. what are the benefits to readers of naming him, and 3. given the enormous amount of coverage naming him in articles and headlines, how severe are the disadvantages of naming him now. Given those three questions, the calculus about whether or not it is useful or appropriate to name him may have changed (though it is very soon after the previous rfc was closed!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I note that none few of those opposed to including Penny's name are suggesting the removal of Jordan Neely's own arrest record on similar WP:BLPCRIME grounds, despite extensive discussion of the latter issue above. (Neely would be covered by BLP as a recently deceased person.) This only strengthens my belief that the "oppose" camp is motivated more by a desire to whitewash the deeds of a conservative right-wing cause célèbre than by any abiding concern for Wikipedia policy or the privacy of living persons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) edited 03:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Several of the oppose votes here supported inclusion in the previous RfC. You would be wise to withdraw such a ridiculously absurd allegation that is not in good faith. Nemov (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Should the article mention Neely's arrest record then? If so, why? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
What does that have to do with your accusation? Nemov (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I've struck the accusation. See new comment below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe I have taken both the positions you say that "none" have taken. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Noted and corrected. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment: If we're adhering to the letter of WP:BLPCRIME, why should we not also remove the material about Neely's own arrest record (at least those arrests that did not lead to a conviction)? Neely is covered by BLP policy as a recently deceased person. Seems like a double standard to omit Penny's name on BLPCRIME grounds while describing Neely's arrests for unprovoked assaults on women in the NYC subway ... assaulting a 68-year-old man on a subway platform ... criminal contempt ... and public lewdness, none of which appear to have resulted in a conviction. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment In a way, this whole discussion is pointless – we cannot exclude Penny's name from the article. Yes, we can erase it from the main text, but it will always show up dozens of times in the references section, because practically all sources use his name, often in the headline. Unless we bowdlerize all these headlines (which would of course be a gross violation of our rules), any reader who takes a glance at the references will see Penny's name. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
That may be true, but, to my knowledge, we've always accepted that site titles might include information that our policies would otherwise exclude. Take the name of a particular minor child which, let's hypothetically say, everyone agrees should be excluded from an article's main text on WP:BLPNAME grounds. I don't believe I've seen a discussion in which WP:BLPNAME is discarded because the child's name is referenced in headlines—even multiple source headlines. (Nor have I seen sources removed on that ground alone.)
And I think that's fine. The main text is far more prominent than the references section. And the fact that a name can be found doesn't really control here: WP:BLPCRIME is not a question of verifiability, and I would argue that it's not even strictly a question of notoriety (Even under BLPNAME, I suppose it depends on whether you think the second sentence is a pure restriction of the first).--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree, which is one reason I no longer refer to Neely's assailant by name even on the talk page or edit summaries. Xan747 (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
And yet, WP:BLPNAME says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it ..." which is very clearly not the case here. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I was using BLPNAME for a hypo example. Obviously WP:BLPCRIME is what controls here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- When basically all sources name that hypothetical minor, our article would probably also contain the name.
- "the fact that a name can be found" – That's not an accurate description of the current situation. The point is: The name cannot not be found. Anyone who opens any source related to the incident is extremely likely to "find" Penny's name in the headline or in the first few sentences.
- "WP:BLPCRIME is not a question of verifiability" – BLPCRIME is not a question of naming individuals. It doesn't apply. See my comment below. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm less sympathetic to that argument than I am to the argument that Penny's interviews show that he has an ability to exercise power in the press (the latter of which is a more pertinent consideration under the essay Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, which is referenced at the public-figures section). Even if a non-public figure's name is widely disseminated, I think the WP:BLPCRIME concerns still apply if, for example, they haven't engaged the press at all. Granted, as I said in the last RFC, I thought Perry qualified here, but I think this RFC is too obviously a relitigation of the last RFC for me to support it.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment. There has been a mix up. We're discussing two different questions:
1. Should we name the person who choked Neely?
2. What should we say about this person?
This RfC is about the first question, not the second one. Let's keep them separate.
I think many participants in this discussion who argue against including the name are actually addressing the second question. They worry that the article may violate WP:BLPCRIME and/or related policies by insinuating that Penny's actions were morally wrong or even criminal. I think that concern is justified. For example, our first sentence says "Neely was killed by...". According to what we currently know, that's technically correct, but the word "kill" has connotations of intent and direct causation. I can't find any WP:RS that use pointed wording like that. We should follow WP:RS and change the first sentence to something more neutral. Similarly for the rest of the text.
But that's a different question. We should have a separate discussion about it. This RfC is about the name.
This also means that WP:BLPCRIME is of little relevance to this RfC. BLPCRIME does not mention names. BLPCRIME addresses the second question, not the first. One of the polices that are relevant for this RfC is WP:BLPNAME (right below BLPCRIME). Let's not confuse them.
Comment — I think there are two WP links worth including in this discussion. The first is WP:DEATHS which is the policy basis for all naming conventions of articles about deaths. The policy suggests titling articles "Killing of..." in the cases of a homicide. The next is an essay titled Let the facts speak for themselves. The term "killing" is neutral and factual. The description of events leading up to the killing should also be neutral and factual. We should include these neutral, verifiable facts and allow the readers to decide whether Penny's actions were "morally wrong." We should not censor or editorialize information over a concern about how the readers will interpret neutral, verifiable facts. Combefere★Talk 17:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I really think we shouldn't discuss this here, but in a new section. Just briefly: "Killing" is factual, but not quite neutral. "Homicide" would be neutral, "killing" not so much. There are reasons why The Killing (film), The Killing (American TV series), Killing Eve and many other dramas about criminals, spies and murderers chose the word. But as I said: Let's discuss the details elsewhere. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. The word "killing" is entirely neutral and descriptive. I suppose if you'd like to continue elsewhere, I invite you to bring your opinion over to WP:DEATHS, where the neutrality of the words like "killing" and "murder" have been thoroughly discussed and formalized into naming policy. Combefere★Talk 17:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Chrisahn agree with you on the phasing of the lede, and last night did change it to be more neutral, but was reverted. Also agree that here's not the place for that discussion.
As for separating naming from what to say about, an argument could be made that, IF our ex-marine is to be considered a low-profile person, then no information about any potential criminal activity can be mentioned unless he's convicted of a crime -- whether he's named or not. Xan747 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, I have to point out the poor reading of BLPCRIME here. BLPCRIME does not prevent us from excluding any and all information about "potential" criminal activity. It precludes us from explicitly stating that the activity was a crime. These are not the same.
Example: if it is a neutral verifiable fact that a man took something from a store and left without paying, we are allowed to report it (assuming the event is notable). We are not allowed to say he "stole" the item. That's what the policy controls. Combefere★Talk 18:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
No, BLPCRIME says 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. Saying that they took something without paying for it clearly suggests that they committed a crime and therefore BLPCRIME would certainly be relevant. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
This is a blatant misinterpretation of BLPCRIME. Reporting neutral verifiable facts is not an assertion that those facts constituted a crime, and are certainly not covered by BLPCRIME. See every article about bombings, mass shootings, police killings of civilians, etc. while the criminal events are unfolding. Neutral verifiable facts about the actions that the accused took are always reported in the Wikipedia article. The only thing BLPCRIME precludes us from doing is from claiming that the actions are criminal. Combefere★Talk 18:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, while being arrested for allegedly using a counterfeit bill. During the arrest Derek Chauvin, a white police officer with the Minneapolis Police Department, knelt on Floyd's neck for several minutes after he was already handcuffed and lying face down. Two police officers, J. Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane, assisted Chauvin in restraining Floyd, while another officer, Tou Thao, prevented bystanders from interfering with the arrest and intervening as events unfolded. Floyd had complained about being unable to breathe prior to being on the ground, but after being restrained he became more distressed, and continued to complain about breathing difficulties, the knee in his neck, and expressed the fear he was about to die and called for his mother. After several minutes passed Floyd stopped speaking. For a further two minutes, he lay motionless and officer Kueng found no pulse when urged to check. Despite this Chauvin refused pleas to lift his knee until medics told him to.
It contains a handful of neutral, verifiable statements about Chauvin's actions, including the fact that he killed George Floyd. It did not and does not violate BLPCRIME because it does not assert that these actions are criminal. There are hundreds of articles that have followed the same logic about reporting current events surrounding BLPCRIME. This is how BLPCRIME works in both policy and common practice in Wikipedia. Combefere★Talk 18:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You can count me in the blatant misinterpretation camp. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid, that suggests the person [...] is accused of having committed, a crime [...]
My emphasis. Reporting that a person has in fact been accused of, arrested for, charged with, arraigned for and indicted of a criminal act is doing far more than simply "suggesting" that fact. Xan747 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Out of the scope of this RfC. We're not discussing whether to include the indictment, we're discussing whether to include the name. As far as I'm aware, Daniel Penny's middle name is not "Accused." Combefere★Talk 19:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Whether we name him or not, if he's not a public figure then BLPCRIME kicks in and we must seriously consider not including anything from his arrest to indictment until such time as he's been found guilty. So in my view, the exclude name contingent is not going far enough. Xan747 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm quite satisfied doping so here, but we all have our faults. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean, in light of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'm not really persuaded by this argument. WP:BLPCRIME says we should avoid material that even "suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" (emphasis added).--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The fact that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime. Nor was the fact that Chavin killed Floyd, nor the fact that Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck for nine minutes, nor the fact that Chauvin refused pleas to lift his knees. All of those statements are neutral, verifiable facts, and they were included in the article because they didn't violate BLP.
The assertion that these neutral, verifiable facts are tantamount to criminal activity is your own. It's not in the voice of Wikipedia.
I'll point also to some stuff exists for a reason. Consider that the hundreds of other editors on Wikipedia every day, incorporating the neutral material facts into articles around notable deaths and killings might actually be well-aware of BLP, and that their common interpretation and usage of it is actually in line with the policy. Combefere★Talk 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the common interpretation seems to be that sustained naming in multiple RSs is the threshold for inclusion. But that's not the bar that's set in BLPCRIME. Xan747 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not precluded by BLPCRIME. Combefere★Talk 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Do you consider Neely's assailant to be a high-profile/public figure? If so, why? Please cite the specific text of the policy or guidance which supports your arguments. Xan747 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I have responded to these questions, and to you specifically, multiple times in multiple other parts of this discussion, including directly above. I suggest you read them. I do believe that Penny is a high-profile figure, and a public figure, but my argument depends on neither. If he were a low-profile figure, no part of BLPCRIME would preclude us from including his name, nor neutral, verifiable, and notable facts about his actions in relation to the subject of the article. It precludes us from characterizing those actions as crimes, which we do not do and nobody has suggested we do. Combefere★Talk 20:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Combefere, here is the full text of your initial opinion. Nowhere in it do you argue that Neely's assailant is a public figure/high-profile individual, only that he is notable, which is not the same thing -- and was the very first thing I pointed out to you in my initial response. Now if I missed somewhere you agreeing with me that our ex-marine is indeed a public figure/high-profile individual I apologize for having missed it.
Support inclusion. BLP is not violated by including Daniel Penny's name, nor the widely reported material fact that he killed Jordan Neely. There is no clause in BLP which precludes us from including this information. Editors who are arguing for exclusion seem to have the misguided interpretation of BLP that implies that we must censor any and all information about notable people who have ever been charged with any crime. This is not how BLP works, and nothing in BLP implies that it does or should work that way. We are only precluded from stating or implying that Penny is guilty of a crime (such as manslaughter). We are not precluded from including his name, or his involvement in the event that is the subject of the article. I invite all opposing editors to actually quote the relevant clause in BLP that prevents us from including the name, rather than simply asserting without explanation that BLP has somehow been violated. Thus far, no such explanation or analysis has been provided by any of the opposing editors. Combefere ★ Talk 01:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Correct. I never claimed that my argument was based on Penny being a public figure, I literally said the opposite. I said "my argument depends on neither". This is what I just explained above, and I think your repeated questions are quickly approaching WP:NOTGETTINGIT territory.
As I mentioned, my argument does not depend on the idea that Penny is a high-profile figure, nor a notable figure. To be clear, he is both. He is a high-profile figure, and he is a public figure. But even if he was a low-profile individual, BLPCRIME would not preclude us from including his name or his involvement in the killing of Jordan Neely. And I think that's important to highlight, because it shows how empty the arguments that we should exclude Penny's name are. Combefere★Talk 21:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand quite well your interpretation of the rules, and the rationale for it. My point was, and is, that the previous RfC was decided on a different interpretation which set public figure as the bar for naming. I also understand that interpretation of the rules, and the rationale for it ... but a closing admin's opinion counts for more than yours. Xan747 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
One editor's interpretation is not the word of God, even when they decide to close an RfC. BLPCRIME policy is clear, and community consensus around Wikipedia practice of this policy is also clear. It's used to preclude what it precludes. It's not used as a bludgeon to censor any and all information that editors don't like. Combefere★Talk 21:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that there is nothing sacrosanct about a closer's opinion, and that's why challenges exist as well as why issues may be revisited. I would humbly suggest that the "BLPCRIME is useless" thread mentioned by Xan747 below might indicate that not everyone shares your view of the policy's clarity. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I have indeed seen the relevant discussion on WT:BLP. On the contrary, I think the discussion there highlights the broad community consensus and practice of including names and basic information about notable individuals even when they are suspected of crimes. This was actually the impetus for the discussion, which was initiated by an editor who wanted to change the policy in order to overturn this common understanding and practice of it. And after nearly three months, that editor and the few who want more a more stringent wording of the policy have not been able to form a consensus there to create one. Moreover, the wording that they are suggesting on that talk page isn't even restrictive enough for us to exclude Penny's name or involvement from this article.
So no, I do not believe the discussion on that talk page supports the idea that there is a broad community consensus that BLPCRIME as worded already requires us to exclude basic information like Penny's name from articles like this. Rather, I think anybody who holds such a view would find more difficulty, not less in continuing to hold it after viewing that discussion. Combefere★Talk 22:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I quite agree with that as well. My only point is that there are competent, good faith editors who believe the policy is overly ambiguous. My point is not "you are wrong" or "I am right," my point is simply that there is not currently an overriding consensus on the issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dumuzid > there is nothing sacrosanct about a closer's opinion
No, but where there's one there's bound to be another. Perhaps whoever closes this RfC won't have SFR's higher standard, thus a "notability" argument based on widespread sustained coverage in multiple RSs will suffice. But if a case can be made that clears a higher bar, why wouldn't one make that case? Xan747 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I apologize, it's likely due to complex threading and my old eyes, but I don't quite follow this in the current context. Dumuzid (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I sympathize. At this point it's probably best if I just let it go. Xan747 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'll offer my reasoning.
"But if a case can be made that clears a higher bar, why wouldn't one make that case?"
If somebody illegally raises the bar, you should never jump over it. Jumping over it tacitly legitimizes its position. The first, and most important thing to do is say "Hey! No, no! The bar is here!" Combefere★Talk 04:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
"The fact that Penny killed Neely is not a suggestion that he has committed a crime." ... I'd very much disagree with that, particularly given that it's information that even suggests a crime was committed that's the proper standard.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Just to try to better understand your position, would you have also argued that all neutral verifiable statements in the above quotation from the Murder of George Floyd article (such as this one: "Derek Chauvin, a white police officer with the Minneapolis Police Department, knelt on Floyd's neck for several minutes after he was already handcuffed and lying face down") should have been censored until a conviction was secured, because they "suggested" that Derek Chauvin committed a crime? Combefere★Talk 19:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Was that text in there before the conviction? – .Raven.talk 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes indeed. It's from a randomly selected revision I pulled from November 2020. Chauvin was convicted on April 20, 2021. I invite you to peruse the revision history.
Perhaps even more pertinent in the history here, is the move request that took place on the page in 2020. Editors argued successfully that the term "Killing of..." was a neutral, verifiable description of events that did not imply criminal culpability, and therefore did not violate BLPCRIME. Later in 2020, there was an explosion of activity around similar pages of deaths and killings (mostly by police, but some not), and WP:DEATHS was formalized as a way to standardize the naming convention and create sense and order in a highly chaotic atmosphere. The understanding that the word "killing" is a neutral term that does not imply criminal culpability is foundational to that policy.
You can examine other articles and find the same reasoning. The current Killing of Tyre Nichols page names Nichols' killers explicitly, and details all of their actions which caused his death. They are charged, but not yet convicted. This is the standard practice for high-profile killings on Wikipedia where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute. The legality or criminality of their actions is in dispute, and we cannot comment on it; but the fact of their actions is essential to include in the article. Combefere★Talk 05:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
> "This [naming charged-but-not-convicted persons as 'killers'] is the standard practice for high-profile killings on Wikipedia where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute."Hmm. Consensus-closers are asked to weigh !votes by match to policies and guidelines, which can be cited to (and quoted from) P&G pages.Where are closers asked to weigh by assertions of "standard practice", and how can we either cite or quote pages about it?Someone might assert that edit-warring, move-warring, and personal attacks are "standard practice" — because they often occur — despite contravening policies and guidelines. Should we be persuaded?Meanwhile, where does WP:BLPCRIME (I won't quote it again) say the standard is different for "high-profile killings" vs. low — rather than being different for "high-profile people" vs. low?Or does being caught up in the first automatically make one the second? – .Raven.talk 06:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
There are policies against edit-warring, move-warring, and personal attacks, and those policies are regularly used to discourage those actions or sanction the users who perpetuate them. That's practice. It's the real, material implementation of policy, which is in its own right an interpretation of that policy and how it is to be applied.
To contrast, there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles titled "Killing of..." Within these articles and their revision history, there are hundreds of examples of killers being named prior to a conviction. It doesn't always happen, but when the identify of the killer is not in dispute and is reported by a large number of RSs then it is virtually always included (I cannot find a counterexample). This is what I mean when I say it is common practice to include such information in cases where the killer is named by RSs and not in dispute.
On the other hand, there are also "Killing of..." articles where RSs do not name a killer, but name somebody who is suspected of killing. In these cases, BLPCRIME and LPNAME are frequently used to protect the identity of the suspect. See this recent discussion for an example.
This is because BLPCRIME encourages us to exclude information that suggests a low-profile individual has been accused of a crime. An arrest or charge meets that criteria. A medical homicide does not; a medical homicide is not a crime or even an accusation of a crime. BLPCRIME is not written to indicate that the neutral fact of a medical homicide must be censored, and it is not practiced in this way either. Combefere★Talk 06:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Your penultimate paragraph would apply, then. The ME's ruling, which you've repeatedly thumped, does not name anyone as the killer. The ME's spokesperson said explicitly that "culpability... is for the criminal justice system to consider". Naming or blaming any individual for the death is not part of the ME's job, as it's not something that can be seen in the examination of the body. – .Raven.talk 07:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Penny is not "suspected" of killing Neely. He killed Neely. Multiple RSs have reported that he killed Neely. No RSs dispute that he killed Neely. Penny does not dispute that he killed Neely.
Your insistence that we do not know who or what killed Jordan Neely is fringe, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. It is supported by no RSs. None. It is, as I've pointed out, an invincible ignorance fallacy. Repeatedly WP:BLUDGEONING this point all over the discussion section is disruptive. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors at this point, and we are well beyond WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. I very much suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK on this point. Combefere★Talk 07:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't read that as saying he disputes the fact of the killing, but rather that he had no intent. As they say, your mileage may vary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Denying doing a chokehold is indeed consistent with denying intent to do a chokehold, but addresses fact as well. – .Raven.talk 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
While HuffPost certainly describes it that way, Mr. Neely never does so in the interview. A chokehold is not necessarily meant to stop breathing. Police for decades taught chokeholds for restraint, and the intent was quite obviously not to be deadly. I think people are conflating "chokehold" with an intent to do harm. They are not the same thing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Gentlepersons, I created a thread for this topic because I think it's a worthy topic. Pretty please go there to continue it? Xan747 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The fact that the same arguments go round and round each time it's raised shows that BLPCRIME needs work to make it less ambiguous. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I know, I was the last editor to comment on that thread and that was back in mid April. Nothing has changed and the same arguments are still happening because of the ambiguous nature of BLPCRIME. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
So you did. Real shame it's not getting more traction. Xan747 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing ambiguous about the policy. It's commonly understood and has been used for years on hundreds of articles surrounding crimes: deaths, killings, bombings, shootings, etc. This is the first time in recent memory it's blown up into a huge disagreement, and it's not an accident that it's a current event surrounding a man who has become a lightning-rod for politically charged discourse. Combefere★Talk 19:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There has been many of these recently, one I can remember was someone saying that court documents could be used to name someone as a child killer and another involved three discussions at BLPN, one at ANI, and a month long RFC to come to the same conclusion as the original BLPN discussion. It's been a massive waste of editors time. If you haven't been aware of them, I feel jealous of you. And neither of those had an politics involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Now I can't remember if I've mixed up the details or both were about child killers. I do know we could have all been doing something more useful to the encyclopedia if the guidance was clearer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I was aware of that discussion, and even referenced it in another comment. Perhaps this discussion has so skewed my frame of reference, that I view the other as a relatively quick and civil affair :) Combefere★Talk 20:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Combefere: The paragraph you quoted actually doesn't say that Chauvin killed Floyd. The wording carefully avoids that claim. And that's what we should do here. We shouldn't say "Penny killed Neely" or "Neely was killed by Penny". Instead we should say something like "Neely died after Penny placed him in a chokehold". These differences may be subtle, but they are important. (Of course, we'll revisit such sentences if and when there's a conviction.) — Chrisahn (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
We have a coronial finding of homicide, which is "a person killing another person". Killing is not necessarily a crime. Soldiers and executioners do it all the time. The word is not equivalent to criminal behaviour. WWGB (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I feel torn in this debate because, on the one hand, I do support inclusion in this case, but, on the other hand, I'm really skeptical of this particular argument, which I've seen mentioned a lot, and would strongly oppose it in other cases. We're supposed to avoid information that even suggests a person committed a crime. A soldier (or executioner) killing doesn't usually suggest a crime; one private citizen killing another, on the other hand, usually does.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat. There really was zero respect shown for the close or the closer. Plus, the case for reopening this RfC is flimsy at best. The case would have been stronger if it wasn't opened and supported by the same people who have pummeled this RfC with comments. This may finally arrive as the correct answer, but they way it got there is pretty gross from a procedural standpoint. Nemov (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah very much seconded. Given that the media appearance did predate the RFC, the only thing that seems to have occurred post-RFC is the indictment, which is plainly just an accusation. Particularly given that the close challenge was looking like it would fail, it really looks like the proposer decided to start a new RFC just to relitigate the first RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll +1 this to the extent that closing can be an onerous and unpleasant task, and largely thankless. Of course humans will make mistakes, but I think we owe any closer operating in good faith (which we should assume) a measure of respect. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
While I understand your skepticism, I do want to provide some context. Discussion around this issue was part of a move request in May 2020, to rename the page "Death of George Floyd" to "Killing of George Floyd." Over 200 editors participated in that discussion. The result was moved and the closing editor put this statement in their summary (emphasis mine):
It's been suggested that I expand on my evaluation of the arguments advanced in this discussion. With respect to WP:COMMONNAME, the mention by reliable sources has been mixed, so that argument was not really weighed one way or the other in my evaluation. With respect to WP:BLPCRIME, as one participant who has changed their preference from oppose to support has noted: killing is not necessarily a crime. The fact is that many participants who opposed asked to wait for the ME report, which, as mentioned, has since deemed the death to be a homicide. The arguments advanced in the discussion whose strength was given most weight in this close neither concluded that this homicide was a murder nor that it was a justifiable homicide. It was rather overwhelmingly agreed that that is a matter for the courts to decide. Those arguments only posited that, for now, the the title should reflect the official finding by the ME.
In the wake of that event, and during a period of massive WP discussion and activity around pages surrounding deaths, killings, and murders, (and many more move requests, WP:DEATHS was formalized to provide guidance on page naming criteria in these cases. WP:DEATHS suggests the title "Killing of..." for articles about homicides when there is no conviction for murder. That policy is still used today to guide move request discussions, like the one that happened on this very article a few months ago. It's based on the same common understanding that the word "killing" does not imply a crime; an understanding which makes itself manifest in the ubiquitous use of the term as a neutral, non-criminal descriptor on hundreds of pages on Wikipedia. Combefere★Talk 18:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
But there's a distinction between describing an event as a killing and naming an alleged killer. (And, not for nothing, the very fact that "alleged killer" is a phrase in common vernacular suggests that there is something suggestive about describing a living person as having killed another person.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but in all of the articles I've linked above, a killer (not "alleged killer") is named, explicitly, even if that killer has not been convicted of a crime for the killing. Combefere★Talk 19:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
"Alleged killer" is precisely the right term, when even the question of whether a chokehold was applied in the subway is disputed.Chain of custody for evidence must be secure, or it can be challenged.In this case the evidence is Neely himself, or his body.We are told he was unconscious but alive in the subway; and that he was not pronounced dead until after he'd reached the hospital.Between those two points, he was not in that Marine veteran's hands.The police and paramedics had taken charge of him until then.Of course police and paramedics have never killed helpless black men....like George Floyd and Earl Moore, Jr.And note the cause of death in both those cases.Will the defense bring up that issue? We don't know. – .Raven.talk 21:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@.Raven The appeals to ignorance have been addressed elsewhere, and are beyond disruptive at this point. This will be the last response I make to any of your comments. Please stop replying to every single comment on this thread. Combefere★Talk 22:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
We've all said more than enough for this topic. Time to let other editors have their say and walk away. Nemov (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Not to nitpick, but I didn't suggest otherwise :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 21:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This thread is about whether to name Neely's assailant in the article, not how to describe Neely's manner of death. I request moving that discussion to a new topic. Xan747 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I know you've responded to my comment, but everything I said was related to naming the assailant (and the suggestion that saying "killed by X" isn't the same as suggesting X did a crime for purposes of WP:BLPCRIME).--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jerome Frank Disciple, sorry if you felt I had singled you out, sincerely wasn't my intent. The following is also not solely directed at you. Wrangling over whether to say "killed by X" as opposed to "allegedly killed by X" or "Neely died after allegedly being put in a chokehold by X" is a minor issue compared to reporting that X has been accused of lynching Neely in the popular press, and arrested, charged, arraigned, and indicted on manslaughter charges by the proper authorities -- because those things DO very clearly and incontrovertibly suggest he's committed a crime according BLPCRIME. Xan747 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
> "accused... in the popular press, and arrested, charged, arraigned, and indicted... those things DO very clearly and incontrovertibly suggest he's committed a crime"They state bluntly that he's been accused of committing a crime.If no-one had ever been acquitted or exonerated after being accused, that might seem like the same thing.Central Park Five, again, among many examples. – .Raven.talk 00:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
It's the combination of "killed" and "by X" that's problematic. – .Raven.talk 21:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
@Chrisahn While the Floyd article doesn't include that exact verbiage, many other articles do. See Killing of Tamir Rice for example:
"On November 22, 2014, Tamir E. Rice, a 12-year-old African American boy, was killed in Cleveland, Ohio, by Timothy Loehmann, a 26-year-old white police officer."
Loehmann has not been convicted for a crime, and is certainly covered by BLPCRIME. But the neutral and factual statement that he killed Tamir Rice does not suggest that he committed a crime, and does not violate BLPCRIME. Combefere★Talk 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
In that case, the officer agreed he fired the shot that killed the boy.In this case, the accused does deny he used a chokehold.Can the distinction be made any simpler or more clear? – .Raven.talk 21:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe everyone should stop replying to the replies of their replies in the Survey section. Some poor sod will have to close this at some point, and there's a whole section for discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, the discussion section was made to prevent that sort of problem. But some have mostly ignored it. In particular .Raven whose responded to pretty much every comment. I've noticed it's usually with one glaring issue that seemingly baits a response. LoomCreek (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate this call. I don't want to call anyone out specifically, but if you're over 20+ edits on this topic over the last couple of days it's time to walk away. I've said too much myself, but walls of text over and over isn't helpful and frankly it's disruptive. Nemov (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I have half a mind to hiding every single reply to a vote in the survey section. starship.paint (exalt) 03:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I would not complain. Xan747 (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I strongly support this. This RfC is completely unreadable at the moment. Combefere★Talk 06:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Right, since there is support, I have hidden most of the replies to votes/comments. starship.paint (exalt) 11:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
So the closer may need to go through the extra step of clicking 'show', to measure policy/guideline compliance rather than simply counting what you call "votes/comments": WP:NOTVOTE. – .Raven.talk 16:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I close a pretty fair amount of RFCs and other discussions, and I can honestly say that anything beyond 3 or 4 indents is almost never helpful to assessing consensus, and is only more words to read. This discussion is already at 0.9 tomats, and the giant walls of nested back and forth make it far less likely that other uninvolved editors will review the RFC and weigh in with their thoughts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, .Raven, I am very aware that closers have to click show to read replies. I am confident that they will be able to do so. starship.paint (exalt) 02:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
