Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:32, 13 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Jordan Neely article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

On 4 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Death of Jordan Neely to Killing of Jordan Neely. The result of the discussion was moved.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: December 8 to 14, 2024

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Killing of Jordan Neely" in title to "Death of Jordan Neely" as existing title implies guilt since a party is currently standing trial for murder charges. Proposed title conveys equal information without any potential bias. 98.20.76.127 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?oldid=1153263936#Requested_move_4_May_2023 Cannolis (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 47.218.105.178 (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, especially considering he has now been found not guilty on all charges, meaning it is legally no longer homicide.2607:FEA8:9540:DE0:300E:5340:E2D7:4960 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Penny has confessed to killing Neely, and whether it was murder or homicide does not change that fact that he was harmed intentionally in a way that resulted in his death-- purposefully or not. He was killed by another man. Wereallprettybizzare (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Penny didn't confess to killing Neely. 2601:C2:1600:5E0:DDA8:D8CA:5B23:F69F (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you always take defendants’ arguments as fact in regards to titles? Scientificaldan (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest autopsy

Showed no bruises at neck. Toxicology report indicated other reasons for death. Judge on Fox news. 72.175.149.6 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Please suggest the changes you want to be made to the article and then provide reliable sources to back them up. Also Fox News is not reliable per. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please either (a) include the specific part of the linked article that declares Fox News unreliable, or (b) revise your comment to be more factual. 208.79.249.235 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Dunno; I think that page has a bias as well. Scientificaldan (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry still new to these types of edits.

That page you linked; what qualifies it as a reliable regulation source regarding appropriate sources?

Couldn't I write one of those too in opposition and cancel it out? Scientificaldan (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't just written by some random person, it was the consensus result of a consultative process within the Misplaced Pages community. Something you as an individual wrote would not be able to "cancel it out"; it would need to be overturned via new consensus (and anyone would be welcome to try to drum up support for such a consensus, but I think bringing the community around on Fox News would be very, very hard). AntiDionysius (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If you look beside the entry for WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS in the table, you'll see it links to 31 separate community discussions. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

He was clearly strangled, and synthetic marijuana was found in his system by the toxicology report. Autopsy shows he was killed by compression of his neck. Wereallprettybizzare (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

An autopsy, or rather the report of it, is a medical opinion - a piece of expert evidence. It is not a finding of fact, nor is it more inherently probative of a fact than is any other piece of evidence. An autopsy report certainly is not more deserving of factual weight than a court judgment that contradicts the report. As Penny has been acquitted, the autopsy is not grounds for any statement in this article other than the statements of the medical examiner's opinion as per the medical examiner's report, e.g., "after an autopsy, the coroner ruled Penny's death was a homicide by strangulation." All statements of fact contrary to the factual findings of the court which rely solely upon the medical report must be revised, or these statements will be false. 2601:C2:1600:5E0:DDA8:D8CA:5B23:F69F (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This needs to be taken down - misinformation

This WIKI contains too much opinion and not enough facts. 150.195.155.124 (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

need to add synthetic drug use and sickle cell crisis as contributing to his death. Chokehold wasn't the only cause 2601:14B:C204:6000:EC87:8C8E:ABEB:399 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

previous incidents and mental struggles should also be included Wereallprettybizzare (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

it should also be included that daniel isnt the one that killed him directly, the police also didnt want to give him mouth to mouth and only did chest compressions which gives him a much lower survival rate anyway. 2A02:3030:A61:1B6B:9440:3E42:C120:3C84 (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Does that make them culpable?

i.e., has there been a precedent set that establishes that police are expected to do everything they can to save a life? Scientificaldan (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested wording change

When I read "Neely's death was ruled a homicide" I expected to later read about a court ruling of some sort, not a medical examiner's determination as I saw later with "the medical examiner's office determined the manner of death to be homicide". IMO "was ruled" is somewhat misleading even if technically accurate. Perhaps something like "was found to be" or "was determined to be"? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the outcome of the trial, in which the defense presented a pathologist disputing the finding of a homicide, and given that the jury found that Penny was not guilty even on the lesser charge, I changed this to disputed in the infoboxes. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph still says "Neely's death was ruled a homicide by compression of the neck on May 4, which was later disputed by defense lawyers during Penny’s trial." It is good that we mention that it was disputed, but in my opinion "ruled" is still the wrong word. Medical examiniers do not issue rulings, Judges do. The court ruled that... The jury found the defendant... The medical examiner determined that... The court's decision was... The verdict was... The finding of the medical examiner was... Different words often carry different implications as to the source. Diagnosed? Doctor. Ruled? Judge. Charged? Prosecutor. That way we can say "a diagnosis of" or "was diagnosed as having" without specifying that it was a doctor who made the diagnosis. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2024

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus, but I recommend another move request in 60 days or so. I really don't think this should be controversial--obviously there's no consensus. Many, many people are just talking past one another; I'm gonna drop a few truth bombs here to point a path forward.

1. Nobody is suggesting that we call it Murder of Jordan Neely.

2. Many, many people completely missed the point of the requested move. I'll quote, "Neely was indeed killed. There can be no disputing that fact." But, dear Wikipedians, yes, the move request DID IN FACT DISPUTE THAT FACT. Like, yes, people really are disputing whether or not Penny actually killed Neely, or if Neely just happened to die from other causes, of which the incident with Penny was just one of them.

3. Almost nobody on either side engaged with the actual thrust of the move request, which is "hey, the defense asserted that Penny didn't actually even kill Neely (let alone murder him), and a jury did acquit Penny, so it's biased for us to call it a killing." THAT was the point of the move request.

4. Many, many people seem to think that "killing of" implies that it was murder. Rest assured, it does not. It does imply that a human was responsible for the death; that is what was intended to be disputed here in this request.

5. It is simply impossible to sift through all the arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the requester's assertion. No, "killing" shouldn't be spurned because it implies murder - it doesn't - and no, the fact(?) that Penny caused Neely's death is in fact not something we all agree on.

IDK how to move forward; I thought the RM was pretty well-written, but sometimes emotions are just too high. I recommend trying again, with a very clear RM nomination that makes extremely clear, with copious uses of bold text, that we are discussing only whether reliable sources generally presume that Penny did indeed directly cause the death of Neely through the former's actions. If so, the article should stay; if not, it should be moved.

But this request is, unfortunately, completely unsalvageable. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Jordan Neely → Death of Jordan Neely – Article title needs to match up to date RS coverage

Up to date RS wavers between continuing to present this as a confirmed killing or playing it safe and describing this as a death, without making a direct statement either way on Penny killing Neely. While some RS like BBC seem to adopt the former position, others go towards the latter position, likely because this point was a central area of dispute in the trial, and was part of jury instructions, which in turn led to a not guilty verdict. RS coverage of this issue typically steers away from taking sides on either affirming the Medical Examiner's position that it was a homicide or the Pathologist testimony casting doubt on that finding. Examples of RS that carefully attribute claims of what caused Neely's death rather than readily describing it conclusively as a killing, and typically utilize the terms "death" over "killing" include:

The New York Times: Over the course of the trial, Mr. Penny’s legal team has pushed back at the assertion that their client’s restraint was the cause of Mr. Neely’s death. And the question of what exactly killed Mr. Neely was central to the monthlong debate between the prosecutors and defense lawyers.

Associated Press: Contradicting a city medical examiner’s finding, a pathologist hired by the defense said Neely died not from the chokehold but from the combined effects of K2, schizophrenia, his struggle and restraint, and a blood condition that can lead to fatal complications during exertion.

ABC News: The city's medical examiner concluded Penny's chokehold killed Neely. The defense argued Neely died from a genetic condition and the synthetic marijuana found in his system.

A number of talk sections have raised the issue of this wiki article's title being inappropriate. Given the coverage of the most recent RS in light of new details from the trial, the right move would be to play it safe like many RS are doing now and label this as a death and attribute the claims of its cause, rather than affirmatively describing this as a killing. Even sources that otherwise use language that describe the death as a result of Penny's actions, like the aforementioned BBC article, decline to conclusively take the side of the medical examiner or the pathologist when focusing on the specific topic of cause of death in detail. KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: recent coverage seems to use both terms pretty liberally; for example, the NYT article says death of Jordan Neely in the title and then asks what exactly killed Mr. Neely in the body. Previous coverage leaned pretty heavily towards "killing", hence the decision in the original move discussion. I see no reason to change the title just because sources have become slightly less emphatic.

I am also quite unconvinced by the argument that "killing" implies guilt or lends support to a particular cause of death; people can be "killed" by anything, including natural causes, as the NYT's word choice exemplifies. --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you find a single Misplaced Pages article about people being killed by a natural disaster that has “The killing of…” in the title?

By putting “killing” in the headline, a certain connotation is being implied. The person was killed intentionally and with malice.

Saying otherwise is just arguing semantics.

Pretty much every article by every RS is referring to this as “The Death of Jordan Neely.”

Ascribing a negative connotation to an event that the vast majority of main stream RS aren’t ascribing should not be wiki’s standard Jwa05002 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, of course we're arguing semantics. This is a semantic discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you forget to insert an “I think” before your “should” sentence? Scientificaldan (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:KILLINGOF is an essay, but it seems to be the standard convention in Misplaced Pages and WP:CONSISTENT is policy. As it states:

If the cause of a death is unknown, may be the result of an accident or may be attributable to natural causes, the article should be titled "Death of " instead of "Killing of " or "Murder of ". For example, in the Death of Mutula Kilonzo, the victim died under suspicious circumstances but foul play was never conclusively determined, so such an article must not be labeled as a murder.

You point out that the NYT puts the question of what exactly killed Mr. Neely in the air as up for debate, but for basically every other article on wikipedia, the fact that there is such a question would support a move to "Death of Jordan Neely". KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we’re done here. Jwa05002 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, we're not, the move discussion is ongoing. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There was dispute over cause of death when the previous move discussion took place too, and consensus then was still in favour of using the word "killing". I don't think there is any significantly greater level of dispute now, even if one jury has taken a particular position on it. Thus I see no reason to overturn the previous decision. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The previous discussion seems to be from over a year ago. A considerable amount of new info has been made available since then, and RS has updated its coverage accordingly. It's not just a jury decision, it's how RS characterize the cause of death controversy between the pathologist and the medical examiner, which predates the verdict but postdates the last discussion.

Example from NYT in November 2024, again carefully attributing statements, declining to conclude one way or the other, and primarily using the neutral descriptor of "death": The medical examiner, Dr. Cynthia Harris, determined that Mr. Neely died from “compression of the neck,” and held firm to her findings through three days of testimony. However, an expert Mr. Penny’s legal team called to testify, Dr. Satish Chundru, rebutted that. KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, there isn't a single other notable Misplaced Pages article where "Killing" is not used a murder/manslaughter context, so death by other causes shouldn't be called killing. For example, the Death of Michael Jackson article uses death due to a drug overdose (i.e. not a murder/manslaughter) vs the Murder of George Floyd articles uses murder when Chauvin was found criminally liable for killing him, but Penny was not. MrCheese76 (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some articles in which no one was successfully convicted of murder, manslaughter, or other criminal charges (including aquittals) that are titled 'killing': Killing of Trayvon Martin, Killing of Michael Brown, Killing of Freddie Gray, Killing of Tortuguita, Killing of Ashli Babbitt, Killing of Eric Garner, Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., Killing of Sean Bell Mason7512 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, a precedence has been set specifically in the US context of the highly-covered killings of Black people - largely men. There is a broader social context that encompasses social attitudes that are also reflected in RS grammatical rulemaking and style guides that dissuade use of passive voice. Using “death of” would not only contradict Misplaced Pages precedence but also wider grammatical and style guides. Editor85213 (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Killing implies guilt to me, and I suspect other folks too.

Perhaps we should do a poll first? Scientificaldan (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is the poll (or the closest thing Misplaced Pages does, anyway). AntiDionysius (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We should not be using vague, ambiguous euphemisms in this situation. Neither the opinion of a medical examiner selected by the defense of the man whose actions killed him nor the language used by RSs when discussing each side of the trial changes the fact that Jordan Neely was killed. This isn't a case of a mysterious death, the manner of which is legitimately or widely debated (such as Death of Elisa Lam, Death of Jeffrey Epstein). Killed, unlike murdered, holds no legal implication of guilt so this decision should not be swayed but recent legal outcomes. Mason7512 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is about evidence brought forward as part of the legal proceedings and how RS have characterized the cause of death, not the verdict. Sources predating the verdict describe contention in the cause of death pre-verdict, such as this November NYT piece. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Misplaced Pages has long been consistent on the difference between "killing" and "murder" when there's actually a conviction. But "death" is too ambiguous. The death was still ruled a homicide, and no one, not even Penny, disputes that label. Being acquitted doesn't erase that. It just makes it not a criminally liable act. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The homicide finding was disputed, including by Penny, who brought forward a pathologist who disputed that finding. Reliable secondary sources, which take precedence over the primary source of the medical examiner, do not conclude this was a homicide, but rather attribute and mention the opposing viewpoints. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It was ruled a homicide by ONE expert, other experts disagreed (as reported by reliable sources)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/nyregion/daniel-penny-defense-jordan-neely.html

According to this article, an expert for Daniel Penny’s defense testified that Neely died from a combination of drug use and sickle cell disease. This expert also testified there’s literally no way to measure how much force Penny applied and that it would be impossible to determine if the chokehold contributed to the death.

In the trial only 2 expert medical witnesses testified according to this NYT (a reliable source) article. Why are you disregarding one of them? That doesn’t seem unbiased or fair at all. Jwa05002 (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is at least one MEDICAL EXPERT who disputes that Neely’s death was a homicide, as reported by numerous reliable sources.

https://gothamist.com/news/defense-lawyers-in-nyc-subway-chokehold-case-blame-sickle-cell-echoing-george-floyd-trial

This article (from a RS) reports on what Penny’s defense expert testified to, it even goes into some detail about how sickle cell trait can cause death.

https://apnews.com/article/daniel-penny-subway-chokehold-death-trial-436b3a5c79e9dbd34b351c4f3a2ac302

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/daniel-penny-trial-forensic-pathologist-chokehold-death/

Here are 2 more reliable sources reporting what the expert medical witness said (disputing that Penny caused Neely’s death)

Now you may disagree with the medical expert, but it doesn’t matter. Misplaced Pages articles aren’t based on any individual editor’s beliefs. They are based on what has been reported by reliable sources.

An there are numerous reliable sources in this case that have reported an expert does not believe Jordan Neely was killed by anybody. Jwa05002 (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:KILLINGOF Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

struggle and restraint were caused by the strangling Wereallprettybizzare (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Yep... people have been keeping this article very biased in bad faith, using Misplaced Pages legalism, for too long; now that verdict is in, this article needs drastic changes.Mercster (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Since this vote began, multiple other RS have described the event exclusively as a "death", not a "killing".

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/daniel-penny-jd-vances-guest-weekends-army-navy-game-rcna184110: "Daniel Penny, the man who was found not guilty in the chokehold death of Jordan Neely..."

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/10/daniel-penny-nyc-subway-chokehold-jordan-neely-not-guilty: "The death of the 30-year-old Michael Jackson impersonator who performed in Times Square triggered a wave of demonstrations at the time..."

https://apnews.com/article/daniel-penny-nyc-subway-trial-jordan-neely-3c69673475d69e02aa80f6d146114554: "An anonymous Manhattan jury cleared Penny of a criminally negligent homicide charge in the death of Neely..."

I assume they are describing the event this way for the same reason WP:KILLINGOF lists: when "a verdict of acquittal reflects the conclusion of the jury that no homicide occurred". Distinct from some other cases that have been mentioned (like Killing of Trayvon Martin) Penny was acquitted not only of manslaughter but also criminally negligent homicide. Aclfc (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's be clear about the language here: he was not "acquitted of manslaughter". You can say that he wasn't found guilty of manslaughter, that's fine (and even go so far as to argue that, due to presumption of innocence, he is by default innocent of that charge); but he was only acquitted of the lesser charge of negligent homicide, while the charge of manslaughter was dismissed due to the jury deadlocking. This is an important distinction, given how much of this move discussion is about semantics, and the precise meaning of words.

Also, since I'm one of the users who has by far among the most replies in this discussion (as I also used to be LaughingManiac), I'm hereby announcing that, unless someone explicitly pings me with a neutral request for information, I'll stop responding from this point forward, to avoid WP:BLUDGEONING - especially since I've advised that others should do the same. I won't contribute to this anymore, and will let everyone else discuss (and let the move closer decide based on the available arguments). Thanks everyone for your participation, regardless of where you stand on this matter! NewBorders (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It was my mistake to imply he was acquitted of manslaughter, thanks. Still, it seems to me that if priority is given to a jury verdict (and to the common name used by reliable sources after the jury verdict), then an acquittal of negligent homicide should support describing the event as a death and not a killing. Aclfc (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Support "Killing" implies murder or malintent the word "Death" sounds more neutral and unbiased. Rager7 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: The definition of “killing” is to cause the death, intentional or unintentional, of another person. A jury found in his criminal case based on available evidence that he did not cause the death of Jordan Neely. This article title would be acceptable had his defense stipulated that he did cause Neely’s death but argued it was a justifiable homicide, they did not. The State of New York offered evidence that Neely’s death was caused by neck compression and the defense offered evidence suggesting that it was not the cause. It is entirely irresponsible to list the article as killing instead of death until there is clear and concise reports that Perry caused Neely’s death. LasagnaLover23 (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose this title change - although I would understand if it does end up being changed, and wouldn't find too many issues with that change. Though I do agree there are some policy-based reasons to change the wording to "death", I ultimately am of the opinion that WP:CONSISTENT, the reported facts of the case, and the coverage by reliable sources, all point to the current wording being far more appropriate than "death" (which would fail WP:NPOVTITLE).

• Support. The criminal druggie was a user of synthetic cannabinoids such as K2. He was schizo, and had a blood condition which may or may not have arisen from decades of illegal drug abuse. We can say he died, sure, but what was the role the cops who retched at the druggie's smell, even if they at some point provided respiratory assistance? Plus, like LaughingManiac says, «more of use the word "death".» XavierItzm (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're personal opinion on the victim is not an argument also Misplaced Pages is not a soap box Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your language in this discussion is inappropriate and unnecessary. Mooonswimmer 17:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is whole inappropriate and bigoted language to use. Editor85213 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, interesting arguments. I wonder what role his being held in a chokehold for a minute after going limp played in his death. Maybe being strangled for 6 minutes was a preexisting condition he gave himself. Jv110 (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• @XavierItzm, I'd suggest to you that you strike your unnecessary and belligerent comments about the person in the article. Your opinion on the subject in the article does not help the case and only shows that your hate is disruptive. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Misplaced Pages:KILLINGOF Also we have reached large consensus on the name after a previous discussion. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support, the public discourse has changed on the matter. Killing to me implies murder, and he wasn't murdered per the laws of the state he resided in.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  The medical examiner stated that it was homicide. Killing is factually correct. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/daniel-penny-verdict-nyc-subway-chokehold-jordan-neely/ 88.97.229.218 (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  As others have stated, “killing” is not the same thing as homicide/murder (irregardless of your personal interpretation of sword) - it indicates a death where causation has been determined and uses active voice as is standard in PS style guides. Editor85213 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  The law presumes us innocent until proven guilty. As there is no way he could have been proven guilty, Misplaced Pages cannot degrade his reputation over something he was acquitted for. 208.38.225.31 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - from WP:KILLINGOF If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of " instead of "Murder of ". "Homicide of " is not expected to form a natural name. If there is doubt that a death resulted from homicide, the article should be titled "Death of ". the medical examiner determined cause of death is homicide. . Since legal proceedings did not determine murder, title should remain as is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  The medical examiner is not the law. ONE "expert". Let's change that last sentence. Since legal proceedings did not determine murder or homicide, title should be changed to not imply murder or homicide. 208.38.225.31 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I’d like to add to this also, the medical examiner testified in court that she determined this was a homicide prior to receiving a toxicology report. By that logic, Neely could’ve had 5 times the lethal amount of fentanyl in his system (which clearly wouldn’t be a homicide). Ruling before she even had toxicology calls her credibility into question, IMO. Jwa05002 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes I said the other comment will be my last but just noticed this. That surely depends on whether it's possible to determine homicide without the toxicology report which is something experts should determine not random Wikipedians. If person A uses a missile to blow someone's head off, it's hardly surprising that a coroner would rule it a homicide without even looking at any toxicology results. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. The medical examiner report was never retracted and the medical determination of homicide remains, a defense attorney simply convinced a panel of 12 lay people that legal definition of homicide by Jordan Neely was not met, which means we legally can't say Jordan Neely was murdered, only that he was killed. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:KILLINGOF as quoted above. Cause of death is homicide, "Killing of" is still most appropriate. Orthostasis (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I can understand the rationale behind wanting the wording changed, but irregardless he was still killed, whether self defense/etc. Think WP:KILLINGOF covers this pretty well Bittybit5 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support, Titling this "Killing off..." specifically implies murder, which clearly didn't happen in this incident. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  No it doesn't, killing just implies that the victim was killed my someone. Manslaughter is still killing someone. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just having the article titled "Death of..." would remove any ambiguity regarding that. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, passive voice is almost universally discouraged by English language PS style guides for the exact reason that it obfuscates the action occurring (hence why its opposite is called “active voice”). As many others have commented, his death was also ruled the homicide by the medical examiner, meaning he was killed by someone else, his death did not occur as an accident or a natural cause. Editor85213 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Citation: "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of " instead of "Murder of ". Editor85213 (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The term "killing" does not imply murder, and it is routinely used for articles where the perpetrator is not convicted, such as Killing of Trayvon Martin. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• I came to this article with very little prior knowledge. This morning I read this NYTimes article and then followed that by reading this Misplaced Pages article top to bottom. I followed that up with a dive into definitions of "homicide" and the WP essay WP:"Murder of" articles that several people here have linked to with the shortlink WP:KILLINGOF. Working under the potentially false assumption that this essay is the best way to determine whether something should be called a Murder, Killing, or Death, I still have questions.
  • The coroners report ruled it a homicide, but this was disputed by the defense who blamed the death on some combination of synthetic marijuana, mental illness and sickle cell anemia. Under the widest definition of homicide, which includes: "Somebody pulled a gun on me; I instinctively shoved him and he stumbled, tripped on his untied shoe laces, hit his head, and died" I think this is technically a homicide in the sense that Neely would not have died if Penny hadn't put him in a choke hold. I suppose the jury's verdict technically puts it into the category of Justafiable homicide. So under that reading, the statement "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of " instead of "Murder of ". "Homicide of " is not expected to form a natural name. 'If there is doubt that a death resulted from homicide, the article should be titled "Death of ". would have us use the word killing instead of death, despite the last sentence, which I have bolded. (Is there actually doubt?)
  • On the other hand, Misplaced Pages:"Murder_of"_articles#The_verdict_excludes_homicide's statement that A verdict of acquittal reflects the conclusion of the jury that no homicide occurred, and the article should be titled "Death of " gives me pause. Does the "not guilty" verdict here mean that the jury found reasonable doubt that this was a homicide, or only that the homicide was not criminal.

Overall based on what I've read, I lean oppose. If I were to learn that the jury specifically said this was not a homicide, I'd likely change my mind. ~Awilley (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasonable and well thought out analysis on this topic.

I’ll just say with this case in particular, the term killing implies a certain malice on Penny’s part that the jury in the case did not seem to believe was present.

Therefore using the term killing, in this case, gives the article an apparent bias and makes it controversial.

Using the term “death of…” eliminates this problem and doesn’t alter the information provided to a person seeking out the article.

That (should be) the ultimate goal of every Misplaced Pages article. Providing information to the user (and doing so in a manner that appears as unbiased and uncontroversial as possible) Jwa05002 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The word killing does not describe malice, it is a verb without any adverbs indicating how/why the action is carryed out. Your subjective personal interpretations of words are not relevant to this discussion. According to Misplaced Pages’s guide: "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of " instead of "Murder of ". The ME determined the cause of death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of ”.

See the following articles for precedence where individuals were killed, but no one was convicted of murder, manslaughter, or other criminal charges (including aquittals) that are titled 'killing': Killing of Trayvon Martin, Killing of Michael Brown, Killing of Freddie Gray, Killing of Tortuguita, Killing of Ashli Babbitt, Killing of Eric Garner, Killing of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., Killing of Sean Bell. Editor85213 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The medical examiner's finding was homicide. Additionally, "killing" does not imply any criminal culpability. TheXuitts (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. While the term "killing" may not necessarily imply murder or even manslaughter, it seems to me that if neither of these apply, then the term would only be appropriate if there was at least a "killer" who was intending to kill. If a person's death cannot be determined to have been brought about either intentionally or negligently, I don't see how calling their death a "killing" is appropriate. In calling it a "homicide", the medical examiner in this case was not passing judgement on intent, only on the scientific question of how and why Neely died.--Dylancatlow1 (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Killing is at all a term that implies the action was intentional and homicide actually does imply it being intentional. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I assume you meant to say "Killing is not at all a term that implies the action was intentional"

  It is, though. If a nurse gives a patient the wrong drug, and they die as a result, we would not normally call that a "killing" unless they knew what they were doing. If Penny killed Neely unintentionally, and his actions were not deemed to be criminally negligent either, it's misleading to call it a "killing". It implies he was intending to kill him, which has not been established. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  You are incorrect, because a nurse has medical training and a legal duty of care it is homicide either way, just usually litigated under malpractice insurance in civil court in the US. A nurse knowingly giving a patient the wrong dose is homicide a nurse unknowingly giving the patient the wrong dose is negligent homicide.

  Even in a correct version of your metaphor, the word killing is a verb which describes an action and has no implication of being guilty or non-guilty. In the English language and adverb would be necessary to indicate that said killing was intentional or unintentional, which the legal system differentiates as homicide.

  This is corroborated by Misplaced Pages’s article naming convention: "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of " instead of "Murder of ". The ME determined the cause of death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of ”. Editor85213 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're overanalyzing the analogy. It is simply a fact that if a nurse gave a patient the wrong drug and that killed them, we not call the incident a "killing". If there was a Misplaced Pages article about the incident, it would not be called "The killing of that patient". End of story.

  You're right that the term "killing" does not necessarily imply there had been any wrongdoing. If there had been no wrongdoing, however, then I say there must at least have been an *intention to kill*. Otherwise, it's just incorrect use of language. No medical examiner could tell from the body alone whether Penny would have known exactly when to stop the chokehold to prevent their death. They're a mere human in this.

  If you're right that that is Misplaced Pages's standard, and its implications in this case "have to be applied", then I suggest we look into changing it. It's giving too much weight to any mere ruling of "homicide". We have to be allowed to think on our feet and not be tied to such a simple rule. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I say there must at least have been an *intention to kill*

  I disagree with this idea, which seems like uncorroborated original research and personal interpretation.

  Not only do reliable sources often use the word "killing" even when intent hasn't been proven, or has been dismissed, but the implication that "killing" naturally suggests "intent to kill" is neither present in standard definitions of the concept , nor in our page on homicide (which is the first disambiguation suggestion for killing), nor in other examples of that word that can be found in our article titles, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread. NewBorders (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Dylancatlow1: I'd note that RaDonda Vaught homicide case while not titled "killing of" because it's concentrates on the case rather than the killing, does in fact use the language "after she mistakenly administered the wrong medication that killed a patient in 2017" (emphasis mine). This reflects the language sources use. And even Vaught herself said in an initial interview '"probably just killed a patient."' Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) In the interest of full disclosure, I've had a look to see if I can find any other articles. I couldn't find any that are particularly close except R v Lee which doesn't use killing but again concentrates on the legal case. Then there's Celobar incident which is sorta similar. It doesn't use killings either, but I think this case is partly reflective of the classic problem of one death being a tragedy, millions being a statistics. While it's twenty and not millions, it is true that the way such deaths are treated tends to be different. Besides the deaths I suspect there were also other harms caused short of death although our article doesn't mention this. (E.g. if someone modifies a specific Tesla software either as the owner or with their permission and it results in the car crashing and killing someone besides the person who modified the software it's easy to imagine the person who performed the modification being charged with some form of homicide. This is much less likely if Tesla doesn't test their software properly, releases it and several or many of their cars crash and kill people.) There is also 2014 Chhattisgarh sterilisation deaths which again doesn't use killings anywhere. However the details seem fairly unclear at least in our article, and again this seems to be partly reflective of the fact it involved a number of deaths and other harm, rather than just a one or two although true the title doesn't reflect the other harm either. Also loosely similar is Clinic of Zaragoza radiotherapy accident which also does call it an accident and not killing. But again, I think this is partly reflective of the fact it involved a number of deaths and other harm. Also the deaths were somewhat disassociated from the human actions which lead up to them. There's also Death of MohBad which isn't a great article anyway and the details of the death seem very unclear, but in any case our article title might very well change to killing depending on what happens in the future. Death of Chong Yun Jing is interesting but despite there apparently being negligence, the negligence was somewhat disassociated from the death. Then there's also Death of Amber Thurman but that seems much more about the law in her state, and also death from inaction is far less likely to be seen as a killing. Death of Chaniece Wallace is vaguely similar. To some extent so to Death of Brian Sinclair and Death of Kelly Savage. Nil Einne (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos: - No a homicide does not have to be intentional. "A homicide requires only a volitional act, or an omission, that causes the death of another, and thus a homicide may result from accidental, reckless, or negligent acts even if there is no intent to cause harm. It is separate from suicide.". Yes Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources, but in this case that doesn't matter since our article simply reflects how the word is use throughout the world. Hence why the relevant supplement Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) likewise says "Note: to avoid protracted debates, the word "homicide" in this context means "the killing of one person by another, whether premeditated or unintentional". It does not imply any degree of culpability." Nil Einne (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've addressed this already. This convention has to be recognized as potentially allowing nonsense to be said, whether or not it generally works. Proof: a mother buys medicine for her child, but it turns out to be laced with poison. Not knowing this, she voluntarily decides to give it to her child, "killing" them. Did she "kill" her child, though? No. And any article about it would never accuse her of killing anyone. That would be preposterous.

  Therefore, the following definition of a "killing" does not work for every case: "a volitional act, or an omission, that causes the death of another". Dylancatlow1 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's quite likely that the article would indeed be titled killing. Regardless of the mother, people don't just randomly end up with medicine laced with poison. The only way this is likely because someone else did something to result in the mother getting poison. Again this is reflected in WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), and is how we always title such articles. Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're just grasping at straws, dude. It would only be called a "killing" because of the medicine having been laced with poison. The mother would not be described as the killer or even a killer in this situation. I could easily come up with another example, if you want. Or you can just accept defeat. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Dylancatlow1: Come up with another example then since both your examples are so highly flawed and one even contradicts what we're specifically doing. Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, as it happens, we have a similar example to this: the adult neighbor of a girl accidentally poisoned her. Alas, it would seem reliable sources disagree with your interpretation.

  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxx2ed443jko

  https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/crime/italy-people-cps-london-old-bailey-b2581966.html

  https://news.sky.com/story/fatiha-sabrin-11-year-old-girl-killed-on-her-birthday-by-poisonous-gas-desperate-neighbour-used-for-bedbug-infestation-13180389

  https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/woman-who-killed-neighbour-11-with-bedbug-poison-avoids-jail-37vs93ts2

  Would you say a toddler who accidentally shot his own mother "killed" her? No? Then, again, you disagree with reliable sources.

  https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/12/11/toddler-shoots-kills-mother-jessinya-mina-fresno/76914748007/

  https://abc13.com/post/woman-accidentally-shot-killed-2-year-old-child-fresno-california-police-say/15635977/

  https://eu.desertsun.com/story/news/nation/california/2024/12/10/california-woman-killed-by-toddler-playing-with-unsecured-handgun/76893674007/

  Also, there is no "victory" or "defeat" here. That phrasing denotes a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. We are all just trying, in good faith, to reflect the coverage of the situation in a proper way. NewBorders (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  In NZ there is . We don't have an article on that and are unlikely to ever have one but IMO if we did it would be titled killing reflective of the guilty plea even if she was discharged without conviction. Nil Einne (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  How interesting that in almost all of the examples you were able to come up with, the word "killed" was preceded by the word "accidentally". Now why is that, if the word "kill" does not at all imply it was intentional? Seems like you lost the argument to me. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  How interesting that in almost all of the examples you were able to come up with, the word "killed" was preceded by the word "accidentally"

  This seems like a clear shifting of the goalposts to me. Your opposition to the term wasn't "accidental killing can only be defined as such if it's also accompanied by the explicit term accidental"; it was, as I'm quoting once again, that "if there had been no wrongdoing, however, then I say there must at least have been an *intention to kill*" (or, if we're going back to your very first comment, "the term would only be appropriate if there was at least a "killer" who was intending to kill"). No mention is made, here or anywhere else in your argumentation, that another word must nuance the concept of "killing" to make that judgment one way or the other. This opposition was merely that the word "killing" by itself denotes "a killer, and thus an intention to kill".

  As I have demonstrated, several times, this is wrong. One basic way of understanding that this is wrong is, again, our page on homicide. Please indicate, to me, were in that article it is stated that the concept of homicide always implies an intent to kill? Alternatively, in legal terms, which people supportive of this change have utilized consistently in this discussion, how would you explain the distinction between manslaughter and murder... both of which imply killing, but make different statements concerning intent?

  And, again, if your original contention were accurate, then an "accidental killing" would be an oxymoron. The fact it's not, and that as you yourself point out "accidentally" can be associated to the word, proves beyond doubt that the word itself makes no claims concerning intent.

  To put it very simply, you are incorrect when you suggest that the concept of killing implies intent to kill. This is unsupported by reliable sources, by our own articles, and in terms of article titles, by our WP:CONSISTENT policy.

  Additionally, and this is the second warning I'm giving you here, I'd remark that using words like "losing" or "winning" indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Please refrain from this kind of attitude, as this is unproductive; we are here, as I've already stated, to establish consensus between differing opinions, and portray the coverage of reliable sources, in its majority, in a responsible and reasonable way. If our consensus finds that "death" is the appropriate wording, I will respect that consensus, regardless of my own opinion.

  Will you do the same if it finds the opposite? NewBorders (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  So you're basically trying to say that Misplaced Pages's one-sentence definition of "killing" is a reasonable one to apply in every conceivable situation because you can find cases where the term "killing" is used to refer to truly accidental acts that the authors constantly stress are killings of an accidental sort. Here is my position: while I certainly don't think that the phrase "accidental killing" is an oxymoron, I don't think it is standard to use the word "killing" in the context of someone's accidental death unless its accidental nature is made clear almost immediately. It is simply not the way we talk, and the examples you cite pretty much show this. I did see that one of the headlines said "killed" without immediately specifying the death as accidental (doing so instead in the first sentence of the article), but it being accidental was already quite obvious from the fact that the weapon used was bedbug poison. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  So you're basically trying to say that Misplaced Pages's one-sentence definition of "killing" is a reasonable one to apply in every conceivable situation

  Well, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. That was more of a supporting example to try and illustrate the concept in a simpler way, but ultimately the bulk of my argumentation relies on how the word is commonly used, and understood, by reliable sources.

  But ultimately, I think we've both made our positions clear here. The person(s) in charge of finding consensus in analyzing this conversation will judge accordingly which interpretation seems more correct. NewBorders (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Killing and murder are synonymous in my mind, and public perception will likely reflect that. Misplaced Pages contributors are not in a position to determine how exactly Neely died, and I don’t think it’s wise to sleuth sources, even reputable ones, to determine the truth of the matter. (Doing so is tantamount to relitigating the case in a separate court of public opinion.) Thus, the court’s ruling should be considered “the truth” as far as we can determine. I’m sympathetic to the oppose vote when https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:%22Murder_of%22_articles#%22Killing_of%22_articles is read closely, but—and my personal opinion intrudes at this point—killing, to me, signifies intention, and my vague knowledge of the case (sorry) doesn’t give the impression of intention. I’ll offer a counterexample: A man enters a police station brandishing an empty handgun and is killed. This is suicide by cop, and a medical examiner will determine that bullets killed him, but this man’s article will not be titled “Killing of John Doe”; it will be titled “Death of John Doe” or “Suicide of John Doe.”—BboyYen (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• First off we know that a man killed him a court just has ruled it wasn't a homicide that being intent to kill. Also why do I keep having to link this but for the love of the spaghetti monster read Misplaced Pages:KILLINGOF. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  If a man enters a police station brandishing an empty handgun and is killed, his article will be titled “Death of John Doe” or “Suicide of John Doe” (as I indicate above). In that example, we know someone other than the man is directly responsible for the latter’s death (ha). If Neely was behaving in a threatening manner and Penny’s intention was merely to restrain the former, how are we to argue who or what is ultimately responsible for the former’s death? Why can’t Neely’s demise be an “accident”? But I own that, at this point, my personal opinion is intruding! BboyYen (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  No it would be killing per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). We do it all the time. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your personal interpretation of the word “killing” is irrelevant. In the English language, the word killing is a verb that describes an action without implication of intent, and without a without an adverb to modify the word it is unequivocally not synonymous with murder.

  Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages as naming conventions, "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of " instead of "Murder of ". The ME determined the cause of Neely’s death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of ”. Editor85213 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support the renaming of the article to "Death of Jordan Neely." I want to start this off by saying that I don't find it persuasive or compelling that the word "killing" implies guilt. I disagree with that line of reasoning, and I don't think that reason alone provides enough justification to renaming this article. Instead, I think renaming the article to "Death of Jordan Neely" is necessary in that it better reflects the broader scope of the incident and this article's content, which covers not only the circumstances of Neely's death, but also his conduct and the social context surrounding the incident. The current title, Killing of Jordan Neely, overly emphasizes the manner of death, despite the legal outcome of Penny’s acquittal, which indicates that Penny's actions were conducted as self-defense. I believe the change is warranted to ensure the title remains neutral and reflective of the article’s focus, and to align with most of the recent reliable sources. DocZach (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't an analysis I necessarily disagree with, but I'd just like to remark that, as I understand it, "self-defense" having occurred doesn't preclude "killing", in the same way that self-defense doesn't contradict the notion of "violence". It merely provides a justification for either action.

  Although I don't really think that was your main point either way. Just something to keep in mind. LaughingManiac (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. That was the point I was trying to get across. The word "killing" does not imply guilt, and if that was the only reason present to rename the article, I would oppose the renaming of it. However, I support the renaming of the article particularly because of the scope of the incident, the focus of the article, and the broader social context around what occurred. More importantly, however, it is how the majority of reliable sources are referring to it. DocZach (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. I misinterpreted that particular part of your comment - since it was separate from your original disagreement with the notion that "killing" = "guilt", I thought it was used for your conclusion. My bad. LaughingManiac (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  @DocZach: I've already said quite a lot in this discussion so this will probably be my last comment but I don't quite understand why killing of doesn't reflect adequately reflect the scope of the article if you agree that it's sufficiently undisputed he was killed. I also don't understand why you feel this is any different from the many other similar cases where there was significant social contexts but which are still titled killing, in fact I'd suggest often even more so than this case e.g. the list given by User:Mason7512 #c-Mason7512-20241210215200-MrCheese76-20241210040500 above. Notably Killing of Trayvon Martin and Killing of Freddie Gray IMO had significantly more social context than this case. Or even Killing of Eric Garner which was vaguely similar in both location and cause (although involved the police and their added protections). Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support Neely’s death was not a murder. He was threatening to kill other people. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a debate section for litigating personal beliefs, there is no evidence that he was threatening to kill other people. we are here to discuss the naming of this article per Misplaced Pages’s naming conventions and precedence. The word killing is not synonymous with the word murder or homicide and does not denote guilt or innocence, merely that one did not die of natural causes. As Misplaced Pages’s naming convention states, "If the cause of death has been determined to be a homicide but has not been determined to be a murder, the article should be titled "Killing of " instead of "Murder of ". The ME determined the cause of Neely’s death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of ”. Editor85213 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Witnesses (as reported by reputable sources) described Neely’s behavior as “insanely threatening.” Multiple witnesses also said they “feared for their life” because of Neely’s presence and actions.

Whether Neely actually said the words “I’m going to kill somebody” is debatable. Penny said he did, although his testimony isn’t objective here.

What isn’t debatable is that people on the subway feared for their lives and felt threatened by Neely’s actions. Testimony to this effect has been published in numerous reliable sources.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/witnesses-in-nyc-subway-chokehold-case-described-praying-hiding-during-jordan-neely-rant/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/nyregion/subway-chokehold-case-witnesses-daniel-penny.html Jwa05002 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as others have noted killing does not in any way imply murder. If we were saying it was a murder, we would have called it Murder of, which we never did and should never do unless there was a court case ruling it murder. Instead we used killing, a title which routinely used in cases where there's no dispute it's not murder and in cases where self defence is not in dispute per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). A person is still killed even if the killing is in self-defence. In fact, if the person wasn't killed then self-defence doesn't even come in to it (in terms of 'killing' it might still come up in relation to assault etc). So all arguments to the contrary are IMO invalid as they seem to fundamentally misunderstand both our policies and guidelines as well as the meanings of the relevant word. However while most of the arguments to move are invalid, this case is a little unique as it does seem the validity over the homicide ruling was in significant dispute in the trial instead of simply asserting it was self defence or defence of others. But I'm not convinced this is sufficient to overrule our normal practice that we accept the official coroner's ruling by itself. I'd be more convinced if it's clear sources no longer clearly identify this as a killing but I don't think we have enough yet for that. Perhaps in several months especially after any civil case is resolved it will be clearer which way sources now view the case. My impression is Killing of Eric Garner is similar although more complicated since we don't know what happened with the grand jury and the officer was fired suggesting some fault with his actions. (Still I expect if it had gone to trial, it's quite likely the homicide ruling would have been in significant dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  BTW, just noticed the Eric Garner mentions this 'A veteran San Jose Police Officer, Phillip White, tweeted: "Threaten me or my family and I will use my God given and law appointed right and duty to kill you. #CopsLivesMatter"'. So and unsurprisingly, even a veteran police officer understands that killing someone is indeed killing someone no matter if it's not murder. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'd add that because 'homicide' and 'killing' do not by themselves refer to any specific criminal charge, I think it's also relevant to consider whether the criminal standards should apply. We reject the term 'murder' even when it's widely use in reliable secondary sources to describe a killing when the court case did not find there was 'murder' in no small part because we consider that 'murder' refers to one or more specific crimes and so without a court decision it's not a murder regardless of whether it's just because the criminal standards couldn't be met. I don't think this applies to killing or homicide. And therefore with the coroner's ruling and especially if the civil dispute ends up in something supporting there being a homicide, it seems quite reasonable for us to continue to call it a killing even if it's possible that part of the reason for the jury's verdict was because they didn't believe it was a homicide beyond a reasonable doubt (which AFAIK we don't know at the moment anyway it could be they felt despite it being a homicide it wasn't a negligent homicide). Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support That it was a 'death' is indisputable. That it was a 'killing' is disputable by reasonable minds, and unnecessarily provocative. Also, calling this a 'killing' means that Misplaced Pages is therefore clearly implying Penny is a 'killer', which has BLP issues. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support "Killing of" implies it was done intentionally or was a murder. Also in agreement with the user above me. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Without saying anything about the merit of this move request, I believe it is pretty obvious that saying that a person killed someone is not necessarily a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, as there are many instances that the law can allow a person to kill another (e.g. killing in order to protect oneself or another, killing an enemy in a war, killing an innocent person in a way that is not criminally negligent). "Killing" and "murder" are not synonyms. Sticking to the terminology that most reliable sources are using would be the best way to go here. Badbluebus (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  The trial found Penny not guilty of all charges, without the need for any affirmative defense involving justifiable homicide. The factual issue in question is whether the death was a homicide at all, not whether any homicide was justified, and the prosecution failed to prove the death was a homicide. Warren Dew (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  We have no idea whether the prosecution proved or didn't prove that the case was homicide. The jury was deadlocked on whether it was manslaughter and decided that it was not negligent homicide. No ruling of any kind was made on whether it was some other kind of homicide (justifiable, accidental etc). AntiDionysius (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  That charge was dismissed. Even the prosecutors didn’t think there was strong enough evidence to prove it. Jwa05002 (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, there has been no ruling on whether or not a homicide in general occurred. A legally allowable homicide could have occurred. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  The word “could” is pretty telling here. Available evidence Reported by RS is inconclusive. So title the article “death of…” and let the reader come to their own conclusion about whether or not he was killed. I see no down side to doing that. Jwa05002 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  "Could" in the context of what the court ruled on; they never touched the question. A homicide evidently did occur. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. "Killing" doesn't imply murder, but it does imply homicide. You don't say "my aunt was killed by cancer," you say "my aunt died of cancer." All words have a semantic range that can encompass multiple meanings, but they also carry a particular connotation that may be weighted towards a more typical meaning. We should generally use words that, if interpreted according to their most typical colloquial meaning, would result in an accurate understanding of what we're describing. If your sentence would be interpreted by most people to mean something other than what you're trying to say, it's a problem. If your sentence requires people to interpret words in an unusual way, on the basis that those words' semantic ranges technically encompass the obscure meaning you intend, then it's misleading. It may be technically true, but it will have the effect of misleading or prejudicing some readers.

  Sometimes that's fine, especially when there are countervailing reasons to use the words you chose. But what reasons are there to use "killing," when at least as many reliable sources use "death"? The external factors weigh against "killing," not for. In an article that describes a living person, where a person's reputation is at stake? And in a legal context, where formal definitions really matter, where the verdict is an objective fact?

  As far as I can tell, the only reason to use the term "killing," even after the verdict, is that you have an axe to grind and would like to use this article, and Misplaced Pages's voice, to tarnish the reputation of a living person who has come to represent something you dislike. Let's be honest; there are many editors on Misplaced Pages with an agenda, who have no qualms with abusing this platform to influence public opinion. They are on both sides of this issue. But at least there are legitimate reasons to prefer the word "death," like the fact that a jury did not find anyone guilty of homicide, that the cause of death was one of the most important questions of fact in the trial, and that the title of this article has implications for the reputation of a living person who has not been convicted of any crime. These are weighty issues that should give us pause before using the word "killing." What comparably weighty issues are there that should make us hesitate to change the title?

  If you stubbornly cling to a title that implies a finding of fact that the jury did not affirm, I have to ask, why? Why does it matter so much to you that this article should have a title that implies something terrible about a living person? Why do you feel so strongly that we should prejudice the reader with the implication that Neely died by homicide? What legitimate, nonideological reason could you have for such a strong preference? Does the word "Death" really carry so much less accurate information that it's an intolerable substitute for "Killing"? No. What it carries less of is not accurate information, but emotional valence. GlacialHorizon (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The charge of manslaughter was dismissed, and the jury ruled that he was not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. "Killing of" reveals an undue bias in the title, so it should be changed to the neutral "Death of". Dogman15 (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  By my quick count this makes 12 that support a name change and 11 that oppose. A few days to go still. Jwa05002 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  We do not move based on consensus, an independant, reviewer of the page needs to form their own rational after taking into account every argument and rebuttal brought up in this thread. Even if it's many people who support the move and a few who oppose it, if every single supporting arguments to move all have flimsy rationale, then it will not be moved. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  We do move based on consensus, it's just that "consensus" is not determined via a numerical vote count. NewBorders (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's I meant to say. Sorry. I did mean that it wasn't based on vote count. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Refer to Misplaced Pages:What is consensus? and Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.

  As I've seen, the numerical amount of "votes" is rarely considered when it comes to judging discussions like these, except as a minor supporting rationale in cases where quality of arguments is equivalent on either side and there is clear and overwhelming numerical superiority (which 12-11 wouldn't really be usually considered as).

  Or in another case, if there is overwhelming support for one result, then WP:SNOW can be argued. NewBorders (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  By my quick count this makes 12 that support a name change and 11 that oppose. A few days to go still. 69.197.206.10 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Both death and killing are indisputable; the ruling only means the court found him not guilty of criminally negligent homicide. He still killed him -- but legally he was found not criminally liable for his actions. wound theology◈
• Oppose- Neely was indeed killed. There can be no disputing that fact. Had this discussion been to rename the article to "Murder of Jordan Neely", I'd have !voted "no". Regards,   Aloha27  talk  13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is overly simplistic. If someone was killed by a lightning strike, there would never be an article about the incident titled "The killing of that person". There is more going on here than whether "he was killed". Dylancatlow1 (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. A person can be killed by a heart attack. You can be killed by a plane crash.

  “killing of…” doesn’t do anything to eliminate the ambiguity of how a person died, but in many cases it adds a lot of controversy and apparent bias on Misplaced Pages’s part.

  We also have specific terms for a human killing another human if they’re convicted in a court (manslaughter, murder, etc). These terms can be used in the headline if they apply.

  “killing of…” is just too controversial of a descriptor for this platform, which ultimately is supposed to be a non controversial, non biased source of information. Anything labeling itself an encyclopedia should go out of its way to avoid any appearance of bias. Jwa05002 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think one could easily make a case for it having been a "killing" if Penny had intended to kill him in self-defense, but I just don't think we can be sure enough about that to state it as a fact. If it was accidental in a way that wasn't negligent on his part (because of it being a messy situation), calling it a "killing" doesn't seem appropriate to me. Rather, it was an unintended death that resulted from a physical struggle. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages has no policy stating that something has to be non contreversial also it is not biased to state that yes someone dying by a another person's actions is a killing despite the justice system or jury's ruling that it wasn't criminally negligent manslaughter. Also Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is it acceptable to label an article as killing when there are two different autopsies that arrived at different conclusions for the cause of death? The medical examiner ruled it a homicide, yet the forensic pathologist for the defense did not agree with those findings. I find it inappropriate to label the article as killing if there are potentially conflicting reports, at least until the veracity of those reports can be verified. LasagnaLover23 (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I never said it was biased, I said it would be misleading to call it a "killing" if there had not been any intention on Penny's part to kill anyone. You read "killing of", and you assume that means it was plainly intentional. I don't know what to tell you, it just seems self-evident to me. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  But that is simply not how we name articles on Misplaced Pages, no matter what one might assume when they read killing of we call it that per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages has no hard-and-fast rules regarding anything, from what I've read. It has conventions, yes, but not rules. I concede that using "death of" in the title would not be a perfect option either, insofar as it would be a little euphemistic in the case of someone who had died at the hands of an intentional "killer", which is impossible to rule out here. But since I think it does hinge on the question of intentionality, and since the prosecutors never even accused Penny of deliberately killing Neely, I think it's pretty clear here which option is the less "leading" of the two. Dylancatlow1 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• KEEP as KILLING OF JORDAN NEELY. He was killed on camera. He didn't just happen to fall off a cliff. He was intentionally killed. CNC33 (. . .talk) 01:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support per GlacialHorizon. ~ HAL333 06:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support the move to "Death of Jordan Neely". The cause of death is disputed, so we should choose the title that puts Misplaced Pages in less potential legal danger. Warren Dew (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per GlacialHorizon's rational. Whether Neely died is indisputable, he obviously did. Him being "killed" is extremely disputed so a less charged word like "death" should be used. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - change to Weak Oppose - Though WP:KILLINGS is an essay, from what I've seen it is the convention. "Killing of" for death caused by another, "death of" for death not caused directly by another person. And, to avoid libel issues, we shouldn't label something a murder without a court conviction; the perpetrator is an "alleged murderer" until convicted.---Avatar317 06:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Did you mean to say support? Because the OP is intending to move this page from "Killing of" to "Death of" Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think they were saying no to "Death of" and yes to "killing of" but also no to "murder of" or any similar language in the article. Mason7512 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment to my change: This seems like a difficult call based on sources and the jury's "finding of fact". Neely died because of physical interaction with another person. Unlike this case: 2020 Tennessee swatting, which could also be titled "Death of Mark Herring", where the perpetrator got a five year federal (no parole in the federal system) sentence when Herring died of a heart attack during the swatting.---Avatar317 22:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think Neely died of a heart attack. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oops misread that excuse me. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: And I will be brief, as I have work tomorrow. WP:DEATHS, to start, is not policy; still, it does provide a rather succinct explanation of naming our articles, which would necessitate "Killing of". Now, the jury has dismissed both of its charges against Mr. Penny (one by deadlock, and one by "not guilty"), and absent the People of New York bringing another trial against him, we must assume that, for legal criminal liability, its word is sacrosanct and final. But that applies solely to the realm of the law. We are not the law. Ultimately, the way I see it is that absent the intervention of Mr. Penny, Mr. Neely would still be alive today, possibly; and given that human interaction was necessary to bring about his untimely death, we should, per WP:DEATHS, use "Killing of". But, again, that is not policy, and so I register little more than a weak objection, preferring to WP:IAR it, as consensus may so decide. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per the arguments presented in WP:MURDEROF and WP:DEATHS, essentially. I would strongly oppose, of course, if the article was to be moved to "Murder of Jordan Neely" as that would be clearly inaccurate. However, the acquittal of Penny does not change the facts that existed prior, which consensus found suitable to have this article named the way it is now. I understand the concerns of perception with the word "killing," but referring to killings not adjudicated as murder as killings is more or less standard practice on Misplaced Pages. I would invite the reader to consider the arguments presented in WP:TITLECON, which refers to the policy described in WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLE. In the interest of avoiding my introducing bias into this discussion, I will disclose that I was a very active participant in talk page discussions on this page last year and will limit my further participation in this discussion as much as is reasonable. PriusGod (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

should we add additional informational about the trial?

1. it was widely reported that while BLM was protesting outside that the Cory room windows were left open and that everyone (importantly the jury) could hear them - which included threatening language in there was no conviction.

2. that the prosecuter repeatedly referred to Mr Penny as "the white man" while examining witnesses. the defense objected but was apparently over ruled.

3. the legally questionable actions of the judge. AFTER the jury has already deliberated over the manslaughtercharge, returned saying they could not agree on a verdict, were sent back to try again, returned with the same answer - the judge granted the prosecution's motion to drop the charge. The judge apparently acknowledged his action were unprecedent when he stated he "would take the chance".

4. that even though the manslaughter charges were dropped, it would be almost impossible to attempt to try Penny again for manslaughter as the key has already deliberated the charge, which means Penny would be placed in "double jeopardy". 99.33.126.209 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can provide some reliable sources then sure why not. Use Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see if it is reliable. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a bunch of coverage about dropping the manslaughter charge especially given the defence objections . If there had been a guilty verdict on the lesser charge I'm sure this would have remained a very big deal and litigated to heck. But I'm not convinced this is a significant issue any more given the outcome of the case since as it turns out, this seems to have provided an advantage to Penny. If the judge had ruled it a mistrial, it's likely the prosecution could have tried again but this is impossible now. Nil Einne (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the "white" before Marine, when you introduce Daniel Penny. Because it insinuates that it was a racial crime. 5.20.32.61 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: the races of the two men is pretty obviously necessary context for other content in the article Cannolis (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There were other men who assisted Mr. Penny in restraining Mr. Neely, neither of who were white. TwoLastNeurons (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Threats in the lead.

The lead section says Neely, who was reportedly agitated and threatening passengers, was subdued by Penny, leading to his death. However, the only mentions of threats that I can find in the body are attributed to Penny and his defense attorneys. Do we have any sources that state it in the article voice or, at least, attribute it to anyone else? If only Penny's defense is saying that then we have to unambiguously attribute it to them rather than couching it behind WP:WEASEL attribution, and probably shouldn't put it in the first paragraph of the lead for WP:DUE reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Outside the lead we have multiple sources cited about threats made by Jordan Neely. I do think it is due because it's quite a heavily mentioned thing on whether or not Neely was threatening passengers and how threatening he was. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The only change that might be worth doing here is removing "reportedly". There is nobody in this case who remotely denies that Neely was threatening passengers; Bragg's office conceded this point over a year ago when they first charged Penny in Neely's death: Prosecutors said Mr. Neely was “making threats and scaring passengers” when Mr. Penny came up from behind and placed him in a chokehold. per NYT. The defense says this happened, the prosecution says this happened, witnesses say this happened, police say this happened. Neely threatening people is more universally agreed upon by all relevant parties in this case then even Penny's chokehold being the cause of death for Neely. KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's still all witness testimonies we can't draw any reliable conclusions. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

"Witness testimonies" are all that's needed. Lots of events in history have been confirmed only by witness testimonies. Technically, a camera with a microphone is the best kind of witness, but that doesn't seem to be available in this situation. Dogman15 (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We should still keep the reportedly because we don't have conclusive evidence. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Multiple eyewitnesses testifying under oath in a court (as reported by RS) is beyond the burden of being conclusive evidence for a reasonable person that Neely was threatening people in the subway.

Especially considering Neely’s criminal background which included multiple arrests for assault and a conviction of felony assault for beating a 67 year old woman in a subway station.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/jordan-neely-history-attacks-subway-riders-nyc-chokehold-death.amp

Threatening people fits Neely’s behavior pattern to the point that you’d need some pretty extraordinary evidence (as in multiple eye witnesses) to make the claim he WASN’T threatening people the day the incident occurred.

Based on this comment and many others I’ve seen you make here, you are far too personally biased (for whatever reason) to be making edits to this Misplaced Pages article. You are simply unable to be objective about it. Misplaced Pages should not exist as a forum for editors to grind their personal axes. Jwa05002 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me sir but keep it Misplaced Pages:Civility and also I still think that unless we have footage of something we still should take it with a grain of salt. I personally think that Neely was threatening people but we should state that the evidence for that is eye witness testimony thus we keep the reportedly. Second of all don't cite Fox News per Misplaced Pages:FOXNEWS and we should make conclusions based on his behavioral patterns in wikivoice unless another reliable source points this out. I will not get into your Misplaced Pages:Personal attacks and would like to remind you have already been taken to an admin board on this topic. Thank you :) Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that have recently reported that Neely wasn’t threatening people? Or that’s it’s even possible that he wasn’t?

Again, it’s been widely reported by many sources that Neely was threatening people. The idea that it’s possible he wasn’t is an extraordinary claim. Do you have any evidence to back it up? Jwa05002 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok let me explain my reasoning, we can't state something in wikivoice unless we have conclusive evidence. This is a controversial topic and again these are witness testimonies, we can't know for sure whether they are true or not so I'd say it'd be best just to keep the "reportedly". Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I took a look at the move request comment you mentioned below, you appear to support the notion of not just a wikivoice statement, but a title that Neely was "killed". As I mentioned before, the notion that Neely was threatening passengers is not controversial or disputed by any relevant party in this case. By contrast, the notion that Neely was killed by Penny is heavily disputed between the opposing counsels, as well as the Med Examiner and a pathologist. Wouldn't a consistent application of your standard for conclusive evidence in a controversial topic push you towards supporting a clear cut statement that Neely was threatening other passengers? KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (violence and deaths), I'm trying to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines and also we already came to established consensus on the article name. Also we kinda have autopsy evidence which I think is very conclusive evidence of how someone died. Also about the defence's med examiner and pathologist I believe they didn't do an autopsy. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Fascinating to see the call for civility here by @Akechi The Agent Of Chaos and then the brazen incivility on the user page. I'm going to assume good faith and cite that user page: that this user is most likely a self-described autistic acting incompetently rather than in bad faith. Unfortunately, competence is required, see Misplaced Pages:Competence is required. RowanElder (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If you genuinely think I'm biased I don't know what to say, the most I have done is be opposed to the move request and respond to comments from IP addresses and people who don't know Misplaced Pages policies. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The ruling is out, Mr. Penny was found "not guilty of homicide" and the cause of death has been officially declared and reported extensively.

It is currently January the 11th and it has been over a month of the ruling that found Mr. Penny not guilty on all charges. This is by all legal definitions not classified as a murder or a homicide, according to Cornell Law.

Regarding Mr. Neely's death, on November 21st 2024, NBC clearly reported the following:

Defense pathologist says Jordan Neely didn't die of chokehold on NYC subway. Jordan Neely died from the “combined effects” of a number of a factors, not a chokehold, a forensic pathologist hired by Daniel Penny’s attorneys testified Thursday. Penny is charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the chokehold death of Neely on a New York City subway train in May 2023.

The conclusion of the trial, as reported by abc7, was that:

Daniel Penny has been found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide in Jordan Neely's subway chokehold death. The jury deliberated for more than 24 hours across five days before reaching the verdict.

which was also reported by a number of other outlets such as NBC, CBS, CNN, and others.

The fact that this page reads "Killing" implies that this was a homicide, which is false as the sole suspect has been found "not guilty". This is (dis?)misinformation and shows that a false narrative is promoted.

In short, there was no "killing" by any legal terms (murder or homicide). The sole suspect was found "not guilty". There is plenty of conflicting evidence online, however, the sole fact that the jury has found Mr. Penny NOT GUILTY OF HOMICIDE is more than enough to warrant a change in the title. There are no other suspects. The death is not attributed to the chokehold, hence the verdict. Paramedics on scene reported that Mr. Neely had a pulse when they arrived which has been covered extensively on YouTube videos such as this. TwoLastNeurons (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@TwoLastNeurons you might want to see the RM above where this issue was discussed. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@TwoLastNeurons As well as WP:DEATHS. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

If "killing" is kept, perhaps broaden the suspect list in the lead

If "killing" is retained here, the defense's dispute could be included by including more clearly the possibility that Neely killed himself. Adding accidental suicide as a possibility immediately in the lead would be one natural way to clarify that the article title and lead sentence language of "killing" is not implying homicide by Penny. The court's rulings and the medical examiners' findings that countered the finding of homicide remain consistent with killing in the case that Neely killed himself.

In that case, it may also be important to include in the lead that the killing of Neely may have begun before the chokehold (the current lead sentences' language does seem importantly unrepresentative of the reliable secondary sources), via a delayed self-poisoning suicide mechanism. A poisoner kills a victim in the full act of poisoning, not just the moment of death, though of course there is no effective killing act without a moment of death.

I do not advocate these directly myself, but I hope they can open up the range of possibilities under consideration to help with some of the apparent problems of people talking past one another in the RM. RowanElder (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

(Note: I recognize WP:DEATHS would not support this outcome, since the flowchart would fairly clearly call for "Death of" in the case that cause of death is unknown, which is the case if homicide and accidental suicide are each possible causes of death.) RowanElder (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The cause of death is not unknown, we have autopsies reports that say this was death but restriction of the throat's airflow. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not assert that the cause was unknown. I asserted that in the case that the killing could have been one of suicide or homicide, a matter for consensus formation rather than for my own opinion to decide, then the cause would be unknown.

I do not believe I know the cause of death, so it is unknown to me. That is because I do not think I am competent to judge the autopsy report's authority and that authority has been challenged in a way that I have not personally resolved for myself. Thus I am not making claims one way or another on the cause of death. Perhaps in some collective sense "the cause of death is known" but it's not to me and it doesn't appear that it is to the full range of reliable secondary sources, either. RowanElder (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Black Lives Matter articles
• Mid-importance Black Lives Matter articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class New York City articles
• Low-importance New York City articles
• B-Class New York City public transportation articles
• Low-importance New York City public transportation articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report