Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely

Lede is too long

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

The Lede devotes nearly two paragraphs almost exclusively to Vasquez's accounts, including such details as how many minutes related to different stages of the incident he stated to various media, and referring to his Facebook page. One sentence of the Lede says his FB was "widely cited" but gives only one source, a Mexican newspaper in Spanish.Parkwells (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe Vázquez is one of the main witnesses to have come forward publicly, and speak with the media. If there are other good first-hand accounts of the events that have been covered by quality sources, those should of course be included as well. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand he was a main witness but am not sure why quotes by him and others are included in the Lede. I thought this section was customarily for summarizing main points in the body of the article.Parkwells (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely redid the lede section, reducing description of the event to a single (though largish) paragraph, and moved some of that nitty gritty detail of Vazquez's video to the Incident section. I also summarized some other parts of the article I thought needed some love in the lede. The description of the incident might still contain too much detail. OTOH, the duration of the chokehold is disputed: Vazquez is widely quoted as saying it was 15 minutes, but contradicted himself by telling CNN it was only 7, while Penny claims no more than 5. That might deserve a mention. Open to discussion. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and trimmed the lede paragraph in half. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 00:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about balance and sources in Incident

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

@Parkwells: Do you have any other specific accounts from reliable sources that you would like to see included? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that Vasquez is the first major witness. I don't understand why the first two paragraphs of this section have two sources' accounts of interviews with Vasquez that are so repetitious in detail. It is not as if different witnesses are being quoted, or that his material differs so much in these accounts. Is there a reason these cannot be combined in some way? Or maybe introduce Vasquez's additional content as quoted in the next paragraphs of the Curbed interview without repeating what is so similar to the quote in the NY Times?Parkwells (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Parkwells, I was the one who introduced the long Vázquez blockquote. One reason is that it tells events in a linear, chronological order in a way that other sources don't--thus somewhat sparing us from having to stitch together various witness statements from multiple sources with all the cumbersome attribution that entails. Another reason I featured that quote so prominently is that he really is the main named witness, very widely cited: CNN, Curbed, NBC, NY Times, NPR, Washington Post, ABC, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, People, NY Daily News, Business Insider, plus Fox and NY Post. Some outlets cite Vázquez in multiple articles. Some outlets interviewed him directly, some attributed his statements to reporting by other outlets.

In at least one case, an outlet wrote something like, "Penny reportedly held Neely in the chokehold for 15 minutes" without attribution; AFAIK Vázquez is the only named witness making that claim. And while we're on it, Vázquez told CNN The two men were on the floor for about seven minutes [...], adding he started recording about three or four minutes after the chokehold began.[1], but CNN didn't point out the apparent discrepancy. We do, and AFAIK, ours is the only article that does.

Another reason to keep the Vázquez blockquote is that it contains some phrases of uncertainty not found in other sources: "From what I understood ..." referring to what Neely was shouting, "I couldn't see anything – it was too crowded" by virtue of which he only heard Neely throw his jacket to the floor, and then "I think – I didn't see, but I think" in reference to Penny placing Neely in the chokehold, after which both fell to the floor of the train. However, CNN, citing Vázquez, said, "In the minutes before the deadly chokehold, Neely had been 'acting erratically,' but he did not attack anyone".[2]

One thing Vázquez told the NY Times which he didn't tell Curbed is that Neely had also yelled/screamed that he was "ready to die" (the Times uses both descriptors, our article says screamed).

TL;DR: the article can use some cleanup. Where Vázquez says conflicting things to different outlets should definitely be noted, and where one outlet contains details Vázquez mentioned that others don't should probably be included. Also, when multiple witnesses say the same or different things than Vázquez does about the same event, that should definitely be included even if it seems redundant. My inclination is a wholesale rewrite of the entire section, which I'm willing to do, but it would take a couple of days at least. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Use of Liberals and Conservatives

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

Fair enough, I changed it to, Liberal opinions included: calling Penny a vigilante and a murderer; that Neely's death was a lynching; that policies which criminalized homelessness, and rhetoric which demonized the poor, the mentally ill, and people of color were to blame. Conservatives generally hailed Penny as a hero who selflessly risked his own safety to protect his fellow passengers, and some further justified Penny's actions on the basis of Neely's mental illness and criminal record. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 22:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

But is that language supported by the sources? Do sources say these opinions are generally divided along partisan lines? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

About the libs, I basically just summarized this passage from the reactions section. The bolded bits support the wording I used in the lede: Many left-leaning activists, including Democratic Party representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have described Neely's killing as a murder, pointing to what they say are deficiencies in the city's response to homelessness and mental illness. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: "Jordan was houseless and crying for food in a time when the city is raising rents and stripping services to militarize itself" and accused the Adams administration of "trying to cut the very services that could have helped" Neely. City Council member Tiffany Cabán said the killing was "the inevitable outcome of the dangerous rhetoric of stigmatizing mental health issues, stigmatizing poverty and the continued bloated investment in the carceral system at the expense of funding access to housing, food and health". New York state Senator Julia Salazar labeled Neely's killing a lynching, arguing that Neely would not have been perceived as threatening if he were not black, referencing news and social media coverage demonizing the homeless and mentally ill. Salazar tweeted, "The constant demonization of poor people and people in mental health crisis in our city allows for this barbarism. It is making our city sick." Other officials expressed frustration that DA Bragg's office had not already criminally charged Penny, claiming that if he had been black, the situation would have unfolded differently. City Council speaker Adrienne Adams stated, "The initial response by our legal system to this killing is disturbing and puts on display for the world the double standards that black people and other people of color continue to face."

And also: New York City comptroller Brad Lander said, "We must not become a city where a mentally ill human being can be choked to death by a vigilante without consequence."

As for the conservatives: with some conservatives – including Republican politicians Ron DeSantis and Matt Gaetz – labeling him a hero and celebrating his actions. Republican politician Nikki Haley was very critical of the DA charging Penny, and said "the governor needs to pardon Daniel Penny ... no question about it [...] right away". On May 25, Republican politician Andy Ogles proposed House Resolution 448 in the United States House of Representatives to "recognize and honor Daniel Penny...for his heroism and courage in apprehending a threat to public safety". The resolution was supported by Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republican representatives. The text of the resolution made reference to Neely's arrest record.

My "selflessly risked his own safety to protect his fellow passengers" isn't supported in the text of the article, but I didn't make it up. I'll track that down and add it to the main body text ... the conservatives reaction section is pretty small and could use some beefing up (harder to do when I can't use WP:FOX though).

As for liberals and conservatives being split along largely partisan lines: no, I don't have a ready reference which says that, so I'll drop that bit unless I can find a source. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 23:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Great, thank you for your diligence! 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Penny's five-minute claim

Post-creation note: there are two previous talk threads addressing this same topic: What to include from assailant's video_statement and Include Penny's version of events?. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 10:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

I'm fine with it being included in the article just not lead. We've had this discussion before and ultimately putting it in the beginning is a violation of NPOV and more importantly UNDUE even if mentioned in reliable sources. LoomCreek (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record here's the previous discussion. Then as now, you simply assert that putting Penny's claim next to Vazquez's violates NPOV without saying how. Nowhere does that policy page say anything like, "put non-neutral opinions further down in the article and only neutral ones in the lede". (That would be silly: opinions are not neutral by definition.) Further, we don't get to decide that Vazquez is a more credible witness than Penny--and let's be clear, the neutrality argument *is* questioning his credibility. We can only appeal to RS to do that, and AFAIK there are no articles which do so. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 01:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with LoomCreek's take here; there is a hint of WP:MANDY--not a perfect fit, but I think the self-serving nature of the claim takes it down just a notch or two. As such, I am also a member of the "in the article but not the lead" camp. That said, happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with LoomCreek and Dumuzid about this one. If Penny's time estimate is in the lead, I feel like it would need to be qualified or weighted somehow. However, I'm not sure of a way to do that which doesn't seem as though his 5-minute claim is being questioned in Wikivoice (something we of course should not do!). Simply leaving it out of the lead seems the best solution to me. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@72.14.126.22, let's be clear: keeping Penny's claim out of the lede while leaving Vazquez's there *is* downweighting the former, very much implying that the 5-minute claim is being questioned. In addition to other parts of NPOV I've already cited, there is WP:STRUCTURE to think about: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself [...] may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false.

@Dumuzid, disputing a key piece of inculpatory evidence is in essence saying, "I didn't do what you said I did", so MANDY applies. I categorically reject the entire premise of the essay, which is that the subject of an accusation is ipso facto an unreliable source expressing a fringe opinion, and thus should not be given the same weight as their accusers. This flies in the face of jurisprudence everywhere (except banana republics and Salem, Massachusetts), upon which BLPCRIME is firmly based.

There is no basis in any known RS to doubt Penny's counter-assertion; they simply report the dispute, which by inviolable rule is what we should be doing. Thus far in this thread, just as in the previous ones, nobody has pointed to any policy which says otherwise. (Note: I earlier neglected to include this thread on the same topic.) Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 10:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

We definitely shouldn't be including the statement of someone with such a big conflict of interest in the lead.

We can't just uncritically prop a claim without evidence by someone with a clear COI. It would be UNDUE (and as a result NPOV). It fundamentally makes it a potentially highly unreliable claim.

We can include it in their section because it's their claim. But we can't include it in the general description of events when we have actual neutral witnesses. LoomCreek (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I find no COI stipulation in NPOV. If multiple RS cast doubt on Penny's claim with something better than MANDY, then the calculus would be different. But they don't. I don't know how NPOV could be any clearer that it is NOT for us to decide who is the more reliable witness. For like the third time now, please point to the specific wording in policy which supports your position. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 13:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Trying to argue it's not a violation because it isnt said super explicitly in policy summary doesn't make it any less valid. That's not how wikipedia operates and never will. It's intentionally left up to consensus and interpretation. Personally I'm not a big fan of arguing policy for policy's sake. But instead the spirit of a rule and what would improve wikipedia.

And clearly other editors disagree with you, which you quietly re-added after a consensus had already formed against it. LoomCreek (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a fair amount of guidance about how to handle reliably-sourced, but biased and/or opinionated content, under which COI would qualify. It doesn't support your argument. Some examples:

• opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources
• If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
• Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased.

A statement such as "Vazquez said X, but Penny said Y" is perfectly compliant with those points, as well as every other policy I've quoted.

One more thing I have learned about since our last debate on this topic is the following clause near the top of WP:NPOV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Then in WP:BLPBALANCE we find: The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Discounting what a living subject says about themself, when multiple RS quote them saying it, seems pretty unfair.

You're right, I should not have silently reinserted Penny's claim into the lede. I already said as much in my first comment in this thread. That said, by the policies I have just quoted verbatim--on top of the other verbatim citations I made earlier--I not only can, but should, immediately add well-sourced and due information to balance a BLP article.

Or ... you could do the right thing and add it back yourself now that I've spelled out as many of the relevant policy points I know about. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Xan747 -- You make fair points, and as I said above, I don't actually think MANDY is directly on point; to me, it applies more in situations where the evidence is much more tilted (e.g., the well-known white supremacist denying that affiliation). And it's a bit of a funny situation--I agree with you it's a piece of inculpatory evidence, but not dispositive. That is, a jury could, in theory, credit Neely's account and nonetheless find him guilty of second degree manslaughter, or indeed credit the 15-minute account and find him not guilty. If we were talking about excluding the statement entirely, I would very much be on your side. But, as I say, the self-serving nature of the statement combined with the stress of the situation compels me to say that I trust it a little less, and therefore don't think it should be in the lead. But reasonable minds can always differ! Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

My opinion--which I officially don't have when writing in mainspace--is that it's mostly going to come down to the 2:50 minutes seen in Vazquez's video, in particular the 50 seconds after which Neely was clearly incapacitated. Not that prior minutes are totally irrelevant, just that what the public has seen on tape is IMO enough to prove negligence--especially given Penny's training.

All that aside, Penny apparently thinks it's in his interests to very publicly dispute the 15 minutes claim. As his own statements are reliably sourced, we MUST give it parity with Vazquez's statements. It would be different if five named witnesses all said 15 minutes (or even consistently and significantly more than five). That's not the case here.

Since I'm deep into OR territory now, may as well keep going.

IIRC, Penny's lawyers released his videotaped statements on the Sunday following his second arraignment, when the grand jury indictment was unsealed, which was a Wednesday. That same day, June 28, prosecutors released their list of discovery; p.6 contains a slew of evidence that very plausibly would allow an up-to-the-second reconstruction of events, and Penny's counsel had up to three full days to review it. If he was your client, would you really allow him to say in a prepared statement something that is provably false? And given that those MTA records almost certainly document when the train left 2nd Ave. and arrived at Broadway-Lafayette, plus the fact that MTA system time is frequently visible in Vazquez's video, don't you think it at least plausible that Penny can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the chokehold couldn't have lasted more than 5 minutes? Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's plausible! And may very well be true. I'll nitpick for a moment (sorry) and say that Penny does need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. That said, you make a compelling case. I would slightly caution that while it's possible the discovery provided allows for a moment-by-moment reconstruction, it's more likely (to my mind) that there will be some indications but probably some ambiguity left. I stand by my position (pending new information, of course), but as I say, you're not wrong in any way. It's more a matter of emphasis. That said, if consensus goes your way, no worries on this end. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

> Penny does need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

No nitpick inferred. He does need, or does not need? (This is OT for the subject of the thread, I just want to understand the legalities better.)

Again I'm just spitballing here; a few weeks ago I found out that MTA started installing security cameras on subway cars some years back, and that as of very recently not all cars have had the treatment. If the interests of Justice are lucky, that car has some camera coverage of the event, but it was a crowded car, etc. So it's virtually certain Vazuqez's video will be the best look the jury will get of the chokehold, but they might get some pretty good indications of exactly when Penny first applied it even if there's not as good a direct view. Main point is, from the discovery list I'm pretty confident Penny's team can put an upper bound on the duration of the hold, and that they've determined it's five minutes, not fifteen, or even Vazquez's revised seven.

That is all, always a pleasure, Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Time will tell, based on what Penny's lawyers assert in a court of law. What is said outside of the courts may not be the same as what will be presented in front of a judge and jury, while under oath etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugh! Yes. Bad typo! Does not need to prove. There are cases where an affirmative defense is raised (such as self defense or defense of others) where the defendant does, indeed, bear the burden of proof. However, in New York and most jurisdictions of which I am aware, that standard is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. And again, I see no need at all to quibble with your interpretation here. For me, however, it's just a bit early to be putting that in the Wikipedia article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, my own searches seem to confirm. And just to note, the state's standard on the manslaughter charge is also preponderance.

I still think I'd be justified making the edit against consensus, but that would almost certainly trigger a trip to the dramaboards. Time might be better spent taking a weed-whacker to the "bloated lead". Cheers. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alleged murder

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

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

The title “Marine” is a proper noun.

Would an editor with privs correct the lack of capitalization?

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

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