Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023

Change: "Penny should have known when Neely became unconscious and released him"

to: "some believe the hold was justified while others do not" 50.206.31.50 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Please describe how we can provide a "consensus". Several news stations interviewees new yorkers with a mix of responses showing that some people believed Penny's actions justified some did not, shall we provide links to dozens of videos with these interviews? 2601:646:4201:6370:C4A1:5BF:32B:5369 (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"Penny should have known..." is a declarative statement of a personal opinion. Random NYers have no idea what Penny did or didn't know and inclusion of this sentence screams of bias, as does your excuse for not revising it.

Not that Wiki cares anymore. Your political bias is getting more and more pronounced, which degrades your integrity and value as a source for information. 76.73.182.106 (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I honestly believe much of this article should be rewritten. It seems quite biased, heavily insinuating the idea that what Daniel Penny was unjust. 98.115.49.65 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Very much agree. The tone and even the writing style are biased. Please change/edit to be more neutral - especially "should have known." Thanks! 2603:6011:C003:1256:D188:F3CC:F6AC:C762 (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated by other posters the language in this article seems very biased. It is important to understand that there are varying opinions of this incident. The langue and content of this article seems to only represent one viewpoint. 71.71.148.123 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Only one viewpoint is supposed to be represented--that of the reliable sources. If you'd like to present some to back up changes you'd like to see, you are welcome to do so! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

While some narratives often prioritize traditional evidence, might surface-level facts miss the full story? In many instances, the most widely shared narratives can overlook subtle, yet significant, details that may alter our understanding of events. The inclusion of reliably diverse perspectives—those that may challenge common views—can enrich the broader conversation. Perspectives, while sometimes diverging from the mainstream, encourage deeper exploration of overlooked aspects of a matter. This broadens the scope of the mission, inviting readers to critically engage with the complexities of truth. In doing so, the encyclopedia fosters a more inclusive view of events, embracing a fuller range of interpretations. Hu Nhu (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The source is Alex Hollings, a "Former marine blackbelt", not law enforcement or legal expert, and Business Insider has 'no consensus' as a RS. Giving him 2 whole paragraphs is excessive at least. Hi! (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Death, not killing ...

Killing of Jordan Neely? Really? Bias and an unreasonable prejudice. Death of Jordan Neely. 2003:DC:8F02:3750:58A6:4609:8EE6:5432 (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Penny has admitted to killing Neely, but he claims it was homicide and not murder. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Penny is qualified to make that determination. We need to wait until the trial ends. "Death" is more appropriate at this time. 66.31.232.83 (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If he said he didn't kill him, then...? 220.235.191.187 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree. We should be able to up- and downvote these things because Wiki has gotten extremely Left biased in the last few years, which makes the information in these entries suspect and largely unusable as a source. 76.73.182.106 (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy where business is conducted by voting(which is easily gamed in this format). Wikipedia should not be trusted blindly, readers should examine the sources provided. Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth. If you see errors in how the sources in this article are summarized, please tell how. If you have additional sources, please offer them.

A source being biased does not preclude its use on Wikipedia, unless it is alleged that the source is so biased it lacks basic journalistic standards or makes things up out of whole cloth. You are free to read an article and disagree with all of it. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you read the top of the talk page, this topic was discussed and resolved in an open forum; see here. Basically the coroner ruled that this was a homicide and so the name of the page reflects this fact. Anyone charged is innocent until proven guilty. Qflib (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Well now. He is just innocent. 47.184.206.84 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's worth reapproaching this now that the verdict has come back as not guilty. The coroner and a defense-hired pathologist had different views but the court verdict should really be the deciding factor. ExiaMesa (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Not how that works it's still a killing just not a homicide, also the sentence has been reduced to manslaughter which is in fact killing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

why not use the same expression for both, either use the word - man - on both or just the description black or white.

please look into this:

'Jordan Maurice' Caine Neely was a 30-year-old black man who grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey.

Daniel Penny is a white (where is the man part here?) former Marine sergeant from West Islip, New York. 2800:B20:111A:3DFF:E1B7:8F6D:3EFB:C6C5 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please, let's try to answer with more detail and common sense, being "Marine" is not the subject we are addressing in the way this wiki is being presented. Both are - Men - and not Marine or Dancer respectively. The information should correspond with the fact that both are Men in the eyes of the law and public. It is a single word that can be biased information, what would the impact on the wiki, will be to add to Daniel Penny the attribute of Man+White+Marine? Would this harm the wiki?? Of course not, but it is clear from the intention on the data in this wiki, that Daniel Penny is being presented as a White+Marine ONLY, and NOT as a Man, that can be scared like any other, Man or Woman on that train. One single word makes a difference in this article. Thanks for considering my observation. If not, then it is stated here in this topic. 2800:B20:111A:3DFF:E1B7:8F6D:3EFB:C6C5 (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Why use the terms “white” and “black” at all? The terms are not only inaccurate and divisive, but there is no indication that skin color has any relevance to these events. I vote we remove these terms entirely, with the possible exception of statements alleging racial bias (e.g. Sharpton’s). TheOtter (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 71.167.113.91 (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2024

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/w/index.php?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)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2024 (2)

Penny is not a former Marine, no one is a former Marine, he is a retired Marine 50.145.136.178 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. All of the news article refer to Penny as a "Marine vet" or a "Marine veteran," not as a "former Marine." I could certainly use that language throughout the article instead. However, "retired Marine" is someone who has left active service after a specific number of years, and that is not the case here. But I can adjust the language to "Marine veteran." Qflib (talk) 20:15, 28 November 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)

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)

Killing?

In most legal jurisdictions, New York is one, intent is required to be considered a killing as murder; meaning that to be convicted of murder, the prosecution must prove that the accused person intended to cause the death of the victim, not just that they caused the death unintentionally or through negligence.

Key points about intent in killing:

• Different levels of intent: Depending on the circumstances, a killing can be considered first-degree murder (requiring premeditation and specific intent to kill), second-degree murder (malicious intent without premeditation), or manslaughter (killing without the intent to kill but with reckless behavior).
• Proving intent: Prosecutors must present evidence to demonstrate the accused person's mental state at the time of the killing, including their actions, words, and surrounding circumstances.
• Exceptions: Some situations, like felony murder, may not require proving specific intent to kill if the death occurs during the commission of a serious crime.

2601:402:501:46B0:2D49:2C26:1634:867F (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Killing should be replaced by death. 2406:3400:308:0:FE35:4118:8CBD:B3F6 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

To both of you we go by reliable sources which say this is a killing, we know he was killed and the jury needs to determine whether it was homicide, murder, etc. If you would like to challenge this please supply multiple reliable sources that say this wasn't a killing. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

His backpack and jacket are still on

The article says some "journalist" said Penny threw down his jacket violently? I just saw the footage. Very hard to throw down a jacket pinned to you by a backpack, even after finally letting go of Neeely. How about not including what someone said when the video proves it's not what happened? 98.114.90.123 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

Change the title to "Death of Jordan Neely" 2600:4808:98B4:AB01:DF68:2DB5:7C1B:12D4 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: In fact, consensus is against this change. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This was over six months ago, when evidence (and reporting of said evidence) that exists today did not then. 220.235.191.187 (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it was some time ago, but that time passing does not change the fact that the community made the decision. To change that decision, you would need to establish a new consensus. If you'd like to start a fresh request to move, you are welcome to do so.

But I think it is highly unlikely to pass; none of the subsequent reporting has done anything to annul the reasons (legal and linguistic) that promoted editors to support the current title. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

AntiDionysius is correct. Also I would ask this poster, as well as everyone else, to please follow and carefully read the link below in addition to seeing the discussion that AD shared. There is a standard, which has been followed here as far as I can see, for deciding what the title should be in this particular set of circumstances: Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles . Qflib (talk) 18:34, 6 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024

No mention that he was homeless because his parents kicked him out because he was to much for them. 100.34.12.157 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Not murder, new evidence

New evidence shows he did not die of chokehold. This needs to be changed to death, not murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/defense-pathologist-says-jordan-neely-didnt-die-chokehold-nyc-subway-rcna180958 32.142.31.66 (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say murder. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add that no "new evidence" shows anything like this, per your own link. Apparently, this is a single contradicting testimony from one forensic pathologist, who unlike the original medical examiner didn't conduct any autopsy in this case, and has also boldly claimed that "schizophrenia" was a physical (?) contributor to the man's death.

In any case, nothing can be definitively stated until reliable sources say it. Right now, the article follows what the majority of those sources say, and what the consensus of editors has established as a result. Perhaps we should add a section at the top of this talk page linking to the discussion AntiDionysius mentioned above. LaughingManiac (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

False information

this needs to be edited to correct the false information such as the manner of death, or be taken down if the authorbis unwilling to correct it with facts in evidence. 64.222.206.99 (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources if you have any sources that say it wasn't a killing then provide them and they will be reviewed. Right now the majority of reliable sources say this was a killing by chokehold. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna180775

Literally in the headline it says “Death of Jordan Neely.”

Wikipedia should be LESS biased than your average news source.

And if you simply google it, article after article describes this incident as the “Death of Jordan Neely.” Not as a killing (or a murder or a homicide).

Also given the jury verdict, if the editors of this page have any integrity at all, they’d change the wording to “death of” Jwa05002 (talk) 20:04, 9 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)

Requested move 9 December 2024

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 Wikipedia 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)

WP:KILLINGOF is an essay, but it seems to be the standard convention in Wikipedia 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 [person]" instead of "Killing of [victim]" or "Murder of [victim]". 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia precedence but also wider grammatical and style guides. Editor85213 (talk) 15:48, 11 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

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).

Reasons for vote, collapsed due to length.

Here are my general observations, having reviewed the sources and policies above: It's obviously not true that Pretty much every article by every RS is referring to this as “The Death of Jordan Neely.”, as a simple search of the word "killing" within the titles of this article's sources can attest to. It is, however, true that as far as I can tell, most recent sources use the word "death", and that though a non-insignificant amount of sources cited by our article (22, by my count) prefer the word "killing", more of them use the word "death". Though I would also point out many of those use the phrase "chokehold death", with (in my mind) the clear intent of establishing a link between the action of choking and the death that occurred (and some, such as this one, using the explicit phrasing "choking to death"). It is also true that even the KILLINGOF essay clearly states to take into account legal proceedings and adapt accordingly, e.g. here: Later legal proceedings may justify or require that the title of an article be revisited. For example, a later inquest or trial may result in the determination that no homicide occurred, in which case the article should be titled as "Death of [name]". I would also mention, however, that CONSISTENCY, in this particular case, which as justly pointed out above comes from policy and not an essay, does not make much of a case for either wording. For instance, just among the top "Killing of..." results, the killing of JonBenét Ramsey, killing of Michael Brown and killing of Freddie Gray all utilize that term, despite having "death" in source titles, and despite the killers in each instance being acquitted, or not charged with anything. Obviously, CRITERIA is going to be the deciding factor here, but the policy also mentions that These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others.. Ultimately, my reading of the policies here are that they argue far less for solid and unmoving rules when it comes to decisions such as this one, and rather that they encourage case-by-case judgment based on personal assessment of sources and their consensus on the topic. I also think that, in this particular case, the sources do not present an overwhelming consensus to choose one title over the other. Now, with all that said: - I am of the personal opinion that, regardless of what the jury has found, this was unambiguously a killing (whether in self-defense or not), at least until it can be established beyond reasonable doubt, and as supported by reliable sources, that the victim would've died even with no chokehold - with the defense pathologist's arguments in particular, as I read them within the sources, coming off as specious at best; - I think that MANDY, which is an essay that nonetheless, remains, in my opinion, very correct, is enough to address the contention that Mr. Penny and his defense team should be allowed to cast doubt over the characterization of the events, and furthermore that while RS may need to document that doubt in their article titles, we are beholden to no such standards, and should instead focus on how those sources actually describe the case; - I believe, within that lens, that the majority of the coverage by reliable sources, presenting the situation as it happened - a man held another man in a chokehold until that other man died - fairly unambiguously support the characterization of "killing" rather than "death"; - I also lean towards the idea that it's far more natural, whether it be in other articles or with respect to how readers will search for this, to refer to the death of a man who died in the course of another one's chokehold with the term "killing" rather than the less proactive "death" - and thus, from a more policy-based standpoint, per the above criteria of "Naturalness", I would also support that wording. Hence my general vote.

LaughingManiac (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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 [our sources] use the word "death".» XavierItzm (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  You're personal opinion on the victim is not an argument also Wikipedia 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)

Oppose Wikipedia: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)

• 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 [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". "Homicide of [person]" 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 [person]". the medical examiner determined cause of death is homicide. [1]. Since legal proceedings did not determine murder, title should remain as is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:19, 10 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 [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". 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 Wikipedia 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 [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". "Homicide of [person]" 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 [person]". 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, Wikipedia:"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 [person]" 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia’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 [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". The ME determined the cause of death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of [person]”.

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 imply, 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 Wikipedia’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 [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". The ME determined the cause of death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of [person]”. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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[2][3][4][5][6], but the implication that "killing" naturally suggests "intent to kill" is neither present in standard definitions of the concept [7][8][9][10], 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."' [11] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 [12] [13]. 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)

Support. Killing and murder are synonymous in my mind, and public perception will likely reflect that. Wikipedia 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". The ME determined the cause of Neely’s death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of [person]”. 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 Wikipedia’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 Wikipedia’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 [person]" instead of "Murder of [victim]". The ME determined the cause of Neely’s death was homicide, therefore the title should be the “Killing of [person]”. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia is therefore clearly implying Penny is a 'killer', which has BLP issues. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Title should be "Death of Jordan Neely", not "Killing of Jordan Neely" which wrongly assumes guilt.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

. 143.44.196.249 (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

See above discussion Bremps... 23:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jury decision.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A jury found Daniel penny not guilty of homicide, even criminally negligent homicide. I understand the issues and reasons why some feel to word it as the killing and lost his cause of death as homicide but those are proven false in a court of law. Jordan Neely was not murdered, his death was tragic, but we all need to agree that the court of law should set the precedents in articles rather than deciding on our own. Chyarbrough34 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See the the above discussion on this topic. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Expert witness testified that Daniel Penny’s chokehold of Jordan Neely isn’t what killed the homeless man — he died from the “combined effects” of synthetic marijuana, schizophrenia and other factors. 2600:1700:3B20:3840:8131:9BCE:3C80:12AB (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article, under the section about the trial. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And yet the title of the article still says Neely was “killed” despite numerous reliable sources reporting an expert testified that he wasn’t. Why? Jwa05002 (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Because we have other realiable sources saying it was a killing and also Wikipedia:KILLINGOF. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is already the subject of a move discussion - one you've participated in. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The man was not homeless. The day he died, he still had 12 additional months of the 15 months of stable housing the judge gave him. Like The New York Times says:

on Feb. 9 of this year [...] He was to go from court to live at a treatment facility in the Bronx, and stay clean for 15 months. In return, his felony conviction would be reduced. He promised to take his medication and to avoid drugs, and not to leave the facility without permission [...] But just 13 days later, he abandoned the facility.

XavierItzm (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Schizophrenia can't kill you itself, also this expert didn't use an autopsy like the actual examiner right. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Schizophrenia absolutely leads to a higher mortality rate (among people who are diagnosed with it) and is used frequently as a contributing factor to a person’s death according to the NIH.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9077617/

it could easily be argued that Schizophrenia was as much a cause of Neely’s death as anything else (which is why multiple reliables sources have reported it was according to an expert)

Also, the medical expert the prosecution used attributed Neely’s death to the choke hold prior to seeing a toxicology report. She also admitted under oath causes of death are “not perfect science” and medical examiners often disagree.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/daniel-penny-trial-medical-examiner-testifies/

Given that the medical experts (as reported by multiple RS) disagree on the cause of death here, I submit the only fair way to categorize Neely’s death is simply as that. A death. Not a killing. Jwa05002 (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Schizophrenia leads to a higher mortality rate due to specific symptoms, such as suicidal ideation or psychotic episodes, that enable dangerous situations like this one, or others, to more easily occur in the first place. However, any suggestion that it physically contributed to a man's death (as opposed to, y'know, the primary contributing factor, namely the other man that was brutally choking him) is, to the best of my knowledge, arrant nonsense that is unsupported by medical literature.

As an aside, as someone who is diagnosed schizophrenic, I find the weaponization of it that has been done over the course of this ideological flashpoint disturbing, and grossly offensive; regardless of people's opinion on whether vigilante killings are justified or not, I would appreciate misinformation about it not being circulated further, as it is already a deeply misunderstood disorder. LaughingManiac (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You’ll notice, nothing I said was my own opinion, I was simply repeating what doctors and experts have said as reported by reliable sources and scientific studies (which I provided citations too). The only person weaponizing Schizophrenia is you (in an effort to silence discussion you don’t like) Jwa05002 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Your implication wènt beyond that of "doctors and experts", given the comment you were replying to.

The only person weaponizing Schizophrenia is you

Don't you dare.

Not only did I not suggest that you, yourself, were weaponizing the disease (while what you've just said counts directly as a personal attack), but this is also an incredibly tone-deaf thing to say to someone who has just told you that they are diagnosed with schizophrenia and are concerned by how that issue has been talked about.

This is already an offensive thing to claim as a mere PA, but it is doubly so given the context.

You have also made an additional clear aspersion (in an effort to silence discussion you don’t like), which is similarly against the rules. We have standards here. You may not accuse people of things with no evidence.

I will ask you, once, politely, to please retract your personal attack and aspersions. Otherwise, this will be for WP:ANI to judge. LaughingManiac (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

All I’ve done is provide citations of opinions by medical experts and reporting by reliable sources that schizophrenia leads to a higher mortality rate and that it was a contributing factor in Neely’s death.

You provided no sources to refute that. Instead you (unnecessarily) brought up your own schizophrenia diagnosis, and claimed you find it “grossly offensive” that scientists and medical experts have determined that Neely’s schizophrenia was a contributing factor in his death, and that schizophrenia itself can contribute to death.

Again, I will not be bullied into silence by the mere fact that you personally have been diagnosed schizophrenic.

Your “gross offense” is irrelevant to the discussion. These are the opinions of medical experts as reported by RS. Jwa05002 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Very well.

You were clearly warned. LaughingManiac (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. Irrelevantly Invoking your schizophrenia diagnosis and proclaiming your gross offense (at the opinion of scientists and experts) is a bullying tactic meant to silence discussion of the subject. Jwa05002 (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Again please read Wikipedia:KILLINGOF Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024 (2)

185.104.138.25 (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiDionysius (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Toxicology

I believe you forgot to mention Mr. Neely was under the influence of drugs. 174.110.57.240 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You believe incorrectly. It's in the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope. No mention of "drugs" in the actual article. But if you think I'm wrong, please point out where? 12.192.208.206 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"Prosecutors stated that Neely was high on synthetic marijuana" literally in the incident section read the bloody article people shouldn't have to do your job for you. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Akechi The Agent Of Chaos, I’d like to remind you that Wikipedia’s core guidelines emphasize respectful and civil interactions among editors. Insulting or aggressively pushing another user, especially on a talk page, violates several important policies, including: WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:DR and WP:TPG. If this behavior continues, it may result in administrative action, including a block from editing. I encourage you to please focus on productive, respectful discussions in order to contribute positively to the project. Thank You — Bruno 🌹 (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for this behaviour I kinda just get sick of the constant flood of IPs. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the above, and in light of the amount of replies you've left here, I'd like to remind you that BLUDGEONING is usually not viewed positively. And I say this as someone who agrees with your position, as I think is evident at this point.

Once your position has been made clear, you should allow others the chance to discuss.

Additionally, there's really no need to counter every opposing comment, especially those that don't hold much weight, something which other editors will see for themselves. Consensus is generally established through quality of argumentation, after all, not quantity of comments. LaughingManiac (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair I will refrain for countering every comment though most of my replies redirect people to the Wikipedia:KILLINGOF article which is very necessary in this topic. Akechi The Agent Of Chaos (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Confused about verdict

Can someone explain in a logical way how it is possible for the jury to be deadlocked on the top charge of manslaughter but be able to reach unanimous acquittal verdict on a lesser charge of criminally negligent homicide?

NOTE: This is not intended as debate about the verdict. It is a genuine and very obvious question that I think this article must explain for readers who are not legally trained.

If the jury was deadlocked on the top charge, then presumably at least one juror believes guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it would not make sense at all for that same juror to acquit on a lesser charge with a lower burden of proof. And since acquittal also requires unanimous decision, this seems to be an impossible result. What am I missing here?

I think any reader who is not legally trained would be confused by this purely on logical grounds, so it's essential that this article provide some kind of explanation to a very obvious question. 2601:189:8480:A1B0:B53E:EDD8:A10:2A23 (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Spurious See-Also link

Why does the See-Also section contain a link to the completely unrelated 1984 NYC subway shooting when it has nothing to do with this case? It implies that Penny's actions were justified by drawing a specious connection to the shooting, implying that Neely was a threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.9.202 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Neely was a threat. He’d already assaulted 3 women previously on the subway: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/07/us/jordan-neely-subway-nyc-homeless/index.html

he had a warrant out for his arrest (again, for assaulting someone on the subway)

and he was literally screaming threats at people the moment he walked on the subway during this incident Jwa05002 (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OPINION, contrary to WP:NPOV. The source you provided literally says, "A witness told CNN although Neely was acting erratically on the subway, he did not harm anyone nor did they see him armed with a weapon". Bruno 🌹 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Try googling it. Or better yet, check out the Wikipedia article about it. It describes in detail how Neely was threatening people the day of the incident Jwa05002 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

2600:1700:34D7:8C10:6F47:3980:CB8E:DB28 (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)