Talk:Shooting of Daniel Shaver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

with a blood-alcohol level over three times the legal driving limit

This parenthetical needs to be removed as undue and irrelevant. First off, it leaves out important language from the source it is quoting. The source actually says the BAC "would have been more than three times the legal limit to drive." Which brings me to my second point. This is an interaction between an innocent hotel patron and police. By leaving out those key words and including the irrelevant information in the the parenthetical the article is insinuating that Shaver had done something wrong. I'm sure his BAC was over the legal limit to fly an airplane or operate a forklift, as well as many other activities. In short, keeping a reference to an activity that he was not involved with that WOULD HAVE been illegal had he done so, juxtaposed with him losing his life in an unjustified police shooting (as supported by the grand jury indictment) is clearly an attempt to bring in irrelevant criticism that gives undue weight to a potential crime the victim was never accused of committing. Leaving the reference in also violates NPOV as it is clearly trying to bolster the "pro" police narrative that Shaver was somehow complicit in his own death because he had a few drinks in his hotel room with friends, which would have been illegal had he been driving, which he was not. 208.125.143.178 (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When reporting on fatal incidents where alcohol was involved, it's standard practice for the media to cite the local alcohol-driving limit as a kind of "gold standard" or context for the deceased person's level of intoxication – regardless of whether the deceased was actually driving a vehicle or not, regardless of whose "fault" it may have been. (Cf. this news article about the drowning death of singer Dolores O'Riordan.) The coroner's report noted "elevated levels of ethanol... of 0.29g%", which would probably be meaningless to the average reader. The claim that Shaver's intoxication may have impaired his judgement and/or his ability to follow police instructions is attributed here to the police, whether or not you agree with them on that point. Muzilon (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of it. It seems a desperate attempt to criticize the victim considering the cop got away with it. In that context it seems they try to make Daniel Shaver responsable for his own death when the footage proves Philip Brailsford malpractice, lack of training and immaturity. 83.34.117.121 (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia merely
summarizes what has been stated in reliable sources. However, I've shifted the alcohol-driving sentence to an endnote so it does not appear in the main body of the article. Muzilon (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

We are talking about a killing.

The process stated by Wikipedia follows: There is a death > homicide > there is not conviction > Killing of Daniel Shaver. To be called "shooting" the victim is supossed to be alive or at least survived. Therefore the title is wrong and it should be THE KILLING OF DANIEL SHAVER. A criminal is fatally shot, a terrorist is fatally shot, Daniel Shaver was murdered, however, following Wikipeadia strict rules, he was killed, which is not far from the truth at all. 83.34.117.121 (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, can you please provide the link about the process you are claiming? I vaguely recall an RFC (maybe?) but don't have it handy. S0091 (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(violence_and_deaths)
Check the flowchart 83.34.117.121 (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 August 2022

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Daniel Shaver → Killing of Daniel Shaver – Naming_conventions_(violence_and_deaths). The victim did not survive and there is not conviction, therefore, it becomes a killing. S0091 (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC) 83.34.117.121 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP, whatever your opinion, this does not give you a basis on which you are permitted to
edit war, as you have been doing [1][2][3][4]. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It gives me all the basis since i mentioned wikipedia rules about violence and deaths since the very begining, actually it was one of you who suggested it. What are these rules for then? If you can choose not to follow, i can take the same choice, but being right since i am literally quoting Wikipedia rules for this matter. 83.34.117.121 (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are never permitted to edit war in content disputes. Are we clear on that? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just change the title and the first phrase already ;) 83.34.117.121 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I believe I have fixed your move request. It now needs to go through the discussion and consensus process. As @Hammersoft has emphasized, let the discussion take place and do NOT edit war. S0091 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it 83.34.117.121 (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move The IP says we should follow

COMMONNAME. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

News might be looking after unknow interests. Since when they call things by their real neames? specially in the USA... Those searches could be made by people who know the article as it happens to me when i want to go to a specific wikipedia website i already know.
I personally would never trust a google list dominated by News websites where most of them mention the events as "shooting" sinking deep into political correctness. It is clear they protect the image of Mesa Police Department. They even hid for a year the fact that Philip Brailsford was reinstated and earning a pension. Not expelled but in some sort of "medical" leave. We all know it was murder, killing is in between, it definetely was not "shooting". However majority dictates :) 83.34.117.121 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So that I understand; you want us to follow a portion of the flowchart at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)#Flowchart, but not all of it (wanting us to ignore the instructions at the top of the flowchart) and you want us to ignore the policy that governs this issue because you don't trust Google? Because you believe all these news sources suffer from political correctness? With respect, this is a non-starter. You have no evidence to support that. We go by policy here, not suppositions based on zero evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will put it in a different way. If there is a unarmed man begging for his life right in front of you following confusing orders and you shoot him dead, what is it? what do you become? Let's see the the real press thinks about it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/daniel-shaver-killing/594091/
"He Killed an Unarmed Man, Then Claimed Disability"
https://www.knoe.com/content/news/Officer-who-killed-unarmed-sobbing-man-to-get-31000-a-year-pension-512859021.html
"Officer who killed unarmed, sobbing man to get $31,000 a year pension"
https://eu.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2021/06/12/parents-of-texas-man-daniel-shaver-settle-with-mesa-his-widow-continues-lawsuit/7515697002/
"Shaver's widow, Laney Sweet, filed her lawsuit in 2017 seeking $75 million in damages, alleging Shaver had not provoked the killing and the event could have been avoided if officers had investigated more"
There are tons of links and sources referring to it as a killing. I pasted 3 with quotes however, i could keep going all day. They simply are not in the first page of google search, but once you find the first, they all come together. 83.34.117.121 (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is 153 vs 181, clearly there is not a common name. There is majority, but those numbers show a wide discrepancy or we wouldn't be writing here. There are numberless facts that could lead people to write or search this event as shooting, but probably it has more to do with media control and personal sensibility than with what really happened. A Kill. The news would never refer to it as a killing when the killer/murderer is a public servant who is supposed to protect civilians while representing a government institution, the Police Department. 83.34.117.121 (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Shooting" is about twice as common as "Death". You're wanting us to change it to "Killing". "Shooting" is more than three times as common as "Killing". Again, this is a non-starter. There's no justification for the move except vague assertions of "political correctness" and "media control", which you've not provided any evidence of. Without providing evidence of this, there's really no need to continue this discussion. Additional vague assertions of the malfeasance on the part of the press isn't going to carry this discussion. I'm sorry you feel it should be "killing", but only a pretty small minority of the press agrees with you.
WP:COMMONNAME policy applies. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes i did prive it, you did not read it. 83.34.117.121 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Provide* 83.34.117.121 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the move per
    WP:DEATHS. On Hammersoft's evidence: Google tests are fickle, and I think your addition of "-wikipedia" to the search terms has amplified the weirdness. Since Google News does not return Wikipedia pages, I think we can dispense with the limiter. I get:
    • Murder: 8
    • Killing: 76
    • Death:141
    • Shooting:160
    To me, there's not evidence of a COMMONNAME, with "shooting" accounting for only 42% of the results. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The policy directs us to exclude "Wikipedia", which is precisely what I did. Not excluding the term "Wikipedia" tends to pollute the results. That's why policy directs us to exclude it. Also, for reference, there was an requested move requesting the article be moved from "Death" to "Shooting" which resulted in consensus to move it to shooting. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hammersoft. Which policy are you referring to? Also, I think including the limiter is doing the polluting. As a test, I tried ["shooting of Daniel Shaver"] (160 hits) vs. ["shooting of Daniel Shaver" -orbital] (224 hits). Adding unnecessary terms adds unpredictability to the results. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME --Hammersoft (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That's referring to a direct Google search, which would otherwise include Wikipedia results. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GOOGLE TRENDS show similar results worldwide for both searches 1-Killing of Daniel Shaver 2-Shooting of Daniel Shaver for a period of time of 5 years as a web search. The average number of searches would be 6 for Killing and 7 for Shooting which is almost 50/50.
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/trends_nrtr/3045_RC01/embed_loader.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
trends.embed.renderExploreWidget("TIMESERIES", {"comparisonItem":[{"keyword":"killing of Daniel Shaver","geo":"","time":"today 5-y"},{"keyword":"shooting of daniel shaver","geo":"","time":"today 5-y"}],"category":0,"property":""}, {"exploreQuery":"date=today%205-y&q=killing%20of%20Daniel%20Shaver,shooting%20of%20daniel%20shaver","guestPath":"https://trends.google.com:443/trends/embed/"});
</script> 83.34.117.121 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On youtube, Killing actually has more searches, ratio 6 to 5 as average. And even when you seach "News" killing shows more results in the last 5 years with an average of 7(killing) to 6(shooting).
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&gprop=news&q=killing%20of%20Daniel%20Shaver,shooting%20of%20daniel%20shaver 83.34.117.121 (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://heavy.com/news/2016/03/philip-mitch-brailsford-mesa-police-officer-daniel-shaver-father-wife-photos-murder-gun-court-video/
Former Mesa, Arizona, police officer Philip Brailsford was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter on December 8, 2017, in the shooting of 26-year-old Daniel Shaver, of Texas, who was killed at a motel in January 2016. Body camera footage of the shooting has been released. You can watch the video and read about the latest updates in the case here. You can read the original report below:
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/philip-brailsford-how-police-state-training-turned-a-missionary-into-a-cold-blooded-killer/
"Philip Brailsford: How the Police State Made a Mormon Missionary a Cold-Blooded Killer"
https://www.tmz.com/2017/12/13/daniel-shaver-shooting-sergeant-discipline-abusive-behavior/
"Daniel Shaver Killing Sergeant In Command Had Prior Discipline For Abusive Behavior"
I just made the same search on Bing and Duck Duck and the words Killing, Kill, Killer are everywhere. 83.34.117.121 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia goes by what has been published in
reliable sources, irrespective of what the "original search query" may have been. By way of comparison, a search of Newspapers.com gives 28 hits for "Shooting" vs 10 hits for Killing. Muzilon (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Support move “Killing” should be used as there was a death and there was even a homicide trial, but not a conviction. “Shooting” is normally used for non-fatal events. TheXuitts (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the case.
Shooting of Sean Bell, etc. etc. etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Michael Brown specifically I remember is not able to be changed by users. For the others, more recently the standard has normally been that when there is a death, it is called “killing”. TheXuitts (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the flow chart states that if there is a death it is to be called “killing”. TheXuitts (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, WP:DEATHS also states that WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence over the flowchart. (This has obviously been the case with Shooting of Michael Brown and the other cases that Hammersoft listed above.) So, this Move discussion should focus on whether a COMMONNAME exists for this incident before we resort to the flow chart. Muzilon (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that of the examples listed by
WP:DEATHS was codified in December 2020, and there is a good chance that many are inaccurately titled. See this related discussion[10] from earlier this year. 162 etc. (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:SHOOTINGS is an essay not a policy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand that but it still a good essay. cookie monster 755 01:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose: I personally strongly dislike the titling scheme advocated by the essay at
    WP:DEATHS, a.k.a. WP:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). People often do not seem to realize that is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy. I think "Killing of X", as a topic identifier, has undesirable connotations of intent and premeditation. I have voiced that opinion repeatedly, but often found myself on the losing side of such discussions, so I mostly stopped saying it. I'm only saying it here because in this case I see that others are voicing their opinion against it too. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.

Daniel Shaver's race

Why is it "vandalism" to note that Daniel Shaver was White, but not vandalism to state that George Floyd was African American? 47.137.179.4 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that reliable sources have mentioned Shaver's ethnicity only in the context of saying that – unlike similar police shootings/killings of African-Americans – there was no suggestion of racial profiling in this case because Shaver and Brailsford were both white.[13][14][15]. If those reactions can be incorporated into this article in an
WP:NPOV manner, fine by me. Muzilon (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver&oldid=1210302010"