User talk:Degiovanni

173.70.28.150 (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC) I do not want to edit war. I have expressed my opinion in response to your message. Without responding, you reverted my edit.

I will state again that is not accurate to place the FE data in that list, among other figures which are measuring different things. 20,000 people are viewing that page every day. When they view your figure instead of the accurate one, they come away thinking the problem is 80% worse than it actually is. That is legitimately dangerous. You are misrepresenting data at best.

I would encourage you to add your data in the notes section. It is important information. It should not replace the real figure. 173.70.28.150 (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post data for Police Killings ONLY lists "Shot and Killed", and is sourced ONLY from reporting agencies.
The data used by the Washington Post in their "Fatal Force" database ONLY lists "people have been shot and killed by police." Their database does not include vehicular homicides, asphyxiation, beatings, stabbings, tasered to death, smoke inhalation (e.g. smoke grenades,) or any other cause of death. For example, the recent death of George Floyd, with MASSIVE national implications, will not be included in their database unless they update their standards.

The database administered by Fatal Encounters Dot Org is reputable, fact checked by multiple sources, completely transparent, and has links to every police report or local news story covering each incident.

Please review here: https://fatalencounters.org/spreadsheets/

Per the request of an anonymous editor, I have eliminated all possible suicides, including "suicide by police" from the final numbers I have edited.

173.70.28.150 (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC) The response you have made uses data that the FE database explicitly states is "not for analysis." I was placing it back to the source it was before. I am aware with the problems with the WaPo source. Despite the ~400 "INTERNAL USE ONLY: NOT FOR ANALYSIS" entries that say 'suicide,' about 1100 such entries are "pending investigation." I believe that FE's method of measuring police violence is still not proper for this article.

I do not want to edit war, as I said before. For the purposes of the data which is both (a) most accurate and (b) most appropriate for the page, I think we can reach a consensus on using the figure of 1099 from Mapping Police Violence https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

Their data is in large part based on FE's database, but they also survey other databases. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/aboutthedata

About the MPV database: " This information has been meticulously sourced from the three largest, most comprehensive and impartial crowdsourced databases on police killings in the country: FatalEncounters.org, the U.S. Police Shootings Database and KilledbyPolice.net. We've also done extensive original research to further improve the quality and completeness of the data; searching social media, obituaries, criminal records databases, police reports and other sources to identify the race of 90 percent of all victims in the database. "

I am grateful for your willingness to compromise in part with the suicide metric. It shows a commitment to academic accuracy. I hope you can continue to treat my concerns with the same respect you showed in that case, as I will continue to do with yours. 173.70.28.150 (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Not satisfied, and believe you are intentionally trying to keep the numbers artificially low
You've stated that you are well aware of the issues involving the Washington Post numbers, and yet, without hesitation, you continued to try and post them, knowing full well that more accurate, better sourced, and complete data exists. When called out, you found another source that had the lowest number possible. It appears you have a personal goal to keep the numbers as low as possible while appearing "impartial." Police Violence is woefully under-reported, and it is because of the good work of Fatal Encounters Dot Org that we finally have some semblance of transparency in this matter.

"Mapping Police Violence" is not a transparent database, and one of their stated goals is to collect as much additional information as possible to "identify the race of over 90%" of their statistics. Their annual reports are heavily steeped in race statistics, and less about the specific nature of each crime. We cannot know for certain why they omit certain entries, as they are not transparent. Why then, would you consider them a better source of data when they are an editorial aggregator of data?

There are three open-source databases that are 100% transparent. Two of them ONLY focus on shootings, specifically - "US Police Shootings Database," and "Killed by Police." "Fatal Encounter Dot Org" is the most comprehensive, and the only one to list all causes of death.

Your arguments against Fatal Encounters Dot Org, despite the fact that they are the most significant originator of data for "Mapping Police Violence", and being a source for the Washington Post as well as other news outlets, do not seem coherent. It seems you are trying desperately to find anything wrong with Fatal Encounters to justify using a smaller data set. I do not find any integrity in your pursuit of academic accuracy.

Please verify your stance on your comments: "that is not accurate to place the FE data in that list, among other figures which are measuring different things" after you resorted to using Washington Post data several times knowing they omitted everything but police shootings.

"You are misrepresenting data at best." after you continue to use data that you admit that there are "problems with the WaPo source"

"The response you have made uses data that the FE database explicitly states is "not for analysis."" (????) -there is a column in the Fatal Encounters database that is labeled "Dispositions/Exclusions INTERNAL USE, NOT FOR ANALYSIS" and labels outcomes involving police, e.g. "Unreported", "Justified", "Cleared", "Civil Suit", etc... Are you confused by this column, or are you purposefully obfuscating the facts to create false credibility with other Wikipedia Editors?

"I hope you can continue to treat my concerns with the same respect you showed in that case, as I will continue to do with yours." (????) -What respect? You've flat-out called Fatal Encounters Dot Org not reputable, have declared them not trustworthy enough to be used for Wikipedia's purposes, and now have decided to use an aggregator that is not transparent and omits data from the very source you yourself claim is not reputable!!!!!

I am highly suspicious of your aim and goal. The only common action you have taken is to find the lowest number possible to post to Wikipedia, and accused me of trying to manipulate the data. I feel you are guilty of that claim. I have created a Wikipedia account for the creator of Fatal Encounters, and have spoken with him directly. I hope he finds the time to clear up any points of contention you may have with his work, and maybe he can come up with the most comprehensive data possible to allow Wikipedia to serve as the most accurate source of information for the masses. Will you trust his "commitment to academic accuracy?"