Talk:US vice president shoots man in hunting accident

I thought it was called "collateral damge" when innocent bystanders get shot at the hands of of U.S. government officials... --vonbergm 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But he wasn't acting as a government official; he was he doing something outside of government activities as a private citizen.

I see, so when a government official acts as a private person when he shoots someone and lands him in intensive care for a week or so we say he "peppered" (or "sprayed") that person. English surely is a difficult language to understand... --vonbergm 07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates

Can someone peg down the date in the line "The incident, which occured yesterday'..."? Is that Saturday in Washignton DC, Sunday UTC, or Friday Pacific Time? ▪ NeoAmsterdam^Talk_Edits 23:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Investigation?

Just a few notes: So far, only the vice-president's side of the story is being told. Since we have not heard from a spokesman for Harry Whittington, is it preliminary to call the occurence "an accident". Also, in wikinews and other news outlets, I noticed that there is no mention of police or other authorites concerning the shooting. Will local law enforcement investigate the particulars (or do we simply "trust" the US vice-president and his representatives)? Lasso 01:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, I think. I'll change the headline at least. Neutralizer 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good point. Of about all the media reports accidently (presumeably you can find some fringe blogs thinking otherwise). But there is absolutely nothing that backs up the suspicion about foul play, which the quotes implies. 83.88.250.31 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement as accident is likely based on nature of injury, however repeating that here simply because most restate it may not meet NPOV here, for though it is likely it is not an absolute fact. Implications differ, but it should be settled; perhaps fully alter the title to something like: "Man shot while hunting with US VP Dick Cheney," and providing all details of the hunt, the injury, etc. in the article. A statement from Lea Anne McBride, Cheney's spokeswoman, might be appropriate to explain the delay in announcement. I will add it now as it is present in the MSNBC article and change the title to settle this matter by avoiding any implication regarding it. Opalus 05:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I like your title better than mine. Might want to work in that he was actually shot by cheney too, though you can get that out of reading the spot. 204.64.80.242 14:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Investigation?

Confirmed reports of external law enforcement now investigating. Seems most of the story is moving toward when and how the incident was reported. Lasso 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Context...

For those of us not familiar with quail hunting, it would be interesting if somebody could provide context about how a quail hunt is usually conducted - the typical terrain, weapons used, how hunters avoid shooting each other, and so on. --136.186.1.116 02:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)(User:Robert Merkel at the English Wikipedia)

re: Context...

Kenedy County is best described as flat, grassy (and marshy?) plains. Quail hunters usually use shotguns. I'm no expert, but this is the general situation: Quail hunting generally involves walking and searching for groups ("coveys") of quail. You usually separate a little from your fellow hunters, but keep them within eyeshot. The hope is that by separating and walking, you will be more likely to get quails to move (either by the quail taking flight or by running). When the quail moves, you shoot them. To keep from shooting your fellow hunters, you would often wear bright orange, not shoot unless you see your exact target, and know where everyone in your party is located. Lasso 06:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Quail are fleet birds on the wing. When flushed (am I talking stupid?), using a shotgun, the best bet is to fire quickly. (hunt alone) -Edbrown05 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you want to fire fast, and there's not much time to think. Lasso 09:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

title

It seems like the title should reflect who fired the shot. After all, that is the center of the article. --vonbergm 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion that assumes the awareness that US VP refers to Dick Cheney, perhaps "Man in US VP's hunting party shot by Dick Cheney"? I will change the title to it for greater information content. Opalus 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems okay, it just should say that Cheney did the shooting since thats the amusing bit. Nyarlathotep 00:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not an NPOV title, nor is there reasoning for it that would make sense for it to be changed this late in publishing stage. Besides, the title as is states "Dick Cheney shoots man...", I think it's established. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

For Mrmiscellanious who reverted my change, the content of the two titles is precisely the same, only information content has been increased. What is NPOV in my suggestion that is not in the title to which you reverted the article? Does my suggestion not simply provide the information that Cheney is the US VP, is that NPOV? As to change, it is closer to what my first change, supported by another above, was that was itself retained for an appreciable amount of time prior to this new minor conflict. Opalus 00:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Written before MrM's comment above: MrM's right that its best to say accedent. Titles such as "Dick Cheney accidentally shoots another hunting party member" (or similar) might make everyone happy. No biggie. Nyarlathotep 00:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Opalus, Its not always best to add bits like "US VP", but its rarely an objective decision, and at least one good contributor has left due to fights about such things. Nyarlathotep 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Opalus, cool your jets. "US VP" is confusing, to be the most frank. Leaving out "accidentally" is POV. That's why it was reverted; this has unfurled to something more than a "minor conflict" and you have instead tried to start an edit war. Stop. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I protest and deny your accusation of attempting to start an edit war and your singular implied threat but will make no further response excepting this: let the careful user review the actual histories of edits rather than these recent comments here and draw a conclusion from it and calmer comments made before instead. Opalus 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, MrM, I think you lost the talk page! Fuzhead, thanks for your suggestion of "fellow", definitely a good word to have floating around, but I kinda prefer Dick Cheney to U.S. Vice President, not serious, no expressable basis for preference, just a vague opinion. As you like. Nyarlathotep 00:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"minor heart attack"

Various news outlets are reporting that the victim suffered a "minor heart attack" (that is related to the gun-shot wounds?). The flow of information about the incident still seems extremely slow, so it might be a good idea to wait for a couple of hours before putting this out. In any case, at this stage this is probably better reported in a new article. --vonbergm 19:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)