Talk:Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt

"Accidental Shooting"

I do not think it is appropriate to use the term "accidental shooting" or "mistakenly fired" when it was very clearly intentional shooting. An "accidental shooting" might be where someone fires a weapon, but did not intend to. The same goes with "mistakenly fired". I do not think there is any source that suggests the firing of the weapons was mistaken. WHO they thought they were shooting was a mistake. But this was no accident and they weren't mistakenly fired weapons. More accurate would be "attempted assassination", but I'd settle for something at least true and neutral. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I made the simple and very neutral change to "Civilian shooting," along with consistent edits in the body of that section. (Plus a few corrections, such as from "Doner" to "Dorner.") 74.67.54.145 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to add: were they just shooting into an occupied vehicle with no idea who was in it or did they mistake 2 women for 1 300 pound bald man?

It would be interesting, but I think against the grain of Wikipedia article guidelines. :) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Should I delete this now that it's been changed?Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's helpful and illuminating to see discussion history remain within the Talk section, but that's just me for all I know. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Promontoriumispromontorium, such deletions are specifically against Wikipedia policy. See WP:TALKO. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Unredacted manifesto

The media have been releasing heavily censored versions of Dorner's manifesto, which may or may not protect them legally (although I doubt it makes much of a difference) but it makes it difficult to google the names to figure out what happened in the incidents he's upset about. I was able to find an uncensored copy here. 71.215.66.32 (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

http://pastebin.com/TAzPRfPy is a more readable version. 71.215.66.32 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Who can say what is uncensored if the original page was taken down? The "more readable" version is labled as "scrubbed by the media" and identical to the "uncensored" one. Until consensus exists on what are the actual words of the accused perpetrator, the reference should be left out of the article IMHO. 70.36.212.48 (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well it's the same as the censored versions, except with the names of his co-workers he's complaining about, many of whom are googlable to confirm the incidents he refers to. Who would release a version with made-up names? I don't know whether it should go in the article or not, but it's got to be useful for people doing research on background, and for finding news report sources that *should* go in the article. 71.215.66.32 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. On this point, his alleged conduct is immaterial. His allegations are specific and clearly relevant to the event; in fact, they constitute his (alleged) motive. Redacted versions of the document are markedly less clear and illuminating than what thus far consistently appears on various sites as an unedited version. It is admittedly unverifiable at this juncture, but *the edited/redacted version isn't from an original source, either*. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Most media outlets are "leaving out" a great deal more than that, per the pastebin link above. Your very selective details are patently political, which doesn't serve the objective of Wikipedia. Best solution is to simply have the pastebin link included in the article. Note that in addition to many other details, that link includes those you have chosen to highlight. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I agree I deleted my comment.--Ron John (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia people can be so mature relative to the Internet norm it's at times astonishing. :D 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

-- for you guys/gals at Wikipedia to not mention Chris Dorner's decisively left wing views is not surprising. He is a Left-Wing Extremist/Terrorist. He should be identified in the opening paragraph of the article as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.216.234 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner's personal war against law enforcement, particularly the LAPD, is essentially a war on a local government, and his threats to all other law enforcement constitute, essentially, a war on government in totality. Note that "right wing" terrorist Timothy McVeigh has a section on his wikipedia article that identifies his religious and political beliefs. So should there not be a section on Dorner's article that identifies him as a left wing extremist agnostic (perhaps atheist) ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.216.234 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Quote from the manifesto include ' I’m not a fucking Christian '. He notes his support of most of President Obama's domestic policies as well. Praises Michelle Obama, and accuses Mitt Romney of being a sore loser.

er, this is wikipedia folks. You don't expect the FACTS about an Obama-supporting, left-wing spree killer to actually make into the article, do you? 72.37.249.60 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have strong reason to think that the manifesto referenced is actually a badly edited copy of the one put up by Dorner; there's a few severely out-of-character points, such as the sudden shout of support for the Anonymous movement. PaseteBin is a haven for anonymously posting these sorts of things on the parts of e-activists. I have strong suspicion this was made by such an activist who wished to put words conforming to their ideology in Dorner's mouth -- some passages just read very differently and out-of-place. 86.21.137.79 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of concern about the manifesto There appear to be at least THREE versions floating online from mainstream media sources one with redacted names one with names and the one referenced in this wiki article with names AND a lot of left wing stuff about guns etc We need to get 100% confirmation on this currently referenced manifesto that includes gun control references etc I have seen a lot online that CLAIMS this version is fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.196.253 (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A section called "Manifesto versions" (or something like that) should be added to the article, since many are floating around and I'm personally skeptical about the one with all the pop culture references.. from what I understand it was done by /b/ and news sources are citing it as accurate. The reason I find the longer version to be less credible is that it contains much more spelling mistakes, and seems to change style.Nonfaridere (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. A section titled "Manifesto variations" -- with coverage of what this means and a brief description of the variations -- would be most welcome. I, for one, blindly followed a link at Wikipedia to the supposedly "unredacted" version only to later find sources that claim the version in question is a deliberate fake due to containing spuriously added material. This is definitely part of the story, and it can be told without finger-pointing, just describing it as a factual by-product of the event. 70.36.137.192 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate characterization: "In the manifesto he blames racism for his predicament."

He consistently and explicitly blames whistleblower retaliation for his predicament. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

OWS Reaction

From an earlier revision of the article, as of now removed by an IP user:

"Revolutionary groups like Occupied Wall Street supported Dorner’s actions and called him a hero.Christopher Jordan Dorner Is A True Patriot Hero: LAPD Getting Everything It Deserves."

As the article is clearly marked as "not an official statement" on the website, I share the opinion of the IP user that this should not be included, but I'd like to place it here for debate. --MCaecilius (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Are his supporters, or even whom he supports unless they are linked to his motives (retaliation for alleged whistleblower retaliation), remotely germane to the topic of the article? What's to discuss? 74.67.54.145 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur that this statement does not belong, as the linked OWS post is clearly labeled as anonymous user content on their website and obviously in no way is an official statement from OWS, which, to the original user who inserted that quote, stands for "Occupy" Wall Street, not "Occupied." Bosterson (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Referenced citations do not include specified details re. vehicle.

Dorner's Nissan Titan is silver and the newspaper truck is a blue Toyota Tacoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.178.237 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither source 15 nor 16 include the following descriptions: "The vehicle did not have its lights on in the dark, and had tinted windows, obstructing officers' ability to see into the vehicle, which may have raised their suspicion." I removed that statement, but include it here in the event there is a neutral reference for it and it is deemed applicable information. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw the vehicle. You can see the vehicle. It had tinted windows http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/07/16888732-women-shot-by-cops-were-just-delivering-papers#comments

A *reference/citation* providing that information is precisely the point. Alas, insofar as whether I would agree the source you provide shows tinted windows, for me that URL just hangs. Maybe too much traffic, who knows. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it opened. It shows only the rear window as tinted. If the side window is closed, then it isn't tinted. So, "partially tinted windows"? Or perhaps we can agree that it's a somewhat trivial detail? What's that detail's function, to make the presumption the vehicle's driver was Christopher Jordan Dorner more "reasonable" before opening fire on its occupants? 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The tint to me? Did they mistake the two women for 1 300 pound bald Dorner or were they unable to see what they were shooting at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.132.14.34 (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In California, tinted windshields or side windows are illegal, and it would be very unusual fr a newspaper delivery truck at night to not have both headlights and dome light on. I would need to see a reliable source for any claim to the contrary. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs a better name

The current name, 2013 Southern California shootings, is accurate to this series of events, but also includes in its name all the other 2013 shootings in socal, which there will be a lot of. can we wedge in a word or two addressing how its police officer related? i dont have any bright ideas, but i think this name is way too generic. We can probably wait to see if the media comes up with a name, aside from the suspect himself.(User:Mercurywoodrose)99.157.205.137 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Change article name to Christopher Jordan Dorner? (BTW I'd be signed in but the "forgot my credentials e-mail" never arrived in my inbox.) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. This is an article about the killing spree, not about the individual named Dorner. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I thought perhaps his related notoriety made that title acceptable, but maybe not. Either way, I understand the suggestion the title is too vague. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I direct your attention to WP:PERP, which states the following:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

We can't name the article after Dorner, because to do so would imply his guilt. We have no way of knowing whether it is actually Dorner who is committing these crimes. For all we know, someone killed him two weeks ago and used his rage and frustration at being fired as an excuse to go on a killing spree targeting the LAPD. Yes, that sounds like bad fiction (I made it up just now), but it highlights my point: we can't prove that Dorner is doing this - not until he stands trial - so we can't name the article after him. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Understood. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If Dorner is dead, as you suggest in your scenario, and for all we know he may be, then WP:PERP does not apply because as your own quote makes clear, WP:PERP only applies to a living person. 58.165.123.47 (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree. What happens god forbid.. If he kills anyone in another state or country?--Ron John (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Then we address the issue if and when it happens. In the meantime, we can't go inventing names for it because that is original research.

Remember, Wikipedia is not news. There is no hurry to add information to the article simply because it has become available. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because something has been reported, it is automatically notable enough for inclusion. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No one asked you--Ron John (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I suppose nobody asked you, either.

You have asked what we should do in the event that the suspect crosses a state or national border and kills someone there. Allow me to respond to your question with a question of my own: has the suspect crossed a state or national border and killed someone there? If the answer is no, then why are we even discussing it? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pay attention to exactly to what I responded to! It was in reponse to your Wikipedia is not News. No one asked you for all that!--Ron John (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I put that there for a reason: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news bulletin. There is no hurry to add content to a page simply because it has been reported. A lot of that content might not even be relevent to the actual article.

For instance, an early version of this article had details of where Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence went to school and what they did for work. Any connection to the suspect was added as an afterthought. None of that content actually had anything to do with the article, which is the problem editors fall into when they rush to add content to a page.

What I'm trying to say is that you should avoid falling into the trap of recentism. Just because something has happened, that doesn't automatically mean that it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

We will likely have an article on the person, in addition to an article on this series of killings. I should point out the person is highly notable now, despite not having been convicted, and a case could be made for creating an article for him now, as long as the article is entirely neutral about what he has not demonstrably done. As for my idea for renaming, i think the best thing is to watch the news media, and if any sort of consensus shakes down as to a name for this, we can use it. I also recognize that we often use a name for such events that is really not used in media, like the tsunami in japan, where we chose precision over common usage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read some of the edits that have been made? There are people who are trying to turn the suspect into a folk hero. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a terrible name. I suggest Christopher Dorner Shootings. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: 2013 Police Assassinations

I suggest 2013 Police Assassinations. It's more descriptive as it's not certain what the article's title is referring to. An uptick in police shootings in SoCal, or what? It's too vague. Elryacko (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

meh... Police officers weren't the only victims.--Ron John (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Of the three killed ("assassinated") so far, only one was a police officer. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Name of article is absurd. There were and are more than just this "set" of killings and it is only February. Whistleblower Cop Rampage Killings is as descriptive. Wait for and then use whatever name sticks, and if no name does stick, just merge into article on Dorner. 2013 Southern California Police Assassinations almost works, but the young lady killed was not police. 2013 Rogue cop Vendetta works better, as he is doing more than killing. He is terrifying law enforcement throughout SoCal. Madame L'Auteur (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The name of the article is absurd. It needs to be changed or the article needs to be merged with the existing article on Christopher Dorner. See my comments below. 58.165.123.47 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

What if it were titled LAPD Killer or LAPD Revenge Killings or LAPD Revenge Killer or something to that effect? Nearly everyone involved were in the LAPD or were related to the LAPD. The primary threat is against the LAPD. You could tack on 2013 for more specificity. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Another possibility, Christopher Jordan Dorner shootings. In this story in the media, Dorner's name seems to be mentioned more than LAPD. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 shootings targeting the Los Angeles Police Department, my best effort.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

However he also targeted two people outside of the LAPD, which would be a problem with that title. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Los Angeles Police Department-related targeted shootings, this is tough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Current article title needs to be changed

The current article title of 2013 Southern California shootings has got to be a contender to win some sort of award for the most vague, mealy mouthed Wikipedia article title ever. Shootings occur in Southern California by the hour if not the minute. It's only 10 Feb 2013: there will be hundreds if not thousands more shootings between now and the end of 2013 in Southern California. Will all shootings in 2013 in Southern California henceforth be included in this article? In that case, then what about shootings in 2013 in Northern California; shootings in 2012 in Southern California and in all previous years; shootings in the rest of the fifty states of the USA, broken down region by region? No one looking for details about the alleged conduct of Christopher Dorner is going to search for 2013 Southern California shootings unless they already know the name of the article. An encyclopaedic article title needs to be precise, specific, and easily searchable and found. This applies to the Wikipedia article on Christopher Dorner by naming the article after the subject. In my view, this article needs to be merged, therefore, with that on Christopher Dorner. 58.165.123.47 (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is this. This is an article about Dorner's killing spree, it is not an article about the life and biography of Dorner. That is why this article cannot be named "Christopher Dorner". I agree that this title needs fixing. But the new title has to focus on the murders/killing spree/shootings, not on the name of the perpetrator. Any suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Joseph A. Spadaro: article title needs changed; the new title should not be Christopher Dorner. It appears, at this point in time, to be a bonafide shooting spree, where the suspect/perpetrator has not been located, so it is very likely a still unfolding event, and none of us know what form its end will take. So anyone with a good proposal for a better (possibly interim) article name, start a new Talk page section and propose it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Title suggestion: Christopher Dorner shootings -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Impossible for BLP reasons. He is still just a suspect, and has not been convicted of anything. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah... makes sense. But could be add a modifier (e.g. "associated", "related")? I don't love this, but Christopher Dorner related shootings seems better than the current title. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Title suggestion: Christopher Dorner manifesto and connected shootings 178.3.166.254 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Same BLP problem as above. Who said that this is his manifesto? And who said that he is doing the shooting? That's a big BLP problem. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Title suggestion: 2013 Manhunt for Christopher Dorner The difficulty with the title is connected to how the story has grown--and, in turn, how the focus of the story has shifted. (The following sentences omit some chronology for simplicity's sake.) Initially, the story was a shooting in Irvine with two fatalities. It was significant news in Orange County and Southern California in general, but not yet a nationally-notable event. Then, the LAPD name Dorner as a suspect in connection with the shootings, with all the attendant detail of his ex-LAPD past, Naval experience, etc. At that point, the focus of the story tends to shift from the initial shooting to Dorner himself and the related pursuit. The subsequent shootings of and by police officers in connection with this manhunt further distance the story from the initial shootings.

To that end, something along the lines of 2013 Manhunt for Christopher Dorner seems accurate and not an explicit BLP issue: there is no disputing the presence of the manhunt itself; referring to the manhunt does not necessarily imply guilt or complicity in the initial shootings. Maybe the term "manhunt" is a bit loaded, or overly dramatic, but I think that gets this article headed in the correct direction. The newsworthiness of the story—and I mean this solely in an editorial, zeitgeist-y sense—is that an ex-cop is being hunted across state and national lines in connection with etc., etc. The shootings were the precipitating event, and later an exacerbating one. The pursuit, however, is lasting, and more noteworthy. 63.146.101.45 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is bad for making up titles that lack reliable source citations

Wikipedia is bad for making up titles. The title should not be exempt from the WP requirement of reliable sources. The title should be the most common title used by reliable sources. We should not be making up names like it is a TV show episode title.

If we are making up names, the current title is not a good choice. 2013 Southern California shootings? How about the many other shootings in Southern California? Something about "LAPD Revenge Killings" (eventual titie) or "Dorner Termination from the LAPD" (currently ok per BLP) is possibly better, especially after the events become clear. These killings are a result of what Dorner believes is wrongful termination of employment. This seems to be the accepted theory (and we can phrase it as such). Auchansa (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested title change to "Christopher Dorner manhunt"

Suggest changing the title to Christopher Dorner manhunt since that is what most of the article is about and the present title isn't very specific to this case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think making that a section in the article is ok. Maybe leave it because the manhunt came as a result of the violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwsu (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hold off on the name change

This is chaos in what is going on as it is I just closed two merge/redirect discussions talking about the same thing asking people to come here and talk about it, now you guys want to have a page move discussion as well? I think we should wait for the merge results below to become final before a choice can be made here as it could impact the title change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No reference to or implication of quantity or frequency

"And had altercations with many students due to his race." The section of the referenced document (Dorner's) describing childhood altercations related to race offers no indication there were "many" such incidents. "Multiple times" is not sufficient for such an inference. I will remove the word "many" for that reason. In evidence, with apologies for the length, here is the entire applicable paragraph:

Journalist, I want you to investigate every location I resided in growing up. Find any incidents where I was ever accused of being a bully. You won't, because it doesn't exist. It's not in my DNA. Never was. I was the only black kid in each of my elementary school classes from first grade to seventh grade in junior high and any instances where I was disciplined for fighting was in response to fellow students provoking common childhood schoolyard fights, or calling me a nigger or other derogatory racial names. I grew up in neighborhoods where blacks make up less than 1%. My first recollection of racism was in the first grade at Norwalk Christian elementary school in Norwalk, CA. A fellow student, Jim Armstrong if I can recall, called me a nigger on the playground. My response was swift and non-lethal. I struck him fast and hard with a punch an kick. He cried and reported it to a teacher. The teacher reported it to the principal. The principal swatted Jim for using a derogatory word toward me. He then for some unknown reason swatted me for striking Jim in response to him calling me a nigger. He stated as good Christians we are to turn the other cheek as Jesus did. Problem is, I'm not a fucking Christian and that old book, made of fiction and limited non-fiction, called the bible, never once stated JIesus was called a nigger. How dare you swat me for standing up for my rights for demanding that I be treated as a equal human being. That day I made a life decision that i will not tolerate racial derogatory terms spoken to me. Unfortunately I was swatted multiple times for the same exact reason up until junior high. Terminating me for telling the truth of a caucasian officer kicking a mentally ill man is disgusting. Don't ever call me a fucking bully. I want all journalist to utilize every source you have that specializes in collections for your reports. With the discovery and evidence available you will see the truth. Unfortunately, I will not be alive to see my name cleared. That's what this is about, my name. A man is nothing without his name. Below is a list of locations where I resided from childhood to adulthood.

(I hope it is appropriate to include the paragraph here; apologies if otherwise.) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't rely on the manifesto as a source. It's not reliable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree.It is very reliable as a source that he believed there was wrongful termination Bamler2 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the detail that Dorner had race-related altercations as a child would need to be omitted altogether. But aren't first-hand accounts reliable, at least as perspective information for the involved parties, if they are reported in news accounts by sources generally regarded as reliable? The only difference is that their version is in most but not all instances redacted and/or partial. If the non-redacted version otherwise matches the version offered by reliable sources, why would the "non-redacted" version not be regarded as a reliable first-person account? Indeed, according to the journalistic sources in question, the "manifesto" being referenced is acknowledged by law enforcement as being Dorner's. Similar points regarding verifiability. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You know, I'll leave my comment there for potential contribution to the debate, but I'll respond to myself with the note that I think you're right. On reflection, it occurs to me that there's no way for us to have reasonable confidence Dorner wrote all or any of that document merely because law enforcement states he did. Law enforcement statements unto themselves reported by reliable sources cannot automatically be regarded as reliable information for citation. (Maybe an exercise in lateral thinking at best, but one might even idly wonder whether the "manifesto" could be a forgery designed to give a select law enforcement body the latitude to summarily execute someone.) In the encyclopedia, such information needs to be based on in-depth retrospective (after events more fully unfold) analyses from those generally reliable sources, not their "real-time" reporting. I yield to your perspective as I understand it. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Neighbors of his described him as [x] person who usually kept to himself.

It was changed from "an admirable" to "a quiet." I changed it back to "admirable" because the article cited does say admirable (specifically, "admired"). And it mentions nothing of "quiet." Don't edit to fit your preconceived narratives; stick to the source information. Doesn't matter whether it sounds odd to you (it does to me, too). From the cited article:

“We were completely shocked,” he said. “This is a good family that appeared to be really nice people. They were really admired in the neighborhood.”

(Currently citation #4.) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That quotation is describing the Dorner family, not necessarily Chris Dorner. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. GiantSnowman 14:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure Chris Dorner is part of the Dorner family.74.79.239.198 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have members of family (unfortunately) who are in far-right hate groups, whereas I am the exact opposite. You can have a "nice" family with a bad member(s), or a "bad" family with a nice member(s). GiantSnowman 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Giant Snowman. You can have a good person coming from a bad family, and you can have a bad person coming from a good family. In any event, that quotation above is describing the family as being "nice and admired", not Chris Dorner himself. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on February 9, 2013

number of injured is 5 ( 2 police officers, 3 civilians )(2 of the civilians injured due to a incident of mistaken idenity) Ommi9 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done:The civilians injured were unrelated incidents, even if caused by the shootings. Ryan Vesey 17:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hard to make the claim that they were "unrelated". They were, in fact, directly related. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

They are indeed directly related. The article currently has as much content about the manhunt and the police shooting of innocent civilians as there is content about the shootings perpetrated by Dorner, so showing the total injuries and adding a separate column for injuries caused by police isn't unreasonable at all. -- 74.1.184.234 (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, "unrelated" was the wrong word choice. The shootings of civilians was a result of the 2013 Southern California shootings, but wasn't part of the shootings. Ryan Vesey 01:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) would you mind clarifying please, Ryan? 174.141.213.41 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Serial killing as opposed to mass shooting

Doesn't this fit the definition of serial killing as opposed to mass killing? ScienceApe (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think serial killing works at all because it requires a wait period between each killing. It's closer to a Spree shooting except the incidents seem to be too far apart for that. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The definition of a serial killer is given thusly:

An individual who has killed three or more people over a period of more than a month, with down time (a "cooling off period") between the murders, and whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification.

The suspect in this case does not fit this description because he has not gone through the "cooling off period" and his motive is not based on his own gratification. If you want to change the description from "mass killer" to "serial killer", you are going to need a source. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It may be closer to the operative definition used on the spree killer page. N2e (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Prisondermonkeys, well from what I can tell Dorner has declared war against the LAPD, and his goals are creating change, not personal gratification, so I really don't see serial killer applying.

The best thing to do seems to be to refer to outside reliable sources, and see what labels/descriptive terms they are using. --Bob drobbs (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a serial killing or mass killer. Spree killer is closer. But as the targets are individually chosen, it is closer to assassinations and spree killing.203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner's actions are neither serial killing nor mass killing, and they do not fit the usual definition of spree killing either. I think "assassination" is most accurate, as the victims have been chosen from a pre-designated list that Dorner made, based on their perceived "value" (Dorner's word) as "targets" (Dorner's word) in his campaign to bring attention to his cause.

The problem here is that all the 3 declarations contain the word "killer" but are actually meaning "murderer". A soldier in a war might "kill" a series of people but normally soldiers are not being called "serial killers". I mention that because this destinction would not allow to call Dorner one of those 3 names mentioned above as long as one is prepared to assume that his motivation is rational and altruistic - which remains to be seen (until now he's technically not even prooven guilty of anything). In that case he would not fullfill the definition of a murderer (in the tighter sense of the word) and while above mentioned termins contain "killer" they still require the person to actually be a "murderer" in order to be applicable. (Of course my personal take on the subject). So we may well require a very different term - maybe vigilante or so (?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.195.73.220 (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Domestic Terrorist or Insurgent are probably closer to describing the asymetric warfare described in his manifesto, and such terms have been used sporadically in the media. 63.192.83.15 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifesto in link is not the correct version

/b/ has inserted the last parts about tv-shows like shark week and personalities like Bill Cosby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.130.113.36 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This. Simply because the manifesto is longer does not mean it is the un-redacted and "most correct" version. Here's the real version. http://pastebin.com/qPMFkJwp --118.148.235.31 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this is the one that was first posted. All these pop culture references et cetera were added about a day later. Either remove the later (longer) one entirely or at least point out that there are two versions which were posted with a day apart. 5.146.44.24 (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming annoying. The link keeps getting changed. Did he really say all of that stuff about Cosby and Anonymous or not? ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should leave the manifesto out for the time being. There appears to be a movement among some editors to link to it, and I believe that they are doing this to try and garner some kind of sympathy for Dorner. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"... I believe that they are doing this to try and garner some kind of sympathy for Dorner." Whether true or not true, that's immaterial, no? It either meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria or it doesn't, editorial motive(s) aside. And though I'm making the case that's immaterial, it seems reasonable to point out there are counter examples. E.g., in the current revision of section Police shootings of civilians, "the two women who were shot are expected to survive" was changed to "the two women were injured but are expected to survive." "Shot" is a particular form of injury, thus is desirably more specific regarding the event details than "injury." But the vague word choice "injured" is more charitable in tone to the LAPD than the specific nature of the women's injuries (having been struck by the police bullets). 74.67.54.145 (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The real question is what is accurate? And if we can't be sure of what is the real manifesto, then we need to either leave it out, or flag somehow that it may not be accurate. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Police shootings of civilians" -- Reaction???

The article will be improved, and more balanced, when Wikipedia begins to cover reactions to the police shooting of civilians. It has been over 48 hours since the two separate incidents of LAPD Police shooting at vehicles where they had made no serious identification of the suspect being in either vehicle, and had no license plate match; the vehicle just "sorta, kinda" matched the description of the vehicle of the primary suspect. This seems to be a rather obvious and eggegious case of police misconduct, or to keep it in the terminology of "alleged" and "suspect", of potential gross negligence by police.

Has there been no reaction by civil libertarians, police watch groups, etc.? Really? My sense is that surely there are notable statements by notable police watchdog groups, and some reliable source news coverage of the reaction to the police getting things so horribly wrong. Where is the police accountability, and is that not a valid topic for coverage on Wikipedia? N2e (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much so far, this was the only thing I found relating to the ACLU and this case, but perhaps I'm missing something. Google News is a good place to start. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing there will be more in a few days. I still have not found any reliable source coverage of civil libertarian and police watchdog group reaction, but I did find a news source with the names of the victims of the first (of the two) police-on-civilian shootings, and a much fuller description of the two victims and how totally different both victims were in nearly every respect from the alleged perpetrator the police were looking for. I would hope that the internal affairs folks at LAPD have started an investigation, and will (eventually) have to answer questions on this alleged police misconduct by many journalists; would give us more info to flesh out that important aspect of the 2013 Southern California shootings. I've updated the article with some information from the one source I found. I expect we'll have more clarity in the coming weeks and days. N2e (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, that there'll be more on it, right now things are moving so fast I'd be .. in those shoes, I'd be expressing (and I have) huge concerns, but I also know just how badly one can undercut oneself by relying on facts that aren't nailed down. I'm sure we'll hear more, and more reliable takes on things, as this progresses. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

New section? - LAPD reopening case into Dorner's firing

I think it might need a new section, because I'm not sure where else it fits. But here are two artices on how these Dorner's have caused his case to be reopened by the LAPD, and how they are putting a spotlight on LAPD racism and abuses past and current.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/09/searchers-struggle-to-pick-up-trail-former-los-angeles-cop-wanted-in-killing/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fugitives-rant-puts-focus-evolving-lapd-legacy-18451078

Any suggestions on how to call the section? Does it fit under "reactions"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the timeline. It should probably stay there until something - if anything - comes of it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also think it is fine under "reactions" for now. Until more becomes of it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I found it, under the "timeline of shootings", which seems that it should only include shootings. For now, I'll just adjust the title to "Timeline". When the article gets longer, and if there are more shootings, it'll probably make sense to break out the reactions into a new section. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner's allegations (various)

How about they open a case, or the silent supposedly "liberal" media "open a case," into the following frighteningly believable section of Dorner's "manifesto"?

"Don't honor these fallen officers/dirtbags. When your family members die, they just see you as extra overtime at a crime scene and at a perimeter. Why would you value their lives when they clearly don't value yours or your family members lives? I've heard many officers who state they see dead victims as ATV's, Waverunners, RV’s and new clothes for their kids. Why would you shed a tear for them when they in return crack a smile for your loss because of the impending extra money they will receive in their next paycheck for sitting at your loved ones crime scene of 6 hours because of the overtime they will accrue. They take photos of your loved ones recently deceased bodies with their cellphones and play a game of who has the most graphic dead body of the night with officers from other divisions. This isn't just the 20 something year old officers, this is the 50 year old officers with significant time on the job as well who participate."

I know, it's Wikipedia. But I mean good God. That's got to be "encyclopedia worthy" somehow. 74.67.54.145 (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, it's not up to us to judge what is "encyclopedia worthy". Wikipedia standards refer to an event's "notability" by it's coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. If you find articles in mainstream publications describing this or any of his other allegation, then it may merit inclusion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Included information based all or in part on Dorner's essay (or sensationally labeled "manifesto") is uneven as best. As you know, Wikipedia strives for neutrality/objectivity. Thus far, it appears that pro-establishment (for lack of a less provocative term) details related to Dorner's essay are being afforded more weight than details less sympathetic to the authorities. (IMHO. And P.S., I do not believe I know who's "in the right" here overall. Certainly, I'm no advocate for murder ... regardless of which party or party representatives attempt or commit it.) 74.67.54.145 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Change needed: Third police-attacked civilian was injured despite reports

The sections mentioning the third civilian attacked by police require change, according to this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story

First it needs to be clarified that the LAPD reported no **visible** injuries, instead of **no** injuries. Secondly it needs to be mentioned that he did get hurt, as a result of a police cruiser crashing into his car in an effort to stop him. The summary at the top of the article needs to be changed, as well as the last paragraph under "Police shootings of civilians". 178.3.166.254 (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction to first paragraph - injury to third person in Torrance

Right now, the article says: "In two separate incidents during the manhunt, police shot at three innocent civilians, mistaking them for Dorner. Two of these people were injured, while the third was not.[3][4]"

The LATimes reports that the third person was injured, he was not shot, but that he sustained injuries: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story

"In Perdue's case, his attorney said he wasn't struck by bullets or glass but was injured in the car wreck, suffering a concussion and an injury to his shoulder. The LAX baggage handler hasn't been able to work since, and his car is totaled, Sheahen said. "When Torrance issues this ridiculous statement saying he wasn't injured, all they mean is he wasn't killed," his attorney said, referring to a press release reporting "no visible injuries" to Perdue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Torrance shootings

This is a fast-changing story. The LAT is printing new reports that should be included in this article

1. 7 officers opened fire. The neighborhood is pockmarked with bullet holes http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209

Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.

As bullets tore through the cabin, the two women "covered their faces and huddled down," Jonas said. "They felt like it was going on forever."

2. Lots of Shots - Sounded like fireworks http://redondobeach.patch.com/articles/gunshots-sounded-like-fireworks-torrance-shooting-witnesses-say

Neighbors reported hearing hearing more than a dozen rounds fired.

"The sound was surreal, sort of like fireworks!" said Lloyd Taylor, who owns Triathlon Lab in Redondo Beach. "As 30-40 shots were fired within sections at (approximately) 5 a.m.!"

In a comment left on Redondo Beach Patch, Alexander Starr also said the gunshots sounded like fireworks. "I woke up to the gunshots," he wrote. "Dozens of shots were fired, pop pop pop pop!"

"I shouldn't have peeked out my windows, but I did, and there were the cops in my driveway, shooting," Redondo Union High School chemistry teacher Linda Dillard told the school newspaper, the High Tide. "(Later) we just heard a lot of police orders, but the shooting was over."

Dillard told the High Tide that her and her husband's garage door and house were hit by bullets. The windows in her husband's car were hit, and her car had one bullet in it.

Also: http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/02/08/35886/attorney-two-women-shot-police-torrance-says-offic/

“It’s very unfortunate because they were just doing their job,” Goo said in an interview in front of his house. Goo, a cardiology technician, has lived in the neighborhood for eight years. He said he and his wife were in bed when they heard gunshots.

“We heard all this pop-pop-popping. And then I hit the ground, crawled around, dragged her out of bed, onto the floor and then laid on top of her,” he said.

When he called 911, Goo said the dispatcher told him the police were right outside his house and to stay in the back of his house until officers came to tell him it was clear. Several bullets from the shooting hit his house and cars. He believes between 30 and 50 rounds of shots were fired.

“When one of the ricochets hit off our glass door, I thought it had come through the door into our living room,” Goo remembered. “So I thought bullets were coming into the house."

3. Six Officers placed on admin leave

http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/02/08/35886/attorney-two-women-shot-police-torrance-says-offic/

Six LAPD officers who took part in the "mistaken identity" shooting of two women delivering newspapers in Torrance on Thursday were placed on administrative leave while the women — Margie Carranza, 47, and her 71-year-old mother, Emma Hernandez — were expected to survive.

The women's lawyer, Glen Jonas, argues that the officers did not follow protocol or the rules of engagement when using deadly force. "With no warning, no command, or no instructions, LAPD opened fire on their vehicle," Jonas said.

new section on civilians shot and injured is non neutral

New section does not reflect the actual injuries and is not neutral. This description does not reflect the new reports: "Approximately 25 minutes after that incident, officers from the Hollywood Division of the LAPD struck and opened fire on another vehicle, but reported that there were no injuries due to the actual shooting.[37]"

Should add: "The occupant, however, reported a concussion and shoulder injury due to the crash." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

reference is http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

When did the shooting of civilians take place?

Under Police shootings of civilians it says that it happened at about 5:30. However there doesn't appear to be any sources to back this claim up, and the sources I have read say that it happened at about 5:15 or 5:10.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/lapd-attacks-timeline/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_22548130/lapd-looking-dorner-accused-street-justice-opening-fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.204.35 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

1 moa

The comment about the shot challenge coin implying that the shot was taken at 100m is no accurate. 1 moa means that the shooter is accurate to one inch at 100yards. It also means .5 inch at 50 yards, or 2 inches at 200 yards. 1 moa makes no implication as to how far away the shot was actually taken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.135.131 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the size of the coin, along with "1 moa" indicate how far away the shot was taken? E.g. if the target is a barn door, then 100m away is not 1moa. Likewise, if the target is a flea, then 1moa would occur at a distance shorter than 100m. I don't know how large the coin was, but I've been assuming that the size of the coin allowed for 1moa at 100m. 195.95.190.2 (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Career with LAPD" inaccurate and biased

This section omits important and facts and appears to have been written by someone sympathetic to Dorner. It neglects to mention nearly all the evidence supporting Dorner's termination -- particularly the fact that Dorner initially said the use of force was justified. He later filed a complaint literally the day after receiving a negative performance review from the same officer he accuses of using excessive force. Also omitted is the victim's father's statement that he didn't think twice about the head wound because it wasn't serious. The Wikipedia article also mentions a videotaped interview with the alleged victim, mistakenly calling it a deposition. In the interview, the guy answers leading questions, appears to be coached by Dorner's attorney, and is never subjected to cross-examination. Much more relevant and important is the fact (omitted by Wikipedia) that the victim testified at the hearing and was described by the appeals court as "generally . . . incoherent and nonresponsive." And there's also the board that looked all these witnesses in the eye and decided Dorner was lying.

The appellate opinion is here: http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/christopher-dorner-v-lapd-case-file/

This article needs some serious revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.132.133 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That article is not a reliable source, and so cannor be included. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to another website with the appellate opinion, which denied Dorner's appeal.[1]. There's a lot of info there that may be useful in Wikipedia. Here's the site's home page, about us page, and an example of the site's info being used elsewhere in Wikipedia. It looks like a reliable source that publishes court records. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner is the first US drone target

"Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil."[2] 71.212.251.104 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Although implied, it does not actually say that these drones carry weapons. Frankly, I seriously doubt they would carry weapons, but certainly they will carry various sensors. Enquire (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Appeal decision

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3122542803286291629&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5

CHRISTOPHER DORNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B225674. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.20.45.98 (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Controlled Fire ?

Looking at a photography of the shot vehicle of Maggie Carranza and Emma Hernandez I was able to count way over 35 bullet holes in the back of the car. No idea what is assumed to be reasonable force in this case, but that's more than a full clip of a modern assault rifle, almost two of them ... and some shots have obviously missed as the back is peppered side to side. I believe that this level of aggression should be mentioned in the report. --92.195.211.51 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC) JB.

Needs a reliable source. Most ACP police pistols can hold 18 rounds, 2 cops would be 36 rounds.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Spiegel-Online, aka SPON, is a german web-newsletter with one of the widest ranges here. They show this REUTERS picture : http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/spezialeinheiten-jagen-cop-killer-dorner-fotostrecke-93012-7.html The comment states that two women were wounded in it by LA police hunting Dorner. I was successfull to circle 40 separate bullet holes and had about 10 more "probables". I guess that should be reliable enough, but I'm not a WikiPedia specialist and don't know for how long the image will be accessible under that link. BTW: It's my impression that two different calibres were used - a smaller with lots of shots and a larger with fewer ... like assault rifle and pistol ... but that's pure guesswork. Important for me is that the police can shoot the living daylight out of that poor car, fail to really "finish" its occupants (a blessing this time) ... and then call "stop police" or whatever they did after almost killing to ladies earning their life the hard way. --92.195.152.160 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC) JB.

Another link with the image and lots of commentary including references to US newspapers ... one just has to ignore the style of the writing http://www.naturalnews.com/039061_Christopher_Dorner_LAPD_execution.html ... looks like the shooting was much worse than expected. --92.195.73.220 (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC) JB.

California residents now terrified and untrusting of police

Due to the unjustified police shootings of random people who do not fit Dorner's description, using the excuse that the person(s) fit the descripton of Dorner, many residents in California and throughout the United States are now terrified of the police. Specifically, they are afraid that any armed police officer or any police vehicle on the road is there to target whichever random law-abiding citizen(s) the police officer(s) feel like shooting or injuring using the excuse "I thought the person matched the description of Dorner." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.3.43 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph: Irvine PD identified Dorner as the suspect in the first two homicides.

http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=1&Entry=1458 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.144.156 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As you can't edit the article would you like us to add that? Is that your text or a quote from a source? Who used the word 'terrified'? We may have to quote them my name. I wonder if there is another source about how many dark pick-ups went up for sale in a hurry?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Switch of outline to timeline structure

At some point recently, the article has been re-organized and re-written in a "time-line format" ... this might make it easier to add days with a diary of what happened on each day, kind-of like a rap-sheet. But, IMHO, this is not the best way to present this article in an informative manner (this is an encyclopedia, not a police diary). A time-line graphic, (perhaps vertical diagram on the right side of the page) or a table of dates and events would suffice under a stand-alone time-line section; but I feel that it is best to revert the body to a "Shootings" "Manifesto" and "Police Shootings" (etc.) structure for the main narrative. Comments?
Enquire (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This timeline article uses a similar format. Would that work better? --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The page had a section called "Timeline of shootings", but then people started adding events to that section that there not shootings, so I relabeled it "Timeline". That made it a bit better; but it wasn't the best fix. I agree the article would be improved by reorganizing it. Probably leaving the shootings in a section called "shootings", but pulling everything else out into other sections -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My thought was to reform the "Shooting" and "Manifesto" (etc.) sections, and add the time-line in point form for reference, probably as bullets (no pun intended, heck, pun intended). However, since events are rapidly spiralling, probably best to leave restructuring until after the dust and flames have settled (dust to dust, etc.)

Enquire (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifesto details

After an edit by MathematicianO there is too much detailed information about the manifesto in the lead. I am therefore reverting it. If these details are too be included it must be in the body of the article. The lead is curently more detailed about the manifesto than the body, which is not how articles shall be written. There also seems to be a slight tendency to argue the case for Dorner in the mentioned edit. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That may need consensus. Seems your edit was reverted. Should we discuss it in this section or start a new one?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We can discuss it here. I reverted it back again. What I think is pretty clear is that the lead shall never be more detailed and specific than the body of the article: "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." So, if people want to have more stuff from the manifesto in the article one should start with the body, and then a short summary can appear in the lead. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner's expressed motive is extremely relevant and belongs in the lead. The current summary is overly vague, and actually is not neutral, and it was this I was trying to repair.

I welcome your work in expanding the details in the body of the article.

It discourages contributions if you remove a contributor's work in its entirety just because other parts of the article have not yet been properly developed. I believe such a reversion is entirely improper and should be rejected. Please undo your reversions of my contributions. Mathematician0 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This may be an uphill battle unless the two articles are merged. The manifesto can be in the lead of Mr. Dormer's article because he is the subject there. This article is about the shootings, not Mr. Dormer.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The source of the manifesto is false; it has been modified from the original. The original manifesto can be located here: http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/616/02/616_1360213161.pdf 130.113.126.70 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifesto allegations of false police report leading to charges

In WP, original research is forbidden (making up one's own theories). However, personal research is necessary or we're a bunch of idiots writing without thinking.

Dorner claims that one piece of evidence backing up his claim of falsely being accused of filing a false police report is that he wasn't charged, like other LAPD filing a false police report. Is this true?

I found this http://da.lacounty.gov/mr/archive/2012/072512c.htm Auchansa (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC) LOS ANGELES – Two LAPD officers working on a DUI enforcement project have been charged with perjury and filing a false police report after they allegedly falsely claimed they stopped a suspected DUI driver during a 2010 checkpoint.

Craig Allen, 39, and Phillip Walters, 56, surrendered today at the Foltz Criminal Justice Center on a felony complaint for arrest warrant, said Deputy District Attorney Renee Chang with the Justice System Integrity Division. Their arraignment was set for Aug. 10 in Department 30. Judge Shelly Torrealba released them on their own recognizance.

--- The District Attorney never filed any charges against Dorner.

Merge/redirect

I believe that WP:BLP1E in this case indicates that we should not have a separate article on Dorner, at least not at this point. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge/redirect - with no objection to the Christopher Jordan Dorner article being spun back out as a separate article at some point in the future, should there be consensus to do that. GiantSnowman 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge/redirect: Based on the guideline, I also support for now, with as GiantSnowman said, no objection whatsoever to the possibility of a separate article in the future. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Merge/Redirect - There is no need for a separate article at this time. All relevant information can be covered here. If the suspect becomes notable in his own right later on, we can easily make a split. In the meantime, it makes more sense to work on one unified article, and allow a separate bio article to grow as a section, if it does. Bigdan201 (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes <-- He has a page what's the difference.--Ron John (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support to keep separate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes has a page so should he.--Ron John (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 19:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC

Or to put it another way-- if you believe that there is a comparison, then explain why the two cases are comparable, and your example applies here, and is a sufficient argument to support your point. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support to merge under Christopher Jordan Dorner article only - His name is more notable than his crimes. The guy's become an antihero, and this will only grow IMHO. He's not your common-or-garden ordinary criminal. He's intelligent, liberal, has sympathetic issues, writes well, and is well informed. He's also about to be killed on sight. American to the core. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

See this: List of serial killers in the United States. Every one of them blue linkable. JohnClarknew (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge/redirect to 2013 Southern California shootings per standard Wikipedia policy for such cases. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." There is such an article, and that is where information about this individual should go. He is not notable for anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge. I mistakenly originally nominated the article for AfD but withdrew my nomination. As of this time there is not enough coverage to warrant an independent article; see WP:BLP1E. In terms of case studies, there may be a time when he is mentioned enough to be significant, but that will happen later, not now, and it's not our place to judge if that will happen. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge back into this article. Wikipedia guidelines are clear on this. The perpetrator of a single crime (or crime spree) is not notable for a biography page except in the case when a single article becomes overly long. WP:PERP -- Bob drobbs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support merger of Christopher Jordan Dorner to 2013 Southern California shootings. The subject of the biography article is only notable due to the shootings that have occurred (so far only) in Southern California, and events related to the subject. Therefore, the subject of the biography article falls under WP:BLP1E. I understand that there are concerns about the name of this article, and perhaps there should be a separate discussion about possible renaming, but that does not have to do directly with the merger proposal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge It seems to me that many here don't understand WP:BLP1E. The intention of BLP1E is to keep the plethora of minor figures within an event from being notable enough from having an article, but its intention never was to prevent major characters of the event from having an article. Clear misinterpretation of BLP1E by just about everyone claiming it here.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRIMINAL:

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

As such, since there is already this article, the biography article shouldn't exist unless the subject of the biography article becomes independently notable beyond the crimes he is alleged to have committed, or if this article becomes to large per WP:LIMIT. As a reservist, the subject is not independently notable per WP:SOLDIER. As a police officer, the subject is not notable, as his service in the Los Angeles Police Department is more of a background to the events that lead up to the alleged criminal acts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It's a good idea to merge, but the title 2013 Southern California shootings assumes that this will be the only shooting spree in Southern California this year. Hopefully it will be, but the proposed title could be more specific. Perhaps the merge should be the other way, into Christopher Dorner? Or a third title? Paris1127 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have been supporting the merge, but recent developments, such as the substantial reward and label of domestic terrorist has tipped my viewpoint in favor of keeping this article in its own context. I see this individual as having a significant impact upon criminal and popular culture. Therefore, I am now opposed to this merge. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge Not only is Christopher Dorner a notable criminal suspect, but this is an ongoing situation. We have already beaten back the overzealous "AfD Cops" who wanted his article deleted on Notability grounds. Now they would have his story reduced to a paragraph or two in the main article related to his alleged crime spree. Maybe we don't need a James Eagan Holmes page. Maybe we should delete the page for Jared Lee Loughner. Or maybe what we really need is a 48 hour cooling off period before ANY AfD or merge gets proposed in the first place to stop the AfD storm troopers from acting with such haste. My next door neighbor is a capable single father and a very likeable guy who I call my friend. But he isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Christopher Dorner, on the other hand, is the subject of the largest manhunt in LA County history, a situation that is increasing in notability because of the LAPD's handling of the case and their shooting and otherwise attacking people who do not resemble Dorner in any way. AlaskaMike (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge Dorner is becoming independently notable aside from the event itself. ScienceApe (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment When people recommend merging to this article 2013 Southern California shootings, the actual name of this article is irrelevant. They are really saying "merge to an article about the shooting incidents and manhunt, rather than the individual." It's quite possible that a better name for this article will emerge with time. But it should still be the main and only article, per WP:CRIMINAL, unless and until the Dorner section of it becomes meaty enough to spin off. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:BLP1E is meant to be for one event, the plural of the name shootings and the info in the article shows that a series of shootings took place with widespread media coverage for each one. Thus this passes the criteria for a stand alone article (WP:GNG). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject of this article, per the name, encompasses all the shootings, and the attempted boat hijacking in San Diego. Now unless, the hijacking (piracy?) is considered a separate event, the subject is primarily known for the series of events that have occurred in the past week which this article treats as one subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge As per WP:BIO1E "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". The highly significant event in this case being the unprecedented manhunt, and the equally unprecedented reward posted.-Kiwipat (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC). Further, in regards to WP:BLP1E this "should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals". I think Dorner has moved beyond low-profile–-Kiwipat (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge It seems a no-brainer at this point, with no disrespect intended. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge, however, I do support merging biographical detail from this this page into the Christopher Jordan Dorner page. There is way too much biographical information on this page, which is probably why some feel that a merge is appropriate. There needs to be a clear delineation between the pages, which is not quite clear right now. This page should be limited to a (very) brief bio (with links to the other page), and focus on the events. Enquire (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge/redirect to this article. As pointed out above, a spin out article on Dorner may be appropriate in future; however, he is so far only notable for this event (or collection of events if you wish). It is a current event and therefore highly significant at this time, but its historical significance remains to be seen. Many spree killers do not have their own article, although they were the subject of intense scrutiny and in the limelight at the time of their incident (ex: James Huberty redirects to San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, Jiverly Wong redirects to Binghamton shootings--note the blue links). Incidentally, BLP1E does not say it should only be applied to low-profile individuals; it says, it should be applied if the person is low-profile, which is quite different. WP:BIO1E, WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIMINAL--all apply at this time. Richigi (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support merger of Christopher Jordan Dorner to 2013 Southern California shootings. Per RightCowLeftCoast. Seems like an obvious place to apply WP:BLP1E. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose merger. His notability is now off the charts. To not have a biographical article on him would be as insane as he is. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Let's take a deep breath - How about we all hold off for one week after resolution of this (e.g., capture, death, etc.) and resume the discussion then. Go Phightins! 21:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support merge his only notability comes from the shooting incident. Both Treyvon Martin and George Zimmerman redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin. This seems to be the norm on WP, and this should be the same. --IP98 (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I am seeing alot of WP:OTHERSTUFF here, "Look at article x", "Article y redirects to article c so this one should too" all of these are weak arguements for a merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply I believe the correct wikipedia policy to cite here would be WP:CONSISTENCY. --IP98 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
    • You are overstepping the WP:CONSISTENCY policy, WP:CONSISTENCY is for english usage in articles and is part of WP:MOS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support of Merger - As far as I have seen, Dorner is only notable because of the shootings. I believe a merger would be alright, followed by a possible spinoff article at a later date. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support redirect/merge per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. Dorner's only notability is in relation to the shootings. Any biographical notes on him are background to the shootings and belong here. I could see a biographical article being spun off in the future, though, depending on the outcome of the manhunt. Oren0 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." People are misunderstanding the purpose of BLP1E. Furthermore, Dorner's page is large and will only become larger. If the pages were merged, then the main article may no longer be comfortably readable. Parthian Scribe 04:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:ONEEVENT in my opinion is a broken system, it is confusing and something should be done to avoid this same given discussion on wikipedia involving suspects. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Eagan Holmes and now this, I strongly suggest someone go over to the village pump and help put a better guideline in place to end this madness. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Parthian Scribe - How are people "misunderstanding"? Your understanding of "highly significant" is a little odd. Clearly this event isn't on par with the moon landing or a presidential election. You think some disgruntled cop shooting up a few a colleagues is a "highly significant" event? Perhaps you should read WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Teammm ^talk
  _email 04:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • See WP:RECENTISM NickCT (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose via "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." House1090 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • See WP:RECENTISM NickCT (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support to merge into this article. Dorner has no notability outside of this incident. The incident itself is not all that highly significant. Warren Dew (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge/redirect to 2013 Southern California shootings. The relevant guideline most specific to this is WP:PERP: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." There is such an article, and that is where information about this individual should go. No objections to renaming the article if there is one more suitable. Location (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge He is a hero, he deserves a page. Mantion (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support to merge and redirect to 2013 Southern California shootings. Dorner will not be forever remembered in infamy, as Hinckley or Chapman or Whitman will. His acts will be. It seems to be the norm to put news events, as this is, under a banner definition like the one currently in use. Dorner's prior life is actually quite unremarkable. Had he not been allegedly railroaded by the LAPD, he'd be nothing save a psycho out killing people. He's easily incorporated as secondary to the story itself. --Cesium 133 (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge He is a very notable criminal. An individual page is appropriate. IronKnuckle (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge The content is mainly about Dorner and his actions. Most content could be put under his name with very little exclusively belonging to the event title. Most people will search for Dorner when they want to know about the shootings. --☥NEO (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Merger. Not sure which article should be merged where. I think the generic titled' article should be merged here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Merge. Guy is an alleged and notable criminal. Pages very similar exist for other alleged criminal individuals, so why not a page documenting his history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.103.58 (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose merge The event, the person and the circumstances are very unique. Also, most people will be searching for Dorner in Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.167.20 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support to merge and redirect It's easy to get indignant about such events and a cop-killer, but Wikipedia should never be a soapbox or have an article for posterity to showcase how heinous an individual Dorner is. Fact is, there are several of these every year in the USA; the men who died are law-enforcement officers who fell in the line of duty. There are not likely to be any repercussions or stronger gun-control as a result of this incident. Dorner is just another crim, and his actions make for a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.

  --Rybec (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• WP:BLP1E does not apply. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP1E may not apply now, but WP:BIO1E still does. The alleged perpetrator is primarly notable for the events that are the subject of this article. The individual may no longer be alive, but the subject is not notable outside of the events that lead to the alleged shootings, false imprisonment, and piracy all fall within the scope of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that you don't think there should be an article about John Allen Muhammad (a.k.a. the Beltway sniper) either. Herzen (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose merge. (This is not to say that some biographical information cannot be taken out of this article or moved to the other one, as others have noted.) – Herzen (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger to Christopher Jordan Dorner

See Talk:Christopher Jordan Dorner#Proposed merger from 2013 Southern California shootings --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cut down the "suspect" section?

It seems that the section on the "Suspect" is far, far too long as there exists a separate Christopher Dorner article. I think the section should a significantly reduced in size.

What do people think about replacing the entire "Naval Reservist" and "Career with LAPD sections" with 1-2 sentences each?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dump the "Timeline"?

Here's what I'd propose in it's place:

• Package received by Anderson cooper
• Shootings attributed to suspect
• Reopening of investigation
• Reward
• Plus the existing Manhunt and Shootings of Civilians by Police sections.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Endgame?

• Christopher Dorner in gun battle with authorities, source says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.195.150 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We aren't in a hurry. I think we should be wary of 'source says' material being added. Newspapers can quote un-named sources, but I don't think we can.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

edit request

I made this request already at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Someone agreed with it, but no one made the change for me. I'm asking that the second paragraph be changed to read as below.

A manifesto posted on Facebook, which police say was written by Dorner, declared "unconventional and asymmetric warfare" upon the Los Angeles Police Department, their families, and their associates, until the LAPD admitted publicly he was fired in retaliation for reporting excessive force.

Rybec (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Camyoung54 talk 01:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Another request, mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_off in why ammo is exploding, there's some confusion among why shots are going off. Dietcoketm (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Camyoung54 talk 01:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner's name is misspelled as Dormer under the Big Bear section. 174.141.213.44 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Already done Camyoung54 talk 03:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The unchecked news report of "ammo exploding" is probably based on a local reporter hearing sounds and making assumptions. It is more likely "aerosol cans exploding" in the heat. For accuracy, this should be phrased as "explosions were heard from within the fire, possibly aerosol cans [ or ammunition, if that sensational turn of phrase is required]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.59.118 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The ammo exploding is mentioned in the news reports cited. Camyoung54 talk 03:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Another Request, mention somewhere that the police may have intentionally burned the building down as recorded in scanner traffic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCdqybEfy9w EOD is mentioned as well as "burners" which could refer to "hot" tear gas grenades which are typically not to be used inside structures due to their ability to start fires. Officer heard saying "Were's going to go forward with the plan,.. with the burner.. On it, uh, like we talked about..." "Burners deployed and we have a fire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roach131313 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

2 women held hostage?

Would they count as "injured"-which would leave the total to 9-considering Dorner tied them down before stealing their car? CloudKade11 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Puzzling original research regarding said “cabin”

The building identified by media as the cabin occupied by a person matching Dorner’s description appears to actually be the office for http://7oaksmtncabins.com/ and not an actual rental unit.[3][4]

Oh and supposedly they’re open year-round. ―cobaltcigs 02:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

All in All

The coverage on the last day... we nailed it in an extremely timely manner. Kudos to all. Kennvido (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No body found

This just in from CNN, no body found, all such reports false. 04:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC) (ProfessorTofty)

I put that in, but there's not textual reference yet. I have other commitments, so I must leave for now and most likely for a while until I return here again. -Mardus (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

CNN got that from the official press conference, therefore that's what we have to go on (that and the fact that every major news network has redacted their previous claims of death). gwickwire^talk_edits 04:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Last time I go with CBS... feel like dope. :( Kennvido (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is better for wikipedia to be two days behind than to look like a bunch of idiots writing wrong info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I put that in based on that information, but User:Kennvido ^ did the good job of adding a reference. See my above explanation. -Mardus (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess everybody basically just messed up here. Everyone was full steam ahead on this report that they had found a body, even CNN, and it turned out to not be true. I was watching CNN as they were covering it and the thing they had at the bottom of the screen that said "body found" disappeared. ProfessorTofty (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That always happens with these types of fast breaking, "news" stories. I use quotes because this is more-so people wanting to know what happens than real news by now. Regardless, everyone's retracted now, it's like the claim never happened, so.. Let's move on :) gwickwire^talk_edits 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You all know this guy is 'toast', but they must be sure and we need more than just one reference with these breaking things. Can you imagine IF the guy escaped how it would impact the families of the needlessly murdered and injured? Lesson learned. Still a great job by all. Kennvido (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Right right :) We shan't be too bold to make that prediction until multiple sources have also done so. And if those sources rescind, as they've done, we rescind. It's like waves. They say, we say, they take their saying back out to the sea of possible statements ,we do the same. By the way, Kennvido, it's unnecessary to sign an edit summary :) gwickwire^talk_edits 05:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I just cited three to the find... thanks quickwire, I just like to sign my stuff. Kennvido (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation by Wikipedia

The info box lists 7 injured and names the suspect as Dorner. This is a BLP violation and a lie. The police shot and injured 3.

I just attributed to your input. If you agree, leave it there. :) Kennvido (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for clarity

The paragraph on the final(?) standoff needs to establish the facts as far as they are known and as soon as we can find reputable sources to cite.

• what was the lead LEO agency on site?
• at what time were the two deputies shot and when did the standoff begin? How long did it last?
• what were Dorner's activities, if known, between the shooting of the deputies and the fire? Was he ever spotted? Did he shoot more? Did he seek to leave the cabin?
• who was the cause of the fire - Dorner or LEOs? If LEOs was the fire part of a LEO strategy and what was its intent?
• was the "single gunshot" (not the ammo cookoff) before or after the fire, or did it not happen at all?

The facts of the case are more important than when media reported that there was / was not a body.

FWIW, the mention of Anderson Cooper is faulty. Currently reads

• "[Cooper] received a package at his office containing a DVD that states Dorner's case against the LAPD."

Should be restated. Cooper said on air: "The DVD shows testimony by a man who says he was kicked by an LAPD officer, [which] according to Dorner, confirm[s] his story, the story he says got him kicked off the force initially.” This appears to be a reference to the videotaped deposition of Gettler which is cited in another part of the article. Cooper does not say video of Dorner himself appears on the DVD. Hence, perhaps:

• "Cooper received a package at his office including a DVD that, Cooper says, contained a videotaped deposition of Gettler affirming that he was kicked in the face by an LAPD officer. CNN turned over the DVD to LAPD without airing its contents." source for 2nd sentence

GlazeHurls (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral item in the lead

The lead currently includes this: "police shot at three civilians unrelated to Dorner, mistaking their pickup trucks for the vehicle being driven by Dorner."

It is true that the police claimed to have mistakenly misidentified the truck, and it is true that multiple media sources ran with that story during the early hours after the incidents, but this is problematic for two reasons:

• "mistaking their pickup trucks..." is an overly charitable view toward the police perspective on these incidents. The material further down in the body of the article makes it clear that there is an alternative perspective, and those perspectives are sourced by reliable sources. This is a non-neutral point of view.
• "mistaking their pickup trucks..." is only a small part of what really happened, in the event. If police mistake a pickup truck, they attempt to make a legal stop of that vehicle; they do not just start pumping lead into the truck, or ram the truck with their police cruiser and then start shooting for good measure. Since "shooting at the truck" (40+ rounds, by at least seven police officers, I believe in the source given in the citation) is what happened in the first instance, and "ramming the truck and then shooting bullets into the truck" was what happened in the second instance, what we have here is rather more than a matter of mistaking the trucks. The exception, of course, would be if the "mistakenly identified" vehicle was attempting to escape/evade a legal police stop, or if the vehicle was accelerating and attempting to run down police officers—nothing of the type has been alleged to be the case. This is not putting sufficient weight on all the facts.

So I am proposing that this part of the lead be rewritten to better reflect what really went down, and to be more neutral with respect to both sides of the story, from both the police side, and the civilian victims of the police reaction to dark-colored pickup trucks driving down the street between 5 am and 6 am on a February morning. N2e (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You've proposed a rewrite, but you have not suggested better, more neutral and balanced wording appropriate for the lead section. Richigi (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see anything else that can be written to be more neutral than how it is said now. An error is an error, and you can't whitewash the facts to make the police sound holier-than-thou or even neutral. What can somebody write than the police made two grievous errors (is that better or worse than how it reads now?) and actually wounded two innocent ladies, while also thankfully missing the man they also shot at. --Katydidit (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wallet?

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The cabin siege ended and police stated that his wallet and ID were there. How can this be when police report on Thursday the 7th that his wallet was found in San Diego? Diresgard, for a moment, the impracticalities of Dorner even needing an ID while in the woods (was he afraid he would get carded when trying to buy a pack of smokes?). How does an ID and wallet located in a San Diego police evidence room get to a a cabin in the mountains? Moreover, the cabin fire was so intense it forced first responders to stay back for several hours and it reportedly burned Dorner beyond recognition. The San Bernardino County Sheriff said the heat was so intense they had to wait 12 hours to enter. How could a fire so severe not destroy a plastic license and a wallet? It doesnt add up. Was Dorner beat and killed outside of the cabin and then placed in the cabin and burned to hide the beating? Was the ID then planted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwsu (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatted forumy post gwickwire^talk_edits 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"The burn plan"

The issue of what started the fire in the standoff has been mentioned twice above, but I think it deserves its own section. The article currently reads: "According to former assistant director of the FBI Tom Fuentes, tear gas was launched into the cabin. Other law enforcement services, however, stated that these were more generic "smoke devices".[43] The cabin erupted in flames and one shot was heard." This is unsatisfactory, and raises more questions than it answers.

Googling produced this LA Times blog entry: Dorner manhunt: Incendiary tear gas reportedly used on cabin.

Faced with regular barrages of gunfire, officers confronting suspected killer Christopher Dorner lobbed incendiary tear gas into the cabin where Dorner allegedly was holed up, said law enforcement officials with knowledge of the situation. [...]

SWAT officers surrounding the cabin were under a "constant barrage of gunfire," one source said. “He put himself in that position. There weren’t a lot of options.”

Hoping to end the standoff, law enforcement authorities first lobbed "traditional" tear gas into the cabin. When that did not work, they opted to use CS gas canisters, which are known in law enforcement parlance as incendiary tear gas. These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire.

Thus, it is clear that police deliberately started the fire. This is further supported by the YouTube link given above. The UK Mirror seems to be referring to this video in the quotes below:

A voice can be heard saying: “All right Steve, we’re gonna go, we’re gonna go forward with the plan, with the burn. We want it like we talked about.”

Moments later the voice says: “Seven burners deployed and we have a fire. Guys be ready on No4 side. We have fire in the front. He might come out the back.”

It appears that the American media are going to play down this aspect of the story. For example, a current USA Today story says:

In end, it appears officers threw tear gas canisters into the cabin and shouted at Dorner to surrender. A single shot was heard inside before the cabin caught fire, a law enforcement official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Police have not explained what started the fire.

Torrez says it's unlikely that police would have deliberately burned down the house. Officers may have lobbed a canister of tear gas or another agent into the home that ignited something else, he said.

Note that the USA Today story puts a different spin on what caused the fire, but does not directly contradict the LA blog, according to which police intentionally started the fire. And so far, there have been no reports of police officially denying that they deliberately started the fire. Wikipedia should give a clear explanation of how the fire started, taking into account the scanner recordings that are publicly available (Another one is here.) -- Herzen (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the media is slanting the story in a direction protective of the police department. However, the recorded evidence indicates direct intent to burn the cabin down. Not only should this be included, but it is also relevant in a situation where corruption is asserted that the media is providing misinformation (be it intentional or accicidental) toward the narrative of the police. By the way, the media helicopters were instructed to pull back and told not to film the cabin as the fire was set. Warmtoast (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We aren't in a hurry. We could state that heat, fuel, and oxygen started it because those three are needed to start any fire.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys.. The police have explicitly denied starting a fire, and provided an explanation for how it started: They used flammable tear gas canisters, while some others were exploding it got hot, the firing of a shot by SOMEONE set it off, and the "burners", as called in old slang, burned. Don't just come here and state "OMG THE POLICE DID IT CONSPIRACY". That's not how we work. If the media comes out (with evidence themselves) there's a police connection, THEN we can add it. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a database for or an extension of what the media says happened. In most cases where there is no cause to doubt the media it is simply accepted that the MSM account is true. If evidence, records, or other documentation contradicts what the media reports then what is wikipolicy exactly? copy/paste the news transcript? No. I agree with Canoe1967 that there is no immediate hurry, so we can wait and see what else surfaces. UK and non-american news outlets are already mentioning that the police purposely started the fire so I'll give it a few days and this will be a moot point because the american stations will break it also so as not to appear scooped or incompetent.Warmtoast (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reliable source establishing that CS tear gas canisters are, in fact, incendiary? Our CS Gas article says nothing about this. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The police have said multiple times they are in-fact (some of the ones used) flammable. This is also what led to tear gas canisters being called "burners" in police slang many years ago. I'll try to dig up a source that's online in a bit. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

When I took CS gas training with the army we were warned that they will ignite wooden buildings. Some police may use this fact to intentionally use them to burn down buildings around suspects. 'Burn', the term used in the tape, may refer to CS or smoke canisters that would have the dual effect of smoking a person out or burning the building down if they don't come out. I may still have the military manual on them somewhere, if not it may be online.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Any chance that what the military used then is not designed the same as what the LAPD uses now?

The following is in response to qwickwire's 01:25 post above.

An official police denial was not recorded in this article until I started this Talk section.

And is Andrew Blankstein of the LA Times not a member of the media? His blog entry that I quoted states pretty clearly that the police deliberately set the shack on fire. I was able to find a video of him discussing the use of incendiary tear gas. Here is what he says:

The problem is—is that because of the chemical reaction in the canister that—that throws off this intense gas, what ends up happening at times is whatever substance it may be near can catch on fire. Hence the term "incendiary tear gas" or "hot gas". Law enforcement authorities felt that after constant gunfire, they needed to go in. They broke the windows of the cabin. Then they lobbed in tear gas. There was an announcement over the P.A. system for Dorner to surrender. They did not get a response. They sent in a vehicle that started to tear down the walls of the cabin; and then they heard a single gunshot when they get to the last wall, and he's presumed dead. At the same time, the gas, which had been fired in, begins to ignite the building, resulting in a fire.

Is that not what you are demanding, a "police connection"? Blankstein says, quite clearly, that the gas is what "ignited the building, resulting in a fire". Sounds like a connection between the police and the fire to me.

You just need to Google "CS gas" to know that it is well known to pose the risk of starting fires. (The two posts above this one confirm that, too. The Wikipedia article on CS gas needs to be revised to indicate that, especially since it is relevant to the Waco affair.) That is why police call it "incendiary tear gas". There is no doubt about that, and there is no doubt that police firing CS gas canisters into the shack is what caused it to burn down. Thus, the sheriff's claim reported in the Wikipedia article that "deputies did not intentionally burn down the cabin" can only be taken one way. The deputies were saying to themselves, "Hey, maybe Dorner will get lucky. Maybe when we lob all these incendiary devices into the cabin, it won't go on fire. Thus, no "intent" on our part (nudge nudge, wink wink)." (I do not mean to imply by my use of humor here that the police were acting improperly. I just think we need to get the facts straight.)

The article as it stands is clearly biased and does not reflect the current state of the coverage of this event by the news media. The LA Times is the main paper in the region where these events occurred, and the account of the endgame by the reporter they put on the story is clear, and should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. – Herzen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I look forward to you updating the CS gas article with a citation top a reliable source. I Googled CS gas and didn't find one in the ten minutes I spent looking. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"If the media comes out (with evidence themselves) there's a police connection, THEN we can add it." There's a problem. Consider for a moment the way one local SoCal media outlet reported the Torrance truck shooting the day after:

The search for Dorner's vehicle, a gray Nissan Titan, brings two LAPD detectives to Redbeam Avenue in Torrance around 5:20 a.m., when gunshots were fired. Two people were struck by gunfire, neither of whom were cops.

The phrasing of this report is infuriatingly subservient to law enforcement, full of passive voice, obfuscation, and euphemisms. Would it be appropriate to adopt the same tone in Wikipedia? Many in the media, during this news event, accepted the implicit trade of objectivity for access. Considering how carefully LEO controlled media access, the scanner recordings may (currently) be the only piece of information about police activity during the standoff that isn't just dictation from police press conferences. Wikipedia should consider the reliability of sources (scanner recording vs media reports) but it should also consider the reliability (& vested interests) of the sources that are feeding the media the information they're reporting. After all Wiki has a healthy skeptical attitude to state run media in e.g. China, Iran. GlazeHurls (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. We should rely on media, as they're objective. Oh. Wait. No. The media is almost all reporting now (at least US based media) that the cause is not a deliberate fire. So, we have to go with that. We can't just say "well there's an ulterior motive, let's make up our own story". gwickwire^talk_edits 05:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, the media is NOT reporting that there was no deliberate fire. The media IS reporting that SBCS/LAPD insist that there was no deliberate fire.

Ulterior motive? Legal liability, duh. Every word of these press statements is being crafted with an eye to liability. There is more CYA going on here than Lance on Oprah. LAPD still has not released basic facts about what happened at Torrance.

It's not our role to find out what happened with original research, but neither is it our role to uncritically accept-as-truth the press releases of one of the parties. Media reports on these statements DON'T lend additional credibility to them, they merely record that they HAPPENED.

This is a unique situation because citizen non-journalists were following the case with more diligence, and found more useful information, than actual journalists. In wiki terms this counts as OR. Eventually the media will start reporting on what non-journalists discovered and then the OR will magically transform into reliable sourcing, I guess. GlazeHurls (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the deal (and btw, like the Lance/Oprah reference). We only report on what we have as the most reliable. In terms of police investigations, the police are the most reliable, at least at the beginning. Think for example when every news network said "OMG HES TEH DED AND TEY HAVEZ THE BODY!" and then 1-2 hours later had to say "oh. he's not dead. oops". However, the police never said he was dead. Until we have lots of reliable sources saying explicitly "the police set the fire", we have to go on what the police are saying, which is that they didn't set the fire. gwickwire^talk_edits 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Gotta run for now, but see Flight (2012 film). Imagine as real incident. Pilot of crashed plane holds press conference next day, insists he was not drunk. Should Wiki report as fact because the pilot was in the best position to know the facts, he was there, and because there is not yet any reliable source that can contradict him? Of course not. Conflict of interest obvious. Actual facts can only be established by independent toxicology report. Until then, report the statement as a statement, allow reader to draw own conclusions.

Discussion of Dorner's body kind of a false issue: police had no reason to lie about finding body, and statement was immediately independently verifiable because media saw(?) body being taken away and coroner acknowledged receiving body. Police have every reason to lie about fire-setting (whether absolutely deliberate, or accidental-but-anticipated side effect of CS, in either case, deny to avoid any liability consequences).

The phrasing on Christopher Dorner is close to how we should approach this: At this time, the cause of the fire is unknown. Audio from the San Bernadino Sheriff Channel 7/8 suggests officers deliberately lit the cabin on fire as a tactical strategy to kill or smoke out Dorner[22]. San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon claimed his officers shot pyrotechnic tear gas into the cabin, which then inadvertently caught on fire. He stated that it was their intention to drive Dorner out, not set the cabin on fire[23].

I suggest that this phrasing be copied over into 2013 Southern California shootings. Maybe for second sentence, reference this Guardian discussion. Thoughts? GlazeHurls (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If the OC weekly is "infuriatingly subservient to law enforcement", then I am the new Pope. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing in Christopher Dorner (I wasn't aware that article existed; my bad) is certainly better, but I'm not sure whether it's worth changing this article to match that wording at this point, since that wording treats with undue deference the sheriff's account of events. Maybe we should wait a little more to see how this plays out in the press, as others have suggested. – Herzen (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What you wrote makes no sense at all. And as I wrote before, there is a credible report by an LA Times reporter according to which police started the fire. Why do we "have to go on what the police are saying", as opposed to what a professional journalist is saying, both on a blog and on TV?

Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, police have not said that "they didn't set the fire". All that they have said is that they did not intentionally set the fire. That is all that the Wikipedia article states at present.

A blogger at the Atlantic—hardly a "CONSPIRACY" news outlet—is also throwing the official police account, which you are trying to defend, into question. – Herzen (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You just told us all why those two sources are unreliable - they are both blogs. It doesn't matter who they blog for, blogs are by definition not subject to editorial oversight. If you look at most sources subject to said oversight (an ARTICLE on CNN, FOX, local news), they're all following the police report for now. gwickwire^talk_edits 07:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was being overly dismissive when I called the LA Times piece a blog post. That piece, on which I've been basing my case that the police burned down the cabin, appears in something called "L.A. NOW". This is how L.A. NOW is described on the LA Times Web site:

L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.

Furthermore, if you look at that article, it has a byline of four people: Andrew Blankstein, Richard Winton, Kate Mather and Phil Willon. Doesn't sound like a blog post to me.

As I said before, the LA Times is the local paper. So why should we care about what CNN or Fox News say, when the local paper provides a different but clearer account? At this point, your whole case is based on the assumption that the LA Times is not a reputable news source. – Herzen (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Atlantic "blog" is just a collection of links to other sources all of which are reputable, LAT, CNN, KCAL9, CBS, Guardian. An increasing number of media sources are discussing the police overheard on the scanner and excluding this from the article will soon no longer be tenable. The article should discuss in a balanced way both 1) what the police are now saying and 2) what they were overheard saying. GlazeHurls (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reliable source establishing the the specific type of CS grenade used is likely to start a fire. (...sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do you consider the LA Times to be unreliable? Do you consider the AP to be unreliable, too? They reported about the Waco siege:

The public furor about the 1993 siege was reignited this summer when it was disclosed belatedly that the FBI fired potentially incendiary tear gas canisters at the Branch Davidian compound the day the siege ended in a spectacular fire. The FBI and Justice Department denied for years the use of such canisters despite the existence of reports that hinted at it.

Wikipedia's article on the siege mentions that CS gas was used, although the word "canister" does not appear in the article. Evidently, it has not yet entered into the Wikipedia collective mind that it is not CS gas itself that is incendiary, but the pyrotechnic devices used to produce it.

I suppose you don't find ABC news to be reliable, either.

"We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out," McMahon said tonight, though he noted pyrotechnic canisters known as "burners" were fired into the cabin during a tear gas assault in an effort to flush out Dorner. The canisters generate high temperatures, he added.

The police are not denying that CS gas canisters can start fires, or that they used them on Dorner. All they are denying is that they intentionally started the fire. – Herzen (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The LA Times has now run a story about this under their main Internet address, as opposed to under their latimesblogs Internet address. (Hopefully, most Wikipedia editors other than Guy Macon do not consider the LA Times to be an unreliable source, given that it is one of the nation's top newspapers.) The article notes what was said over police radio. If there is no further major reporting on this issue, I think this article can be used as a main source by the Wikipedia article for the "endgame" section. The article quotes both people who believe that it was correct to use the "burners" and those who do not. To cite a particularly pertinent paragraph of the article:

The SWAT radio transmission, in addition to the comments of at least one officer who earlier in the gun battle could be heard by a TV reporter calling for the cabin to be burned down, have raised questions as to whether authorities intended to end the standoff by setting the structure on fire. San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon at a Wednesday press conference adamantly denied that was the intent. But the department on Thursday declined to answer further questions about the standoff.

I believe that Wikipedia can follow the way that this news story frames the issue. Using the "burners" is what started the fire. According to some, ending the standoff by using the burners was the right way to go; according to others, it wasn't. – Herzen (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Herzen. The recently-published LA Times story frames the issue pretty well, covers both sides, and is clearly a reliable source. It's clear that the police were had burns and burning on their mind as several of them, over police radio frequency channels, used the descriptive noun "burner" or "burners" as they sent in the CN tear gas; it is also clear that there is support from some circles for the use of deadly fource, even "burners", to stop the active deadly force that the individual in the cabin was using against the police outside the cabin on an ongoing basis. N2e (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the lasting significance ?

Whats is the lasting encyclopedic significance of this event, the article as it stands reads like one long news summary of event. How does this not fail WP:NOT#JOURNALISM ? What is the WP:LASTING consequences of this ? LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A merge of this article with Christopher Dorner has already been proposed.

I don't see how anyone can question whether a former LAPD cop turning on his former coworkers, leading to one of the largest manhunts in history, is an event of lasting significance. – Herzen (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I am doing just that, I can't see, other than a good news story (for which there is wikinews) what the lasting consequences of this are. In the case of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting it is clear, it was the catalyst for a major push on gun reform. So what is going to come out of this ? Is the State of California going to require all ex-cops to undergo regular psychiatric monitoring ? There have been a number of cases where former employees shoot and kill coworkers what makes this worthy of an encyclopedia article as currently this smacks of "its in the news therefore wikipedia must have an article on it as there are lots of sources". LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, for one a video game was made (Dorner's Last Stand). Seriously though, its nowhere near a speedy deletion candidate or anything close. Once the matter is fully resolved and no more facts are pouring in if you want to call the article in "its entirety" into question that is the time to do so, not right now as it is still developing. Even if you thought you were justified (which I disagree with) in its removal, it would simply be reverted or recreated leading to edit war. Therefore it is my advice that you simply wait. It is likely that the lasting significance will make itself apparant to you like it already has for the majority of the populace.Warmtoast (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying it meets any of the criteria for WP:CSD (if it did it would have been tagged long ago), all I am asking is that someone should demonstrate firstly here what the WP:LASTING consequences of this crime are and then secondly make sure the prose in the article reflects that. As it stands it looks to fail WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 03:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:AFD is <--thataway. Nobody's stopping you. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of where the AfD button is, all I am asking (as per WP:BEFORE part C) is can it be made compliant, can someone demonstrate it's lasting significance, if they can't then yes it will go to AfD, if not by me then someone else. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 03:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Lasting significance isn't really necessary. For now at least, it meets GNG. At a later date, after a few months without any mention in media (if that happens), then it can be revisited. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As the GNG page says :

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy."

and at the moment it looks to be excluded by the What Wikipedia is not policy so yes it needs to make some credible claims to its lasting significance. LGA ^{(was LightGreenApple)} _{talk to me} 03:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS applies to news reports, not valid articles on events (unless they become newsy by losing sourcing, etc.). Nobody can make credible claims to significance before it happens. WP:CRYSTAL says we won't know until later. So we just have to wait. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WIKIPROJECT: Dorner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Dorner#Wikiproject:Dorner

I propose a Wikiproject:Dorner (temporary) that should last for 6 months then close. This Wikiproject could discuss handling of the Dorner article, shooting article, and any sub articles. The wikiproject would have a termination date of 6 months from now. There needs to be discussion to coordinate the articles and decide what goes where. I propose that the Dorner article limit it to his early background and Navy service. The shooting article, which is in the middle of a naming discussion, should do the hearing, timeline, shootings, police shootings of the two trucks, and last stand.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Dorner#Wikiproject:Dorner for a consolidated space for discussion. Auchansa (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)