Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BDD (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 26 March 2013 (→‎Merge/redirect: closing discussion, result was no consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
No one asked you--Ron John (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yeah, it's a terrible name. I suggest Christopher Dorner Shootings. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
2013 shootings targeting the Los Angeles Police Department, my best effort.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
2013 Los Angeles Police Department-related targeted shootings, this is tough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SUGGESTIONS

CHRISTOPHER DORNER EMPLOYMENT CONTROVERSY

CHRISTOPHER DORNER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don't rely on the manifesto as a source. It's not reliable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.It is very reliable as a source that he believed there was wrongful termination Bamler2 (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My close read and parsing of the statements is this: The police fired on the two vehicles because they vaguely resembled the description of Dorner's vehicle. The persons were not fired on because they resembled Dorneer. The police lit up the vehicles. --Naaman Brown (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 deckertalk 16:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See this: List of serial killers in the United States. Every one of them blue linkable. JohnClarknew (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge Dorner is becoming independently notable aside from the event itself. ScienceApe (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed, the Beltway sniper attacks is less then 60k in size, and thus does not meet WP:LIMIT. The felon, John Allen Muhammad, has an article that is only slight greater than 30k, if merged, the content is lower than the size prescribed in LIMIT. The subject falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea, I have began the merger proposal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the man responsible for the death of the King of Pop doesn't deserve an article, WTF is Chris Dorner to deserve one? -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I had no idea of whom you meant as "the man responsible for the death of the King of Pop". The only person I could think of was Mark David Chapman‒the man who shot Lennon‒and yes, both of them have their own Wiki page. There is no page for the killer of your "king", but there is a page called Trial of Conrad Murray, which is practically the same thing.
And no, I don't understand why Michael Jackson, your "king", has his own Wikipedia article. As far as I can tell, his article should be turned into a section of an article called "American 1980s junk music".
Please note that I did not object to RightCowLeftCoast's proposal to merge the article about the Beltway sniper. ‒ Herzen (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the event "Highly significant"? The event has occurred recently, and its significance may change, only time will tell whether the events will have persistent coverage in a year or five.
Will the person Christopher Jordan Dorner be as notable as say Bonnie and Clyde or Lee Harvey Oswald? Only time will tell.
This event is not about the events leading death of a head of state/government or a major leader; this event is more akin to the North Hollywood shootout. And in that case the suspects are redirected to the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Chris Dorner, an ex-cop turned fugitive who allegedly killed at least 4 people and was hunted by the authorities in one of the largest manhunts in SoCal and LAPD history, doesn't warrant an article of his own, then I suppose that James Eagan Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Behring Breivik, and Seung-Hui Cho (all perpetrators in recent notable shootouts) don't either. —stay (sic)! 08:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to mergers of those biography articles into the event articles per WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:PERP. That would be interely consistant.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on your username, I have the odd feeling or hunch that you may be trying to push your agenda here. Anyway, my opinion still remains to oppose merging Chris Dorner's article with the SoCal shootings.
(And BTW on an unrelated note, I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT kill JFK. Call me crazy, but it remains as an unsolved conspiracy. Oswald was used as a scapegoat to cover up some loose ends. In other words, show me proof or GTFO.) —stay (sic)! 09:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hatted forumy post gwickwiretalkedits 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. gwickwiretalkedits 01:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. gwickwiretalkedits 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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". gwickwiretalkedits 05:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. gwickwiretalkedits 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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. gwickwiretalkedits 07:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I have made the proposed edit. – Herzen (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:AFD is <--thataway. Nobody's stopping you. gwickwiretalkedits 03:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. gwickwiretalkedits 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. gwickwiretalkedits 03:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

incomplete, other shootings needed

Dorner's shootings were the most high profile but there are many in 2013 so far. This article needs revision or spin off Dorners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

single gunshot wound to the head

The article said:

The sheriff's office announced that the autopsy showed that Dorner had died from a single gunshot wound to the head, evidence indicating that it was self-inflicted.

(changed in this edit).

I changed it back to say

The sheriff's office announced the autopsy showed Dorner died from single gunshot wound to the head and evidence indicates it was self-inflicted.

meaning there is (supposedly) some other evidence besides the mere existence of a single gunshot wound to the head. The version I changed it back to is supported by the sources. —rybec 06:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there's much worth debating here. The police had already demonstrated that they didn't want to take Dorner alive, both by their shooting at random people who they thought might be Dorner and by their burning the cabin he was in down. So at this stage of the endgame, it made perfect sense that Dorner would just shoot himself in the head, since that is preferable to being burned alive or to being shot in random places by police who are bad shots when you run out to surrender.
In other words, I think we can accept what the media say about Dorner's self-inflicted wound at face value and don't need to challenge this part of the official story. ‒ Herzen (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text after I changed it back accurately reflects the official story of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department as repeated in the mainstream media. Am I mistaken? —rybec 08:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit request: new shooting

There's a big shooting where three died. Please add it. It happened in southern Calif. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only about the Dorner shootings and related events. The title of the article should be changed to make that clear. My preference is "Christopher Dorner manhunt" but other titles are acceptable, as long as they are specific to the Dorner case. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move I

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

The result of the move request was: page not moved Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Southern California shootings → Christopher Dorner shooting spree – the Ali Syed shooting spree on 19 Feb 2013 was also in Southern California 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • OPPOSE in part but suppoRt . It's an improvement but should be about the whole situation, like Christopher Dorner firing and revenge. Or think of a better word than revenge. Christopher Dorner Sacking and Retaliation. That is fitting as Dorner retaliated and the police did the same by burning the house down. The current title will be confusing as more shootings in2013 will be added unrelated to Dorner.

Bamler2 (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the title I proposed in the "discussion" section below: "Christopher Dorner shooting spree and manhunt"? I believe it would be wrong to include Dorner's firing in the title. This article is about a two-week sequence of events; the main treatment of the firing belongs in the article on Dorner. – Herzen (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's about Christopher Dorner, it is his story. Nothing more needs to be in the title then that. In the future people will want to know who was Christopher Dorner and what was his story. Christopher Dorner is what they will look for. We should not editorialize in the title. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that doesn't make sense. This shooting spree isn't the only shooting in 2013 in SoCal. How is it being Christopher Dorner's story have any effect on the the proposed title? How does renaming the article remove the information about the story? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your right! I have been reading the Christopher Dorner‎ page at the same time and got confused as to which page I am on. I do not care what you call this page, I think it should be merged in to the Christopher Dorner‎ page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are currently no articles that I could find about another shooting in Southern California at this moment. Thus, I do not see why we need to have a move discussion when there are already proposed name changes above this. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a triple murder that I did not yet add in order not to have a fight. The current title is bad. Merging is not needed but there are better titles possible. Bamler2 (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the entry two entries above yours, by Bamler2? A problem most definitely does exist, since the present title is ambiguous, and has already caused confusion for that reason. – Herzen (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem exists, other than the ones that are being invented.--JOJ Hutton 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did you make that determination? The article hasn't existed for years. "stability" can't be established in a relatively new article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how long does an article have to exist, in order for it to live up to your definition of "stable". Stable has nothing to do with how long an article has been on Wikipedia.--JOJ Hutton 01:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what does "stable" mean then, according to you? You're the one who introduced the concept of "stability" into the discussion. Can you point us to a Wikipedia page that states the official policy on "stability" of article titles? – Herzen (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, welcome. Second, stability is not about how long an article has existed, but on how accurate and reliable the article is. Always has been. Identification of stable versions of articles is a process by which particular versions of Wikipedia articles are identified as accurate and reliable. Stable versions are worthy to be relied upon. from WP:Stable versions.--JOJ Hutton 03:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a stable article is. But you wrote, "This title is stable." As far as I can tell from what you've said, that's just another way of stating that you oppose the title being changed. – Herzen (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the notice at the top of WP:Stable versions, which suggests that the page isn't reliable for guidance. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"An unrestrained indulgence in or outburst of an activity (a buying spree); also, a drunken revel, binge. Examples: They went on a killing spree, went on a spending spree. Related: binge, frisk, frolic, gambol, idyll (also idyl), lark, ploy, revel, rollick, romp, fling."
It seems to me that "killing spree" implies someone killing impulsively and somewhat randomly and having great fun doing it, as opposed to what by all accounts was a calculated series of premeditated murders that involve lying in wait plus some spur-of-the-moment killings in an attempt to avoid capture. Rather the opposite of frisk, frolic, gambol, lark, revel, rollick, romp, or fling. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — our conventions for naming articles about events are "[When] [Where] [What]". There's nothing much to disambiguate (and assuming we did need to dab, we usually go for a more precise [When] and [Where]) so I don't see any good reason why we should go against our convention by adopting a "[Who] [What] [How]" naming convention, particularly as I also have NPOV concerns about the proposed title. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY OPPOSE. Dorner had distinguished himself as a remarkable figure by being one of the very few who broke the Code of Silence and reported a fellow officer for brutality. That is an incredibly rare and remarkable, nay HISTORIC event in itself. The fact that the vast majority of editors didn't care until he was suspected of crimes years later reflects only the ignorance of editors, not the FACT that he had already made history years before.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Another possibility would be "Christopher Dorner shooting spree and manhunt. I would actual prefer that, since this article deals with both. – Herzen (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Herzen is on the right track, but I would not use the word "spree" because I think the topic is too serious for that. Please see the definition of spree.[2] Another possibility is "Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt". --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt" sounds good to me. (The person making this proposal had originally proposed "shootings", not "shooting spree".) I hope we will settle upon that. I guess we first need to go through the one week discussion period. In any case, it seems that most people agree that the present title is unsatisfactory. – Herzen (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Christopher Dorner shootings" may be sufficient. I would assume most shootings involve a manhunt, siege, investigation, etc. Do we add these terms to article titles?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't the typical manhunt because Dorner had threatened to kill more people. The main part of the whole incident was the manhunt. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Christopher Dorner manhunt" then? I think the manhunt started after the first shot. Do we need both in the title?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't not including "shootings" in the title trivialize the shootings? – Herzen (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter to me. Include both if you wish. I am just the short/simple title type is all. We can have re-directs from all the other choices to simply "Christopher Dorner" where it will probably get merged to. We may wish to decide on merge first, and then title.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any consensus for a merger. And as someone pointed out above, Anders Behring Breivik has his own article. I think people will be confused if there are not two separate articles, one for the shooter and one for the shootings. (And merging them to "Christopher Dorner" would simply be crazy. Dorner was not interesting until he started shooting.) There is a large "backstory" to these shootings. That isn't the case with the Sandy Hook shootings for example, where the shooter consequently does not have his own page. – Herzen (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Guy Macon had an informative comment in the previous section regarding the term "spree killings".[3] It appears that "spree" is a serious term used for some types of multiple murders but may not be appropriate in the Dorner case. For more info, there is a Wikipedia article Spree killer and here's an excerpt from an FBI webpage.[4]

"The validity of spree murder as a separate category was discussed at great length. The general definition of spree murder is two or more murders committed by an offender or offenders, without a cooling-off period. According to the definition, the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree murder and a serial murder. Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement."

In the Dorner case, it doesn't look like a matter of a cooling-off period because of the premeditation and stated intent per his manifesto. Thus "spree" would be a questionable description. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article title

I think the title should be changed because "2013 Southern California shootings" is not specific to the Dorner case and can mean any or all shootings in Southern California. Please comment. If we determine that there is a consensus for change, then we can consider possible new titles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the above "suggested move" discussion, I got the impression that the move might have gotten approved, if the proposed title had been "Christopher Dorner Shootings and Manhunt" instead of "Christopher Dorner shooting spree". People tended to object to the use of the term "shooting spree", rather than the idea that the article should be renamed because the current title is too vague. – Herzen (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • probable strong support for change - Without knowing the proposed change, I cannot make a definitive comment but I know I am probably for a change. First of all, this title will allow inclusion of other major shootings, which I will start to add if the title is kept. I know of another major shooting. Second of all, I can find no reliable source that uses this title. Therefore, it is improper and against Wikipedia rules, mainly "no original research". Auchansa (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new titles

Please add your own suggestions to the following list if you feel they are as good or better than what is on the list. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concise. Neither ambiguous nor vague. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely out of the box thinking....Dorner Manifesto and related shootings This can deal with the manifesto and how out solved the first shootings and then cover subsequent shootings and issues. It also does not violate wikipedia's ban on original research. Many suggestions are not used by reliable sources but are just made up by us, which is original research. In contrast, the Dormer Manifesto is used by many reliable sources.Bamler2 (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed title is vague since it assumes knowledge of Dorner's first name, and it focuses on the least important act Dorner is alleged to have performed: writing a letter. It's akin to renaming an article, "Krueger metalwork and related teen slashings." I'm also confused by this line: "This can deal with the manifesto and how out solved the first shootings and then cover subsequent shootings and issues."" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At first Quan was killed, nobody knew who did it. Then the manifesto came out and the police suspected Dorner. Coverage of the manifesto could explain the grievance and Dormer's killings. The article could then cover the killings. Wp's article could be called Christopher Dorner Manifesto and shootings but reliable sources don't use the word Christopher. Bamler2 (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources don't use the word "Christopher"? So Dorner is such a cultural icon that he only gets referred to using his last name? The last I heard, the only people who get referred to just by their last name are philosophers and classical music composers (also painters and writers). (This is not difficult to show. For example, if you don't give any context, if you bring up Washington or Jefferson, people won't have a definite idea of whom you're talking about. But mention Hume, Kant, Hegel, Bach, or Beethoven, and it's immediately clear whom you're talking about, even if you bring the name up out of the blue.) Wikipedia's not using Dorner's first name in the title of an article having to do with him would be absolutely perverse. – Herzen (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move II

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2013 Southern California shootings → Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt – The present title is not specific to the Dorner case and can refer to any or all shootings that occur in Southern California in 2013. The new title specifically refers to Dorner and the most significant events. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Please see discussions in previous survey and section immediately above.)

Survey II

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
At least two people suggested just "Christopher Dorner manhunt" for the title, without "shootings", in earlier Talk sections. This is because a substantial portion of the article is about the manhunt, not the shootings. Thus, the new title being considered here is basically a compromise/synthesis. – Herzen (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, just merge to Christopher Dorner. He isn't famous for anything but this episode, and if it is going to be so closely associated with his name that having Christopher Dorner in the title is warranted (which I strongly believe it is), then it is pointless to have two articles about the same events. —rybec 05:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The survey is about a proposal to rename the article, not to merge it. Your opposing the renaming, given that you say "Christopher Dorner in the title is warranted (which I strongly believe it is)", doesn't make any sense. – Herzen (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion II

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt&oldid=547087675"