Talk:Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Conflicting accounts regarding fire[edit]

The article states that incendiary devices were used to start the fire on February 12. However, it seems there are conflicting accounts about what happened. Therefore, this should not be stated in such a matter-of-fact manner, but instead be described with reference to the source of information. For instance: "At time T, the building caught fire. Joe Shmoe has alleged that incendiary gas cannisters were used, based on X, Y, and Z. A statement released by P states that no incendiary devices were used." 67.188.230.128 (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

After reading the LA Times article, it becomes clear that the problem was misleading language in the article. The devices used were not "incendiary gas canisters", but rather tear gas grenades (which are known have the potential to start fires). The debate is over whether the canisters were intentionally used for the purpose of starting a fire, or whether the fire was an unintended side effect. I fixed this, although the wording is a bit awkward and could likely be improved. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In my many years as a firefighter and several years as a cop, I have NEVER seen SWAT grade tear gas used where the structure or contents did not catch fire. Those things land in piles of laundry, furniture, carpet and all sorts of flammable items you would expect to find in a home. The decision to use them comes with that knowledge. Sometimes it's a warranted risk and sometimes it's an intentional act. We were always able to suppress the fire. The action of letting it burn is a premeditated act by the commanders at the scene. --SlimJimTalk 15:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Full-protected 1 week[edit]

Pursuant to the request at WP:ANI I have full-protected the article for 1 week. I see multiple good-faith editors trying to do the right thing, but it cannot be done by edit-warring. Please continue to use the Talk page to try to develop support for content change suggestions, remember to cite reliable sources, and consider using Wikipedia's dispute resolution pathways if you're stuck. Thanks... Zad68 21:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: Understood. For the record, I thought the user had capitulated on the use of "assault rifle" since he neither addressed the fact that the phrase was amply sourced, nor did he address any of my other options as detailed above. Quote: "Assault Rifles are not assault weapons. You're welcome to add that section if you'd like." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Manifesto for killings[edit]

At the time I was participating in a couple of online forums and was wondering if it was worth noting that the manifesto reported by some media outlets [1] was in fact an edited version with several glaring anomalies uploaded onto pastebin for pranks, by certified idiots [2]. It's even fair to say that people looking to read this so-called manifesto may come across the edited copy.

Is it relevant? 2A02:C7F:A006:2300:4C79:7BEA:7884:FD9D (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It does not seem relevant to the article but your notice here on the talk page should do. Those interested enough in the topic to be looking for a copy of the manifesto likely will discover this talk page section. The external links section of the Wikipedia article included a link to what's claimed to be a copy of the Dorner manifesto.[1] Unfortunately, that one is hosted on a personal blog by someone with a clear bias. We have no way of knowing if what's on that blog is an accurate copy of what Dorner originally posted, particularly as there are many versions that all claim to be the original unredacted manifesto. I have changed the external links item to instead use the manifesto that's posted on the Los Angles Times web site which should be a WP:RS. While the LA Times copy it has various names redacted I don't think we loose much from an encyclopedic viewpoint.. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Assumed responsibility[edit]

Given that the article is titled "Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt", and that no one else is believed to be responsible, and since there's no BLP issue with making a direct accusation, I think it's inappropriate to phrase the article as if Dorner was merely a suspect. It's not as if there's an alternate theory of the crime. So I made a some minor changes to assume that Dorner was the person responsible, and also to simplify the grammar.[2] Felsic2 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Misidentification of terrorism[edit]

While no universal definition of terrorism is established, the Academic Consensus Definition is considered the gold standard. No international definition has been ratified but neither the ACD nor US federal law (US code 113B § 2331) describe terrorism in a way that is comparable to Dorner's actions. While legal ambiguity in this is used typically so that political leadership can denounce opposition of all sorts as terrorism, the standard maintained in the US plainly does not apply here. Ergo, this incident is incorrectly categorized as domestic terrorism, even if certain emotionally laden officers would have told media otherwise at the time. I would like this to be reviewed, but absent any further comment I will go ahead and make the change in several days in keeping with accuracy on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.93.227.7 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by 24.19.54.27[edit]

This batch of edits were recently made by a user at 24.19.54.27. I've had to revert the bulk of these changes for a number of reasons. Most of the issues centered on tone, POV, grammar, phrasing, reading comp issues, and so forth.

Extended content
  • Status quo: They then shot pyrotechnic tear gas canisters into the cabin, which resulted in the cabin catching fire. Such devices are nicknamed "burners", as the heat generated by the pyrotechnic reaction often causes a fire. Shortly thereafter, a single gunshot from the cabin was heard.
IP edit: Afterwards, pyrotechnic tear gas canisters were fired into the cabin, which caused the cabin to catch fire. Similar devices are nicknamed "burners", as the heat generated by the pyrotechnic reaction often causes fires. Shortly thereafter, a single gunshot was heard from the cabin."
We went from an active voice indicating that police shot tear gas into the cabin, to a passive phrasing suggesting the tear gas was mysteriously fired into the cabin. Not a good call. It's the difference between "Peter stole a cookie" and "a cookie was stolen". Re: "Similar devices are nicknamed 'burners'" No, those specific devices are nicknamed burners.
  • Status quo: Law enforcement experts differ on whether using pyrotechnic devices to end the standoff, instead of waiting Dorner out, was justified.
IP edit: There is controversy from experts and Law Enforcement officers over whether using pyrotechnic devices to end the standoff, instead of waiting Dorner out, was justified.
Clunky. "There is controversy"? What does that mean? It's clearer to say "Law enforcement experts differ" or "disagree" if you like. Also "Law Enforcement" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. Also, how did we go from one narrow, specific group of "Law enforcement experts" to two groups comprising "experts and Law Enforcement officers"? It's like we've fabricated an additional party to this controversy.
  • Also on that day, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon said that deputies did not intentionally burn down the cabin. IP editor changed "said" to "claimed". I've reverted this per WP:CLAIM as it implies that Wikipedia doubts the statement. Comes across as subtle POV. The editor justified the change as "Legal Language", but I have no idea what the editor thinks that means. We're not required by any law to say "claimed" instead of "said". Restoring "said".
  • Status quo: This was rejected and with the case set to go to trial in August 2014 they reached an agreement in July 2014 for a $1.8 million settlement paid by the city of Torrance to Perdue.
IP edit: This was rejected and the case went to trial in August 2014 for an agreement in July 2014 of a $1.8 million settlement paid by the city of Torrance to David Perdue. This clunky phrasing makes zero sense and is based on a major reading comprehension error. How do we go to trial in August and then achieve a settlement a month earlier? Settlements are what two parties agree to so they don't have to go to trial. What we are trying to say is that there was a trial looming in August, and a settlement was reached a month before the trial date. The IP editor somehow interpreted the passage to mean that a trial was held. This mistake is fascinating to me, given the extraordinarily condescending edit summary the IP left here about someone else's writing. Also we don't need to Say Perdue's first name again. We already established it. See WP:SURNAME. Restoring previous version.
  • In these edits, from a grammatical standpoint, "The victim's attorney claimed," should have been plural possessive, i.e. "the victims' attorney" since there were two victims, Hernandez and Carranza. But it's a totally arbitrary and needless edit, since it's clear from "their attorney" that we are referring to the people from the previous sentence, and pointing out that they are victims just comes across as subtle editorializing.
  • In the same edits further down there are other problems.
Status quo: Police claim that Perdue's pickup truck "matched the description" of the one belonging to Dorner. However, the Los Angeles Times reported that the vehicle involved was once again a different make and color to that of the suspect's, and that Perdue "looks nothing like" the suspect.
IP edit: Law enforcement officials claim that the pickup trucks both, "matched the description" of the one belonging to Dorner. However, the Los Angeles Times reported that both vehicles involved were a different make and color to that of the suspect's, and that neither Perdue; Hernandez, or Corranza, resemble the suspect.
This is a serious reading comp failure. In this paragraph, we're talking about a totally different incident involving Perdue, and the IP editor changed the language to reflect observations that include Purdue plus Hernandez and Carranza. This is a bad editorial call, since the LA Times is speaking only about Purdue in the article and is speaking only about the lack of resemblance of Purdue's truck to Dorner's and only about the lack of resemblance between Purdue and Dorner. Hernandez and Carranza aren't mentioned in this article. Oh, and the IP editor misspelled Carranza's name.

There were probably other changes I reverted as well, but the point is, the edits were fraught with problems. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)