Jump to content

Talk:Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"The burn plan"

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

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

Faced with regular barrages of gunfire, officers confronting suspected killer Christopher Dorner lobbed incendiary tear gas into the cabin where Dorner allegedly was holed up, said law enforcement officials with knowledge of the situation. [...]
SWAT officers surrounding the cabin were under a "constant barrage of gunfire," one source said. “He put himself in that position. There weren’t a lot of options.”
Hoping to end the standoff, law enforcement authorities first lobbed "traditional" tear gas into the cabin. When that did not work, they opted to use CS gas canisters, which are known in law enforcement parlance as incendiary tear gas. These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire.

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

A voice can be heard saying: “All right Steve, we’re gonna go, we’re gonna go forward with the plan, with the burn. We want it like we talked about.”
Moments later the voice says: “Seven burners deployed and we have a fire. Guys be ready on No4 side. We have fire in the front. He might come out the back.”

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

In end, it appears officers threw tear gas canisters into the cabin and shouted at Dorner to surrender. A single shot was heard inside before the cabin caught fire, a law enforcement official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
Police have not explained what started the fire.
Torrez says it's unlikely that police would have deliberately burned down the house. Officers may have lobbed a canister of tear gas or another agent into the home that ignited something else, he said.

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

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

We aren't in a hurry. We could state that heat, fuel, and oxygen started it because those three are needed to start any fire.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Guys.. The police have explicitly denied starting a fire, and provided an explanation for how it started: They used flammable tear gas canisters, while some others were exploding it got hot, the firing of a shot by SOMEONE set it off, and the "burners", as called in old slang, burned. Don't just come here and state "OMG THE POLICE DID IT CONSPIRACY". That's not how we work. If the media comes out (with evidence themselves) there's a police connection, THEN we can add it. gwickwiretalkedits 01:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a database for or an extension of what the media says happened. In most cases where there is no cause to doubt the media it is simply accepted that the MSM account is true. If evidence, records, or other documentation contradicts what the media reports then what is wikipolicy exactly? copy/paste the news transcript? No. I agree with Canoe1967 that there is no immediate hurry, so we can wait and see what else surfaces. UK and non-american news outlets are already mentioning that the police purposely started the fire so I'll give it a few days and this will be a moot point because the american stations will break it also so as not to appear scooped or incompetent.Warmtoast (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The police have said multiple times they are in-fact (some of the ones used) flammable. This is also what led to tear gas canisters being called "burners" in police slang many years ago. I'll try to dig up a source that's online in a bit. gwickwiretalkedits 02:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
When I took CS gas training with the army we were warned that they will ignite wooden buildings. Some police may use this fact to intentionally use them to burn down buildings around suspects. 'Burn', the term used in the tape, may refer to CS or smoke canisters that would have the dual effect of smoking a person out or burning the building down if they don't come out. I may still have the military manual on them somewhere, if not it may be online.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Any chance that what the military used then is not designed the same as what the LAPD uses now?
The following is in response to qwickwire's 01:25 post above.
An official police denial was not recorded in this article until I started this Talk section.
And is Andrew Blankstein of the LA Times not a member of the media? His blog entry that I quoted states pretty clearly that the police deliberately set the shack on fire. I was able to find a video of him discussing the use of incendiary tear gas. Here is what he says:
The problem is—is that because of the chemical reaction in the canister that—that throws off this intense gas, what ends up happening at times is whatever substance it may be near can catch on fire. Hence the term "incendiary tear gas" or "hot gas". Law enforcement authorities felt that after constant gunfire, they needed to go in. They broke the windows of the cabin. Then they lobbed in tear gas. There was an announcement over the P.A. system for Dorner to surrender. They did not get a response. They sent in a vehicle that started to tear down the walls of the cabin; and then they heard a single gunshot when they get to the last wall, and he's presumed dead. At the same time, the gas, which had been fired in, begins to ignite the building, resulting in a fire.
Is that not what you are demanding, a "police connection"? Blankstein says, quite clearly, that the gas is what "ignited the building, resulting in a fire". Sounds like a connection between the police and the fire to me.
You just need to Google "CS gas" to know that it is well known to pose the risk of starting fires. (The two posts above this one confirm that, too. The Wikipedia article on CS gas needs to be revised to indicate that, especially since it is relevant to the Waco affair.) That is why police call it "incendiary tear gas". There is no doubt about that, and there is no doubt that police firing CS gas canisters into the shack is what caused it to burn down. Thus, the sheriff's claim reported in the Wikipedia article that "deputies did not intentionally burn down the cabin" can only be taken one way. The deputies were saying to themselves, "Hey, maybe Dorner will get lucky. Maybe when we lob all these incendiary devices into the cabin, it won't go on fire. Thus, no "intent" on our part (nudge nudge, wink wink)." (I do not mean to imply by my use of humor here that the police were acting improperly. I just think we need to get the facts straight.)
The article as it stands is clearly biased and does not reflect the current state of the coverage of this event by the news media. The LA Times is the main paper in the region where these events occurred, and the account of the endgame by the reporter they put on the story is clear, and should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. – Herzen (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I look forward to you updating the CS gas article with a citation top a reliable source. I Googled CS gas and didn't find one in the ten minutes I spent looking. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

You're right. We should rely on media, as they're objective. Oh. Wait. No. The media is almost all reporting now (at least US based media) that the cause is not a deliberate fire. So, we have to go with that. We can't just say "well there's an ulterior motive, let's make up our own story". gwickwiretalkedits 05:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, the media is NOT reporting that there was no deliberate fire. The media IS reporting that SBCS/LAPD insist that there was no deliberate fire.
Ulterior motive? Legal liability, duh. Every word of these press statements is being crafted with an eye to liability. There is more CYA going on here than Lance on Oprah. LAPD still has not released basic facts about what happened at Torrance.
It's not our role to find out what happened with original research, but neither is it our role to uncritically accept-as-truth the press releases of one of the parties. Media reports on these statements DON'T lend additional credibility to them, they merely record that they HAPPENED.
This is a unique situation because citizen non-journalists were following the case with more diligence, and found more useful information, than actual journalists. In wiki terms this counts as OR. Eventually the media will start reporting on what non-journalists discovered and then the OR will magically transform into reliable sourcing, I guess. GlazeHurls (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's the deal (and btw, like the Lance/Oprah reference). We only report on what we have as the most reliable. In terms of police investigations, the police are the most reliable, at least at the beginning. Think for example when every news network said "OMG HES TEH DED AND TEY HAVEZ THE BODY!" and then 1-2 hours later had to say "oh. he's not dead. oops". However, the police never said he was dead. Until we have lots of reliable sources saying explicitly "the police set the fire", we have to go on what the police are saying, which is that they didn't set the fire. gwickwiretalkedits 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Gotta run for now, but see Flight (2012 film). Imagine as real incident. Pilot of crashed plane holds press conference next day, insists he was not drunk. Should Wiki report as fact because the pilot was in the best position to know the facts, he was there, and because there is not yet any reliable source that can contradict him? Of course not. Conflict of interest obvious. Actual facts can only be established by independent toxicology report. Until then, report the statement as a statement, allow reader to draw own conclusions.
Discussion of Dorner's body kind of a false issue: police had no reason to lie about finding body, and statement was immediately independently verifiable because media saw(?) body being taken away and coroner acknowledged receiving body. Police have every reason to lie about fire-setting (whether absolutely deliberate, or accidental-but-anticipated side effect of CS, in either case, deny to avoid any liability consequences).
The phrasing on Christopher Dorner is close to how we should approach this: At this time, the cause of the fire is unknown. Audio from the San Bernadino Sheriff Channel 7/8 suggests officers deliberately lit the cabin on fire as a tactical strategy to kill or smoke out Dorner[22]. San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon claimed his officers shot pyrotechnic tear gas into the cabin, which then inadvertently caught on fire. He stated that it was their intention to drive Dorner out, not set the cabin on fire[23].
I suggest that this phrasing be copied over into 2013 Southern California shootings. Maybe for second sentence, reference this Guardian discussion. Thoughts? GlazeHurls (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
If the OC weekly is "infuriatingly subservient to law enforcement", then I am the new Pope. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The phrasing in Christopher Dorner (I wasn't aware that article existed; my bad) is certainly better, but I'm not sure whether it's worth changing this article to match that wording at this point, since that wording treats with undue deference the sheriff's account of events. Maybe we should wait a little more to see how this plays out in the press, as others have suggested. – Herzen (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


What you wrote makes no sense at all. And as I wrote before, there is a credible report by an LA Times reporter according to which police started the fire. Why do we "have to go on what the police are saying", as opposed to what a professional journalist is saying, both on a blog and on TV?
Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, police have not said that "they didn't set the fire". All that they have said is that they did not intentionally set the fire. That is all that the Wikipedia article states at present.
A blogger at the Atlantic—hardly a "CONSPIRACY" news outlet—is also throwing the official police account, which you are trying to defend, into question. – Herzen (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You just told us all why those two sources are unreliable - they are both blogs. It doesn't matter who they blog for, blogs are by definition not subject to editorial oversight. If you look at most sources subject to said oversight (an ARTICLE on CNN, FOX, local news), they're all following the police report for now. gwickwiretalkedits 07:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I was being overly dismissive when I called the LA Times piece a blog post. That piece, on which I've been basing my case that the police burned down the cabin, appears in something called "L.A. NOW". This is how L.A. NOW is described on the LA Times Web site:
L.A. Now is the Los Angeles Times’ breaking news section for Southern California. It is produced by more than 80 reporters and editors in The Times’ Metro section, reporting from the paper’s downtown Los Angeles headquarters as well as bureaus in Costa Mesa, Long Beach, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, Ventura and West Los Angeles.
Furthermore, if you look at that article, it has a byline of four people: Andrew Blankstein, Richard Winton, Kate Mather and Phil Willon. Doesn't sound like a blog post to me.
As I said before, the LA Times is the local paper. So why should we care about what CNN or Fox News say, when the local paper provides a different but clearer account? At this point, your whole case is based on the assumption that the LA Times is not a reputable news source. – Herzen (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the Atlantic "blog" is just a collection of links to other sources all of which are reputable, LAT, CNN, KCAL9, CBS, Guardian. An increasing number of media sources are discussing the police overheard on the scanner and excluding this from the article will soon no longer be tenable. The article should discuss in a balanced way both 1) what the police are now saying and 2) what they were overheard saying. GlazeHurls (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting for a reliable source establishing the the specific type of CS grenade used is likely to start a fire. (...sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you consider the LA Times to be unreliable? Do you consider the AP to be unreliable, too? They reported about the Waco siege:
The public furor about the 1993 siege was reignited this summer when it was disclosed belatedly that the FBI fired potentially incendiary tear gas canisters at the Branch Davidian compound the day the siege ended in a spectacular fire. The FBI and Justice Department denied for years the use of such canisters despite the existence of reports that hinted at it.
Wikipedia's article on the siege mentions that CS gas was used, although the word "canister" does not appear in the article. Evidently, it has not yet entered into the Wikipedia collective mind that it is not CS gas itself that is incendiary, but the pyrotechnic devices used to produce it.
I suppose you don't find ABC news to be reliable, either.
"We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out," McMahon said tonight, though he noted pyrotechnic canisters known as "burners" were fired into the cabin during a tear gas assault in an effort to flush out Dorner. The canisters generate high temperatures, he added.
The police are not denying that CS gas canisters can start fires, or that they used them on Dorner. All they are denying is that they intentionally started the fire. – Herzen (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


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

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

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

I concur with Herzen. The recently-published LA Times story frames the issue pretty well, covers both sides, and is clearly a reliable source. It's clear that the police were had burns and burning on their mind as several of them, over police radio frequency channels, used the descriptive noun "burner" or "burners" as they sent in the CN tear gas; it is also clear that there is support from some circles for the use of deadly fource, even "burners", to stop the active deadly force that the individual in the cabin was using against the police outside the cabin on an ongoing basis. N2e (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have made the proposed edit. – Herzen (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

  • Support merge/redirect - with no objection to the Christopher Jordan Dorner article being spun back out as a separate article at some point in the future, should there be consensus to do that. GiantSnowman 16:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merge/redirect: Based on the guideline, I also support for now, with as GiantSnowman said, no objection whatsoever to the possibility of a separate article in the future. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Merge/Redirect - There is no need for a separate article at this time. All relevant information can be covered here. If the suspect becomes notable in his own right later on, we can easily make a split. In the meantime, it makes more sense to work on one unified article, and allow a separate bio article to grow as a section, if it does. Bigdan201 (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes <-- He has a page what's the difference.--Ron John (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Or to put it another way-- if you believe that there is a comparison, then explain why the two cases are comparable, and your example applies here, and is a sufficient argument to support your point. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support to merge under Christopher Jordan Dorner article only - His name is more notable than his crimes. The guy's become an antihero, and this will only grow IMHO. He's not your common-or-garden ordinary criminal. He's intelligent, liberal,[citation needed] has sympathetic issues, writes well, and is well informed. He's also about to be killed on sight. American to the core. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
See this: List of serial killers in the United States. Every one of them blue linkable. JohnClarknew (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merge/redirect to 2013 Southern California shootings per standard Wikipedia policy for such cases. Wikipedia:Notability (people) states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." There is such an article, and that is where information about this individual should go. He is not notable for anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merge. I mistakenly originally nominated the article for AfD but withdrew my nomination. As of this time there is not enough coverage to warrant an independent article; see WP:BLP1E. In terms of case studies, there may be a time when he is mentioned enough to be significant, but that will happen later, not now, and it's not our place to judge if that will happen. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merge back into this article. Wikipedia guidelines are clear on this. The perpetrator of a single crime (or crime spree) is not notable for a biography page except in the case when a single article becomes overly long. WP:PERP -- Bob drobbs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merger of Christopher Jordan Dorner to 2013 Southern California shootings. The subject of the biography article is only notable due to the shootings that have occurred (so far only) in Southern California, and events related to the subject. Therefore, the subject of the biography article falls under WP:BLP1E. I understand that there are concerns about the name of this article, and perhaps there should be a separate discussion about possible renaming, but that does not have to do directly with the merger proposal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge It seems to me that many here don't understand WP:BLP1E. The intention of BLP1E is to keep the plethora of minor figures within an event from being notable enough from having an article, but its intention never was to prevent major characters of the event from having an article. Clear misinterpretation of BLP1E by just about everyone claiming it here.--JOJ Hutton 20:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:CRIMINAL:

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

As such, since there is already this article, the biography article shouldn't exist unless the subject of the biography article becomes independently notable beyond the crimes he is alleged to have committed, or if this article becomes to large per WP:LIMIT. As a reservist, the subject is not independently notable per WP:SOLDIER. As a police officer, the subject is not notable, as his service in the Los Angeles Police Department is more of a background to the events that lead up to the alleged criminal acts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a good idea to merge, but the title 2013 Southern California shootings assumes that this will be the only shooting spree in Southern California this year. Hopefully it will be, but the proposed title could be more specific. Perhaps the merge should be the other way, into Christopher Dorner? Or a third title? Paris1127 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have been supporting the merge, but recent developments, such as the substantial reward and label of domestic terrorist has tipped my viewpoint in favor of keeping this article in its own context. I see this individual as having a significant impact upon criminal and popular culture. Therefore, I am now opposed to this merge. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose merge Not only is Christopher Dorner a notable criminal suspect, but this is an ongoing situation. We have already beaten back the overzealous "AfD Cops" who wanted his article deleted on Notability grounds. Now they would have his story reduced to a paragraph or two in the main article related to his alleged crime spree. Maybe we don't need a James Eagan Holmes page. Maybe we should delete the page for Jared Lee Loughner. Or maybe what we really need is a 48 hour cooling off period before ANY AfD or merge gets proposed in the first place to stop the AfD storm troopers from acting with such haste. My next door neighbor is a capable single father and a very likeable guy who I call my friend. But he isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Christopher Dorner, on the other hand, is the subject of the largest manhunt in LA County history, a situation that is increasing in notability because of the LAPD's handling of the case and their shooting and otherwise attacking people who do not resemble Dorner in any way. AlaskaMike (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge Dorner is becoming independently notable aside from the event itself. ScienceApe (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment When people recommend merging to this article 2013 Southern California shootings, the actual name of this article is irrelevant. They are really saying "merge to an article about the shooting incidents and manhunt, rather than the individual." It's quite possible that a better name for this article will emerge with time. But it should still be the main and only article, per WP:CRIMINAL, unless and until the Dorner section of it becomes meaty enough to spin off. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:BLP1E is meant to be for one event, the plural of the name shootings and the info in the article shows that a series of shootings took place with widespread media coverage for each one. Thus this passes the criteria for a stand alone article (WP:GNG). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The subject of this article, per the name, encompasses all the shootings, and the attempted boat hijacking in San Diego. Now unless, the hijacking (piracy?) is considered a separate event, the subject is primarily known for the series of events that have occurred in the past week which this article treats as one subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
BLP1E may not apply now, but WP:BIO1E still does. The alleged perpetrator is primarly notable for the events that are the subject of this article. The individual may no longer be alive, but the subject is not notable outside of the events that lead to the alleged shootings, false imprisonment, and piracy all fall within the scope of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BIO1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that you don't think there should be an article about John Allen Muhammad (a.k.a. the Beltway sniper) either. Herzen (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for the idea, I have began the merger proposal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Strongly oppose merge', per "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This and the fact that he received one of the biggest manhunts in history, make him a prime candidate for his own article. GuzzyG (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, the role of the subject in the event is more than large (it would be different if we were talking about one of his victims), and we have enough material about him, and enough biographical informations about him outside the event, to justify a spinout article. Cavarrone (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment People keep quoting from BLP1E but that is not the governing rule here. The governing rule is spelled out quite clearly at WP:CRIME, namely "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." Also "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support merge. WP:CRIME is a specialization of WP:BLP1E for the case that the event in question is a crime. Obviously, Dorner is known only in light of the events of February 2013; otherwise he would have been totally non-notable and not even have been mentioned at all in any encyclopedic article.  --Lambiam 12:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - should definitly have its own article. also per WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, by my count there are 20 people who support merger/redirect in some form, and 23 who oppose it. I am not judging the strength of either sides arguments, and consensus is not determined by !votes, therefore I can easily say that there is presently No consensus at this time for the article to stand alone, or for merger. If a non-involved admin can close this, I think, we can get back to this issue sometime in the future, when the event is less recent. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
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.

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
No problem exists, other than the ones that are being invented.--JOJ Hutton 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
"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)
"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)
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)
"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)
Wouldn't not including "shootings" in the title trivialize the shootings? – Herzen (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

(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.
  • Support - Current title implies coverage of all notable shootings in Southern California, which is beyond the scope of this article. Proposed article title, Christopher Dorner Shootings and Manhunt, references unambiguously Christopher Dorner as the subject of the article, as well as the activity that led to his notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support – The current title is too vague. – Herzen (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with "shootings and manhunt" in lower case per the usual standards for titles. A specific title about the specific incident in the article is better than the present generic one, and the scope of this particular article is clear: it is about Dorner's actions and the response to them, not about all shootings in California this year. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I would prefer Christopher Dorner shootings , but any move is better than the current title. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)

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.

Victims' names edits.

I'm mostly neutral on the subject of Mr. Dorner. I'm not neutral on the subject of his victims. They have far too little attention and their names have been swept under the rug. Let's give them and their surviving families at least the closure of their names being mentioned somewhat prominently on Wikipedia. I'm not certain whether the heading for Mr. Crain's death should read "murder" or "ambush", but for consistency I put murder, as it was premeditated to some degree, and ambush is more a tactical term than legal. The deaths of Mr. MacKay and Mr. Dorner I left as "deaths" as the various degrees of premeditation are disputed, involving radio intercepts and police terminology that has been interpreted variously.Pär Larsson (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Re "Let's give them and their surviving families at least the closure of their names being mentioned somewhat prominently on Wikipedia." — I don't think that's a consideration when editing an article and mentioning them in the headings didn't seem to work well. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. The "Manual" says, "Keep headings short". – Herzen (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Police dispatch logs released

The LA Times has a story about the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department releasing dispatch logs related to the Dorner manhunt. The article contains a link to the logs themselves. It doesn't say anything we didn't already know or that is not in the Wikipedia article.

Still, our article might mention that the logs have been released, although I don't know where to work that in. Also, someone might want to look through the logs (I haven't) to see if there's anything there that might be used in the article. – Herzen (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Special Forces combatant

Dorner was never a "Special Forces combatant." First of all, "Special Forces" refers only to the United States Army Special Forces, which he could not have been a part of as a member of the Navy. Secondly, neither of his units were Special Operations units. As such, I have removed the erroneous information. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 report by LAPD re Dorner firing

LAPD: Firing of Christopher Dorner 'sound and just' CNN
Police Commission questions why Christopher Dorner was ever hired by LAPD Southern California Public Radio
LAPD's firing of Christopher Dorner was justified, report says LA Times
--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirect of Christopher Droner article

Even though I appreciate the users effort. I think it is hasty to redirect an article like Christopher Dorner without consensus for this redirect. We need more input.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Assault Weapon Vs. MSR

The term "Assault Weapon" is incorrect in this instance. The rifles being labeled are AR-15's, which are MSR (Modern Sporting Rifles.) The term Assault Weapon is a non-descriptive, political term, and not one used by the industry. The lobby group that represents the firearm industry (The NSSF) is very clear on this subject. "AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle." http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm Dreg102 01:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

Hi Dreg, I don't particularly care what the correct nomenclature is of the weapon(s) used, is. What I care about, is what the sources say, and I don't think any of the sources refer to the weapon as a "modern sporting rifle". Many of the sources referred to his arsenal as containing assault weaponry. At least one source described the sniper rifle as an assault rifle. I don't know that he actually even "used" an AR-15, only that it was found among his arsenal. Rather than trying to redefine something that can be sourced, perhaps the way to go is to reference the specific rifle, assuming it was actually used, since the |weapons= description at Template:Infobox civilian attack is "Weapons used in attacks". If he didn't actually use the AR-15, then it doesn't belong in the list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's the point. The source that refers to a semi-automatic rifle as an assault rifle is exactly why you need to use the term that the industry use. When he was killed he was found with 2 magazines for a MSR. We can't verify the make of the MSR, so we can't refer to it as an AR-15 (as it has to be made by either Colt, or ArmaLite to be an AR-15). And an assault weapon included an M1 Carbine with a folding stock. MSR is a rifle based upon the AR-15, and the most correct term used. Dreg102 04:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

We can only go by what the sources say, or it's original research. It's not your job or my job to apply preferred terminology to something that's already amply sourced. We neither censor, nor do we euphemize. And maybe you're forgetting that Dorner claimed to have a Barret .50 caliber rifle? As for your most recent edit, per WP:BRD, when you were reverted originally, you should have opened the discussion and maintained the status quo until a new consensus was formed, not revert. That is why I reverted you. Your re-reversion, is inappropriate. I'll leave it up for the time being, but you do not presently have consensus, and the appropriate thing to do would be to revert it yourself until consensus is achieved. As for the sources: "Assault weapons", LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is quoted saying "assault rifles", "AR-15", Beck again cited as having said assault rifle, "assault rifle" again, "assault rifle" again, "assault rifle" again and "two AR-15"s. Contrast that against a Google news search of "Christopher Dorner" and "Modern Sporting Rifle" and the results are nil. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Assault Rifles are not assault weapons. You're welcome to add that section if you'd like. Dreg102 22:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

Great. Then I'll change "modern sport rifle" which is unsourced interpretive content, to "assault rifle" which can be directly sourced, since you didn't like any of my other suggestions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You're going to claim that a fully-automatic firearm was used? Don't be spiteful because you're ignorant. Seek to learn more, not less. Dreg102 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

Needlessly condescending. The dispute isn't between your gun knowledge and my gun knowledge, the dispute is either between your gun knowledge and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck's gun knowledge, or it's between your Wikpedia knowledge and my Wikipedia knowledge. Plus, you didn't like any of my other suggestions, which were that we just refer to the rifle itself, or avoid the matter entirely in the infobox because it wasn't clear from any source that I read that Dorner used that weapon/sporting tool in the commission of the crimes. Rather, you seemed more interested in cramming hyperspecific definitions into the article that contradict sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Full-protected 1 week

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)

Conflicting accounts regarding fire

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt/Archive_2&oldid=1140249323"