Talk:Christopher Dorner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

External Link Truncated?

I just added an external link to Christopher Dorner's manifesto in HTML format (the existing clearchannel.com link is PDF). The link is to [ http://atlantadailyworld.com/201302083721/ADW-News/full-text-of-christopher-dorner-s-manifesto ]

I noticed that the existing link to [ http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/616/02/616_1360213161.pdf ] appears to have several paragraphs cut off at the end. The last paragraphs should be "Accountability. We need to hold ou" (the "ou" is not a typo on my part. that is how it ends.)

In an attempt to see which source is more likely to be correct, I found the same text that the Atlanta Daily World published at [ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50734759/ ], [ http://dailypostal.com/2013/02/08/christopher-dorner-manifesto-full-text-transcript/ ]. and [ http://pastebin.com/n5C6ULAH ].

I propose removing the clearchannel.com link, but what I would really like is a source that can be traced directly to the Facebook page where this was first published. Does anyone have a source showing that? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Related question: The following is alleged to have been leaked by Anonymous:

[ https://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/christopher-dorner-v-lapd-case-file/ ]

[ http://pastebin.com/JpXfPk0G ]

[ http://pastebin.com/pkR3ua5J ]

[ http://pastebin.com/TQJmaBSy ]

[ http://christopher-dorner.com/dorner-v-los-angeles-police-department/ ]

[ http://rasmussenlawblog.com/ ]

Does anyone have a source for the above that meets our WP:V and WP:RS requirements? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Accused?

The infobox says Accused perpetrator of 2013 Southern California shootings. If charges have not been filed, it should instead say suspect in 2013 Southern California shootings. Rybec (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Rybec (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Charges have now been filed in Riverside County.[1][2]--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we change back to accused, charged, or 'charged in absentia?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

UpDate Needed!!!?/?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/manhunt-christopher-dorner-big-bear.html info can be found regarding another shootout,car theft and hostages possibly today (2/14/13--98.223.60.151 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)SahWeet!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.60.151 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We should wait until we have official statements from the authorities. We are not in a hurry here. The media is still guessing as to who is shooting who.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's some reading while we wait: User:Joe Decker/Breaking News Sources --j⚛e decker^talk 22:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

Christopher Jordan Dorner → Christopher Dorner – Common name. Only one of ten ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]) news stories in my inbox use his legal name at first mention. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Support until the merge proposals settle out at least, WP:COMMONNAME. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to boldly do so. Thoughts? Go Phightins! 02:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would personally be surprised if it was controversial, but what do I know? --j⚛e decker^talk 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Me too. I'll give it 10 minutes, and if no one objects, I'll do it. Go Phightins! 02:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That page has more than one edit so it requires an admin. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Shoot, you're right; we'd have to move over a redirect. Any admins out there? Go Phightins! 02:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to use DB-Move because I considered it uncontroversial, but I realized that would break the redirect for many people for too long. Perhaps a message at WP:AN? Ryan Vesey 02:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll also leave a message at WP:RM/TR. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No need. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Ryan Vesey 02:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Premature death announcement

I noticed that someone already gave him a death date. His death has not, I repeat, NOT, been confirmed. The police still aren't even sure if it was him in the cabin. The sources for his death date are titled with the words Believed. If you're going to add something to an encyclopedia, please wait until it has been confirmed.

I added in some wording to indicate that it has not been confirmed yet. Thanks! Vacation9 03:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked. And now I may have another example for User:Joe Decker/Breaking News Sources. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it not confirmed, but it has been outright denied by the police. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not understand why this is being debated. The Riverside Police Chief, Sergio Diaz, has already confirmed that it is Dorner. Do we need another reference to prove he died or would this be enough to readd to the article? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd really like to see a link for that, as I just saw the official police press conference that has just said the building is too hot to enter, and NO body has been found, much less identified. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem; multiple media outlets reported he was dead (such as CNN), but then the press conference said they've yet to identify the body. We did the best we could based on the available information, which I understand is not good enough...we need to do better. Go Phightins! 04:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Usa Today mentions Diaz saying it. To quote, "Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz said the body was Dorner's, the 'Riverside Press-Enterprise' reported." What source are you mentioning? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I'm going to try this one more time. Time and time again we rush to race unreliable information to press during exciting news events. Whether it's the death of the not-dead-yet Gabrielle Giffords, or the (entirely untrue) nuclear meltdown we reported immediately following the tsunami in Japan, we feel the need to publish the most exciting possible news in as little time as possible in the face of conflicting information. In the end, getting it right matters more than getting it to press. And please consider reading User:Joe Decker/Breaking News Sources. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The body could be a woman delivering a newspaper or a surfer.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Might I also add to that list the Newtown shooting NBC video saying the long gun wasn't used, and us following that before it was redacted by EVERYONE? gwickwire^talk_edits 04:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alright, I guess that it can wait a while longer. I heard the confirmation that came through, but since this could be a bad thing to report, I will be alright with waiting for more infomation. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, this is definitely a pet peeve of mine, and it probably shows. :) Sorry about that. I'm off to dinner, have fun, folks. --j⚛e decker^talk 04:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I would also say that your essay should be added as an official Wikipedia essay. It looks like something that would be accepted by a number of users, myself included.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, well here's the difference: Law enforcement officials said that they had the body of Dorner (at least that's what I gathered from Diaz), so I think we were justified in adding that information. I understand that Wikipedia is not a news source by the books, but I will wager that tomorrow if you look at the page views on this page it will be tens of thousands, so like it or not, Wikipedia is becoming a news source and as such, we have a duty, in my opinion, to put out whatever information is deemed reliable, especially when it's released by law enforcement officials. In this case, CNN, CBS, and one of those local news stations that starts with a K reported that the body of Dorner was recovered. Go Phightins! 04:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Some law enforcement officials may have said that, but the LAPD specifically stated that no body has yet been recovered. We should wait. Here's a link. 72Dino (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying initially; I just watched the news conference where they said no body. Go Phightins! 04:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just so we all know, CNN and FOX have both rescinded their stories on-air, not sure about on-web. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The link I mentioned above for Usa Today has been altered and is now stating that there is no body recovered yet. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to mention, but I think that you would be looking for KTLA.  :) (Granted, I just saw the sentence about the LAPD statement that no body was recovered from the fire.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013

Death Feburary 12, 2013

Ommi9 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, see above gwickwire^talk_edits 05:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

dead link

raw version link is dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.50.234 (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The external link? I removed it. The website must've dropped it. — Wyliepedia 09:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifesto

The manifesto you posted in links is BS. The original one is here http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/christopher-dorners-original-manifesto/34396/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.62.44 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources have an original from facebook? Was there more than one version on facebook? I think the readers should have access to a link that we provide too accurate ones or just list all of them and let readers decide? No links would seem like we are censoring, covering up, POV, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone just pasted an entire version to the article. I think this is a copyright violation. A link should work fine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Publishing the original verbatim can't be a copyright violation, since the copyright belongs to Christopher Dorner himself. Unless he objects, it should be fine. Yurivict (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We need permission from any author to paste more than small quotes here. If he had published it with a 'free licence' then we would be allowed. See: Wikipedia:Copyright violations.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could get him to sign a release. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems meaningless to say taht the manifesto "was posted" without saying where it was posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaimon (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have found two postings labelled as the unredacted Dorner Manifesto. http://wdv.com/Various/Writings/Dorner/ http://wap.myfoxla.com/w/main/story/84473837/?sp=1 The differences between the two are that: (a) the Fox version is in plain ASCII and (b) the WDV version is in Unicode (differences in code for ' " dashes ellipses). (c) The two versions have different paragraph breaks. (d) The WDV version redacts certain words used by Dorner: f*** and n****r. (Paragraph break loss is understandable. I can easily lose paragraph breaks by copying text on the 'net and pasting it into Notepad, but keep paragraph breaks by pasting the same copy into Vedit.)

The "original" at http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/christopher-dorners-original-manifesto/34396/ which links to http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/police.pdf cuts off at "...time with briefs and tabletops." Up to that point (the first 5,000 words) it matches the Fox and WDV versions, whereas the Fox and WDV versions continue "Whatever pre-planned responses...." for 6,000 more words of the ~11,000 word manifesto. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Prank LL Cool J Redirect

LL Cool J redirects here and i haven't found a way back to the original LL Cool J article. i just wanna know how old he was when he released radio (edit: he was 17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.247.58 (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

LL Cool J has been restored for you. — Wyliepedia 08:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I found all the links and fixed them. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing birth city and fathers name

The infobox and article are missing his birth city and fathers name. If you come across these details, please add to the article and include a reference. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ammunition exploded in flames

The Fox News source for this sentence "after ammunition stored inside exploded in flames.[17]" clearly states that the ammunition was exploding inside the inferno. The sentence in the wiki page makes it seem like the ammunition exploding was the cause of the fire. The cause is, as far as I know, still unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonarg (talk • contribs)

I would ask that we seek out better information on the cause of the fire as ammunition spontaneously exploding is highly implausible. I realize we can only include what is reported by the media, but better sources may be available.

It is not clear yet whether authorities have even entered the cabin, or what remains of it. It's highly unlikely that there is any verifiable source claiming knowledge of anything happening with the cabin. Gravitycollapse (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Audio of Christopher Dorner Shootout, youtube • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Military?

I read somewhere that Dorner did a tour in Afghanistan. true, untrue?

Doing a blog posting on it and want to get the facts straight.

-Pat

68.43.92.236 (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You could add a link to the source here. Generally speaking, blog posts aren't very reliable sources, though. Regards, --Hvakshahtrah (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Nickname?

Im new to wikipedia and dont know how to add it but i read in the washingtontimes website (reliable?) That he is referred to as "The Dark Knight" can we add this to his bio?--[Jorgejones]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.62.224 (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's really the thing to include, if its only a nickname. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing info

People will want clarification on if by drone "target" they mean lethal force or not. Nothing on his anti-hero status here. [12] "Domestic Terrorist" [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.34.161 (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

His "anti-hero status" isn't notable, because it's a view pushed by one person with a keyboard. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Its a lot more than one person Prisonermonkeys. A simple look at facebook or twitter would confirm that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.148.105 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to edit siege section of article

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-fish-and-wildlife-officers-make-the-big-break.html

On Tuesday February 12, 2013, multiple Wardens from California Department of Fish and Wildlife positively identified Dorner traveling down California State Route 38 at 12:45 PM. Dorner responded by firing multiple shots at a marked vehicle. An officer in that vehicle reportedly returned fire using a high powered rifle.

Dorner was cornered by San Bernadino deputies after stealing a vehicle in Big Bear near Highway 38 and Glass Road. During this time gunfire was exchanged and two deputies were wounded, one fatally. At 4:20 pm PST the cabin (34°11′12″N 116°54′53″W) at 40612 River Road in Angelus Oaks, California where Dorner had taken refuge in following a subsequent exchange with officers was observed to be burning[16] after ammunition stored inside exploded in flames.[17]

(talk) 05:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Gravitycollapse (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edited Article. Sorry, new to the game. Gravitycollapse (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Police intentionally set fire to the cabin. Portion starts 1 minute in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCdqybEfy9w&list=LLZXNAA7zvg9ifsvcb0ep4tQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.178.237 (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is that relevant? Gravitycollapse (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

uhh it is A Fact Related To The Siege so it's relevant, i don't understand what you're asking71.96.64.55 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

SO we're just going to pretend the fire wasn't directly related to the tear gas fired into the cabin moments before the fire? this was commented upon by all the news stories i watched. Also the fact that fire crews where waiting to put the fire out but the police officer in charge told them not to . even at the point where the building was observed to have collapsed in on itself and be completely incinerated? .... *cover up?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.27.0 (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The captain that made the decision to let the fire burn did so for officer and public safety, based on:

• The fire was reasonably contained to the cabin and did not threaten to spread to the forest or adjoining properties/structures.
• The cabin was believed to have a 10'x15' basement which was believed to be located in a section where the building was not yet fully engulfed, posing a risk that the suspect may have been able to survive there (and continue to pose a threat to law enforcement and/or fire personnel if they attempted to stop the fire).
• At least up until the structure started to collapse, ammunition inside the cabin continued to explode, making it unsafe to approach. It may have continued afterwards – that's when the internet scanner feed died.

This is my summary of what I heard first-hand (live) over the police scanner from the SBSO captain making the decisions. Presumably, you can find a news source with an interview that states the same. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, based on both Google and Bing imagery, the structure in question is better located at -116° 54' 54" longitude, and the address is on 7 Oaks Road (or Seven Oaks Road). The county tract map just calls it "County Road". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Police audio during standoff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X-WoiJhVY8 When he's confirmed dead, I will add this to the article (unless someone does it before me, obviously ;) ). Regards, --Hvakshahtrah (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's another link to the same audio recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T6cG7FC71c There's an entire transcript of the scanner test on Reddit as well. Please be sure to add this portion, and the responsibility of the police in the controlled cabin burn as soon as is possible. Happy to add the Reddit transcript text and additional source recording links as a further citation needed (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2013 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.139.169 (talk)

I already posted this link earlier in the talk section, but after reading discussions on other web sites, the audio might be refering to the smoke grenades, so be careful about what you post! Audio of Christopher Dorner Shootout, youtube • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you have a link to one of the web sites where they're discussing this? Would really appreciate that. Regards, --Hvakshahtrah (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are some links. You have to filter through the various internet banter. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/18f5sn/redditors_capture_and_transcribe_police_radio/

http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/18fad5/scanner_recording_of_cop_killer_christopher/

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/18f4hr/police_surrounding_dorner_cabin_saying_burn_it/

How about a link to a reliable source? None of the above can be used in this article. 72Dino (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep as separate article or redirect

The following discussion 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.

---

• Per WP:BOLD I have closed the discussion as there is already one taking place over at: Talk:2013 Southern California shootings#Merge/redirect. No need for the added confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I vote keep as separate article--Ron John (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Obtaining a consensus is not a vote. Obtaining a consensus is when a group of editors work together in the best intersts of the page, and come to an agreement on the best way forward.

There's no group it's just you..--Ron John (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Dorner should not have his own article, because of what has been outlined by WP:PERP, which I suggest you read. The following points are particularly relevant:

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 do not even know for certain that Dorner is the one committing these crimes, and until such time as we do, there is no reason to create the page.

Furthermore,

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 nothing about Dorner that cannot go in the 2013 Southern California shootings article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

....This is one of the problems inherent in writing articles about an event as it unfolds. IMO, it would be best to keep them as separate articles for the time being, and revisit the issue once the situation is resolved. Right now, it seems appropriate to have separate, highly-detailed articles. In the future (a week? a month?), it will be clearer what is relevant and what is not, and things can be consolidated as appropriate... but for now, consolidation of articles regarding an event in progress seems premature. -rosignol@gmail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.246.107 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Keep them separate for now, a month from now the issue can be revisted and we'll have a much better idea of what's relevant and what's not relevant. Banaticus (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Separate Keep separate, highly-detailed articles. Otherwise we'll either have biographical details cluttering the event or event details cluttering the biography, and good contributions will be cut out for artificial reasons. This situation is "Not Normal". Mathematician0 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Separate - per policy and above. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:00, 13 February 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.

Redirecting

The following discussion 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.

---

• Per WP:BOLD I have closed the discussion as there is already one taking place over at: Talk:2013 Southern California shootings#Merge/redirect. No need for the added confusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop redirecting.--Ron John (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's being redirected for a reason. I direct your attention to WP:PERP, which says:

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.

Any information on Dorner should be placed in the existing 2013 Southern California shootings article, because Dorner is not known for anything outside the shootings, and he is directly relevant to the article.

Furthermore, WP:PERP says 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.

Dorner's guilt has not been proven by a court of law. He has only been named as the suspect in the shootings. To create an article on him implies that he is guilty before he has had a chance to stand trial. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A wiki page exist for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes so what's the difference. He has not been found guilty and is not known for anything other than the Colardo Shootings. STOP REDIRECTING!

The difference is that Holmes has been arraigned. Dorner is currently a fugitive. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ron... THis is obviously going to go super viral... already where is the alleged manefestos? BOth versions should be up here already. As well as police reactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Perp doesnt mean we dont create an article, we just weigh their notability as a suspect. multi agency manhunt across half of one of the largest states in us? international coverage of the details of his life? he can have an article. as long as we dont extrapolate beyond news reports.99.157.205.137 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge/redirect The critical policy here is WP:BLP1E, as I said the first time I redirected the article. Dorner is unlikely to have been notable (correct me if I'm wrong) had the recent shootings nto taken place. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of this event, the person would otherwise remain low-profiel, and this event, while very large now, is not of the sort of significance to raise the shootings to the level of the Reagan shooting. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support merge/redirect - with no objection to this being spun back out as a separate article at some point in the future, should there be consensus to do that. GiantSnowman 16:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Merge/Redirect - There is no need for a separate article at this time. All relevant information can be covered on 2013 Southern California shootings. 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 there as a section, if it does. Bigdan201 (talk) 18:13, 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)

• Strong support to merge under Christopher Jordan Dorner article only - His name is more notable than his crimes. The guy's become an antihero, and this will only grow IMHO. He's not your common-or-garden ordinary criminal. He's intelligent, liberal, has sympathetic issues, writes well, and is well informed. He's also about to be killed on sight. American to the core. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong keep per JohnClark. 67.1.67.151 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep If anything it is because he IS a fugitive that he should have his own wiki page. This is literally the biggest MANHUNT (not eventhunt or shootinghunt, but manhunt = individual) in socal history. Given the content and very specific grievances of his poorly written manifesto, he should be considered notable for using violence in opposition to immense corruption. Mar2194 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep He managed to create this much notoriety so soon, there is no doubt that this article should be maintained. and the shootings article should be merged into this one. Johnny_Tempest —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Christopher Dorner will become the part of the history of struggle with corruption in the police force. He is likely to become, if not already, the folk hero alike Robin Hood. Movie is likely to be made about this case. He is much more notable than, for example, Kardashians. Yurivict (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes <--- Has a page so should he. He's in all major news outlets.--Ron John (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The news of this individual has reached the International level and it's gone to the point the Department of Homeland Security is involved.--215.68.72.251 (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Merge to 2013 Southern California shootings, at least for now. Wikipedia policy at WP:CRIMINAL clearly 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 his information should go. Sure he is in all the major news outlets - BECAUSE he is the accused killer and the subject of the manhunt, and the reporting is about killings and the manhunt, and the article is about the killings and the manhunt. Let's not pretend we would ever have heard of him if it weren't for the shootings. BTW note that the name of the target article, "2013 Southern California shootings", is not set in stone and could change in the future. Note also that he has not been convicted of anything, so comparing him to (say) people on the list of serial killers is inappropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. We are not in a hurry and this is not a vote. Should we have an admin go over the discussion and see which policies we follow to keep or re-direct? If we merge then we are declaring him guilty. Suspects are innocent until proven gulity.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! I'm not sure why people keep redirecting. An admin should have the final say!--Ron John (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

He is the main suspect at the moment and would still be a major past suspect. I do not think that a redirect would be declaring him guilty since his name is connected to the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep In fact the 2013 Southern California shootings article should be merged in to this. I feel the person is now more notable then the crime. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
• Actually, what should happen is Move the shootings article to his name, since it was created first. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 12 February 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.

Record $1 million reward, first US drone target

"A record $1 million reward was posted on Sunday for information leading to the capture of" Dorner.[14]

"Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil."[15] 71.212.251.104 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

First thing is trivia that is unnecessary for the article, second thing is really synthesis. The source says they were using it to track him, not "human target" him gwickwire^talk_edits 01:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources are also wrong that say this was the first time a drone was used to track someone on US soil [16]. Ryan Vesey 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wallet?

I'm sorry but this is not a forum to speculate on how something may have occurred. If sources come out and something legitimately needs added, start a new section.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cross posting this here from the shooting page because this article has the same information on the "discovered" wallet. 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? Billwsu (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Maybe he wanted to be identified after his death? That isn't for me speculate however. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Also how in the heck did a plastic license survive the flames? This story will go down in history as even more messed up than Waco, but for the purposes of Wikipedia perhaps a new article covering just the debate/ conspiracy aspect? There's enough information online archived to make such an article quite lengthy. Twarwick666 (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatted forum-like comments gwickwire^talk_edits 05:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Press servility

Does anyone have details of the press colluding with the police instead of reporting events? http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-christopher-dorner/ seems pretty sure they did.Keith-264 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point in time, it's hard to say what details are being respun by the cops, or the reporters and news services not knowing enough details since the story is moving so fast. I'm sure more details will be collected and reported as time moves along. Anyway, it doesn't matter what we all feel, but instead what are facts that can be reported in Wikipedia articles. The talk section isn't a place for conspiracy theories or speculation. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked a question, I suggest you keep your inferences to yourself. Stories don't move and there is nothing new to report since the man is dead, hence my question. Try to keep a sense of proportion and assume good faith. Keith-264 (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding that the foreign media is more open to speculating about police tactics, including the alleged plan to set fire to the building Dorner was hold up in. Keep an eye on the UK media in particular. I've added a ref to an article The Telegraph. One of the issues that arose out of the recent Leveson Enquiry in the UK was the friendly association between UK police and the Press, the police gave the Press valuable inside information and the Press in turn wrote articles that put the police in a good light, the same culture maybe at work in the US. --Diamonddavej (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist

Per Osama bin Laden, we can't call Christopher Dorner a terrorist, especially not in the first sentence. We can say somewhere in the article that he was described as a domestic terrorist by the LAPD [17]. Ryan Vesey 03:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely; using the encyclopedia's voice to call him a terrorist is not prudent. Go Phightins! 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering that CD was accusing LAPD of being racist, I do not think what the LAPD thinks of CD carries any weight whatsoever. Apteva (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Karen and Jim Reynolds

Looks like it was this couple who were held hostage, not the two maids as previously reported. This info should probably be added. Starrynight06 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifesto Malware WARNING

I feel I would be remiss if I did not inform others that the top version of the manifesto is infected with malware and if you click on it you could potentially have your computer infected with it. It seems to lock one out of ones own start page. I've just spent an hour trying to get it off my own laptop.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about which exact link you mean? Or, better yet, this is a case where it is OK to edit/cripple the link and note the reason why. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The top one, "original unredacted version".--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems like putting a copy of the manifesto on Wikisource or similar would protect against those issues. 72Dino (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

News media

As broadcast on the Anderson Cooper 360 and Piers Morgan Tonight show on Feb. 8, 2013.

CNN- 30 days after leaving the military during his L.A. police training he was having difficulty dealing with basic situations. He was seen crying to fellow recruits begging for "Reintegration Training!"

He asked the police for help with getting reintegration training, but because he was only a recruit, "they refused him, and did not offer any suggestions for getting help!"

What do his military records show for not getting reintegration training?

It is possible he was suffering from Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [See wiki on PTSD]

CNN has stressed many times his relationship problems, specifically portraying him as a cold monster, his demeanor, and temper. All fit the PTSD profile.Midnightvisions (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

On Feb 13 CNN On the "Making it in America show" had 5 different officers recorded on police scanners saying to burn down the house where Christopher Dorner was hold up in. This directly conflicts with all prior official police news briefs.Midnightvisions (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic content

It seems to me that this article is based on news reports, not anything encyclopedic.-- Sparkzilla talk! 22:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't find that criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (events). Of course something that occurred in the last ten days is only found in news reports. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's articles like this that make me really question Wikipedia's mission. Do you think the Encyclopedia Britannica would ever have an article on this news story. There's a big different between being a topic being "encyclopedic" and being "newsworthy". And this event has two Wikipedia articles.

The criteria for Notability is so broad as to be almost useless. It serves simply to allow any bored Wikipedia editor to make themselves feel useful by adding almost any news item. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My Cat. I agree.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This has significance beyond mere spectacle, although a single article would make more sense. As for the Britannica, it doesn't yet have an article about Christopher Dorner, but it does have multiple articles mentioning Rodney King, the Branch Davidian siege, and Timothy McVeigh:

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Rodney+King

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Branch+Davidian

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Timothy+McVeigh

This sad episode raises some of the same issues: questionable use of force by the police (both the manifesto and the hunt for Mr. Dorner), not having firefighters on hand before tear gas devices that can start fires are used in a siege, and the possibility that the people trained to use violence on our behalf will "go rogue" and use violence in ways we don't want.

While it's false to say that something must be important just because it's happening now, saying it must be unimportant just because it's happening now is also false. I don't see the harm in immediacy...well, I'll stop here since this must have been discussed somewhere already. --Rybec (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger from 2013 Southern California shootings

After carefully reviewing the following pages...
Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event
Wikipedia:What is one event
Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual#Behavior pattern and activity level
...it is my considered opinion that 2013 Southern California shootings should be merged into Christopher Jordan Dorner.
Please note that there is an existing proposal to do the merge the other way; the closer should evaluate the responses to both proposals together. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The proposed title may need changing since it is his shootings that are the main topic and motivation for an article. I don't think we need to use "alleged", since he admits to them in his Manifesto. Here's a possible title, "Christopher Jordan Dorner shootings". --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A proposed rename would be best considered after the proposed merge either passes or fails. Also, we do not know for sure who wrote that manifesto or whether the copies we have seen have been edited. What we know for sure is that he is a named suspect in several crimes and that a warrant has been issued for his arrest. We can add items such as "captured", "indicted" "convicted" "released" "exonerated", or even "admitted" when and if they occur. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe there's a strong argument for merging the content, but I don't believe the resulting article should be titled as a biography. I'd be far more supportive of merging to any name that reflected that the subject of the article was a series of events, rather that a living person. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Another opinion; both the killing spree and the biography are relevant, comparable to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold having a biography despite being teens. What differs this case from the Ted Kaczynski case, is that the police shootings upon innocent have perpetuated this case as original. I could be wrong though. Chaan (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• The shootings article certainly shouldn't be merged into this one. I'm neutral on whether or not this should be merged into the shooting article. Ryan Vesey 22:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I recommend not going through with the merge. Yesterday I may have said wait on it, but today's strange events only add to story. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the title, a possibility is "Christopher Dorner manhunt". --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• My feeling is that there should be this one article under his name alone which we have, and that the shootings article should be merged into this one. My reasoning is that as the story is unfolding, we see that the shootings leading to his (assumed) death were a culmination of a years' long much bigger story, which is now being told here. To separate the shootings is to take a POV that he is nothing but a murderer and a killer, end-of-story. But more than that was going on, as we see. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Opposed. If the shootings were all at the hands of Dorner I would be for a merger. As it is, there are at least a dozen shooters involved almost all of which are NOT Dorner but instead LAPD against civillians. The merger title alone would at a glance imply that the deceased/injured count is attributed solely to Dorner (the name in the title) which is just factually incorrect and misleading.Warmtoast (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• merge to Christopher Dorner since 2013 Southern California shootings has vanishingly little about other people suspected in these crimes, and such material is unlikely to be added. His name is plastered all over this: every section in the time-line mentions it. People not shot by Mr. Dorner but by other police officers were still shot (ostensibly, at any rate) as part of the pursuit of him. Also "2013 Southern California shootings" is more lengthy and sounds like it might contain data from the Central Bureau of Statistics. --Rybec (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

High-powered rifle

Could the words "high-powered" be removed from the sentence associated with reference link 16? High-powered is an imprecise and emotionally charged term that cannot provide relevant information. There exists no standardized or clear guide-lines as to what constitutes high-powered, though it is often used by the media to refer to semi-automatic or automatic weapons which may not, in fact, fire a 'powerful' cartridge. Ihutch1 (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Other sources only mention they return fire. I also don't think it matters what weapon was used. We don't say he shot at the officers with a handgun, now do we? — Wyliepedia 08:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly sure of convention here. But according to at least one other report I read, the warden used an AR-15 chambered in .308 Winchester. Which is considered a medium or high powered cartridge. Which seemed relevant to me considering that the article I referenced spoke specifically about Dorner strafing the side of the vehicle with a handgun. Gravitycollapse (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic but some pedant will point out than a .308 Win caliber AR rifle would be the AR-10 model. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the importance. It's almost biased to say they shot at him with a "high-powered" rifle, when in your original addition, you don't even mention the gun Dorner used. Obviously, Ihutch1 thought it offensive/weighted and I removed it. Simply say both sides engaged in gunfire and let it go. — Wyliepedia 09:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"High powered" formerly simply denoted that the muzzle velocity was over a certain threshold synonymous with "high velocity" and impact energy was over 1,000 ft/lbs at 100yds. All hunting rifles suitable for big game are required by law to be high power; most state laws mandate power levels legal for big game hunting excluding low power, low velocity rounds like .30 Carbine, .32-20. etc. Low power or low velocity usually implies .22 rimfire rifles or pistol caliber carbines suitable only for small game, which I would not expect to see in the hands of a warden in bear country. Police long arms I have seen locally have included .30-30 deer rifle (high velocity, high power) and .45 "tommy gun look-alike" carbine (low velocity, low power pistol caliber). I would expect a warden in bear country to be armed with a high powered rifle as a matter of routine, and I would expect anyone subjected to lethal strafing pistol fire from a self-confirmed self-professed cop killer to defend themselves with the most effective lethal weapon at hand. The media have turned a simple description "high powered" into a perjorative like "baby-killer". Honestly, if a warden had a low powered weapon, that would be real news. --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable for one event?

Doesn't notable for one event apply to this article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, now there is abundant coverage of and commentary on his original brutality complaint, the arrestee in that case and his testimony, his dismissal, his lawsuit, the initial murders, his manifesto, the unwieldy initial police response, the subsequent shootings, the manhunt, the record reward, and the shootout. Arguably those comprise more than a dozen distinct events across several years on which news coverage is now easy to find. The problem is that only a few of those can be reasonably included in the initial shootings article. Granted, the events are related, but for the first million dollar reward offered, you probably want to err on the side of WP:COMPREHENSIVE. 71.212.238.161 (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:2013 Southern California shootings#Merge/redirect. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Dorner's death a murder?

Police have denied, pretty sure there won't be charges if they won't even admit starting the fire (if they did). Saying that, WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will be interesting to see the person who made a decision to kill Dorner convicted of murder. Dorner was a suspect, no court ever convicted him. And he didn't pose an imminent danger to anyone. So how about this was a hatred motivated murder ([Hate crime])? Should the article elaborate on the legal prospects in this light? 24.6.219.36 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Forum-y post that really doesn't suggest anything doable at this time gwickwire^talk_edits 22:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's not have Wikipedia kill people. Let's be accurate.

Christopher Dorner may be reading the WP article. Let's not have blood on our hands by inciting anger. The main article is written better than the Dorner bio in some respects. We cannot false accuse Dorner or take sides.

Often, these kind of employment fights are crooked. People lie and distort the truth. The woman who supervised Dorner made a complaint against him. Dorner thought it was false. That started his rage. He then made a complaint against that woman but lost. He claims she kicked a man under arrest. That man's father agrees. However, the bureaucrats closed the case. This doesn't mean that kicking did not happen. This legal fight does not justify murder but we must not take sides. Particularly if we get facts wrong (even if they have citations), we could have blood on our hands as Dorner gets mad. It is better to write in the most neutral tone, keeping in mind WP BLP1E, and evaluate citations very, very carefully. Auchansa (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you even right [write] this?? Wikipedia isn't for your opinion, no one asked you for your opinion. Wikipedia is for factual information, which is why I created this article to; to ensure factual information is available not opinions. If you want to right an opinion column create a blog.--Ron John (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that because of the many BLP1E violations and sloppy writing that I see in WP. With this situation, there is the potential for murder. That would be tragic if WP were the straw that broke the camel's back. Auchansa (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me guess you think Soldier's shouldn't play call of duty because it would remind them of the war or Amy Fisher shouldn't read her wiki page because it may cause her to try to kill again.. AGAIN REFRAIN FROM YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS ON WIKIPEDIA. IF YOU WANT TO START AN OPINION COLUMN CREATE A BLOG.--Ron John (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, so I did. [18] JohnClarknew (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I see biased editing all the time in WP. This is no good. Now the LAPD is considering looking into the Dorner hearings. What probably prompted this is that some hearings in some organizations are very unjust and just show trials. I don't know how the LAPD is but we should be very neutral in our writing. What IF the hearings were biased? Then making definitive but incorrect statements could incite violence as well as make WP inaccurate. In other words, we MUST evaluate the citation and not just accept them as gospel. Actually, there are other articles in WP that are really guilty of this. Auchansa (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Evaluate the citation". Those, my friend, are words never heard around WP. If they come from a "reliable source", in they go. And it's the BLPs who suffer the most, and Dorner is one (at least for the time being!). But thanks for bringing it up, it's WP's big weakness. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"...I have seen that abused in some WP articles. Basically, some POV pusher sees an obscure sentence from CNN or other respected source and wants to force it in the article, even if it is a trivial point. Then other POV pushers will agree. Luckily, this is not happening with this article. However, all users should be aware of the need for objective evaluation of editorial content. In Dorner's case, his manifesto refers to what he calls was an unfair hearing and his appointed representative did not have his interest in mind but was actually protecting the department. This is a valid point to consider in the article, especially since there is no proof that the hearing was or was not fair. All we know is there are allegations of an unfair hearing and a negative result against Dorner. Auchansa (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Re "If they come from a 'reliable source', in they go." — See Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. This is a recent addition to the Verifiability policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do the housekeepers get the reward?

Do the housekeepers who surprised Dorner and who he tied up before fleeing qualify for the $1 million reward for their 911 call with the description of his vehicle? 71.212.238.161 (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this is a very open question. 71.212.238.161 (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Reward was offered for "information leading to capture and conviction", so apparently nobody qualifies. Yurivict (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

As the link above details, there are two issues behind this: Legally theoretically, if the information was sufficient to make a capture, but the authorities made a decision to kill him instead (which seems to be the case, although there are very strident denials) then there may still be a claim, but the precedent is murky. As a practical matter, refusing to pay would certainly dilute the effectiveness of future rewards, probably substantially since this was a record offer. 71.212.238.161 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked because the answer was not in the article, and I thought it should be. Since there is no answer (yet), I pointed that out. I am not sure whether a discussion of the topic is appropriate for the article before there is a definitive answer, but still the question was asked in order to further improvement of the article, not to have a chat about the topic. I'm sorry if it wasn't taken that way. I still firmly believe that the article should include the answer when it becomes known, because the record magnitude of the reward offer makes it noteworthy. 71.212.238.161 (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've unhatted it after the clarification :) gwickwire^talk_edits 02:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have read that the report that they were housekeepers was inacurate. They were the owners of the condo. Might want to look into that. The 'housekeeper' sorty was revised a day our two ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.129.65 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

New image looks like a mug shot

The old image was fine. It seems that the new image was put in place to look more like a mugshot, and criminalize him. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violation. ScienceApe (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree.--Askalan (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

He was never arrested, I don't think. They may use the mugshot camera for police ID though. Can we source and state that is an badge/ID image to clarify?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What about the photo of him which is used in nearly every newspaper article? The one were he is wearing an uniform etc.?--Askalan (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We can't use copyrighted images without permission. If you can find the photographer, email them to upload it for use here, then we can use it. The one we have is public domain because of California law that says images by that employee are public domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can. In such cases fair use applies.

Poilicy states we can't if a free licence image exists. They also aren't allowed for living people unless the image is dicussed as part of the article content.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a mugshot or something like it; although, I don't know that this is a mugshot. In any case WP:MUG states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light". There's no way that a claim can be made that this image is used out of context or that it prevents the cop murderer in a false or disparaging light. WP:MUG means that if you write an article on a CEO who got pulled over for drug possession when he was 22, you can't use the mugshot because it doesn't accurately represent him. Ryan Vesey 01:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Consider not having a photo

Reason: This photo makes him look like a bad person. It is not a flattering photo. Politicians use the same tactic for attack ads. For example, use a bad photo of Obama or showing Romney singing off key. Then do not use a stolen/fair use photo. Who says we need a photo. Just have links to news articles that have a photo. Auchansa (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Leona Helmsley had her full mugsot in the infobox for who knows how long before I cropped it. If we remove the height lines then no one can tell it is a mug shot at all. I think policy still stresses it is the only image we can use because it is the only free one. Bill Gates has a mug shot in his article that has no text stating anything about it because there are no records as to why it was taken.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. WP:MUG allows a photo in this case. Ryan Vesey 04:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violation to use an unflattering mugshot like photo to present him as a villain. It should either use the old photo or no photo at all. ScienceApe (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sympathy from other ex-cops

"Ex-cops sympathize with Dorner’s anger" in Salon today is interesting:

...the Los Angeles Times noted Tuesday, the allegations posted about LAPD racism and use of excessive force “have resonated among the public and some LAPD employees who have criticized the department’s disciplinary system, calling it capricious and retaliatory toward those who try to expose misconduct.”

Another former Los Angeles police officer, Joe Jones, has now posted his own online manifesto flagged by HuffPo Tuesday. Jones wrote, “The first thing I would say to [Dorner] is, I feel your pains!” but urges, “Don’t kill anymore innocent people!”

Jones, 48, a patrol officer who retired in 1998, like Dorner stressed “the injustices of Police Corruption, Scandal, Lies, Deception and Brutality.” Jones claims that he had his “Civil Rights violated on several occasions” by the LAPD, had himself been falsely arrested at gunpoint, and lost so much trust in the police department while an officer that he could “no longer wear the Uniform.” His manifesto, which was originally posted to his Facebook page (since removed) and then circulated Tuesday, directly addresses “unethical LAPD and all agencies”....

I'm not sure how to include that. Does this belong here or in the shootings article? 71.212.238.161 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Rklawton (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly yes, but probably not for now. It may be more suitable for the shootings article. The shootings article needs heavy revision. It should begin earlier than it does. It should be about the termination of Dorner then go into the shootings. As such, it should be re-named.

I have heard about an analysis of the LAPD. How many officers are terminated for filing a false report? If there is an allegation, does the losing side automatically get fired for filing a false report? Auchansa (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We have criticism sections for other biographies of people, it may be fair to present both positive and negative criticism of Dorner in the article. ScienceApe (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pararphrase manifesto

I think we are allowed to paraphrase the manifesto now on whichever page Mr. Dormer ends up on. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Police burning down cabin

The article asserts that audio from police scanners indicates police intentionally burned down the cabin. The two sources used are a Twitter feed, and a Telegraph article based on that Twitter feed and two Youtube videos.

We are using a primary source that is also a Twitter feed, and a secondary source based on that primary source and a couple Youtube videos. The standards of reliable sources have been entirely abandoned here, and the presentation of information is not appropriate. Furthermore, the dialog the Telegraph claims is heard in the first video does not correspond to the actual audio. Some guy (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we phrase it that the "Telegraph believes/states/quotes..." etc? I can see the logic of using enough gas/smoke units to burn it down. Did we ever get an RS as to which version they used and the operating temperature? It reminds me of a tale about a straw house, a stick house, and a brick one. I think the brick house was the only one that survived.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Abuse Allegations

Many agree that Dorner's dismissal was racially motivated because if a white officer reported misconduct in the LAPD, even an unproven incident, he would have been given an award of recognition or promoted for his moral integrity instead of being disciplined.76.209.138.114 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner has accused the LAPD of racism, and he may well have had a point there. But this idea that white LAPD officers who report misconduct by their fellow cops universally get rewarded for their "moral integrity" is news to me. Do you have any links to back that up?

Based on nothing more than watching cop movies (some based on true stories), I would say that interdepartmental racism is less common in police departments than fellow cops not taking kindly to a cop reporting "on their own kind". – Herzen (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion

The image is up for deletion in commons because we don't know who the photographer was. If it was a state employee we are fine, but since we don't know we can't keep it. Fair use is not allowed either because of the fair use BLP image policy. Should I dig up some LAPD emails to see if they can provide us with a legal image?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I emailed the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the Los Angeles Police Department. Both have links in their articles to websites with contact info. I said they can respond on this talk page, or directly to me. Anyone in the area want to phone them in case their email is slow?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The image should be deleted and the U.S navy official picture should be uploaded. The Navy image is considered public domain. There is no need to get an image approved when there is one readily available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordig50 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner's Dismissal

Dorner could not have made a false report of misconduct if two people, even unreliable ones, (the victim and his father) also made statements that said it happened. Other witnesses didn't agree, but a report supported by any witnesses could not have been intentionally false. Plus there wasn't really any proof the suspect, Christopher Gettler, committed a crime or should have been detained.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.138.57 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

please be accurate

He was not charged with "2013 Southern California Shootings". That is a Wikipedia made up name. he was not charged with shooting Quan and Lawrence, only charged with shooting several police officers. We all know he killed Quan but we should be more professional in writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Military Service Awards

You should keep the Military Service Awards in the text instead of only at the end of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.138.57 (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I was actually going to move them to the Infobox, where they are in other vets' articles. Objections? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Protesters gathered to support Dorner

Dozens of protesters gathered outside the Los Angeles Police Department to protest the manhunt for Dorner and the two women injured by mistake. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57569876-504083/christopher-dorner-supporters-rally-in-front-of-lapd-headquarters/ 76.209.130.149 (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is addressed at the 2013 Southern California shootings article.

We really need to decide on how to demarcate these two articles. I think that what the demarcation point should be is when Dorner went off on his killing spree. Events before then should go in the Dorner article; events after then should go in 2013 Southern California shootings. – Herzen (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the approach should be in terms of emphasis, rather than demarcation. The article 2013 Southern California shootings should be about a series of incidents in his life re the LAPD, manhunt, etc. In that article, the rest of his biography should be brief. Similarly, in this article the series of incidents should be summarized and without the detail of the other article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant section

The Christopher Dorner#Track Record of LAPD is not relevant to this biography. It discusses activity occurring decades before Dorner was even born. Will somebody please remove it from this WP:BLP? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The section has been removed, but I am leaving this discussion here on the talk page in case someone wants to pursue it further. 72Dino (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

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. Auchansa (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see why the Dorner article shouldn't include his LAPD career as well. By "hearing", I suppose you mean his dismissal from the LAPD hearing. I really can't see any reason why that should go in the shooting article. The shooting article deals with events spanning two weeks; also, there was a gap of several years between his getting fired and his going on a shooting spree. – Herzen (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why you couldn't just create a taskforce for Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography instead ; incidentally, to propose a wikiproject, you need to go to WP:COUNCIL and add a proposal there, but it usually takes a while to get rolling (over a month) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Photograph

I uploaded a replacement for the deleted one. If his friends or family have a better one then they can put it on an image site like flickr, add a 'free licence' like http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en and then post the link here for one of us to upload.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, whoever you are. Looks much better, although there will be objections from people who won't approve, and they won't really be about copyright concerns. JohnClarknew (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Southern California shootings

2013 Southern California shootings has been requested to be renamed, see talk:2013 Southern California shootings -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence

Why are Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence (the first two shooting victims) not mentioned at all? The lead even said only "attacks on police officers", to which I added "and their families".

In fact, the article jumps from Manifesto immediately to Criminal Charges, with no mention of the murders and assaults that occurred. In other articles with "Main article:..." notes, there is usually a brief summary of the contents of the more detailed article. I think we need another section above Criminal Charges, named Shootings, with the "Main article:..." note and a brief summary of the events from the murder of Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence until the Big Bear events. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think the first two shooting victims need to be mentioned at all. (He had not been charged with killing the two people you mention, in any case.) There is already too much overlap between the two article, in my opinion. We need to start removing duplication, not increasing it. – Herzen (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Charged (which there is no point in doing) or not, he remains the primary suspect in their murders. To leave them out of any list of his victims seems unbalanced and disrespectful, particularly since they were first. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree this should be mentioned. It was a key event that led to the manhunt for Dorner (see http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dorner-evans-20130222,0,2117812.story) and it is absurd not to mention this at all.  --Lambiam 12:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions on "Manifesto"

1) Does Wiki have a solid definition on the word "Manifesto" and how/when it should be used? I think the connotations of the word indicates bias, and think something like "Open Letter" or "Published Statement" would be more appropriate.

2) I propose a synopsis of his Open Letter that lists in bullet format each of the allegations Dorner makes.Jonny Quick (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See Manifesto.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also see WP:COMMONNAME. The letter is almost exclusively referred to as a manifesto by reliable sources, so that is the term we use as well. Regarding the bulleted list, I think that might end up being WP:UNDUE. This article is about him, not the manifesto. However, it may be more appropriate in the 2013 Southern California shootings article. In any case, it would have to be highly summarized so as not to take over the entire article (the manifesto is pretty long!) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jonny. When Dorner became saddled with the label "manifesto", it deliberately put his name in a bind. It would have been a manifesto if he had pushed a POV and philosophy from beginning to end, but he didn't. What he did was reveal who he was, what happened to him, and thus justify his intentions to harm only those whom he felt had been unjust towards him. I'm not even sure that makes him a "terrorist" in the sense that he sought revenge only upon those who had hurt him, not the general population. He became extremely dangerous and selectively a murderer, but not a "terrorist" JohnClarknew (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)