Talk:Murder of David Dorn

Issues with point-of-view and relevance

 * The characterisation of the George Floyd protests going on at the time as "peaceful" is either flat out untrue, or at least a violation of WP:NPOV. This should be replaced with a statement that it occurred at the same time as the George Floyd protests "which involved substantial looting and burning of properties" - as this gives an objective context to a murder in a pawn shop. I would also suggest adding that "the George Floyd protests were strongly associated with anti-police feeling and the "defund the police" political movement, which David Dorn's widow considered contributed to the circumstances leading to his death, although media outlets have contested this assessment". 91.194.46.141 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a heavily politicized topic and the construction of the article indicates that the article itself is being used as such. In particular, there is an apparent contextualize this as a major event within the George Floyd protests when this does not appear to be true (while it has briefly attracted national attention, particularly from fringe outlets, it appears to have mostly remained a local crime story). For this reason, I am flagging this for Point-of-View issues and making modest revisions to superficially address some of its problems, including: Nikko2013 (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Overcategorization - this has been placed within a substantial number of categories, presumably to inflate its apparent relevance, including
 * Categories that suggest a level of historical significance which this event lacks (Category:2020 controversies in the United States, Category:2020 crimes in the United States, Category:2020 in Missouri, Category:Crime in St. Louis, Category:June 2020 events in the United States, Category:21st century in St. Louis, Category:African-American history in St. Louis, Category:African-American-related controversies)
 * Biographical categories, noting that this page may be better rewritten as a biographical article, as Dorn himself seems to be of some significance in life (Category:African-American police officers, Category:People from St. Louis, Category:American municipal police officers)
 * The George Floyd protests are mentioned several times (often as "riots"); while they give some amount of context for the event and the response thereto, it is unclear that there even is a direct connection, though the sentence "That night was a particularly violent in St. Louis" carries a clear insinuation
 * The summary of surveillance footage as "Persons of Interest: 6 black men and 1 woman unknown" serves no apparent purpose other than to remind readers that there are Black suspects
 * Three sources with well-known editorial bias are included (The Blaze, the Daily Wire, & the Washington Times); none of these articles contribute information to the article not given in other sources
 * Thanks for removing the unacceptable additions to this article. It's important to keep it well-sourced, encyclopedic, and neutral. TJMSmith (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the race from the description of the alleged shooter. Either that or adding Dorn's race seems to me obviously necessary to preserve NPOV. --Haruo (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that David Dorn’s death had no relation to the Black Lives Matter looting across the US you must do your research properly. His wife made a statement citing looters and violence from BLM. If the police report links the killers to BLM then it should be made clear in the article. Jleel (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is one of the most biased articles I came across Wikipedia. And I use Wikipedia daily. A race is mentioned only of the victim but not the perpetrator. Censoring any mention of BLM afterwards so they don't look bad or remotely connected. Also a big part of the article dedicated to critise Trump. Anyone can check for themselves who the contributors and commentators here are: self-proclaimed BLM or D-party activists. When you're not even hiding how biased you are. --Swedenb (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Subject name
Hi I moved the Shooting of David Dorn to Death of David Dorn without checking the history. I noticed that you moved it two days ago, my move effectively reverted yours. While I maintain that it's better to be Death of David Dorn, I think it's only fair to notify you for this matter and gain consensus before I take this measure. Feel free to revert my revision and start a Propose to Move. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:13, 9 June 2020 (Date/time added per edit history.) 220  of  Borg 06:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Description of accused shooter
Several editors have added a description of the accused shooter as African-American. This description is not used in the source provided and appears to be original research. Even if the description is accurate it is still inappropriate to use without providing a reliable source that considers it noteworthy. See the relevant discussion on the no original research noticeboard. CowHouse (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can not provide a reliable source the the Media refuses to mention his race in the story. But his race is known and pictured. They only mention the accused race if he is a white man. SBRodriguez (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research. We do not mention characteristics such as race unless reliable sources consider it noteworthy. For example, you will not find a description of the shooter's race on the page 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting. Adding a description of him as African American while acknowledging "the Media refuses to mention his race" is WP:RGW. CowHouse (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The media source provided for that sentence shows his photo (and hence his race), which is why the source doesn't bother to describe the same thing in the text since that would be redundant. That doesn't mean the media didn't consider it "noteworthy" - they showed his photo precisely because they felt it was noteworthy, for crying out loud - hence it is noteworthy enough for inclusion and also necessary for consistency since we already describe Dorn's race. If we're going to describe the race of the victim then we should also describe the race of the suspect. I have no idea why you are stubbornly removing this over and over. BillsYourUncle (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, please read WP:OR and the relevant discussion on the no original research noticeboard: Plenty of stories show the suspect and name him, and while it is pretty clear what race he is, none of the stories state this or use any synonymous terms [...] It should be removed until the media deems it relevant. The CBS News article included this description: Dorn, who was black, was a friend of the pawn shop's owner. The source also had a photo of Dorn but they nevertheless included this "redundant" description. I am supporting consistency since the shooter's race is also not mentioned on 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting despite sources showing his photo (and hence his race). The same can be said for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. We are meant to follow reliable sources so sometimes pages describe the race of the victim but not the suspect (or vice versa). I am not aware of any policy that we have to include both even if reliable sources do not. CowHouse (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OR is not relevant here, since the only "original research" here is the simple act of looking at a media photo and coming to an obvious conclusion about it. That's not "research", it's just stating the obvious. Even if there's no rule requiring us to include the race of both shooter and victim, neither is there any rule forbidding it. You're stubbornly deleting this for no reason, then forcing a protracted debate. The mass shooting incidents you are referring to are not the same situation, since in those cases the race of the victims is not described either, hence there's no need to provide balance by describing the race of the shooter. In this case you want to include the race of the victim but not the shooter, which is unbalanced. You're essentially censoring one but not the other, and the only justification you can give is the WP:OR principle which is not relevant in this case. BillsYourUncle (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion at WP:NORN, WP:OR is certainly relevant. If you are seeking balance, there is a justifiable argument to not mention race for either the suspect or victim since there would be no issue with adding content that is not explicitly stated in the source. The WP:ONUS policy is relevant here. CowHouse (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the discussion you referred to, only two people agreed with you and one disagreed, which is not a meaningful consensus in your favor (the numbers are far too small to be statistically meaningful for either side). The race of the shooter is explicitly shown in the source, so there's no conceivable reason why it would also need to be described in the text for us to state the matter. And I'm sure there are media sources which do describe it in the text as well, but if I waste time finding some I suspect you'll just think of another excuse for rejecting those as well. Are there any circumstances under which you'd accept the inclusion of this information? BillsYourUncle (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I pointed to the WP:NORN discussion because you said "WP:OR is not relevant here". Nobody in the discussion, including the one person who appeared to disagree, said WP:OR was irrelevant. If you can find a source that is reliable and explicitly describes the suspect as African-American (or any synonymous term) then I will not object to that description being added to the page. This has been my consistent position, so please remember WP:AGF. To address your concern of consistency, I have also suggested a compromise by removing the description of race for both the suspect and victim. CowHouse (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to restate the obvious because this keeps on coming up: CowHouse is absolutely correct here. This was discussed at No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_43 and the outcome was clear. If the sources don't explicitly highlight the shooter's race then mentioning it here is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Generalrelative (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

On 28 April 2022, Rep. Greg Steube, R-Florida, claimed that Mr. Dorn was killed “by an anti-fa member” and that the act was a case of domestic terrorism, during a congressional hearing on Immigration & Border Security. Mr. Steube did not substantiate this claim during the hearing.

Black Lives Matter
Black Lives Matter looters were responsible for the death. There was looting all over the city before, during and after the killing. There must be a reference in the article. This has been stated in news and police reports. Stop censoring the truth. Jleel (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cease edit warring, and cease trying to insert racist language and claims into the text. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It absolutely should not be in the article because it's not true. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Were they opportunistic attackers because attention was elsewhere, or they wanted to get in on what was happening? The reason why that was possible should be mentioned if there's a source. Vecr (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Personal attacks removed) Swedenb (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
Generalrelative, I'm not sure what the prior consensus you mentioned was. There was no discussion on talk agreeing to any of this wording before and it was added in a misleading edit not supported by the citations last year. The supposed "well sourced consensus language" you restored wasn't even supported by the sources and you've acknowledged that since you haven't readded it. The current wording doesn't make much sense since the peaceful protests didn't occur at night when Dorn was killed. I added mention of looting and rioting in relation to the killing because every reliable source cited on this article does aswell and the page should reflect that. The source you added here to support the addition of "peaceful" in front of protests is literally titled "Killed during looting". Your own source links his death to the looting, so looting should be mentioned. CBS News explicitly links it to the protests with the title "Arrest in fatal shooting of beloved retired St. Louis police captain during protests". Their article says he "died on a night of violent protests". It goes on to state "Dorn's death came on a violent night in St. Louis, where four officers were shot, officers were pelted with rocks and fireworks, and 55 businesses were burglarized or damaged, including a convenience store that burned." Multiple reliable sources note the shot officers and looted buildings as relevant context to Dorn's death. KMOV.com directly links the peaceful protests to the violence at night stating: "Four police officers were shot in downtown St. Louis after peaceful protests turned violent on the night of June 1" Nettless (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2022

 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Procedural close. Page moved by nom as uncontroversial. If any editor objects, then a new RM may be opened at any time.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 18:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Shooting of David Dorn → Murder of David Dorn – One suspect has already been convicted of murder and this information has already been added to the article. DannyC55 (Talk) 16:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

This seems pretty obvious, not sure why you didn’t just do it instead of starting a discussion. TheXuitts (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Figured it would be considered controversial, but apparently it isn't. In this case I will move the page. Requesting a closure of this discussion. DannyC55 (Talk) 15:43, 6 August 2022 (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.