Talk:Murder of Jun Lin

Historic WP:AFD discussions

History of Article

I was surprised to see that this guy has had an article for a very long time.... If you go to the beginning of the history it is being created and deleted and recreated with the same copypasta over and over. Dude seems like an attention whore from what I know, and it certainly doesn't belong in the article, but I thought others might find it interesting. It was probably him creating his own article. 24.69.114.254 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's in no way a reliable source that we could ever actually cite for anything, but Encyclopedia Dramatica certainly alleges that he was creating (and sockpuppet-editing) the article himself. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Radio-Canada is saying "L'encyclopédie en ligne Wikipédia a censuré à deux reprises des pages créées à son nom, sous prétexte qu'il cherchait à faire son autopromotion"[1] in reference to the two AfD's in 2008, but that's just their saying that we thought the page was self-promotion and deleted it — it's not WP:RS to actually confirm he made the edits in question. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

title

magnotta has not been tried nor convicted, therefore is not notable. perhaps the receipt of the body parts is notable at the moment, and it seems that Magnotta is finally getting his article, but it seems mistitled at the moment. plz reconsider the title for this article. -badmachine 11:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore is not notable"? Notability=/=convicton. The guy is on all media outlets in Canada, has made headlines around the world, and is a prime candidate for a high-profile murder trial, of course he's notable. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 11:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

and you're a sysop. tsk tsk. -badmachine 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point being? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 12:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

well, i suck at policy, but off the top of my head it seems like you

• removed the cn tag from challenged material without replacing it with a source (although the sources i have found vary, the most reliable of the sources, which is not suitable for wikipedia, states he was born in 1982, not 1984. also, simple math would show that he cant be 29 and born in july 1984
• It took a lot, but after being not notable for over a year according to wiki, it's now notable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.235.82 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• WP:BLP
• WP:NNEWS
• WP:BLP1E -badmachine 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) [edited 12:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)]

please note: i am not requesting deletion. only a review of the title. -badmachine 12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think that for right now, the article should stay. It's entirely possible that the media hubub will die down and that there won't be much more beyond the initial shock and gasp, but it's highly unlikely considering how visible the crime was. He posted a video of him mutilating and sexually molesting a corpse, so that alone is going to keep the media machine turning for a while. If I'm not mistaken, I think he's one of the first to get so publicly noticed for posting a video of this nature online, which has probably already started a million psychiatrists' and journalists' keyboards clacking, so odds are there will be at least one book and professional paper written about him. This is speculation, of course, but it's a bit early to say that he himself is not notable. Renaming would be best, but until we have a viable alternative for another name, we're stuck with an article on Magnotta himself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Title idea: how about when the Police identify the victim we rename the article "Murder of (victim's name goes here)"? As I noted on the AFD page, the Greyhound beheading is Murder of Tim McLean not Vince Weiguang Li... Thoughts? Paris1127 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• There is precedent for these being under the victim's name, Bobby Greenlease for one (with all perpetrator's names redirected there). "Murder of..." once police openly identify the victim is reasonable. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know that a name change is necessary here. There are a number of things here, proven and unproven, that make this more than a BLP1E. The previous incarnations of this article included were just about the "modelling" and Karla Homolka. Add those to the possible kitten killing, murder, video, mailing, and international manhunt, I think the subject has passed the threshold for inclusion. AniMate 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• The only thing that gives me pause is that there have supposedly been articles about him in the past that included this stuff and were deleted. I don't know for certain what they were made up to look like, but I know that the kitten killing and murderess dating was supposed to have been posted. Then again, by the time we discover the victim's name we'll probably have more than enough info to post separate articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

• Nevermind- just realized I could see the past incarnations of the article and it hasn't been mentioned.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Any allegations made in 2010-11 (such as the kitten huffing incidents) aren't going to be in a page AfD'ed in 2008, that's inevitable. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Video

This isn't going to happen. Closing an unproductive discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Erm, wp is not censored therefore is it acceptable to use the video itself as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.251.61 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC) No, that would be original research (WP:NOR). Use Reliable sources that discuss the matter or the video. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC) At the very, very most it could be seen as a primary source since it was supposed to have been released by Magnotta himself. However, even in that case the video would have to be posted on what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable site, which to my knowledge is not the case. (I haven't really dug to see the video, but I know it's available out there.) We would pretty much have to tread carefully as far as posting pictures from the video goes. Wikipedia isn't censored but that doesn't mean that it has to be gratuitous. There's also the police investigation to worry about, although I doubt very seriously that posting a still from the video would really show up as even a big blip on their radar. Apart from Magnotta coming on here to edit his own article, I don't think we're really that much of a concern.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Jimbo reverted an edit which added the Yatzenko video to Dnepropetrovsk maniacs after an edit war broke out. This type of material fails WP:EL, and should be reverted if added. The sites carrying the video also have numerous links to hard core porn material which also fails WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I just read in this article that the police are trying to keep the video off the internet, so I'm going to say that even if it didn't fail WP:EL it would have to be removed to keep with the wishes of the police.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC) "Trying" will be the operative word. Once somebody has a copy, it will always be available somewhere, as the 2007 Yatzenko video shows. In any case, the video allegedly showing the murder of Lin Jun would be a major piece of evidence at any trial, so there would be issues involved that could prejudice a jury if they had seen it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (e/c) To be fair, and while I absolutely agree the link should not be on Wikipedia, there is no legal obligation for us not to link to it, nor is the website in question carrying links to hard core porn material; in fact the website is fairly clean and safe to browse... though obviously the content it hosts is disgusting, or at least morally questionable. That being said, the police doesn't have a legal case for removing the video from the website, which is why it's still up despite being hosted in Canada where the RCMP has jurisdiction. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Details about his time in London

The Sun is running an in depth article about his time in London 6 months ago, I will leave the link for anyone who might find these bits worthy of adding into the prose. [2] --Þadius (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• We should check to see if The Sun is usable as a reliable source. They're pretty much the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer, so I'm not sure how much of that we could or should use.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• The Sun, like all tabloids, is generally not considered a WP:RS for BLP. GwenChan 14:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nor is Xtra! a RS. GwenChan 14:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the article: Murder of Lin Jun

Luka Magnotta → Murder of Lin Jun – Article was created under a suspect's name in a crime not yet brought to trial as the page was started before the victim's identity was verified and disclosed by police. The crime is notable but giving the individual suspect an encyclopaedia page is only feeding his desire for notoriety while creating WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP and WP:CRIME issues given that his prior notability is shaky at best. An AfD is currently open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (3rd nomination) with strong support so far to either keep or rename at least the information on the crime itself. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, we have an ID on the Asian man that had been killed. It's Lin Jun, a 33 year old Chinese man. [3]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, at least according to the Toronto Star, Lin is the man's surname, in case we need to talk about him in the third person. Toronto Star. I do not know his name in Chinese characters, although this may be good information for when the page says "Lin Jun (Name in Chinese)(YOB-2012)" Paris1127 (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm proposing the following as a compromise for right now: I do believe that Magnotta has or will eventually have notability outside of the murder. I've found enough to make me think that this is possible. However, most of the sources in the here and now focus on the murder and mention his previous acts within the range of the murder of Lin Jun. I propose that for right now we name this "Murder of Lin Jun" and work on a separate article for Luka Magnotta in AfC or (better yet) in someone's userspace. There's no question that the murder itself has notability, although I can see arguments stating that there isn't enough to show notability separate from Jun's murder. This would just be a good compromise in the here and now. With a good crew working on Magnotta's article and inevitable media coverage, we should have a functional separate article by the end of June.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, but I think there should be a discussion and consensus, to be safe. I do believe that it is the murder that's notable (it's not every day body parts are sent through the mail), not the alleged killer, and besides, all this attention on him and not his victim is just feeding Magnotta's alleged narcissism... Paris1127 (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• I agree on the consensus and discussion, especially since there's so much debate from both sides. I've mentioned a renaming on the AfD page, but I'll comment to let them know that there's a discussion going on in the article talk page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah! Didn't notice that! I'll go and change the information in the article to the surname. For some reason I thought Jun was his surname. (shakes head) I'm glad you noticed that!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You didn't have to change the order, Lin Jun is fine (and correct) as long as when only last names are used it's "Lin" that's used. My comment was to be used as reference, so that he wasn't referred to as "Mr. Jun". Paris1127 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there's some sort of preference on Wikipedia as far as that goes. I know that traditionally they Westernize the names when it comes to the English Wikipedia, but I don't know if it's a rule or not. In any case, it does remind me that I should make a redirect for the Lin's name.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

• Wikipedia policy: WP:Chinese Names. Also, Lin Jun is the order that's been released by the police so that's probably what we should use. Paris1127 (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Proposing rename to Murder of Lin Jun per Tokyogirl79. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• SUPPORT rename, with possible revision deletions of the 2008 magnotta vanity piece. -badmachine 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• OPPOSE this character is known for more than just the recent alligations. There are news stories of him from last year with allegations of animal cruelty and a reward offered by animal rights activists (last year) for his arrest. Furthermore, we should not be basing our decisions on considerations such as "feeding his desire for notoriety". He is certainly more notable than any other wanted criminal suspects already on this site (say Eric Justin Toth). You do not need to go all the way down to WP:CRIME to check notability. According to the lead of that guideline WP:BASIC "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". He certainly meets the basic notability qualification. Poyani (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename and support "Luka Magnotta" or something like "Montreal-Ottawa body parts case". Lin Jun is non-notable. Very few of the sources mention "Lin Jun". As WP:COMMONNAME suggests we should use the term most commonly used in English-language reliable sources.VR _talk 14:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support renaming, at least until he is convicted. Although I agree with Vice regent that using 'Lin Jun' in the title would raise COMMONNAME problems; something like Montreal dismemberment murder might be better. While I think an article on Magnotta can be justified, it seems more in line with BLP policy to focus this article on the crime and victim foremost, and only cover him as the suspected perpetrator. (However, I don't think there's any need to delete previous revisions of this article, as suggested by badmachine - there's nothing particularly BLP-violating in the history, just self-promotion.) Robofish (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Stop and think about it...what made this story "notable?" It was, in fact, the mailing of human body parts to Canada's major political parties, NOT the murder of Lin Jun, that really gained the media's attention. If there must be a rename, it could be to "Body Parts Killer". The focus is really not the murder alone but the way the suspect set up the aftermath (putting a snuff film online, mailing body parts to political parties) that gained this crime so much attention.Ryoung122 16:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The alleged murder itself is not the only notable element of this story, and it might not even be the most notable, given the mailing of the body parts and the flight from Canada of the suspect, so teh proposed title isn't appropriate. At this time I am neutral about other suggested titles, eg., "Body parts killer" or "Montreal-Ottawa body parts case." Dawn Bard (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Poyani. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I write this, his photo and name are prominently displayed at the top of the INTERPOL home page. If this individual only wanted international notoriety... he has certainly achieved it. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity

As Canada claims being a multicultural society, it is of interest to know more about his ethnic background. He is said to be at least half Russian or whichever former Soviet Republic at least one half of the family came from. His slavic facial features fit in this theory. Does anyone have more info from reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.63.125 (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

He was born in Toronto. That is all that is known and (IMO) relevant. Poyani (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP

It might all be very exciting and is an extremely intriguing set of events but BLP still applies. GwenChan 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy link: WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." WP:BLPGOSSIP "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." GwenChan 15:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have two issues with this citation:

1. "Relatively unknown"...actually, Magnotta was relatively known, whether or not he warranted a separate article before the latest current event.

2. "Seriously consider" is not a total ban. As I pointed out elsewhere, this man is alive, accused of a crime but not convicted, and has an article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

In Luka Rocco Magnotta's case, it was not the murder that led to extreme media focus, but the mailing of body parts and the creation of a snuff film. This has an impact on society...not as much as Breivik, but enough to have an article, BLP or not, convicted in a court of law or not.

It should also be noted that there's no denial of the allegations. Policies such as BLP: Crime are intended to protect people who maintain their innocence. People like Breivik and Magnotta do not do so. The only thing Magnotta has denied is dating Karla Homolka.Ryoung122 15:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Noone is suggesting there shouldn't be an article. But the article must still adhere to BLP. You cannot suggest that his mother is guilty of incest, for example. You cannot insert speculation about his private life from 3rd parties and anon 3rd parties. You cannot say that he has killed kittens unless he has been proven to have killed kittens. You cannot insert speculation at all. GwenChan 15:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Raised at WP:BLPN. GwenChan 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd ask you to be a little bit more judicious in how you handle this. Based on your comments here, I can accept that the "Julie" interview is a problematic source because of her pseudonymity, so I've removed that while restoring the parts of that paragraph that could be reattributed to other references. However, your edit summary implied that the problem with that was not the woman's anonymity, but Xtra!'s basic validity as a reliable source at all, which is absolutely not on — it's every bit as reliable as any other source in the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The anonymity fell under the "Be wary of sources... that attribute material to anonymous sources" in WP:BLPGOSSIP that I raised above. As for Xtra! I still disagree that it falls within the definition of a "high quality reliable source" for the purposes of BLP. But I have no desire to WP:BATTLE or edit war here. It isn't about winning, it is about doing what is best for the project; I've raised what I consider important issues here about the type of material that is being added, and I'm concncerned that WP:BLPCRIME is not being followed. I leave it to the rest of you to decide what you are going to add. GwenChan 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into a war over this either; as I've already noted, I trimmed the paragraph in question to that which could be reattributed to other sources that were already in the article, and dropped everything that could be sourced only to "Julie". I'm merely asking you to be more careful in how you express yourself; for instance, the onus is on you to prove, not merely to assert, that Xtra! fails to meet the standards of a reliable source. It's a valid source until you prove otherwise, not vice versa; the problem with Julie falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP, as you've noted here, not under the fundamental reliability of Xtra! as a source. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It has long been established that tabloids are not RS for BLP. Even assuming that it was considered a RS, potentially controversial material should be taken from a high quality secondary source: if Xtra! publishes an interview, then they are acting as a primary source, and WP:BLP notes that extreme caution should be used with all primary sources and that secondary sources are much preferred. GwenChan 17:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that a newspaper happens to be printed in a tabloid size and format doesn't necessarily make it a "tabloid" in the sense that's precluded by BLP; plenty of reliable, serious newspapers with properly bylined journalists and proper editorial standards and reputable records of fact-checking and accuracy are also printed in tabloid size. BLP certainly precludes gossip rags like the National Enquirer and papers which have reputations for being excessively sensationalist like some of the London Fleet Street rags; it does not preclude papers based on their printing format alone (which is the only sense in which Xtra! can be considered a "tabloid" rather than a legitimate newspaper.) But at any rate, the only citation to Xtra! that's still present in the article is to a piece which primarily summarizes the new developments being reported by other media rather than engaging in original reporting, so I trust that should satisfy your concerns around primary vs. secondary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Material Cited in Reliable Sources

The National Post is a reliable source. Please do not delete material based on one's personal opinion of the subject matter.Ryoung122 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"According to the National Post, Magnotta's identity was discovered by members of the BestGore.com website after a "snuff film" video of the murder was posted to that website." Speculation. Not proven to be Magnotta. GwenChan 15:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The facts are clear. It's not speculation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-01/Chinese-victim-body-parts-murder/55328662/1

"Police suspect Magnotta filmed the murder. The video, posted online, shows a man stabbing another man with an ice pick while the victim lies naked and tied up. The first man later reveals he has slashed the other man's throat. He also dismembers the corpse and performs sexual acts with it.

"We have quite convincing proof of the crime he committed," Lafreniere said Friday, referring to the video.

You should be discussing the individual issues on the talk page first, rather than deleting material sourced to reliable sources.Ryoung122 15:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

50:50 on this one. Like it or not, BestGore members first suggested that the person in the video might be Magnotta based on past knowledge of him. Initially, they had difficulty in getting police to accept that the video was genuine, but Magnotta is now being sought in connection with this incident, and the video is accepted as genuine. The real issue is WP:BLPCRIME, not whether the National Post is a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Until Magnotta is proven to have killed the man in the video, it cannot be stated that he is the person in the video - which has been called "authentic" by the police. It's quite simple. GwenChan 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The USA Today story says "Police suspect Magnotta filmed the murder" which falls within BLPCRIME. To clarify, the killer's face is never shown in the video, and suspicions were aroused because the background scenery in the flat looked like it might be Magnotta's flat, which is now a crime scene.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please visit this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

It could be stated that he is "alleged to be" the person in the video. That reliable sources, including the police, say it is him is relevant to the article and should be included, even if phrased in a way so as not to indicate 100% certainty.Ryoung122 16:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Inside body parts suspect Luka Rocco Magnotta’s apartment explains why Magnotta is now a suspect, and could be used as a source in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the religious affiliation

The source for the religious affiliation is blog that the subject himself wrote, not a third party. As such it is reliable.

This is different from a self-published source or the such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.232.125 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnotta appears to have routinely lied about himself both in his own writings and in other media, and therefore it is not a reliable source for a statement that he was a member of the church of Scientology. If you wanted to assert that he claimed to be a Scientologist, that might be different (but would still be of at best questionable relevance), but it isn't sufficient to support a statement that he was an active, practicing Scientologist. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to the sensitivity of the matter at hand, and the ongoing addition of questionable or irrelevant content by anonymous IP numbers, I've placed a semi-protection on the article for WP:BLP purposes. Registered and established users can still edit the article; only anonymous and newly registered contributors are blocked. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also that our BLP policy also contains a provision to consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. Accordingly, we should not publish the names of his parents, as they're not involved in the story at all, and there's no compelling reason why the information needs to be there. Additionally, the reference that was being cited for their names is not a valid reliable source at all, but rather a web-published "true crime stories" compendium. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, if he's still alive he's a clued up guy and it's possible that he's monitoring this talk page.

This is not what wikipedia en is here for

I deleted this - (its totally out of policy scope) - User:Egg Centric has sadly replaced it - the user claims he is talking to the subject of the article/crime allegations off wiki ..? = WP:Talkpage guidelines etc etc... Youreallycan 21:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What?!!?!? No that is not at all what I claimed - I claimed that I am talking to the guy who hat'd the discussion (Ianmacm (talk · contribs · count)) off wiki, in that I have sent him an email asking for him to reconsider hat'ing it. I have also emailed you, in fact. Egg Centric 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What are you doing here, reaching out to a crime suspect asking if he is reading wikipedia to comment on his article and revert warring to replace it when your out of scope talkpage comment is correctly removed - delete this nonsense asap or I will take you to ANI - Youreallycan

There is no way that the hatting will be reconsidered. This is a crazy idea and totally fails WP:TALK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, it's gone, if only because of the impracticality of emailing everyone who removes it. Egg Centric 21:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)