Talk:Murder of Jun Lin

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)

• Xtra! is a tabloid in physical form only; it is not a tabloid in content, and thus is an acceptable RS. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Then you can take the story of The Sun from many other searches. They take the story all as a source. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 22:53, 2 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)

The AFD result showed a tremendous support for rename. This was closed as a snowball. This should be considered. AFD had a SNOWBALL CLOSURE FOR SUPPORT name change to Murder of Jim Lin Auchansa (talk) 04:29, 2 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)

• FYI: it appears that Mr. Lin took an English name for when he came to Canada. The Toronto Star is saying that he was known as "Justin Lin" when he was in Montreal. Paris1127 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing unusual there (a translated name will often be the complete Chinese name transliterated, with one extra given name added as an Anglicisation) but this may require disambiguation as we already have Justin Lin (director) and economist Justin Yifu Lin as valid topics. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm aware of this practice. Also, according to our counterparts at Chinese Wikipedia, the victim's name in Chinese (if anyone would like to put it in the article) is 林俊, or in Pinyin Lin2 Jun4. Paris1127 (talk) 20:50, 2 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)
• SUPPORT because it is the usual Wikipedia practice. Even the last big murder, that of Tim McLean, was in WP as "Murder of Tim McLean". Basically, I support uniformity and not vote counting (support or oppose). Whatever we do, we should also follow BLP. Auchansa (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Frankly, this move request is just an unthinking mis-application of part of the BLP policy and suggested without applying a shred of common sense. The story here is Magnotta and the actions he is alleged to have made. The murder is only part of the story. The article title and focus is appropriate as is. And indeed, it is consistent with what you might see at FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Resolute 04:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Response: This move request was started as a result of a heated debate on the AfD about whether or not the article should be moved or not. I simply started this out of necessity because I didn't want the AfD to be five pages of people arguing back and forth about what the article title should be. I just figured that moving the discussion here would be a good compromise and would be a better arena for such discussions, since it'd allow the AfD to really close (since it's obvious that there's notability here) and it'd give both sides a venue to argue their points that wasn't an AfD discussion. So believe me, it wasn't "unthinking" on my part. Please remember WP:CIVIL before you start spewing venom. There was large enough of a debate to warrant starting a proposal to rename the page. Whether or not it should be is what proposals like this are for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is nothing uncivil by pointing out when policies and guidelines are applied without thought. Certainly several others in the AFD shared the same opinion, but most came down to "rename because we just do it that way." Resolute 01:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• And if the consensus is to not rename the article and there's no reason to do so, then so be it. But when there's enough of a hubub to change the name and people argue that there's enough precedent and that the article would be better off named "Murder of ___", then at some point there should be a debate just to get the argument out of the way. My initial goal was to suggest a compromise for the people debating on the AfD page and give them a better place to do so that wasn't on an AfD forum. Everyone can hash it out here rather than bog down the AfD forums. At some point in time there would've been a proposal to rename the page. If I hadn't started one, then someone else would have by now. At least now this is already partway through and it's been a better outlet for discussion than if someone were to just try to move it on their own and end up with a potential revert war. There were enough people saying that it could be better renamed, so we started a discussion to debate the merits of doing so based on precedent, the sources, and such. If that saves some other trouble down the line, then so be it. A rename discussion isn't really hurting anything and even if it stays under Magnotta's name, you can always point back to this discussion if anyone suggests it again.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Looking at the sources out there, the focus appears to be on Magnotta, his past, his multiple crimes, the videos, the kittens, the porn, and not just the murder. Unfortunately the murder has pushed him into being notable. AniMate 04:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per immediately above. The fact that Magnotta would likely not be notable but for the latest murder doesn't mean that what's called for is just an article about the murder. We don't decide to include or exclude material from an article based on whether that material would be notable as a stand alone, spin-out or separate article. The notability question is a separate issue and once it is settled is no longer relevant to material inclusion or exclusion and by extension article naming (a retitling here would imply a narrowing of the scope of the material).--Brian Dell (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The move to the new title would not only follow precedent of other similar articles, but specifically, the high point of this article is the homicide. All of Magnotta's prior activities/crimes seem pretty obscure. Wikipedia doesn't usually have articles about a suspect, but rather about the crime, as it is the incident in which both suspect/perpetrator AND victim become notable. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The move to the new title as per Boneyard's comment above - Youreallycan 11:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename for wp:NPOV treatment: A separate bio-page is an NPOV view of a person. It is difficult to pretend that person is described in a wp:NPOV manner when the article is titled "Murder of Lin Jun". We have had this situation before, and there should be a separate article for the suspect; otherwise, the remainder of a person's NPOV details about their life typically become wp:UNDUE details in a murder article. It would be like a college professor of 30 years who was charged with a crime, but details about the professor's career often would be viewed as an off-topic tangent (with wp:UNDUE weight) in describing the crime, whereas "30 years" is a major part of having an NPOV view about a person's life. Fortunately, Wikipedia is large enough to allow 2 articles in this case: 1 for the crime, and 1 for the professor. If a person is notable enough to name in a major crime, then they are notable enough for NPOV treatment in an article named for them, as a person, rather than as a crime which happens to name them. A person's entire life should not be viewed as the few hours related to a crime, as that is not an NPOV-neutral view of a person's life. Even the court cases are titled with people's names ("A versus B") rather than names of crimes, as if the court case were "Prosecution of suspect in Murder of Jane Doe". Suspects should have separate articles filed by person's name, if they are to be named in a crime. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per WP:BLP1E and Boneyard90. Previous, less notable events concerning Magnotta can go into a "background" section or a section describing the suspect. Sorry Wikid77, but but we're not talking about someone who's notable for performing a certain profession for thirty years. You're talking about someone who attempted to gain infamy throughout his life. An article on the murder wouldn't be less "neutral" than an article on the individual. The connection to the murder is Magnotta's only claim to notability of Wikipedia standards. That's why the article was deleted previously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A candidate for public office, let's say a big city mayor, might unsuccessfully run for the office and have his or her article "deleted previously" because as an unsuccessful candidate never achieved notability. Suppose the candidate runs again and wins, achieving notability. But for this election as mayor the subject is not notable. Do we rename the article from the subject's name to "the mayoralty of subject X" using this argument that the individual is not notable but for his or her service as mayor? That's simply not the way Wikipedia has worked. A decision about notability settles a delete or not delete decision, it does not settle content questions or article naming questions (which are fundamentally content questions). Lee Harvey Oswald has his own article. Yes, there are "Murder of..." articles out there but these are generally restricted to cases where the murderer is either unknown or the subject of minimal attention (at least relative to the victim). Has the coverage in this case been centered on the victim here and particularly on his murder? I would argue that there's been at least as much attention paid to Magnotta.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP doesn't apply to deceased individuals such as Lee Harvey Oswald. In addition, we tend not to articles for unsuccessful local candidates. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to successful candidates since politicians tend to "accomplish" stuff (or at least do a few notable things) while they're in office. There's also WP:BLPCRIME. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to the assertion: "there are 'Murder of...' articles out there but these are generally restricted to cases where the murderer is either unknown"
I would like to point out the following article: Murder of Brooke Wilberger, Murder of Rie Isogai, Murder of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña, and in many other articles, the murderers were convicted.
In response to the assertion that "there are 'Murder of...' articles out there but these are generally restricted to cases where ... the subject [is] of minimal attention (at least relative to the victim)"
Not exactly sure what you mean, it seems contradictory, but if I understand it, it's the assertion that the "Murder of-" articles focus on the victim because the media is focused on the victim over the suspect. In that case, I would like to point out the article Death of Caylee Anthony, Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of Oksana Makar, all of which have as much or more media attention focused on the suspects/perpetrators as the victims. In other notorious crimes, where the scope of the crime or notoriety of the incident outweighs names, then it is named after place, such as Chappaquiddick incident or Akihabara massacre. So I think in this case, a "Murder of-" is perfectly appropriate. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Resolute. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support. There is abundant evidence to show multiple notable events. However, do we know that this person did each and every one of them? The media is not "presenting as true" that he did these things; they're presenting as true that he was charged with all these things. So although the things are multiple events, the charging of this person remains, at this time, a single event, and so BLP1E does apply. Under other circumstances I might try to look for some way to argue around this logic (e.g. whether the charge and the international alert are two events), but here my inherent POV starts to have an influence - I am quick to distrust censors, and to me it seems plausible that police would accuse the man of a murder in order to get him extradited on the python-and-kitten video from a country that might otherwise refuse, in a parallel to Julian Assange's troubles. In any case, of course, I'm not suggesting to take anything away from the article wherever it lands. Wnt (talk) 18:11, 3 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)

"Slavic facial features" ?, you sound like a crackpot eugenicist. --108.173.175.220 (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that read "plastic facial features"? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:27, 2 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)

"if Xtra! publishes an interview, then they are acting as a primary source...", no, wrong, utterly wrong - the person they're interviewing is a primary source but the paper is a secondary source. Key distinction. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:31, 3 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.

Discussion isn't about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
-he is This section was deleted by its creator User:Egg Centric - diff 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. I never "revert warred" though, that's absolute nonsense. I'm actually quite irritated with the way you (yrc) have handled this. But that's the last I'll speak of it. Egg Centric 21:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC) You replaced a good faith removal of a WP:TPG violation - Youreallycan 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC) The edit summary was "archive". Egg Centric 21:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, archive, means in such clear cases, goodbye and good riddence to such policy and scope violating content content - Youreallycan 21:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC) My point is I assumed you were, in fact, archiving, which is not an unreasonable thing to do to a thread that has been hat'd in its entirety. Had you made it clear (or even hinted) you were removing it for policy violations I would have contacted you before reverting it (although you'll note I contacted you immediately afterwards anyway to explain what the plan was) Egg Centric 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC) It's completely crazy, it's original research, and it's just not appropriate at all. Especially in a matter this sensitive, we need to restrict ourselves to reliable sources and not to potential input from the subject himself (especially from a subject who seems to have an established history of making wildly inflated biographical claims about himself.) Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I consider the discussion over. Perhaps someone can hat again Egg Centric 21:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I object to User:AniMate's unexplained hatting diff off - Your (Egg Centric's) reverting of your policy violating discussion disallows you to request closure - Youreallycan 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Aside from continuing drama, what is the point in keeping this section open? The offending post has been removed and I can see no possible reason to keep discussing it. AniMate 22:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Drama , was started by User:Egg Centric and he continued revert warring his disruption and his request to close it without his accepting his policy violations is unresolved, as was your unexplained attempted close - I would also request you avoid editing and administrating in relation to me as you hold a clear citable opinionated position - we have many admins that are uninvolved and please defer to them in relation to any issues in relation to me - thanks - Youreallycan 22:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Completely agree. I am not going to respond any more unless I can see anything I should be responding to. Egg Centric 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC) " reverting of your policy violating discussion disallows you to request closure" <== I don't even know what this means. Egg Centric 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Its not difficult - do not post violations of WP:TPG on talkpages and if that content is hatted or removed from that talkpage, do not revert war it back to the talkpage - easy peasy realy - Youreallycan 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Speaking down to other users in this manner is not constructive. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging of different versions of the article

Multiple versions of this article were created under slightly different titles. I propose that they be merged into this article, leaving the redirects behind. Comments? Risker (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you would actually name and link to the "multiple versions" in question so that we can see them. This is the only article I'm aware of, and numerous redirects are already pointing to it — so what other titles do you have in mind? Or are you talking about edit histories from some of the past self-promotional blitzes? Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he means the edit histories from the previous deleted versions (I think there are at least two, maybe three)? The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

She. And yes. However, given the lack of enthusiasm, it is probably better to let everything settle down for a while, so I won't further pursue it. Risker (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There were two versions of this page which were AfD'ed in 2008, one with this name, the other with the suspect's full name (including middle name). As both were self-promotion, I'm not sure why anyone would want them undeleted. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnotta in London

Although The Sun (United Kingdom) is not always a reliable source, one of its journalists met Magnotta while he was living in London, and there is an audio interview with him here. He was accused of shooting the "Python Christmas" video while living in London, but Scotland Yard has denied that the incident occurred within its jurisdiction, saying "Officers from Islington investigated the origin of this video and others linked to it and they were found to have been posted from somewhere in North America. Therefore, no crime could be proven to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Met. During the initial stages of the investigation, officers liaised with the RSPCA."[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Posting murder video to Wikisource and a Wikilink in Magnotta article??

This discussion already happened up above. Adding the video does not have a consensus and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As many of you are aware, Magnotta filmed the murder and dimemberment of Lin. Magnotta has posted the video on the Internet for anyone to view and use. The video is currently available on the Internet. The police have not charged the websites showing the video as it is not illegal to show the video: QUESTION: Should we add the video to Wikisource and put a wiki-link in the article to the video? SUPPORT: The video is evidence about the murder and we have Wikisource for this type of information, it should be added to Wikisource and a wiki-link in the Magnotta article. We should allow viewers who want to watch the video the chance to watch it. If readers choose not to watch the video it is their choice! We could put a *warning*. JunoBeach (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Wikisource does not accept material which is under copyright, so is not a suitable venue to host the video itself. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC) It would qualify as fair use. JunoBeach (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Fair use and fair dealing usually refer to quoting small excerpts of copyrighted material in a commentary or review of that work and are a rather narrow and specific exemption at best. An entire 10.5-minute video would likely not qualify... and not all Wikimedia projects accept "fair use" materials as some exist specifically as repositories of free media (Commons, for instance). Wikisource as far as I know is not a repository for copyrighted materials, period. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC) (i) Magnotta has released the copyright; (ii) Fair use can apply to a video. JunoBeach (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC) (i) Where is the evidence of that?; (ii) Indeed, but Wikisource and Commons explicitly don't accept anything to do with fair use. Óðinn (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC) The claim that Magnotta made a video of the murder is subject to WP:BLPCRIME, he is officially a suspect. The video is unsuitable for the same reasons as the Yatzenko video in the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Strongest possible oppose, and WP:TROUT anyone who supports this. Anyone who thinks including a link to a video of a real person being brutally murdered is appropriate in a Wikipedia article needs to take a long, hard look at themselves. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose. In addition to the ways in which it would be wildly inappropriate, it would also fall afoul of Wikipedia's proscription against primary sources. We don't post or link to homemade video clips of news events actually happening; we post or link to secondary media sources writing or talking about what happened. If anybody really wants or needs to see the video that badly, it's not all that hard to find on the internet — I've even seen enough of it to know that I don't want to see anything like it ever again — but it's not an appropriate source for us to use here. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Comment There is no blanket proscription of use of primary sources, although it's normally advisable to avoid misusing them or depending on one primary source as the sole source for an article. Posting a link to the video with a Wikipedia editor's opinion "gee, that looks just like Magnotta's place" however would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as editors should not insert their own opinions into a piece. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Comment I agree that if there were some sort of general prohibition against using imagery on "primary source" grounds there would be corresponding guidelines restricting the use of Wikimedia Commons material on Wikipedia and these restrictions do not generally exist. If this video appears on the Commons we could discuss its use on Wikipedia but in the mean time it's a non-issue (I'm not aware of a "fair use" video on en.wikipedia, at most we would be talking about a screen capture in that case).--Brian Dell (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose Robofish sums up my position perfectly. AniMate 19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) oppose the copyright status on this is unclear, the legitimacy is partly questionable, the content is possibly illegal in Florida, and the use of True Faith complicates this. -badmachine 19:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Comment: What does Florida have to do with anything? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC) That's where the majority of the Wikimedia servers are located, though I believe some are in the Netherlands now. If something hosted by Wikimedia breaks Florida law, theoretically they could shut the project down. AniMate 19:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Per Robofish. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 20:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Comment While I would dislike this content to be available, the questions badmachine raises are the secondary ones to consider (the song could clearly be removed, copyright may be moot under fair use, either of all or part, Florida law can be clarified). The primary question is whether it is useful to improve the article. Only if that is answered in the affirmative should the other questions be even considered. Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC). Oppose per Robofish. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose for several reasons. First, at no point has Magnotta officially released the copyrights, so the copyright status is kind of hazy. Releasing the video onto a website is not always the same thing as releasing the copyrights for the video. Secondly, the police have supposedly been trying to keep the video off of the internet, although this point could be debated against. Thirdly, it's not necessary to have the video on the article in order to describe what it contains. There are plenty of secondary usable sources that discuss the video, so it's not really enhancing anything to add the video. It's not like this murder video is really needed to give an example or illustrate anything, such as including a picture of a horse in the article about horses. I know Wikipedia is uncensored, but that doesn't mean that we have to upload everything. We upload if it can enhance an article. Other than maybe, maybe an image or two, I don't see where this would really contribute that much to the article. We don't have pictures of crime victims on every article, after all. Finally, the video has not been absolutely said to be Magnotta. Now hear me out- it's almost 99.9999% likely that it's him, but at this point it's allegedly by him. When it's said to be by him without a doubt, then we can talk about uploading one or two images. Uploading the entire video? That just seems like it's gore for gore's sake. It's not like we're Encyclopedia Dramatica or anything. (Where if you really want to see images, they have 'em.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose This is a moronic proposal. We have an article about this bastard already. Spreading his perverted video camwhore murder filth around the internet even more has no value for this article and serves absolutely no purpose but to give him the fucked up attention he wants. If you want to watch it use Google like all the other rubberneckers. Wikipedia isn't a webhost. The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Comment. I should note that Wikisource is a text site; media material is kept on Commons. I disagree with Robofish's position - I don't believe that curiosity is evil - nonetheless it is represented by the Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable persons policy which rules out posting of videos taken in a private place without their consent, which is a component of his thinking. I would, however, like to see the kitten-and-python video, as it is probably quite educational, and may even be useful to Florida cat owners who I imagine don't know half the times it's happened to them. Wnt (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Murder Scene

5309 Place Lucy Apartment 208 is now rather infamous. The same movie poster for Casablanca is seen in the murder video as in his kitten torture videos, and some of his modeling shots. That was part of the way he was identified by PETA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.65.164 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have a source, please add something about this to the article, which doesn't cover it currently! (or at least, post a link here) I looked up and I found three versions of this, which doesn't say anything about the kitten-and-snake video. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, just happened across [5] which says "“Thorough investigation by the [website] community [led] to an assumption that the 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick perpetrator could be a renowned cat killer and internet attention whore Luka Magnotta,” the website reads." [the Internet reality news website that posted the murder video].[6] Obviously I'd like a source a wee bit better than that. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

His Childhood

Information about his childhood is woefully missing. IMHO, it's the most important information. I have read bits about it being "traumatic" with possible abuse. Please fill in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.137.101 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not without reliable sources for the information; generally all we've seen so far is anonymous allegations that haven't been sufficiently detailed or sufficiently well-proven to be included in an article that has to meet Wikipedia's WP:BLP rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Early life includes errors

The topic of this article was actually born in Tolyeti Russia and was sent away to Canada at the age of five because of the Russian mafia [7]. His parents are named Don Newman and Anna Yourkin and he is of Russian and Italian origin [8]. However, I'm unable to make the corrections to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.151.218 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No. WikiBio written by him. No. Old Media source draws erroneous info from his sock puppets. No. Old Media has no clue what they are talking about. This comment must be him (Seriously, Russian mafia?). Here's looking at you, douche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.180.188 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. It could just be a very well-meaning and anonymous editor that is most decidedly not Magnotta. Please be more civil when it comes to other users, especially if they're new users or random IPs that most likely were not aware of the history of the article and that there were numerous sockpuppets editing the article as well as Magnotta saying different claims about himself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• The IP number resolves to Kentucky and has previously been used to make numerous edits to articles about American actors, musicians and politicians. So your allegation that the comment came from Magnotta himself is unlikely. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The "wikibio" is not a reliable source. Unless you can provide a real media source stating that he was born in Russia rather than Toronto, we have to stick with what the real sources say (especially with a person who has such an established history of misrepresenting and/or outright lying about himself.) And under WP:BLPPRIVACY, we should not name his parents in the article. They're not actually involved in the story, so it's not our role to drag them into it in a way that may cause them undue harm. The media's already doing enough of that as it is; there's no need for us to compound their grief. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The article should be deleted

He is not in the least notable enough to now have his own, now LEGIT article. Yes, he had been posting and editing it himself for years, but now he is achieving exactly what he wanted. Infamy or fame, it does not matter. Perhaps killing that man was means to this exact end - people finally writing about him on Wikipedia. He shouldn`t be given that. And "Murder of Lin Jun", if there needs to be an article, should do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.87.100 (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

WP is not censored - nor are we concerned about offending people. That said I do see the argument to move this page to "about the killings" but unfortunately the article is more about a person then the incident - thus must adhere to BIO rules.Moxy (talk)

In principle I agree with you, but there's already been an AFD which closed as keep — so the consensus stands unless you can make a much more convincing claim of non-notability rather than simply repeating points that have already been considered. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo

I'd like to suggest putting a photo of Mr. Magnotta, Mr. Lin, or of the apartment building where the murder occurred on the page. Assuming one can be found that may be used on Wikipedia and is not gruesome, of course... Thoughts? Paris1127 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As a living person, the image should not be copyrighted and should meet WP:NFCC. Someone may have a photograph of him which meets this criterion. It would be easier to obtain a photpgraph of the crime scene if someone who lives in Montreal could go there, take a photo and upload it to Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A photo of the building's exterior should be fine. I think the exact address is mentioned elsewhere on the talk page. I know the building's on Place Lucy at Boulevard Décarie. That's just FYI for anyone who wants to get a photo for the page. Paris1127 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As long as we can get fair use images, this would be a good idea to add.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"International warrant"

Can we just be clear in writing this article that there is no such thing as an "international arrest warrant". Magnotta has an Interpol Red Notice, which is close, but it still only a notification that a suspect is wanted by an Interpol member state and requesting the assistance of the other states. The press release from Interpol regarding Magnotta's Red Notice states "INTERPOL Red Notices serve to communicate to police worldwide that a person is wanted by a member country and request that the suspect be placed under provisional arrest pending extradition." RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The article says that Magnotta is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice. National police forces cannot arrest people in other jurisdictions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, I was the one who corrected that and other statements concerning an "international arrest warrant". I'm stating this more for future contributions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Adult films

Anyone know of secondary citations for these adult films Luka was in? Although, the single citation is notable and reliable, one editor suggests another citation. In fact, he keeps deleting the section from the article, which I consider vandalism. JunoBeach (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Magnotta was in several pornographic films including:

• 2003 : Street Bait 996 : Luka
• 2003 : His First Huge Cock : Jimmy
• 2003 : His First Huge Cock 104 : Luka
• 2004 : Son of Posedon
• 2005 : BadPuppy.com : Luka
• 2006 : Adorable
• 2009 : Monster Cock Jocks 25
• 2010 : Daddy Mugs fucks Justin

To be perfectly honest, most of these are not actual pornographic films, in the sense of being a full-length film that gets released on DVD and can be independently purchased in your friendly neighbourhood porn shop; rather, they're the kind of short five or ten minute clips that porn sites post of their models in the act, but which cannot be viewed without joining the porn site. Full length films might be notable enough to warrant mention, certainly; site-specific miniclips generally are not. And IAFD is generally not a reliable source for our purposes, for the same reasons that IMDB isn't — so no, removing the section wouldn't qualify as vandalism in the absence of stronger sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and have read (in unreliable sources) Luka's claimed video clips either don't feature him at all, or feature someone whose face isn't seen. Given his apparent tendency to self promote anywhere possible online, a user-generated page must be taken with a grain or two of salt. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, to nail down the primaries a bit better, I found [9], [10], [11]; apparently much came from [12] but navigating the site from there confuses me. Anyway, I took these four, put "link:" in front of them, and tried them in Google, but none of them gave any results. There's a chance I did that wrong somehow... anyway, I don't know how obscure they are, but he's pretty clearly in them. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, he has done a few porn videos and modelling shoots, that's not in question. The National Post link that InedibleHulk posted in the thread below this one certainly confirms the Badpuppy shoot, and a few other video appearances are confirmed. However, it also does seem to be the case that especially in later years he sometimes uploaded clips to amateur porn sites like XTube under his name which were either unverifiable or outright fakes — so not every porn video out there that has his name on it is actually him. A few are definitely him, yes, but there are also many that aren't. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Porn and modelling career dubious

Until a reliable source is found, this article (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/01/little-evidence-luka-rocco-magnotta-was-a-gay-porn-star-or-many-of-the-other-things-he-called-himself/) gives reasonable doubt to his claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone tried Googling "Tony Luciforia"?

Can Ripoffreport.com be considered a reliable source? I would guess not, but there is some potentially newsworthy stuff here! Note the dates, and the fact that "Vince Luciforia" has already been reported as an alias. All three "complaints" should (in my opinion) be brought to the attention of the media, as this POSSIBLY illustrates his mindset at and around the reported time of his alleged victim's disappearance. And it would give us a source to state whatever conclusions said source draws from this possible information. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bestgore.com

The "website originating out of Alberta that specializes in posting gore" [13]/"reality news website" [14] is bestgore.com, and appears to be a very informative primary source. It is running very slowly right now, with multiple reloads needed to access most pages, and the site operator has a note that the video is "temporarily" removed due to bandwidth issues (we'll have to see if it comes back or not), nonetheless some useful tidbits:

Apparently this began on May 25 at [15] when Best Gore posted:

"Very hard to find, the 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick Video took the internet by the storm as the most horrific shock video to have been released to date. There are speculations that One Lunatic One Ice Pick may be an actual snuff film – produced by some crazy psycho who was paid to murder a person and film it on camera...

The 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick Video is filmed in a dimply lit room. A naked male is seen tied to a frame of bed while his captor stabs him in the abdomen with an ice pick. The victim is them seen with his throat slashed as his captor proceeds to slowly slice various parts of his body with a knife.

Later in the video, the victim is entirely decapitated and the captor uses his kitchen knife to cut into the muscles and dismember one limb after another. The murderer plays with severed limbs and even rubs his crotch area with them. It must have turned him on because the next thing he does is flip the dismembered, decapitated corpse on its front and fuck it in the ass from behind.

Using a knife and fork, the murderer then slices a piece of fatty flesh from victim’s ass and presumably eats it before bringing a hungry dog in to also feast on freshly killed man. The black and white pooch could not resist the smell of raw flesh and bit right into the stump.

Once pooch was done, the murderer stuck a bottle neck up dismembered man’s anus and repeatedly assfucked him with it. Putting the severed hand into use once more, the murderer laid on his bed pantless and masturbated with it.

1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick is without a doubt the sickest thing you will have ever seen in your entire life..."

On May 27 he posted [16]:

"Great thing about the internet is that when the community comes together, the impossible becomes possible. Yesterday I posted an upsetting video titled 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick video in which a person appears to murder a drugged up male and perform heinous acts including cannibalism and necrophilia on him, and today my mailbox was full of leads all pointing at a possibility that the perpetrator of this horrible crime could be one Luka Magnotta..."

On June 1 he wrote [17]:

"Previous night, just before turning in, I posted a few pictures of people hacked up with a machete and appended a small remark at the end in which I, mostly jokingly, speculated if there could be a connection between Luka Magnotta – a man who was until that day only known as a murderer and a perpetrator in the 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick to the Best Gore community and nobody else – and the news of a human foot delivered in a parcel mailed off using Canada Post to the Canadian Conservative Party headquarters in Ottawa.

...When I woke up, I could not believe my fucking eyes. Instead of your regular 200 new members who join Best Gore on a typical night, now there were 3,000. Instead of your typical few dozen emails from members I get over your typical night, I had hundreds – most coming from big media names. And to all that, I could barely load my fucking site it was under so much load.

Fellow Best Gore member with whom I exchange emails every now and then sent me a message that Luka Magnotta, days after having been identified by the Best Gore community, has been officially named by the Canadian police a suspect in the case of severed human remains in the mail to the Canadian political parties and a human torso discovered in a suitcase in Montreal. I was like – you have got to be fucking kidding me? I mean, when I mentioned it in an unrelated post with machete murders, I wasn’t actually serious. It was naught but a bland spew out of a mind of a tired man who’s really ready to get some effin sleep after a long day."

This seems altogether consistent with the media reports I cited above, with the exception that, being very moral journalists, they apparently think it would be completely inappropriate to actually name the site that (allegedly) cracked a heinous murder in 48 hours (shame on those people for looking at those naughty pictures!). But it's not plausible that any report is talking about anybody other than this site.

The May 27 entry contains some side-by-side comparisons with the cat-killing video - I think we should consider appropriating this profile comparison as a Fair Use; to me it doesn't look conclusive but I'm not good at that sort of thing. I also think the initial May 25 description of the video is worth a blockquote, for those unwilling to take the time or mental disturbance of viewing the complete video, which we should link if and when the link works. These things should hopefully face somewhat less opposition if the article is renamed to "Murder of Lin Jun". Wnt (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an accurate description of the video described by BestGore.com at [18]. The claim that the video is "very hard to find" is unconvincing when it is currently available on TheY**.com without any password.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I found it at http://goregrish.com/1-lunatic-1-ice-pick/ , which credits TheYNC.com , but when I searched for the video there nothing came up. Maybe it's not using the same name, or could it have been censored, or did I have to enable more scripts?... anyway, thanks for the link, which confirms bestgore.com. The combination of the primary source with multiple secondary reports is the optimal way to cover an issue. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Terminology in intro

I'm concerned about the use of the phrase "a Canadian suspected criminal". Under most libel laws you can't convict without trial, and labelling someone a criminal, even a suspected one, can't be done till a trial or confession occurs. Suggest change to "fugitive" as this is a confirmed standing. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)