Talk:Jonathan Luna

Category Unsolved Murder

This page was included in the category, "Unsolved Murders" and I am giving here my reasons for removing this page from that category.

1) The correct authority for investigation of the death was the FBI, and they have declared that Mr. Luna committed suicide. There is therefore no murder to be solved.

2) The article itself, as it currently stands, is ambivalent about whether Mr. Luna was murdered or not, and therefore it is not obvious that categorisation as "Unsolved Murder" agrees with what the article says. "Unsolved Death" might be in agreement with what the article says but for reason 1) I suggest that would still be inappropriate.

3) Wikipedia Guidelines on categorising people mentions living people but does not mention dead people specifically, I am therefore going with the bit where it says: "For some sensitive categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness." Since it is not unquestioned that this is an unsolved murder I am removing him from that category.Cottonshirt (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is very old, but to some extent it wasn't resolved since the category was added back [1]. First I have to say, I don't think it makes much sense to only remove the unsolved murder category [2]. If we remove the murder cats, it should be all or we should leave all that apply. If he was a murder victim, then the murder is unsolved since there's no suggestion the murder was solved. Personally, I don't think matters whether the FBI are the correct authority for investigation. Rather simply that there seems to be sufficient dispute over whether there was a murder or not by the authories. Given there is sufficient doubt, the best solution would be to avoid unambigious categories which say he was definitely murdered. (We also shouldn't use suicide categories.) I would support unsolved death since the current version of our article doesn't say the FBI have ruled it a suicide, it says they lean to it. If they did rule it a suicide, our article needs to be updates with appropriate source. I came across [3] which suggests to me that perhaps the FBI have internally decided it was a suicide, but they're not willing to openly and publicly declare it a suicide perhaps since the coroner has classed it as a homocide. In any case, why I'm not an expert on how US investigations work, IMO as long as there coroner and law enforcement (FBI), are saying different things, it makes sense to say it's unsolved. Long term, we may rely on what WP:RS who've taken a detailed look at the case conclude (presuming nothing happens to clarify in the mean time). Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading a bit, more, I came across sources like [4] which make it clear while the FBI may not have explicitly said he killed himself, they've said he was alone from the time he left his office healthy until his death. A sort of roundabout way of saying he killed himself whether accidentally or intentionally while not actually saying it. I've add this to the article. But even with this, IMO it's still fine to call it an unsolved death given that it sounds like even the FBI haven't actually officially said anything other than him being alone. So to with Brooks who appears to be the only FBI investigator to go on record [5] Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have put this one down as an unsolved death, since it fits one of the criteria: two different bodies with jurisdiction to investigate have come to different conclusions. The FBI believes it was an accident, possibly from a botched suicide attempt; the Lancaster County coroner's office has continued to insist it was a homicide. Therefore, unsolved death. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Credit Card or Debit Card

Discrepancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.125.108 (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.examiner.com/a-586106~Attorney__PI_ask_for_inquest_in_Md__prosecutor_s_death.html

  Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Paul Luna.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)