Talk:Luka Magnotta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Luka Magnotta:


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Find a photograph of Luka Magnotta and Lin Jun that is free to use and does not require WP:NFCC. Also take a photograph of the apartment building in Montreal which is the crime scene, and upload it to Commons. It is here on Google Maps.
  • Cleanup : Trim the excessive use of citations, one or two reliable sources per statement is enough. Citations should be at the end of a sentence, not in the middle.
  • Verify : Dead links (82) and (83) need to be verified. I am new and I don't know how to 'check archives' or otherwise remedy the issue. Also, even when I get the chance to learn these things, I will still be unable to rectify the issue as I am apparently two edits shy of being allowed to edit semi-protected pages. Hope this helps. I really want to be a competent and useful contributor.

error?[edit]

Was he a former porn actor? I thought he was a porn actor at the time of arrest. If so, help me change it. Fiona Gump (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If I recall, he was on Badpuppy.com, but I would tend to think that one or two appearances doesn't make you a "porn actor" as a profession. - BalthCat (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP discussion[edit]

AFAICT no reputable news source labels Magnotta a "murderer", and unless we have *multiple* reliable sources this label needs to stay out of the article. Anyone that restores this without gaining a consensus will be reported to ANI where an admin can decide how to handle this. I will now notify BLPN of this discussion.That man from Nantucket (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a weird objection, he was convicted of first-degree murder in December 2014, so he is unlikely to be suing successfully for libel over this any time soon. As for being a convicted murderer - which he is - this is his main source of notability in reliable sources. It could be argued that saying that he is a murderer is largely redundant in view of the WP:LEAD section, but it isn't a major BLP concern as you seem to think that it is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
BLP still applies. The article accurately says he was convicted of murder. Is a murderer a profession? How do we treat other people who are convicted of crimes? We use what the sources say. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree this is a weird objection. He's a convicted murderer; that's simply a fact. And plenty of sources describe him in this way. E.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The Toronto Sun (the referenced source) is a tabloid. You then cite a columnist. And none of the others call him a murderer (hint, article titles are not to be used for sources on Wikipedia)
If there were some issue in neutrally referring to someone who commits murder as a murderer, then surely reliable sources would refrain from doing that in the title as well as the body. The titles of reliable sources do refer to the subject as a "murderer". The subject even described himself as a murderer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What an absolutely stupid objection. The man was convicted of murder. This is a basic fact. Please don't waste people's time with such nonsense. Resolute 13:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't call people that commit terrorist acts terrorists. The same logic applies. Unless you're too stupid to see that.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an absurd objection. He admitted to the killing and was convicted of first degree murder. No, the same logic dies not apply because terrorism has political components and there is no universal agreement about the definition of terrorism. There is universal agreement that those convicted of murder who admitted the offense are murderers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Also an absurd premise. Wikipedia calls high-profile Muslim killers terrorists at the first mention of "terror" in any reliable source, regardless of evidence, admission, conviction or even reasonable suspicion. Sometimes the mistake is eventually fixed, sometimes it's perpetually restored, but it always happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, March 31, 2017 (UTC)
"We don't call people that commit terrorist acts terrorists." Err... Yes we do. And not just Muslim terrorists, but others too. For example Carlos the Jackal is referred to as a terrorist in the first sentence of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:13, 31 March 201 (UTC)
The Jackal is a valid case. Unlike the Muslims I meant, he, his defense and his prosecutors had ample time to test their sides of the stories in court. A few times. There were, and are, specific disagreements, of course. But nothing from either side to suggest he wasn't generally a terrorist (or at least a person who admits to doing what a terrorist does that a simple murderer doesn't). It's more like a boring noun with him than a scare word. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, April 1, 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── this is easily resolved if anyone can provide a source per BLPThat man from Nantucket (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Every reliable source that reports that he was convicted of first degree murder is a perfectly acceptable source for calling him a murderer. Have you noticed that so far no other editor agrees with your pedantic argument? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a loaded term. It's not neutral. You'll notice that no sources choose to describe him this way. Sources 'do' label people with loaded terms, such as "serial killer" all the time. And we do use those in articles. If you want to ignore the spirit of BLP and boil this man's life down to a single phrase, then by all means do so. And now that I think on it, this is probably a BLP1E article. Unless you count the manhunt a separate"story"That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but that's just b0llocks. The man is a convicted murderer. I'm open to any form of wording in the lead that works, but not to this WP:HORSEMEAT debate about BLP and NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
BLP1E? You must be kidding, right? Per WP:PERP, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This person clearly meets that standard given the details of the crime, that at least two books have been written about him, he is discussed in several other books, and coverage in reliable sources has been ongoing for almost five years. Please drop it and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The book "Canadian Psycho: The True Story of Luka Magnotta" calls him a murderer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
There is only one person who objects to calling him a murderer. The Quebec Superior Court is a reliable source when it comes to crimes. Let's end the discussion, and restore the word. Ground Zero | t 22:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Aye. I've argued long and hard over the last few years against Wikipedia throwing the word around (even sometimes to describe dead people), but a conviction is very convincing, even to a zealot like me. That he's most notable for it is reason enough to primarily define him as one. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, March 31, 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)



Luka MagnottaMurder of Lin Jun – per WP:NCRIME and WP:CRIME the article subject is only notable for the commission of this crime. Hack (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stay The execution of the crime is unusual, and persistent coverage has devoted significant attention to the criminal's role. The porn, kitten killing, modeling, fraud, bankruptcy, online personas and Homolka thing go beyond the weird murder and to the weird (pseudo)celebrity behind it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luka Magnotta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Magnotta and the animal cruelty videos[edit]

Re this edit: there is a WP:BLPCRIME problem here, because none of the animal cruelty videos was ever proven in court to be the work of Magnotta. Even if he uploaded them, he is not necessarily the person in them. I have seen screenshots from some of these videos, and do not believe that Magnotta is the person in some of them. This leads to potentially confusing and misleading wording in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion as to whether he was in the videos is original research. The article currently states only what the reliable, third-party sources say. It does not declare him guilty or make any other unsourced claims or synthesis, so there is no BLPCRIME issue. EnPassant (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The reliable sourcing says that animal rights groups claimed that he had done this. He has never been charged or convicted over an animal cruelty offence. I agree that it is OR to say that Magnotta is not the person in some of the videos, but I am fairly sure that he isn't. In at least one of the claimed videos, it obviously isn't him. The wording needs to be careful on this issue to avoid giving the impression that Magnotta has been proven to be guilty of animal cruelty when he has not.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the current wording is good. EnPassant (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)