Talk:Luka Magnotta/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


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 (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. -- (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't that read "plastic facial features"? (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
For this affinity i.e. [1] it could be intersting. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 04:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As his real name is Newman, it is quite likely, that he is of jewish descent (like Paul Newman, Randy Newman a.s.o), which would also match the Russian background, as migrating Russian citizens often are of jewish descent. B.t.w. this does not contradict his reported connections to racist groups.

We have to be careful here about basing any conclusions on what Magnotta has written or said about his background. Much of his background is invetnted, like his current name. He may be part Russian, or he may not. We would have to have multiple reliable sources for this, and weed out those media outlets that just report what he has written about himself. And we certainly need more than his post-plastic surgery appearance. Ground Zero | t 16:58, 6 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)
Question - is the protection still in place now that it's been moved? If not, please reestablish it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
It expired prior to the move (see the log). Killiondude (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I originally placed an indefinite semi-protection, which allowed autoconfirmed users (established editors, administrators, etc.) to edit the article but blocked anonymous IPs and newer usernames which haven't been granted autoconfirmed status. Another editor temporarily upgraded that to full administrator-only protection during a specific content dispute, so the protection expired yesterday because of the time limit on the escalated protection. For the time being, however, I still think it's appropriate for this article to remain in semiprotected mode. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


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)

Isn't the surveillance photo of him on the Interpol site public domain? (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The CCTV image here is described as "believed" to be him. Now that he has been arrested, a mugshot may be issued, and there would be a good case for using Template:Ir-Mugshot.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
As was stated previously, if we can't get a photo of Magnotta or Lin, we could at least get his apartment building, or maybe a photo of the internet cafe in Berlin where he was arrested, although that is not as relevant. Paris1127 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A photo of Mr. Magnotta has caused a bit of controversy. Labatt is angry that the Montreal Gazette used a photo of Magnotta drinking Labatt Blue in an article about him. Let's not use that photo. That being said, the story itself might be something interesting to put in the article (it's already in the article about the Streisand effect). Paris1127 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


This was placed in the "Search and arrest" section where it has fair use. Placing it in the infobox is likely to cause a copyright enthusiast to nominate it for deletion because it fails WP:NFCC#1. Let's try to keep this image in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just found this. I checked this thread, but I must have arrived on the page a minute before your edit. I don't have a big problem with the image where it is. Since it was a mug-shot, I assumed it was a Commons image. Do we know what German the laws are regarding mug-shots? Or are we just "playing it safe" until someone who knows can tell us? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It is best to play safe and assume that the copyright on mugshots is held by the law enforcement agency involved. As a general rule, BLP articles should not use non-free images in the infobox, and the use of a mugshot is less than ideal anyway. The fair use for the image is specifically to depict his arrest, someone may have a more general photo of him somewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of the fair-use guidelines. I'm just curious if we actually have any knowledge of Germany's policies regarding such images. If not, we're definitely not going obtain any in this thread buried on this talk page. Which is why I still say we need to start archiving some of these old threads. Personally, I don't see any problem with the image being "less than ideal", if it ends up being public domain and it's the only one we have.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:35, 6 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 talkcontribs 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 talkcontribs 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not that an "international warrant" in general doesn't exist as much as one is only being possible in such narrow circumstances as to be inapplicable to this case. The European Arrest Warrant is an international warrant but only of use when pursuing fugitives fleeing within the European Union; the International Criminal Court can also issue warrants but only does so for rare genocide and war crime trials. The media are being sloppy in using "international arrest warrant" for the standard Interpol notice here. (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The "website originating out of Alberta that specializes in posting gore" [2]/"reality news website" [3] is, 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 [4] 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 [5]:

"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 [6]:

"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 at [7]. 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 , which credits , 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 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)
I should add that looking at the video, it's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be - the victim seems drugged, just as the other sources reported, and the killing itself actually occurs off-camera, during a pause in the video just seconds after it begins, and the rest is merely a clumsy amateur dissection on a corpse too dead to bleed. Of course, it is heartbreaking that such a young and lovely man, who might with luck instead have granted this killer a lifetime of bliss, is instead murdered so senselessly. It is clear that there is abundant evidence on the video, but I didn't spot the profile view from the bestgore page. Either it was very fast and I missed it, or this copy is incomplete? Wnt (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
None of this is really verifiable and I don't think goregrish constitutes a reliable source. There is still question whether the video was faked (as in the victim had already been killed). I don't think adding a bunch of marketing copy from the goregrish site will improve the article. The Garbage Skow (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I mostly agree - goregrish is a copy of a copy of the video, not the one described by the news sources. If we had no other copy it might be useful as a simple link for the video, but possibly's copy will come back up. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I hope you're not suggesting that we link to the video. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed I am. Wikipedia is not censored, and we should value primary sources. This should not be seen as being amoral, but as having faith that providing information is a good thing. When that video was posted to, in 48 hours, the crime was solved (the police think) by those who had seen a different tape. Who knows if there's another tape out there somewhere, with a different crime still unsolved, which some Wikipedia reader following such a link will remember? Wnt (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Primary source for what? A video that some people on a website (and meanwhile other people as well) think shows Magnotta dismembering his victim? Sounds like original research to me... -- megA (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems the news (CBC & CTV) are saying that Montreal police are seeing if they can get the website charged with publishing obscene material? (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this website have enough notability for an article? -- (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Canadian Psycho" tag

Since the article is currently fully protected over this, some observations: per WP:BLPCRIME, a living person is not guilty of a crime unless convicted by a court. This is a lurid media tag, and should be avoided for the time being.

Of more interest is the fact that the "1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick" video uses True Faith (song) by New Order as the background music. As numerous media reports have pointed out, this song is used in the soundtrack of the 2000 film American Psycho (film) (YouTube clip with music here). This is the reason for the media dubbing the case the work of the "Canadian Psycho", but there is a presumption of guilt in this terminology when applied to Magnotta which fails WP:BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

'Canadian Psycho' Magnotta will not challenge extradition is one of a number of media stories using this tag. While the media may like to establish this as the WP:COMMONNAME for the case, it still has BLP issues. Incidentally, there is no compelling evidence that Jack the Ripper wrote the Dear Boss letter. This is an example of how media coverage can shape perception of a case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The words "Canadian Psycho" must be in this article. Like it or not, this will become a redirect, because we exist to provide the readers with the information, and who knows how to spell "Magnotta"? (One more reason to move to "Murder of Lin Jun") But, we should be careful to say precisely who says precisely what. To say "The press" called Magnotta this name is clearly not accurate, as you can find some of The Press that doesn't - a day or two ago I don't think anybody did. The original link provided shows that Deutsche Welle called him this;[8] without more sources you can't say more than that. This particular article is credited to AP/AFP/etc., but searching the precise text where they say Magnotta is the Canadian Psycho, only one other copy comes up, so that's not a wire service story. But from Associated Press there's also [9], which calls him the name, but also [10] which calls him the "Canadian psycho" suspect, an entirely different thing. I can't remember the last time I saw so much creativity from AP. Time comes very close to this, but uses "Canadian psycho" as a tag, and doesn't say explicitly Magnotta is the psycho, though they put his picture up and say the killer was arrested - should it come to a court proceeding, I suppose they could say that they meant that the police arrested the man they thought was the Canadian Psycho. So I'm not sure that counts.
Integrating this mix of information, and taking into account a little bit of BLP conservatism, I would say that the best way to word the section is that the killer in the video has been dubbed the Canadian Psycho by the press, because he set his sorry scene to the strains of a song from American Psycho, just as the first source says it. We might even end up titling the section about the murders something like the "Canadian Psycho murder accusation". But on average, I'm willing to interpret that the press, as much as not, means that Magnotta is the man accused of this murder, and not actually literally saying he is the Canadian Psycho, though certainly that is the color it will taint the jury pool.
It is possible we might even get in a meta-story about the news coverage - who invented the name, and how did it spread like wildfire around the globe while I was asleep one night? Wnt (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
How about this: "Several news sources, including (examples), have referred to Magnotta as the 'Canadian Psycho' in connection with these accusations." One sentence, neutral, factual, includes but does not promote it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
It is hard to say where the "Canadian Psycho" tag arose, but the mainstream media latched on to it very quickly. Numerous people spotted the musical link with American Psycho (film). It should also be pointed that the I'm Jack" tape in the Yorkshire Ripper case was a hoax. Such is the way in these cases.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that media tags like "Canadian Psycho" or "Porn Star Killer" or "Butcher of Montreal" or any of the others that have been mentioned here shouldn't be listed in the article at all unless and until they can be demonstrated to have meaningful long-term currency in relation to this case (especially since they directly imply his guilt before he's even been tried in a court of law, thus violating WP:BLP.) If one of the nicknames does stick, such that it's still widely recognized several months from now, then it could legitimately be added to the article — but there's nothing particularly helpful about adding every last sobriquet that some media outlet decides to tag him with right now, because some of them are likely to fade out too (and possibly to even be repurposed at a later date if somebody else comes along who fits the same tag.) Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2012

FULL BIRTH NAME: Eric Clinton Kirk Newman


Fortuner-eu (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a good edit. Can someone please make it, or, preferably, remove the full protection of the article? - Burpelson AFB 14:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I third this change. It is his full name. Auss00 (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Someone963852 (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Add [[fa:لوکا مگنوتا]] to the interwiki language links, zh:卢卡·罗科·马尼奥塔 already links there and this would be picked up by a 'bot were it not for the full protection of this page.

Add one more assumed name to the list (already cited in fr:): "Investigators traced the suspect to a Eurolines bus station at la place de Clichy, in Paris; the alleged killer had departed for Berlin under a name 'K. Trammel' inspired by cinema's Basic Instinct killer Catherine Tramell.[1] " (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Source misquoted: Video is an authentic murder video, but not explicitly linked to this murder!

This is what the article says right now:
"A video of the killing posted online, which the police stated was authentic, revealed that the victim was an Asian man."[2]

This is what the ref actually says:
"A shocking 10-minute video posted online Friday appears to show the murder, beheading and dismemberment of a young Asian man in an apartment. Police sources said the video — which is part of the ongoing investigation — appears to be authentic."

Note that "a video... appears to show the murder... of a young asian man in an apartment.", and that "police sources said the video... appears to be authentic". The police does not explicitly link the video to the Magnotta murder, only state it is an authentic video (of a murder and dismemberment).

As it stands now, the article is misquoting the news article, and drawing false conclusions!

-- megA (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected Avicennasis @ 06:57, 16 Sivan 5772 / 06:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Chinese Students and Scholars Association of Concordia University

To add: " On June 7, 2012 the mainland China consulate in Montréal announced the Chinese Students and Scholars Association of Concordia University is raising money to defray expenses incurred by Lin's family while in Canada.[3][4] " (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Added. Skullers (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

internet surfer tried to alert Canadian authorities to video

Roger Renville Sisseton-Wahpeton (Dakota) Oyate member (born, Lake Traverse) descendant of Chief Gabriel Renville 2008 Fellow, Human Rights Center (University of Minnesota) now in Office of Legal Counsel, Crow Tribe, Montana, USA

alerted Toronto police by phone that video had been posted online, was told it was "probably special effects" and to call their "crimestoppers"line. (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Added. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lin Jun sexuality

It looks like a whole lot of schlocky sources are saying that Lin Jun was Luka Magnotta's gay lover (Fox News[11], The Sun, Daily Mail). This definitely needs to go on, because it affects our whole interpretation of the case - the killer didn't go out and grab someone off the street for a video; rather, it might have been a domestic issue. It also provides a theory for Magnotta's innocence, namely, that Lin Jun was slain by someone who came to attack the couple, perhaps because of Magnotta's previous video, and this is why the staging with the dead body - with the tape actually as a gruesome taunt against Magnotta. Of course I can't say all that OR stuff in the article, but I just want to emphasize that it would be much welcome if anyone can bring in some good detailed sources about the relationship to the article - right now, we really just have a few yahoos quoting that the police said the two had a relationship, and no more information than that. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Note - until such good detailed sources are on there, we should be careful about what we say about Lin as well as Magnotta. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
we strayed off topic a bit Wnt (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If "Lin Jun was slain by someone who came to attack the couple" the normal response would be to call 9-1-1, not to flee to East Berlin via Paris. (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Or you could behead his corpse and eat a chunk from his arse cheek. Decisions, decisions... Egg Centric 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to argue here when the facts will come in shortly, but think about it - imagine, say, you get a video in your e-mail by someone who is about your size, wearing your same hairstyle, brutally abusing the corpse of the person you love, in front of the same Casablanca poster in your apartment you used in a perhaps unwise video production about the cycle of nature. Would you trust the police to get things right? Let's keep an open mind here, and be serious about NPOV and fair (but not fundamentalistic) application of BLP. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
PMSL @ "unwise video production about the cycle of nature". Anyway, yes, it is possible that he is innocent and he is entitled to that presumption in court. Nevertheless if you watch the video the perpetrator will have left forensic clues all over and it would be quite easy to establish who he was; it seems that the masking of identity was so that it wouldn't be realised immediately who it was in the video, rather than any serious attempt to foil the police. If he has been framed it will come out fairly soon, and believe me it won't be wikipedia that has done the damage to his rep. Egg Centric 17:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That is very unlikely, almost to the point of impossible. Several news articles mentioned that the relationship between the two started this spring. BearCat's comment far above and others stated that Magnotta has been promoting his 1 Lunatic, 1 Icepick video since March. Magnotta has a hatred for the Chinese and Jews, so it should not surprise anyone that he premeditated this murder months and months beforehand, even choosing his victim with the victim's race in mind. I doubt they were lovers; Magnotta started the relationship so he could easily lure the Chinese victim. Magnotta fled (why would he if he didn't attack?), offered fake names and finally said "you got me" to the police. Does that really sound like he is innocent or that someone is framing him?
Keep an open mind, but not to the point of stupidity or denial. Auss00 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Are you saying he was telling people he was going to produce a snuff video with his boyfriend before doing it? Or that after the murder he continued to stay at the apartment full of rotting body parts while promoting it? Wnt (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
If you carefully read what I wrote, he was promoting the 1 Lunatic 1 Icepik idea under different accounts before the murder happened, so no one knew it was really "him." Also, he left to Paris right after he murdered the victim, so your second statement makes no sense. Auss00 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
He wasn't specifically promoting the snuff video itself as early as March; rather, there was a blog posted in March which described Magnotta as a "necrophiliac serial killer", but that falls well short of promoting a specific video per se. It's also only unconfirmed speculation at this point as to whether Lin and Magnotta actually had an established relationship; there are also allegations that somebody who was using Magnotta's photo was contacting users on an internet personals site in the couple of weeks before the murder, and then proceeding to repeatedly harass users who didn't want to hook up with him, so it's also quite possible that he met Lin that way. In addition, it's not yet proven that he genuinely harboured racist views against Chinese and Jewish people — given that he had an established habit of misrepresenting or outright lying about himself, until this is actually aired in a court of law, it remains very possible that he just used Stormfront as another venue for self-promotion, merely pretending to have racist views in order to have something to post there. At any rate, we need to avoid speculation about his motives; until the case actually goes to trial, what we have so far is unverified allegations, not known facts, about his racial views and his possible relationship with Lin. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
From what I've read, I believe the first whispers of a "1 lunatic, 1 ice pick" video began on May 15, 2012. I'm not campaigning to get it into the article, but if anyone is inclined to look into it, I believe there are several sources reporting that the killer was the one that actually came up with the title '1 lunatic, 1 ice pick', was planting posts on message boards asking about how to find the film (which hadn't been made yet), and uploaded a "trailer" for the film (which basically just consisted of a still picture of what, at the time, appeared to be the profile of a "boy" wearing a hoodie and holding an ice pick, almost identical to one of the screencaps from one of the "kitten killing" videos) - all beginning on May 15, 2012. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think a good rule of thumb here is to not state anything as an absolute until it has been proven as such through reliable sources. Until someone can prove that Lin and Magnotta were absolutely dating, it would be better to phrase it like "Magnotta killed Lin, a student that some sources reported Magnotta was in a relationship with" or something to that nature (only far better phrased). The same thing applies to the murder video, the murder, and so on. Basically put, we use terms such as "reportedly", "supposedly", and "allegedly" while trying to keep it from going too weasel-wordy and trying to keep speculation out of the article. We can put theories in (such as another killer, Magnotta having an accomplice and so on) if there's enough reliable sources saying these things or if Magnotta himself has voiced this claim.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we should say the police told these reporters that (as they say), rather than it being something more substantiated. Especially since I'm never sure if a reporter left out a "probably" somewhere to save column space and perk up the reader's interest. ;) Wnt (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Can I request that Wnt and Egg Centric stick to discussing how to improve the article instead of constantly devolving into these speculations about what his motive was and whether or not he did it? All that matters is what the sources say. If the speculations and violations of WP:TALK continue I'm going to ask administrators to start intervening. - Burpelson AFB 19:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I was only seeking to illustrate a point, but true, that debate is pretty pointless until the data come in, and more so afterward. But a little talk is unavoidable when trying to figure out something this bizarre. Anyway, I've hatted the part that looked like it strayed off topic to me. Wnt (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Article renamed

Hi. Based on talk page discussion and the deletion nomination discussion, I went ahead and renamed the article to "Murder of Lin Jun" (and fixed the mess of redirects as well). The article needs to be refocused, however. Looking at other example articles (Murder of Laci Peterson, etc.) will probably be helpful here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Started. Did the lede. The rest someone else can deal with, I have no idea where to start. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
If this article is now about the Lin Jun murder, then IMNSHO details about Magnotta, which amount to 3/4 of the article, should be trimmed down a bit. -- megA (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
There was No consensus to rename the article. This whole discussion looks like a feeble attempt to get back at Magnotta, knowing his sense of vanity and the reason for the murder. As the notice said the discussion should take up to 7 days but you moved it the very moment the article went unprotected and before anyone had the chance to cover the (significant) events that happened in the meantime. The article should be moved back of until consensus is reached. Skullers (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. This move was disruptive and reckless, not bold. Not only was there an ongoing move request, but that discussion indicated no consensus at best for the move; a majority of votes were against the move. I'm moving the article back until an admin has closed the move request and ruled accordingly. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Support reverting to original title. This was a disruptive action, not a bold one, given the current state of the discussion. Resolute 22:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I also support reverting to original title. I don't quite understand why the article murder of Laci Peterson and the like would be the only possible template for this article - what about, say, Karla Homolka? I just mean that sometimes the (alleged) criminal is, in fact, notable. Also, I agree that the initial move was premature, there was no clear consensus, and the discussion should have been allowed to continue. I support BDD's action here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This is speculation, but it may be as Homolka has three sections (release, relocation, possibility of pardon) that go beyond her time with Bernardo. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the article should be kept as it is currently named. Magnotta was discussed in the press previous to his current "legal issue", so that makes BLP1E moot. The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing which appeared in the press prior to this murder was sufficient to merit this person's name being created as a Wikipedia article. If the press is raising animal cruelty now it's only because of the attention being drawn to this suspect by the murder of Lin Jun. (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, the entire body of coverage is not only about this event, therefore BLP1E is moot. He was also interviewed by the Toronto Star when he was supposedly dating the Karla Homolka, that's just one example. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The "Homolka" garbage shouldn't even be in this page, regardless of where it's cited, as it is in all probability a hoax of the suspect's own making... much like citing Dewey defeats Truman from a newspaper of the era doesn't make it so. Limit this to actual notable events which aren't fabrications intended to garner undeserved publicity and this BLP1E is all that's left. (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly it was a fabrication, but it's a fabrication that got reported as "fact" widely enough that we do need to cover it somehow. You're making a false comparison here: it isn't comparable to citing "Dewey defeats Truman" as proof that Dewey actually defeated Truman, but rather to simply discussing the fact that the "Dewey defeats Truman" incident happened at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's pretty clearly presented as a window into the man's mind, rather than as a statement of fact that it happened. The fact that repeating it here may give him a little glimmer of satisfaction (which I can understand could be irritating for a lot of people) isn't a good reason not to include it.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I could see that if this were just one sentence mentioning that he had posted fabricated claims from multiple website user names to artificially create notoriety, but the current WP:WEIGHT of an entire seven-paragraph section of "Internet controversy" plus the mention in "History" is undue. All of this supposed controversy is fake... he fabricated it to give the false illusion of notability when he has none. Way too much self-promotional rubbish being repeated in this article, where it adds very little. The murder of Lin Jun is notable as it makes Canada look bad both in mainland China and the European Union. The "legend in his own mind" filler, however, should only be one paragraph or less and then only as a background mention. Because it's fabrication on the suspect's own part, it really isn't news in its own right. (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you cite/explain how this makes Canada look bad in the EU? For that matter, the article doesn't even explain how the Chinese feel. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he deliberately created his own publicity or if it happened spontaneously, all that matters is what is covered in reliable sources. The fact that reliable sources have covered him apart from the murder (indeed, years before it happened) voids BLP1E. Consensus here is pretty clearly against the rename. - Burpelson AFB 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is that his self-fabricated claims of notability (enduring porn stardom, dating Karla Homolka, etc.) actively influenced much of what initially got reported about him, with the result that whether we like it or not, they are a rather big part of the story, and we do need to report on the fact that they've been debunked. The fact that the claims were fabricated certainly means we shouldn't report them as truth, 66 — but there's a big difference between asserting the truth of a false claim and merely reporting the existence of a false claim, and our content as written is not falling on the wrong side of that distinction. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Extradition toward China ?

Any official request from China ? Yug (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

China could not request extradition despite Lin being Chinese. Source: . Fact addition:  Done Yug (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Odd question and I'm not sure why this article even bothers addressing it... a Canadian who commits a crime in Canada is tried by a Canadian court, not a mainland Chinese court. The only way this suspect would be subject to Chinese law would be if he were actually in China or representing China abroad in an ambassadorial rôle which carried diplomatic immunity. A criminal charge is tried under the laws of the place in which the crime took place... and that's Montréal. (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless China actually attempted to have him extradited (as much as I enjoy the idea of him in a Chinese prison rather than a Canadian one) it seems pointless to mention it. Almost a sort of WP:SYNTHESIS. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not synthesis since the source directly discusses the possibility of deportation to China. I'm not sure how relevant it is, but it's definitely not synthesis. The international reaction should probably be expanded with reactions from people in France and Germany. AniMate 04:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why this particular source bothered discussing deportation to China. Someone accused of committing crime in Canada is tried in Canada. (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Weird. I agree with adding reaction from France, Germany ahd wherever else but don't have the sources right now. If someone else does feel free. The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
There was never any possibility of Magnotta being extradited to China, and it was weird that this was suggested.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
FRom people used to extradition, that's obvious. But for common people, I expected that China may do the request. Yug (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a bizarre notion. China has no role in the investigation or prosecution of Magnotta whatsoever. Taroaldo (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
He can be extradited to Lachine. Ça suffisera? (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Where the crime occurred is not dispositive in determining juridiction. Some country's laws say that they have juridiction over crimes against their citizens independant of the location of the crime. This is not denying that Canada has jurisdiction also. This one act may be a crime in more than one juridiction. The question is whether Germany would recognize such a claim by China. I have not heard that China has made any such claim anyway. In the oposite direction, it is a crime under U.S. law for a U.S. citizen to purchase Cuban cigars anywhere in the world. Sterrettc (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Usually, using the victim's nationality to determine the venue for a criminal trial is only done in instances such as sea piracy where the crimes took place in or over international waters. The abduction of the Maersk Alabama's captain was of interest to the United States of America as that was a (rare) US-flagged vessel with a captain from Underhill, Vermont, for instance. (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit as a result of coverage

Sez the Star: "Labatt Breweries has threatened legal action against the Montreal Gazette over a photo of Luka Magnotta... Magnotta is seen holding a bottle of Labatt Blue." -- Zanimum (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This was in the Streisand effect article; one editor arbitrarily removed it as a recentism. It is notable. (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

More human remains mailed to two Elementary schools

I'm not an expert on this case, but just a heads up - There appear to be reports of a second hand and foot which were mailed to two Canadian schools and which were just opened by the schools' secretaries today (June 5, 2012). There haven't been any DNA tests as of yet to prove conclusively that the remains are those of Lin, but numerous news sources are already reporting that they are likely to be appendages authorities failed to find in their initial investigation of the Lin murder, so I thought I'd add links to the story for editors here to keep an eye on. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crakkerjakk (talkcontribs) — Preceding undated comment added Crakkerjakk

Heads up? Where? The head is still missing and unaccounted for. (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Hardy-har.. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Until they are confirmed as belonging to the victim, which seems fairly likely, we probably shouldn't include this in the article. AniMate 04:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't advocating for the addition of the story to the article right away (as is probably evident by the fact that I didn't add it). I was mentioning it as something for editors to keep an eye on, since it will, in all likelihood, become another huge piece of the story within the next couple of days. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Likely, schmikely! That is all. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol.. I know.. I know... I'm trying to remain "neutral" here.. :P --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Third foot found in Montreal. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
That's good news. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Police now believe these 2 packages are linked to the Lin murder. They were both mailed from Montreal. Montreal police have taken over the Vancouver investigations. [17] Resa1983 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Game Show Appearance

Does anyone know what game show this is? And would it warrant a mention in the article, with a reliable source? Not this video, but the game show appearance. It would seem to be the peak of actual showbiz career. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The video says "What's My Line?".. I've never heard of it, but I guess it could be a Canadian revival of the old game show (although the Wikipedia article on the show doesn't appear to mention it, that doesn't mean it didn't exist).. However, to answer your question - No, I think the general premise of most game shows is that they invite "civilians" to come on and compete for prizes. Any people who would be considered to have "show business" careers are generally invited as "celebrity" contestants, usually playing for charity.. Some exceptions might be shows like American Idol or Project Runway where the prize is achieving notoriety for an outstanding talent, but not simply appearing on a quiz-show for one day and winning a lifetime supply of turtle wax, etc.. I guess there could be a mention of it. I know he also auditioned for some reality show that aired on some gay channel in Canada (don't remember the name of the show), so sometime down the line I suppose there could be a little section created to cover his show business aspirations; the reality show, the game show, modeling, etc, etc, but I wouldn't spend a lot of time building it up to be more than it was.. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying it was anything major. Just relatively major. By the way, it was called Brain Battle. Never heard of it. Uploaded by "Tyrone Power". The real Tyrone Power is on What's My Line in Related Videos as a mystery guest. If it's a clue, I don't get it. The important thing is there's no good source. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok, yeah. I thought What's My Line seemed wrong since it was a different type of format from the one seen in that clip. I've never heard of Brain Battle either, but I live in the U.S., so It's not a big surprise that I wouldn't have heard of a Canadian game-show. I also wouldn't be surprised if that youtube channel was one of Magnotta's hundreds of sock-puppet accounts, so I wouldn't read too much into the "Tyrone Power" name (other than Magnotta had a boner for lots of old-timey film stars). As the media begins to dig into this story (and we know they will), a source may surface reporting of his appearance on the game-show, but I don't think the article will be severely lacking in the meantime. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The title of the YouTube video is inaccurate; as Inedible Hulk pointed out, the show was actually called Brain Battle. However, Crackerjakk is correct that we shouldn't add it to this article on the basis of a YouTube video — only if and when a real reliable source publishes that he appeared on a game show would it be potentially worth mentioning. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This is often a point of confusion. We CAN write that he was on the game show and the reference would be a primary source: the gameshow itself. You don't need to include the link to YouTube. But since we can clearly see he was on a gameshow, all we need is the information about the gameshow, preferably the airing date, and I believe there is even a little-used citation template for television broadcasts. - Burpelson AFB 18:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I should clarify a bit: I'm not discounting it just because the video itself is a primary source — but also because until a reliable media source actually reports on it, it's not at all clear that appearing on a game show is even notable enough to warrant mention at all. The problem here is one I've seen often on articles of current news interest: people start wanting to add every last scrap of detail they can get their hands on through any means whatsoever, and often fail to apply any real judgement as to whether the detail is actually significant or not. Bottom line, the fact that he once competed on a game show isn't relevant or notable until a reliable media source makes it relevant or notable by actively reporting on it. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, so it's a matter of WP:N and not WP:V. - Burpelson AFB 15:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it could be pertinent enough to add a few sentences about his numerous attempts to make himself "famous" over the years prior to the alleged murder. Contrary to some people's disproportionately overly-exaggerated assertions, a lot of background detail can be added about a person without being "exhaustive" (perhaps they've arrived at the conclusion that they don't possess the ability to do it, but a lot of editors can and do do it all the time). I don't think the article is suffering from not including the information as of today, however, at some point one small paragraph mentioning his various television/print/porn appearances could easily be reliably sourced and pulled together and would provide context for what numerous reliable sources have cited as his "hunger" for fame prior to the filming of the 'Icepick' film. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The article already contains considerable content about his numerous attempts to make himself "famous" over the years prior to the alleged murder — the differences between that and this are that (a) the existing content is already sourced to reliable media sources reporting on it, and not just to video clips on YouTube, and (b) their big picture relevance is already established by those same reliable sources, rather than requiring speculation. Contrary to some people's disproportionately overexaggerated dismissals of other editors' intelligence, some other editors have been around Wikipedia for a decade, have quite well-established reputations as being among the most reliable and trustworthy and skilled contributors in Wikipedia's editorial pool, and have a much deeper understanding than most of not just Wikipedia policy itself, but of the various historical disputes and controversies and issues that led to the development of Wikipedia policy in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

porn career in the lead

hello. it seems that his non-notable porn career has found its way into the lead section again. i added the qualifier "unsuccessful", which was also removed, so i then replaced 'porn actor' with "citizen" because he has not been a porn actor for quite a while, according to the sources, and the porn career that he did have was shown to be not-notable in 2 previous discussions. care to discuss this? why should his non-notable porn career be in the lead? -badmachine 05:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the sources and very few do not mention his porn career, successful or not. If it's not part of headline it is in the lead, and there is no reason to exclude it. And adding "unsuccessful" is making judgment on our part which would be a BLP issue (the source you linked[18] does not even contain that word). Skullers (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • per Wikipedia:LEDE#Relative_emphasis:

    the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject

    i am not saying to omit this part of his background, only that it does not belong in the intro. for an example, see Simon Rex. -badmachine 09:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't like "unsuccessful" when I saw it a couple of hours ago, but decided to stay out of the editing of the article. It's just not for Wikipedia to characterize whether someone is/was "successful" or "unsuccessful", etc.. As far as his porn "career" - as you've stated, that's the headline on EVERY channel/newspaper "Gay Porn Star Killer".. Granted, I don't think he was a "star", but the term "porn star" is commonly used to refer to anyone who's ever appeared in a porno flick (whether notable or not).. I haven't researched it, but I know he did something with Bad Puppy, and even if it was just a photo-shoot or a 10-minute j/o vid posted online, Bad Puppy is relatively notable/legit in the gay porn realm, so posing for pics for Bad Puppy is notable enough to include a mention of it as far as I'm concerned. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikilink to Gay pornography says it is "the representation of sexual intercourse between men with the primary goal of sexual arousal in its audience." Magnotta has depicted intercourse with his hand, a dead cat, a severed arm and a human corpse. But with a man? Sources may use the term "porn star", but they also use "psycho". He is far more notable as a psycho, and just as unproven. Neither term should be in the lead, though. He is notable for being referred to as a porn actor. But that's it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but again - I think "gay porn" is generally understood to be a colloquialism which encompasses more than just two men... how do i put this delicately... having anal sex (jeeez this is embarassing)... I think if you asked most ppl, they would say an photograph of an "aroused" man posing "provocatively", or a "solo" video of a man "pleasuring" himself would fall under the "porn" umbrella (and if it's hosted on a website catering primarily to gay men, "gay porn"). It's just an easy way to get the essential information across without going into a whole thesis about what the text-book/dictionary definition of "gay porn" is. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
"Generally understood" or not, the Wikilnked article defines it differently. An unfamiliar reader clicking it would reasonably assume Magnotta is depicted having some sort of sex with another guy in some sort of media. Which isn't (apparently) the case. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
To put this *very bluntly* the Internet Adult Film Database entry indicates three clips in which he is sodomised, one in which he sodomises another male, one in which a male ejaculates on his face and one in which he engages in masturbation on-camera. Clearly this is pornography; whether it is particularly notable as pornography given the sheer quantity of porn already online or whether IAFD is a reliable source is an entirely-different question but I really don't see a whole lot of "it's not pornography, it's erotica" (or art, or whatever) wiggle room here. It's porn. (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
IAFD's reliability is not an entirely different question, or a question at all. It is unreliable for the same reason IMDB is: it can be added to by anyone (including liars and/or self-promoters). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Nearly every source that I've read refers to him as being a "gay porn actor" or just a "porn actor". Though today's stories in the Sun papers are referring to him as a "self-styled porn star". Following the sources, it would seem appropriate to note he is a pornographic actor in the lead. Resolute 14:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The definition of pornography is not limited to one specific sexual act, it could be anything from nudity in a clearly sexual context to sexual penetration, including oral sexual activity and masturbation. One poster may consider discussion of anal sex to be "embarrassing" but, given the allegations of cannibalism being made after police review of the original footage from which this video was made, I'd be more queasy about using "oral sex" and the name of this suspect in the same paragraph. Ouch! (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Lol.. Well, I just meant it's embarrassing to be discussing gay porn in such clinical terms (I feel like I'm on Dr. Ruth or something).. It's a term that casts a BIG net (hell, I'm sure some sickos would even consider Magnotta's little home movies to be "gay porn"). Anyway, someone posted a link in the "Propose changing gay porn actor to cannibal" thread, where he's clearly getting bu++#&@ked. I mean, we get it, you've made your point, he's no Brent Everett. But if every news agency on EARTH can live with calling Magnotta a "porn star", then so can you.  :P --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


To be clear, the "1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick" video does not depict any cannibalistic eating of human body parts. At one point the killer is shown using a knife and fork on the victim's left buttock. According to this story, the video "did not show anyone eating the body but did show a man using a fork and knife on it. Police suggested Tuesday that they have access to more extensive video of the killing, possibly an unedited version." The video has clearly been edited and does not proceed in real time (it is 10:24 long, not the 11 minutes stated in the media).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've definitely seen reports of an extended copy that the police found, which is definitely supposed to be longer and unedited. I haven't watched the 11 minute version (I've seen a few screencaps and that was all I needed), so I don't know first-hand about whether there is any "cannibalism" shown in the video, but I know several reliable sources have reported it. They may have been wrong, but they've reported it, so if other sources now say "no cannibalism", then we'd probably need to make a note something like: "So-and-so initially reported that the video depicted cannibalism, however, such-and-such source has since disputed the claim", or something like that - in order to avoid edit warring from users citing conflicting sources (reliable sources do sometimes contradict each other, particularly with fast-breaking news stories like this one). As far as whether the video was 11 minutes verus 10 minutes and 24 seconds - I think most news sources are probably rounding up to the nearest minute, and I think most readers understand that it may not clock in at EXACTLY 11 minutes on the DOT, so I personally don't think that's really a big problem, but feel free to change it if you have a source stating 10:24 (and no, having watched the video yourself doesn't qualify as a source, since no website has been able to keep the video up for more than a few hours at a time).. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have a link to the longer version? It should shed a lot more light on the case. Wnt (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
"Police suggested Tuesday that they have access to more extensive video of the killing, possibly an unedited version. "We're keeping some details for ourselves," said Montreal Police Cmdr Ian Lafreniere "[19] The police have hinted - but not confirmed - that they have access to a longer and unedited version of the video. Unless anyone knows differently, the "1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick" video is currently the only one available on the web.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Any computers or media left behind in the Montréal apartment are undoubtably now evidence and have been thoroughly picked apart by forensic experts. That's inevitable, given the severity of the case and the rôle the net played in this incident. Any original footage used by the suspect to assemble a video is on the computers and therefore is police evidence, but was never posted publicly. The prosecution will have to disclose this evidence to the defence attorneys before trial and some unfortunate jury will be forced to watch this garbage in the name of due process, but (if the Paul Bernardo videotapes are any precedent) it's likely the data will be destroyed after the last appeal has been exhausted. (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's unlikely we'll be seeing the "extended" video police have anytime soon. Particularly given the voracity with which authorities have been pulling the 11-minute version down from every website it appears on. Granted, leaks happen all the time in investigations, so I won't say that it will never happen, just that we probably shouldn't hold our breath that it'll be happening anytime soon. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Propose changing "gay pornographic actor" to "cannibal" in lead.

Per the same weak arguments given for keeping "gay pornographic actor". The label is used in the same sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC) "Killer" would work nicely, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

See the above section. "Montreal Police Cmdr Ian Lafreniere said that although police have not been able to conclusively confirm it, they suspect Magnotta ate parts of the victim's body."[20] There is no direct evidence of eating so far.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Huffpost reports a video and a photoshoot for BadPuppy, that's good enough for me. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Lol. Don't worry Ian.. Hulk is just being a wise-acre.. He's not trying to get "cannibalism" added, he's trying to get "gay porn" removed. I've added the source where BadPuppy basically confirms that he was one of their... ahem... "models" back in November 2005.. It's a gay porn site.. He was hired to appear on it... I don't see the problem.. Honestly, the article could use a LOT of improvement.. Quibbling over the textbook definition of "gay porn" is a silly waste of everybody's time.. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The mainstream media coverage is part of the problem. I'm surprised that no-one has attempted to add that he had surgery to look like James Dean. This is very implausible and another of the claims being made which would need strong sourcing. The cannibalism claim is more of a worry, as the police have backed off on saying with 100% certainty that this happened.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I think another HUGE part of the problem is that the nature of this story is so stomach-turning that most seasoned Wikipedia editors don't want to touch it (me included). I'm not bragging, but I've done some pretty decent work on Wikipedia, however, I've read a handful of articles about this case and I honestly don't think I really want to know anymore of the gruesome details. If this page was locked then I might take a few hours to try and clean it up and source it, but it almost seems pointless to waste my time when it's being constantly edited.. Lemme re-read the article and see what I can do about sourcing this "cannibalism" issue. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
About "gay porn" information... It is not only about BadPuppy, his work for DaddyMugs could be a reliable reference as well, see here. Other links about his work in adult industry are mentioned above in Adult films section. He was not a porn star, but definitely a "gay pornographic actor". Matjaž Zaplotnik (my contributions) 09:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. He appears to have performed in several "pornos".. I think the objection was that several of them may have been for rather amateurish/unknown websites. However, BadPuppy is extremely well-known within the porn industry (it's basically a gay equivalent to what Playboy is to straight guys), so I honestly believe a confirmed BadPuppy credit should be sufficient to put the issue to rest already. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've done a little looking around and I see we have two conflicting sources regarding the "cannibalism" issue. They're both "reliable" and both were written yesterday (June 5, 2012). Toronto Star says it's been confirmed and CBS says unconfirmed. Give me a few minutes and I'll go in and try to re-word the passage to make it clear we have conflicting reports and source it. Please just revert if anyone adds any additional references to cannibalism while I try and clean this up.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about that. Every time I tried to get in, I got an edit conflict which took me forever to get the edits in. Due to this, I ended up just doing minimal rewording to be as fast as possible, but I managed to add a clarification regarding the conflicting cannibalism reports. If someone wants to reword it to remove the claims of cannibalism appearing in the 11-minute version, then feel free. The sources supporting the "conflicting reports" are at least in there now.. I just can't do a proper re-write when a "current events" article like this one is unprotected. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Crakkerjakk got my point. I was saying "cannibal" and "killer" are just as bad (for being unverifiable media labels). Posing for a gay magazine has NOTHING to do with gay PORN or ACTING. Porn needs sex, not just nudity. Maybe call him a model, but he's still not NOTABLE for modelling. We couldn't give him an article based on his "work" a month ago. He's notable for being a murder suspect. Everything else is basically trivia. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

He has done videos. Not many, admittedly, and not enough that he could honestly be described as a porn star, but enough that "porn actor" isn't a wrong or inaccurate descriptor as such. It's true that Badpuppy (which is a website, not a magazine) is the only one that's specifically commented on the record in a reliable media source about him, but there are also actual performance videos on other porn sites in which he does appear. The sites themselves wouldn't be appropriate for linking as references, obviously, but several links to porn videos in which he clearly does appear have been provided in the "Adult films" discussion above — each and every one of them corresponding to one of the video credits that are listed on his IAFD profile. The issue around faked porn videos isn't about the IAFD credits being unverifiable; it relates to additional clips that were uploaded under his name to amateur porn sites like XTube, which were demonstrably taken from videos that aren't listed in his IAFD profile. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word on the actual porn videos and note that I was thinking "website" when I typed "magazine". Still, seeing how none of his alleged porn was notable enough to even be mentioned in a reliable source (let alone justify a WP entry) until he BECAME NOTABLE by becoming a murder suspect, it seems ridiculous to have it in the lead sentence (especially with that many foootnotes). Every source given for "porn actor" also says "murder suspect", and many other use ONLY "murder suspect". So "murder suspect" more than meets the RS guidelines AND is actually why anyone gives a shit. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly grant you that you have a valid point here — it is kind of hard to come up with a useful and accurate description of a person who really wasn't notable for much of anything until becoming a criminal suspect. You're right, he wouldn't have been able to keep an article on the basis of his porn "career" alone, given the lack of reliable sourcing that demonstrated his notability as a porn actor. But your line of questioning in most of this discussion wasn't really about whether his porn acting could be seen as a principal claim of notability — rather, you were arguing that he couldn't be described as a porn actor at all, on the basis that he had only ever posed for a few photos and had never actually been in any videos. It's probably not the best description of him that we could give in the article's very first sentence, you're absolutely right — I just wanted to point out that it's not an outright false one as such. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

When I was arguing he wasn't a "porn actor" at all, I wasn't aware of the actual porn videos. Whether that counts as acting is debatable (in a petty, nitpicking way), but yes, you are entirely right that the label is NOT entirely false. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC) However, I will disagree that it is "kind of hard" to accurately describe such a person as you describe. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I posted some of the primary sources before - they were websites where people have to pay to access the full clip, and his film clips are one of their assets. So in the broad sense of putting on a commercially saleable production, he was definitely a gay porn actor. But debating this is really just OR - the point is, if sources describes him that way, then we should too. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wnt, but is that really what makes him notable? Hulk Hogan's article doesn't start with "Hulk Hogan is an American bassist" and George Bush isn't "an American cheerleader". Both statements are formerly true, easily sourced and included in the article. But not in the lead sentence, for the same (seemingly) obvious reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any source to back the "In 2003, Magnotta began to appear in both straight[better source needed] and gay pornographic videos" claim currently in the article? I can't name one piece of known straight porn which can be attributed to this suspect. (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's been bothering me too, since I haven't seen a single source reporting a single "straight" video. I think it's been up long enough. I'll remove it and if anyone can find a reliable source for this then they can add it back. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Just for the record, while some of the early Canadian media coverage certainly did assert that he'd done straight porn (which is why the statement was originally added), it's also true that I have yet to see any properly sourced evidence that he ever actually did appear in any straight porn. At this point, it indeed appears far more likely that he simply claimed to have appeared in straight porn over the course of his endless self-promotional blitz, and initial media coverage simply reported that as fact but then backed off as the actual evidence for the claim failed to materialize. So no objection to removing the claim now. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


Sorry, I'm American so I assumed the mug-shot was a Commons image (I should have checked). I don't have a problem with the photo where it is if it's copyrighted, but I was told to see the talk page. I've looked at the sections discussing images, but I didn't see anything regarding this image. Could someone tell me which thread it is or, better yet, could we start a new discussion here regarding this specific image and get someone in here to begin archiving old threads? Again, I don't have any problem if the image is copyrighted (I have no knowledge of the German laws regarding this work), but this talk page is getting impossible to navigate, so if someone could just summarize what I was supposed to be looking for, that would help. Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

All available images are copyrighted, which means they could only be used under a claim of fair use. But fair use requires that the image be irreplaceable, and since he's living then theoretically someone could take a picture of him and release it as "free". - Burpelson AFB 18:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, we took this discussion up above (I'd started typing this new thread about a minute before IanMacM's "Mugshot" post appeared above). As I ended up stating there, I was wondering if anyone here actually knows the copyright status of this mugshot, or if we're all just assuming it's copyrighted until someone who actually knows the status of German mugshots can chime in. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Beats me. I tried searching "Magnotta" on the two German police websites I could find and couldn't come up with the mugshot, however both websites have copyright notices on them (for example "© Bundeskriminalamt - 2012"), so I'm assuming everything is copyrighted. - Burpelson AFB 20:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know either. lol.. I can read German (enough to get the gist), but I don't have a clue about where to go to find out that kind of thing. Hopefully someone will eventually come through and tell us. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Youtube hoax accounts

Hello, I added two paragraphs to the "Internet controversy" section about the Youtube hoax accounts that appeared while Magnotta was on the run in Europe. I think it's relevant due to the attention they drew, but I'm not the best writer. If anyone wants to edit what I wrote so that it is better in line with the article, please feel free. --Chiaroscuro12 (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

left and right

According to CBC and CTV news programs, the left hand was sent the Liberal HQ, left food to Conservative HQ addressed to PM Harper; and that the head, right hand and foot are missing. But that the hand and foot delivered to Vancouver schools are the right hand and foot. (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to doubt you, but it's difficult to use television sources for this type of info. Do you know of any online sources for this? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
it is highly unlikely that the police would release that kind of information. -badmachine 11:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I seem to remember reading something about a left hand being sent to one of the politicians yesterday (I don't remember if they mentioned a left or right foot). I don't remember which article it was, so I'm not advocating for the addition of the info until we have a source, but it doesn't sound inconceivable to me that they would have provided follow-up regarding the packages sent to the schools. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, found the source for the "left hand" and "left foot" reports I remembered, so yeah, I don't know how "unlikely" this type of follow-up report would be at all. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
i was referring to the Vancouver incident, and im not implying they wont, just that it is not likely that they already have. -badmachine 12:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm just saying investigators have already released "that kind of information" regarding the packages sent to the politicians, so I'm not inclined to outright dismiss the OP's claims about the packages sent to the schools as "unlikely". Casual readers/editors may not understand all of the intricacies of sourcing (such as we need a better source than "I saw it on TV"), but that doesn't mean they're necessarily lying either. We don't want new editors to feel like they're automatically being met with hostility/disbelief if/when they come in good faith. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
i wasnt implyint deception. i said it is unlikely that they would release that information. to clarify, police generally will not release those kinds of details unless they are seeking assistance from the public. -badmachine 12:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
See WP:KNOW. "As a rule" is not a "reliable source." Collect (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure who the "as a rule" admonishment is for. Nobody in this thread is proposing that any changes should be made to the article based on anything presently being discussed here (with the possible exception of the OP who appears to have at least thought they were providing "reliable sources" by citing the television morning news in Canada). Could you please clarify what you mean? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Confirmation yesterday's school packages were a right hand and right foot --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it would particularly matter for our purposes that it was specifically the left or the right hand or foot that ended up in any particular place. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, it depends on the standpoint. Once the parts have all been tested and confirmed to be all from the same person, then no, it won't be much more than a passing bit of trivia. But keep in mind that, if there were TWO right hands, or TWO left feet, etc, then that would mean we'd obviously have at least 2 victims of the killer, or even worse, MULTIPLE psycho killers running around loose in Canada. Since the story is still unfolding, the fact that all indications are that these clues all point to a very strong likelihood of there being only ONE victim/killer thus far actually tells the reader a LOT as far as I'm concerned (particularly if someone, or their loved one, lives in Montreal). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
That speaks to its relevance to the police investigation, certainly, but it doesn't really explain why it's necessary for us to discuss and debate it here, on a talk page whose purpose is discussing the article, not the individual. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
A discussion of whether some particular bit of info belongs in the article most definitely *does* belong here as this page is for discussing the article. As for two left feet? If that turns up, time to call in Arthur Murray as an expert witness in these matters. (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the article was about both the individual and the investigation of the murder for which he has been named the #1 suspect. Unless you're saying just shut up and add it to the article already. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me try this again in different words — this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing our personal opinions of Magnotta as an individual or for conducting independent forensic reviews of the murder investigation. I raised a question about whether our article really needed to make note of which particular destinations got the left hand and foot and which ones got the right hand and foot — which you answered with an analysis of why the left vs. right issue would be relevant to the police as an evidentiary detail, but didn't really address why we might need to include that information in our article. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, let me try this again in pretty much the same words, since I think I was pretty clear the first time that I believed it was very relevant to the article and I laid out the reasons why. Looking back up the thread, I see I made a statement that we weren't proposing adding the info to the article at that time (because we didn't have realible sources at that time), so maybe that's where the confusion is coming from. However, you'll notice my first reply to the OP was to request that they provide a reliable source so that it might be added to the article, which I subsequently provided once online sources released the same info a couple of hours after Canadian television had reported the story. Now that we have reliable, citable sources confirming the packages sent to politicians were a left hand and left foot, and the packages sent to the schools were a right hand and right foot, I believe the information is relevant to "our" article for the reasons I've outlined previously. I honestly don't see anyone in this thread rambling on about any "personal opinions" about Magnotta as an individual, or conducting "independent forensic reviews". It's pretty straight forward - reliable news sources have now reported a total of two hands (one left, one right) and a total of two feet (one left, one right). Not two right hands, or two left feet, etc.. If you can't understand how that would be relevant and informative to the readers coming to this article then I honestly don't know how to help you. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
For our purposes here, all Wikipedia really needs to know is that the police are treating the Vancouver parts as possibly or likely connected. Beyond being an evidentiary detail for the police to assess in making that determination one way or the other, the fact that the political party offices in Ottawa happened to get the left parts and the schools in Vancouver happened to get the right parts is just trivia that isn't particularly important for our purposes. All we really need to know here is that the police have stated that they're considering the second set of parts to be related at this time — exhaustively documenting all the reasons why would just be accumulating detail for the sake of accumulating detail, rather than adding anything that Wikipedia or its readers actually need to know right now. We need to be conscious of the distinction between details that are actually important for a Wikipedia reader to know, and details that are just details. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind when this discussion was going on (before you came along and doubled it's size by reviving it), there wasn't any information within the article stating whether the police had considered them to be connected or whether there was apparent evidence that the parts were from two different individuals (such as two right hands, which would obviously equal two victims, no DNA test required - even a first grader could figure that out). And I hardly consider two sentences "exhaustive", particularly since the info could most likely be added to pre-existing text passage(s) within the article, which means it would basically amount to an "exhaustive" four more words to the article (give or take). In fact, the only "exhaustive" elements I'm detecting is your determination to keep this thread going after overlooking the painfully obvious, asking a question that shouldn't have really needed and answer, and subsequently having things repeatedly explained to you in embarassingly simplistic terms. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Er, no. For starters, my first post was barely one hour after the preceding comment (and just over four hours after the thread was even started), so I can hardly be accused of reviving a dead thread instead of continuing an active one. And secondly, nobody in this entire discussion even began to suggest that the police confirmation that the Vancouver parts were likely connected in any way resolved the need to specify which set of destinations got the left parts and which got the right parts — that's a new argument that you're introducing now, not an existing argument that I failed to take into account earlier.
And furthermore, I never said or implied that I was somehow failing to understand that two right hands would mean two different victims; that's patently obvious and I never denied or failed to realize it. You're making a very unwarranted assumption about my intelligence there. Rather, per Wikipedia's proscriptions against original research, it simply wasn't our role to assume anything one way or the other until the police specifically announced whether they were treating the cases as related or not — in fact, until the police explicitly made that announcement the parts' left or right status wasn't even properly verifiable in the first place — and now that they have made that announcement, the particular left vs. right issue isn't important to us anymore anyway, except as trivia for the sake of trivia. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Er, yes. In the time between my last post and your first, Resa1983 contributed additional information to the article regarding how the police were treating the second set of packages (a simple 20-second check of the revision history would have demonstrated that for you). And my statement about there not being any information on the subject within the article at the time of the discussion was a reply to your newfound rationale that "All we really need to know here is that the police have stated that they're considering the second set of parts to be related at this time." And I maintain that providing the information regarding them now having a set of hands (left and right) and a set of feet (left and right) provides context as to why the police would have reason to believe they are connected and quite possibly those of Lin Jun. Bottom line - you're the only one who failed to see the value of the discussion, everyone else (including an editor who wasn't even part of this thread) had no problem grasping the significance. Nobody proposed that we "assume" anything (that was your assumption). There weren't any proposals of adding "personal opinions" or "independent forensic reviews". Only that we should mention what they found. Just give it up already. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What you're ignoring is that the original proposal was to "mention what they found" before the police confirmed what they'd found, based on a claim that had not yet been properly substantiated by anybody actually speaking on the record, specifically so that Wikipedia readers could infer a conclusion that hadn't yet been announced by the police. That's original research no matter how you look at it.
And the timing of the related article edits in relation to this discussion is irrelevant; I simply expressed an opinion that for our purposes here we care more about the police confirmation that the cases were likely related than we do about the raw detail of who got which set of parts. My post didn't actually contradict or fail to understand anything that was in the article at the time, nor was it incompatible with anything that had been stated in the discussion up to that point — but you then proceeded to inject assumptions about my intelligence that misrepresented what I had even said in the first place, falsely characterizing me as not even understanding the basic fact that two right hands would mean two different victims when what I actually said was that the left vs. right detail was unconfirmed at the time it was originally proposed for inclusion in the article, and then after it was properly confirmed it was a secondary detail to the fact that the police had stated that they were treating the cases as related.
The bottom line here is that I didn't fail to notice or take into account anything that I should have — you either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented what I was even saying in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Read the thread. I'd posted links to the info before you ever jumped into it. One to the source for the left appendages, and one to the source for the right appendages. That's not original research no matter how desperately you try and spin it in the aftermath to try and make yourself look better. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Details are always good. For example, I might have thought that someone would send the left hand to liberal HQ and the right hand to conservative HQ... that this wasn't done might give a little insight into his state of mind. Wnt (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added the information because finding matching body parts was given by Montreal Police Cmdr. Ian Lafreniere as one of the reasons for the investigation in Vancouver to be taken over by police from Montreal. Skullers (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)