Talk:Murder of Jun Lin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

talk page archiving

I've reverted the archive from MiszaBot I since the setting of 3 days removed some of the ongoing threads including the rename discussion. Should something be done with the existing archive pages? Archive_1 Archive_2 Skullers (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's weird. I'm not an expert with this type of thing, but I thought bot archiving only moved threads which hadn't been active for 3 days (or whatever the length of time of the setting), and I know the rename discussion has been active much more recently than that (I posted in it myself less than 24 hours ago). I still firmly believe we need to begin archiving this page on a more regular basis (it's getting ridiculously long and difficult to navigate), but if it's moving still active threads then there must have been a glitch. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a malfunction by MiszaBot. No threads should have been archived unless the threads had no replies in three days or more. Some of the archived threads should be returned for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the timeframe to 30 days. 3 (or even 8) is too short a period and I have a feeling that the 3 was a typo. Archiving will begin with the old stuff imported from the Luka R Magnotta talk page (a few years old) and resume in archive 1. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, changed to 15. This talk page is becoming unwieldy. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest archiving older than 3 days but keep a higher minimum amount of threads remaining on the talk page, perhaps 20. There is going to be a lot of noise, along with a lot to talk about. --MuZemike 22:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the 3 day setting wasn't an accident, although I can see how it seemed like it could be. There's just currently a lot of activity on this page and some people will just keep insisting upon dragging on and on and on with threads even after they've long been resolved, so something needs to be done. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless Lin's head turns up tomorrow, the cycle of updates will slow while Magnotta's extradition wends its way through the system. News sources will begin to lose interest in the interim. Resolute 01:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll change it to 3 days and 18 threads. Part of the reason for the initial archive failure (where almost all threads were archived) is because the letter "d" was deleted, so it just said "3". I think that messes up the bot. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Kirk Trammel"

The alias "Kirk Trammel" (used when the suspect was fleeing to East Berlin) appears in a valid reference Kirk Trammel<ref name="spec6june">{{cite news|url=http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/article/738419--investigation-foot-and-hand-sent-to-vancouver-schools |date=June 06 2012 |title=Montreal police say foot found on street was fake |publisher=[[Hamilton Spectator]]}}</ref> but my attempt to change "K. Trammel" to "Kirk Trammel" was reverted here. Unexplained deletion of valid, sourced content? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That's weird. As long as you cited the source properly, then I'm not sure why that was reverted. If you don't get an explanation here then I'll restore it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks OK, he reportedly flew to France with a false passport in this name.[1] Kirk is one of his birth names, while Catherine Tramell is played by Sharon Stone in the film Basic Instinct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the editor who reverted me just requested full protection of this entire article here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC) The existing source ("K. Trammel", per France TV) has him using this name when boarding a Eurolines bus at a station at la place de Clichy, Paris. If he's using it on aircraft too as an international fugitive, that's notable. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that, but don't worry if the page ends up protected. I'm a confirmed editor and I'll be happy to add any info you have like this as long as it's relevant and properly sourced (which this was). I'd actually still like an explanation as to why this was reverted in the first place. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

it looks like the editor is requesting protection on the redirect Murder of Lin Jun. :\ -badmachine 14:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

They're requesting protection for both actually. I'm not opposed to a protection (since most IPs really don't understand about libel, sourcing, blah, blah, blah), but the above IP editor obviously knows what they're doing. To the IP editor above, you should think about creating an Wikipedia account. You obviously know what you're doing and after you get some edits under your belt you'll be confirmed, and you'll be able to edit locked pages. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You could only add requested material if the article is semi-protected. The request at RFPP was for full protection, which only an administrator could edit through. And in that case, admins are only supposed to make such edits if they reach consensus in the talk page. I can see semi-protection in the case of excessive anon vandalism (which would also defeat 66's attempts at positive contributions, unfortunately), but full seems unnecessary given the number of eyes on this page. Resolute 16:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh I didn't realize that. I noticed in their edit history that they'd requested protection, but I didn't realize they'd asked for full protection. That's definitely not necessary in my opinion. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any source on the alias "Mattia Del Santo"? It's been in since article since [2] but I can't find any source confirming the name. Skullers (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in media coverage (one example here), albeit unlike some of the other pseudonyms I have yet to see any actual detail about the context(s) in which he may have used it. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It has a couple citations, I've added them. I also cited the use of his modeling nickname "Jimmy". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any value to keeping the two particular aliases ("also known Vladimir Romanov and Mattia Del Santo") in the lead, considering how many alternate names he is said to have used? Some of them are already listed in the infobox and IMO only the legal and birth name should be used in the lead. He had actually denied using any other names which makes it a BLP issue as well. And then there's other people have an identical real name. Skullers (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove any aliases which are sourced, but I don't think we need to list every alias in the lead either. The name he is referred to as in the sources (Luka Magnotta) and his birth name are sufficient. Many "adult" entertainers use numerous "professioinal" names (often being asked to change their names by the various studios), so it's not necessary to lead with them all. Just as long as they're in the infobox or somewhere within the article. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to just leave them in the infobox and remove from lede. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Question: Was he ever known to use the name "Kirk Trammel" outside of when he was arrested? If not, I'd probably remove that from the infobox too, but note that this was the name he initially gave when the Berlin police asked for it. Resolute 14:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this reported as a fake passport under "Kirk Trammel", that he used the name when boarding Eurolines from Paris to Berlin and that he used the name (then tried his birth name, then finally confessed "you got me") upon his arrest. As such, it's notable as part of his effort to abscond from Canada to evade charges for the Murder of Lin Jun. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Facebook hunt page

Canadian TV news is reporting that possibly Magnotta himself setup a "Find the serial killer Luka Magnotta" Facebook page, on the day he committed the murder. The page was set up on May 24. Should this be placed into the article? (Yes I do know a reliable source is necessary. But before that, should it be included?) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• If it's been proven to be true or has been mentioned in enough RS, then it'd probably be worth mentioning in my opinion. The only thing would be to make sure to say that it was a page reportedly set up by him.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a good addition for the article. The source would be the TV news broadcast itself. For help building the ref see Wikipedia:CITE#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding nothing on-line to indicate that a Facebook page Find Serial Killer Luka Magnotta is in any way notable. There's no mention of it in news reports or anywhere else, even though the main networks (CBC/R-C, CTV, Global) do all post their news copy on their respective websites. The page exists on Facebook, but so what? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If it was discussed in a television news broadcast then add it. If it wasn't and the OP was making it up, then don't. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making it up. And as for 66.x not finding anything, s/he didn't look that hard. [3] TV news video, check out time index 11 minutes. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already been added from [4] which is the same segment but in a separate article. Sorry, should have left a note in this section. Skullers (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

Past consensus from articles such as Jared Lee Loughner is that a non-free image is unsuitable for the infobox of a BLP article per WP:NFCC#1 and that it can lead to NPOV/BLP1E issues. The image File:Luka Magnotta Interpol Image.jpg has the word "ARRESTED" in it in large letters and in my view is unsuitable for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I just came here for the same reason. The big red ARRESTED on the infobox image makes it suitable for tabloids, not Wikipedia. -- megA (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. That image violates neutral point of view and our policy on biographies of living persons. I've removed it and it should under no circumstances be put back into the article. AniMate 07:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• How about using the mugshot photo further down in the article in the infobox?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

One fair use mugshot is enough per WP:NFCC, the Berlin Police photo is more relevant. The infobox image should not be non-free in a BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There are times when multiple fair use photos are well justified, but, true, this isn't one of those times. But surely there must have been photographs circulated to the public domain while he was a fugitive, for posting in police departments and display on news broadcasts? Wnt (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering how many photos of this guy were spread all over the internet and how many new ones are being created, I'm sure a PD photo will emerge at some point. Assuming he is extradited to Canada and is rephotographed there when he's processed, what is the RCMP policy on mugshots? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've heard others say this, but I don't know that we should have any reason to believe that it's true. Simply because he was an attention whore who posted a million pictures of himself online doesn't mean we have any reason to believe any of it would be public domain (at least not for the next 70-something years). As far as I know, if he posted pictures of himself online, then HE owns the copyright unless and until he EXPLICITLY releases the license. Same with any professional "modeling" photos he may have taken - The copyright would be presumed to belong to the photographers or porn studios, etc, and good luck getting a professional photographer to release the license for any photos they have of someone who is already one of the most notorious accused murderers in modern history. That's just not going to happen. Granted, if/when he gets back to Canada and they take another mugshot and release it, then I suppose we might be able to use that (depending on the Canadian laws regarding mugshots). But this whole business of "there's a million pictures of him, so therefore we should believe there is any likelihood that we will be able to use any of them" doesn't add up. I'm not sure where that Interpol image came from. I looks to me like it's a mugshot (although I could be wrong), so I'd propose we try and take a look into where the Interpol image came from (there are a bunch of copies of it that aren't plastered with the word "ARRESTED" across it), and see if we can use that. Or else find someone who can give us some info on the copyright laws about German mugshots. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect, but am not certain, that an RCMP produced image would fall under Crown Copyright. Don't expect any government or public service source to create PD images in Canada. Our best bet for a free image, honestly, is for someone to snap a shot as he enters or leaves a courthouse. Resolute 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a stretch to believe that there are too many people who would care enough to camp outside a Canadian police station to photograph his "perp walk", only to turn around release all licenses (it hardly sounds like as much fun as photographing "Brangelina" on the red carpet at the Oscars if one doesn't intend to profit in some way). And unfortunately, Even if someone did care enough about this Wikipedia article to do all that (which is the only conceivable reason that anyone would), I believe we'd come up against the same problem that we had with the Interpol "ARRESTED" picture. We'd have people complaining that pictures of him in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit would imply "guilt", therefore rendering it unsuitable for an infobox, blah, blah, blah... As far as I know, nobody with any knowledge about the two mugshot(ish) pictures has been able to state unequivocally that they're not PD, just that we're all assuming that they are until somebody will knowledge shows up (which I agree with). Therefore, my best suggestion is that we try and find more info about either one (or both) of those images (Where they're from, what the copyright laws regarding mugshots are in those countries, etc). Sticking the one and only picture we have at the bottom of the article is silly if we could be using it in the infobox. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not against NPOV to say that someone who's been arrested was arrested ... it just looks ugly. A crop would do much to fix that picture. But see the Labatt's controversy at the bottom of this page - the lawsuit over that specific photo of him drinking Labatt's means that we can definitely reproduce it under Fair Use, provided we cover the story itself. (Which is a rather curious claim that, without even being convicted, this person is so unspeakable that he cannot be seen drinking their trademark of beer) This is now one of the exceptions where a second Fair Use photo can be used, though it would be best to have a specific, compelling rationale for the uniqueness of both Fair Use photos in that case. Wnt (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, The vast majority of my Wikipedia experience is celebrity/pop culture articles, so I'm quite familiar with fair-use images and the various justifiable rationales for the use of them. I just personally believe that having one infobox image is more important than having 10 fair-use images scattered throughout the body of an article, so I'd still like to get some information regarding one, or both, of those "mugshot" files, which appear to be the two most likely candidates for being Commons images (they may very well not be, but nobody has been able to definitively say they aren't). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if the Berlin Police mugshot is a free image (and my gut instinct is that it is not) it is less than ideal for an infobox image because it has BLP/NPOV issues. Magnotta is 29 years old, someone must have taken a photo of him other than a police mugshot.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Has the "1 Lunatic 1 Icepick" video been officially linked to the Lin Jun murder?

I'd like to insert a sentence in the "Murder of Lin Jun" section that the video has not (yet?) been officially linked to the Lin Jun murder, or Magnotta. (Apart, of course, from all kinds of media, who always know better...) Is this still correct? -- megA (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. The police have definitely confirmed that the victim in this case is Lin Jun, and "Police have said the video is authentic. “We have all the reasons to believe it is the killing,” Montreal police Commander Ian Lafrenière said. Police also believe the victim in the video, an Asian male, is the same one whose body parts were sent to Ottawa."[5] However, the police seem to have stopped short of stating outright that the "1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick" video shows the murder of Lin Jun, possibly for legal reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We're fine as long as we continue to say what the sources say. Adding a sentence that the video has not yet been officially linked would be WP:OR. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As of now, there is no mention in the section that "The police have definitely confirmed that the victim in this case is Lin Jun". ("We have all reasons to believe" is not the same.) This should be added then, with source. Otherwise, by mentioning it in the "Murder of Lin Jun" section without comment, WE ourselves ARE explicitly linking it to the murder, thus performing WP:OR. -- megA (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified the wording on this. "On May 25, 2012, an 11-minute video (known as "1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick"), which Canadian investigators believe may have depicted the murder of Lin, was posted on Internet gore websites..."--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- megA (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment, regarding lead description (Closed, consensus is YES)

Should Luka Magnotta be described in the lead sentence as a porn actor? (See relevant discussion above) InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is largely discussed in another thread. He seems to have made some small-time appearances in porn films, but "porn actor" is stretching things somewhat. There is little evidence that he was making a full time living from doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Hulk, you just won't quit.. If you're point is that it doesn't need to be in the lead sentence, then I can agree with that. However, I think it should be in the lead - simply because it's in the lead (if not the headline) of 99% of news articles. Granted, this is just the media's attempt to sensationalize headlines of the murder (as if it wasn't sensational enough), but regardless, as a result, it's one of the things he's most notable for now. The fact that he wasn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for being a "porn star", "porn actor", "adult model", etc, before the murder is irrelevant. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Virtually every reliable source describes him as a porn actor. He appeared in a number of videos of varying importance. Porn STAR would be incorrect, but porn actor is correct. Leave it in the lede because that's what the sources say. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As with my own comments in the above section, which echos Burpelson AFB's, Magnotta is consistently described as a "porn actor" in reliable sources. As such, it is proper to mention it in the lead of this article. Resolute 20:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reliable sources say he's a porn actor. He may not have been prolific or necessarily successful, but we have to go with the sources. AniMate 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The guy made a few internet porn videos, almost a decade ago. Virtually nobody noticed. Then he made a few kitten killing videos (allegedly). People started to notice. Then he became a murder suspect and made international headlines. Wikipedia editors decide he is now notable enough for Wikipedia, and create an article implying he is most notable for being what he wasn't notable for before he became notable. What's wrong with "MURDER SUSPECT"? It's current, it's accurate and it's in every source "porn star" is, then some. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And the lead describes him as being a "gay pornogrpahic actor accused of murdering and dismembering Lin Jun..." The former describes the occupation he is best known for, and the latter the event that thrust him into infamy. And the Wikipedia community isn't making the implication. Real world, reliable sources are. We are just reflecting what they are printing. Resolute 22:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Reflecting it, but giving it undue weight, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I already added a source for you where BadPuppy confirmed that he was one of their "models" back in 2005. That's not a figment of the media's imagination, that's a fact. What is the #1 PROVEN fact we have about him at this moment? That he was, without ANY doubts whatsoever, a performer in the gay adult entertainment industry. I doubt he got rich from it, but it's the #1 most notable "career" the man ever had which we can use to describe him. The murder allegations are yet to be proven. Putting a confirmed FACT before an allegation (which is mentioned in the same sentence) doesn't seem to distort who the man was. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the refs call him "porn actor". InedibleHulk why are you so against referring to him as this when every reference uses this description? It's not undue weight. The Garbage Skow (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Crakkerjakk, I get that it's a fact. I get that it has been reported. I just don't think it meets the guidelines in WP:LEDE since it was such a non-notable "career" and seems to have ended in 2005. Can we agree to at least call him a FORMER porn actor, on that point? Skow, I'm against it because it is misleading in the lead sentence. It implies he had/has notability as an actor and also as a suspect, which certainly isn't true. All porn notability comes from association with his being a high-profile suspect. It has been reported he wrote "server" in the occupation field of a bankruptcy form in 2007. This is a slightly more recent and appropriate description if we must list his occupation. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A little tip. Escorts, hustlers, gigolos, prostitutes, etc, don't tend to list their professions on legal documents (I don't think even Magnotta was that stupid). Porn is his #1 most notable "profession", and therefore the #1 most accurate way to describe him, because that's how every reliable source describes him and, therefore, how he's now known around the world (aside from unproven allegations). The fact that he wasn't internationally famous for porn before the charges is irelevant. He is now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And with regards to your "private" request on my talk page for me to remove reliable sources citing information which you are presently adamantly attempting to have removed. The answer is NO. The source I provided is the #1 most reliable source reporting an official statement made by BadPuppy themselves (not just a media outlet casually throwing out the term to grab headlines). The idea that you think it doesn't look "nice" to have numerous sources verifying a subject you are claiming is not "notable" is preposterous and laughable.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You completely misunderstood me again. It was not a private request at all. It's on your talk page. I am not adamant about anything (I haven't even reverted it once). I told you the number or quality of sources is a non-issue to me, and if someone else wants to remove an extra footnote, don't cite me as a reason to revert them. If you think keeping four sources for one claim is relevant to the argument here, you're clearly not listening. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I understand clearly. Your various "arguments" to have the information removed has changed so often that it's obvious you're just desperately grasping for any reason to have it removed to see if anything "sticks". You've been repeatedly told in the numerous threads you've started that IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! People aren't going to (nor should they) begin removing sources because you claim something is not notable while at the same time asserting that there are too many sources for it. It's bass-ackwards logic. It was amusing at first, it's time to give it up. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And no, he is still not notable FOR his porn work. It's just a detail in the story of a murder suspect. Yes, it is more widely known now but, without the murder case, it wouldn't be enough to warrant an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As you've been told previously. Not EVERY single fact within a bio article needs to have been notable enough to have inspired the creation of the article (He was born on July 24, 1982. That fact alone wouldn't get him his own Wikipedia article either, yet that's also in the lead). Magnotta is notable. His work in porn is part of his life. Time to get on with yours. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The sources say he's a porn actor, that's what we should say. Being a porn actor doesn't confer notability, it's just the one career he appears to have been known for. I think that as long as we closely repeat what the reliable sources say then that is the best solution to this disagreement. Continuing to argue that he was "only in a few titles years ago" and it should be removed from the lede because you don't think every source describing him as a porn actor means he WAS A PORN ACTOR is starting to appear disruptive to me. The point of an article is to be informative, not hide obvious facts when everyone else is saying it openly. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I agree with Crakkerjakk. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"...starting to appear disruptive to me..." Appears like labelling someone something without actually labelling someone something in a passive aggressive attempt to shame them into stopping something you don't like despite a lack of any real evidence that what you think might be going on is going on. etc. Save that. If your stance is so solid, just stand by it without not-so-veiled accusations. - BalthCat (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Feeling like I'm banging my head against a wall and people are willfully missing the point instead of arguing it. So I forfeit due to pointlessness. Doesn't mean I wasn't right. Am I supposed to close this RfC now, or just leave it? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your argument is not the same as not getting your argument. Resolute 15:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

At least we can agree on that point. I should have said "some people"; you got it, Resolute. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think people should keep in mind that the press as "reliable sources" initially took to calling him a porn actor primarily citing investigation sources. The police themselves incorrectly validated Newman's Homolka myth. It's pretty unlikely the press are going to retreat en masse to just calling him a boring old cannibal killer. Perhaps this IS a case where the press are not really reliable. - BalthCat (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

While I'm still ambivalent about the current state of things, I will drop in here a major Canadian publication which openly questions the media's liberal use of Newman's own mythos. Additionally I may simply be wary of the ambiguous wording of "gay pornographic actor", which could mean an actor in gay pornography, but would to most people, I think, mean a gay actor of pornographic films, regardless of how the Wikilink is set up. I might be more comfortable if the wording was phrased less ambiguously, perhaps as "an actor and model in gay pornography". - BalthCat (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnotta requests human flesh and Chinese food in jail

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/pages-14/Luka-Magnotta-making-unusual-dinner-requests-in-Berlin-jail-following-capture-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side-2012-06-04.html

Don't know if it's relevant to the article, but just thought I'd point it out here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.140.6 (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the article, it seems to be a satirical article from a humor site... Paris1127 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

From the bottom of the page: All content herein should be considered rumour or truth based solely on your perspective. Paris1127 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh... how utterly tasteless and insensitive to the family of a man who has lost his life. I really dislike the internet more and more with each passing day. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the sort of fluff where you read it and feel hungry an hour later. Ugh... I guess this miscreant will have to learn that the local cuisine consists of two dishes only and that's still more than he allegedly deserves. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mugshot

The File:Luka Rocco Magnotta mugshot.jpg has been removed from the article. This should not be added to the infobox per previous discussions. However, it does have fair use in the "Search and arrest" section.

One editor has a bee in his bonnet about adding the Interpol image with the word "ARRESTED", even though it was rejected strongly. The Berlin Police photo is more useful and should be restored, but not in the infobox per WP:NFCC#1.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw it, but this was kind of discussed above earlier today. Personally, I'd like to get someone knowledgeable in here to tell us exactly where the Interpol image came from (there are numerous versions without the "ARRESTED" splashed across it) and find out the copyright policies of its country of origin regarding mug-shots as well as Germany's laws on said subject once and for all. However, in the meantime I don't see any problems with the German mug-shot in the section where you had it previously. It seems justified as "fair-use".--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Addition of parent's names?

I've just noticed that the article does not include the names of Magnotta's parents. I've come across several sources which include this information, but my field of "expertise" on Wikipedia is primarily "celebrity" bios, so this may be a different case. I know for most bio articles this type of information is always included (whenever available), so I would usually just go ahead and add it. However, given the nature of this subject, I didn't want to add this type of info without bringing it here first. Is there a pre-existing policy that I should not include parents names on this type of article? Such as a concern for protecting his parent's anonymity? As I've said, it's already been reported by numerous reliable sources, so it's not exactly a secret, but I'd like to have editors more knowledgeable than I on the subject weigh in before I add it. (I'm not going to provide the sources here on the talk page unless/until I get the green-light that it's ok, so you'll just have to take my word for it that they're extremely reliable, high profile sources for now). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I say leave them out of this. Section 3.7 of BLP says it's a case by case call, but that we should lean towards excluding them if they're not particularly important to the topic. Magnotta's family seemingly wants nothing to do with the media regarding the case, so I would respect their wishes to avoid the association. It isn't a secret and it isn't expressly prohibited, but considering Wikipedia's ubiquity, it might do much more harm than good. Just my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my concern as well. This type of "early life" information is standard on 99.9% of Wikipedia bios, but in this particular case I'm just not sure. Several of the sources which provide the names are just so well-known and well-respected (I mean we're talking about Pulitzer Prize and Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Award caliber sources here), that it would almost seem like an oversight not to include it if this were just about any other article. I'll wait and see what others say, but don't worry, I'm definitely not in any hurry to add it without getting more opinions. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The names are certainly in quite reliable sources, no question. And don't you worry, I don't care to argue this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, his parents have WP:BLPNAME issues. Naming them would not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

True, although I'm treating the "case" as just one part of a Wikipedia bio. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anxious to add it. But since the information has been reported by so many sources, I thought I should bring it up here. If for no other reason, than to have a preemptive record on this page of a clear "No" vote regarding the issue. That way, in case anyone else tries to add it later on, we'll be able to cite the discussion in our edit summary and immediately remove the info from the article. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no' reason to add their names - the fellow has enough BLP issues already without bringing in his parents, siblings, cousins or whatever - they are not of any sufficient importance here at all as far as I can tell. And Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Collect (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources that I've seen reporting their names are tabloids either. Just clarifying for you in case you missed what's been said above. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, dragging the family into this is likely just re-victimising them. The info was in this page once and was removed. I'm hesitant to re-add it unless they can be shown to have any connection to the case. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize it had already been added. I guess that confirms my hunch that someone would eventually. Anyway, it's good we'll have this thread to cite if/when someone tries to add it again. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the inclusion of family members' names is typically a case-by-case issue, per WP:BLPPRIVACY and related provisions. In the case of a celebrity who's notable for positive reasons, such as a pop star or a prominent politician, it's rarely a problem to include their parents' names if those can be properly sourced — however, it does cause greater problems in the case of an accused criminal, especially when the alleged crime is so uniquely lurid in nature. We've certainly seen as-yet-unsubstantiated allegations of emotional and physical abuse and family dysfunction, but obviously shouldn't get into that unless reliable sources start substantiating them — so if we could properly source more detail about his childhood then his parents' names might become relevant, but right now the information doesn't contribute anything useful besides gratuitously invading the privacy of people who aren't meaningfully involved in the story as it currently stands. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible Second Murder (or First)

Police are investigating whether Magnotta committed the Hollywood decapitation murder...he was in LA around the same time, and the modus operandi was the same.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-accused-canadian-cannibal-luka-magnotta-strike-hollywood-194356938--abc-news-topstories.html

69.15.219.71 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Labatt Blue controversy

This is a semi-minor controversy, but recently Labatt got upset over a photo of Magnotta drinking their beer. The brand tried to sue a newspaper into removing the images because they believed it'd hurt their business. ([6],[7]) The end result was that the whole affair got unintended notoriety, but the fact remains that this is just notable enough to add into the article. I'm just not exactly sure where exactly it would fit in. Do we branch international reaction into just a plan "reaction" section with the subheadings of international and Labatt? Before I just off and added it, I wanted to bring it up here. I've written out the section and am going to post it here, so if anyone wants to tweak it, feel free. It needs editing, but here goes:

On June 5th, the Labatt Brewing Company threatened to sue Montreal paper Montreal Gazette over an image of Magnotta drinking a bottle of their Labatt Blue ale. Labatt requested that the photo be removed because it was "denigrating to our brand". The Montreal Gazette refused and the interaction between Labatt and the Gazette gained the attention of Twitter followers, who poked fun at Labatt under the hashtag #newlabattcampaign. Labatt later stated that they would not pursue any legal options against the Gazette. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone posted about this above (I know it's difficult to find on this talk page). I don't think it got much discussion with regards to adding it to this article. I believe it was added to the Streisand effect article a day or two ago, and the decision was to remove it. I'm not sure that it needs to be here, but I'm not dead set against it either. Others might have stronger opinions. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It belongs here - indeed, it is a valid reason to have a second Fair Use image in the article. Wnt (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there was no discussion at Streisand effect on whether it should/should not be included; one editor just arbitrarily removed it and one other as recentism. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Two editors removed it. If an actual lawsuit occurred it would be worth mentioning, but a threatened lawsuit may well fade out of the headlines quickly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not really proven that this is a "successful" Streisand effect in the long term, but I think this is illuminating in terms of the sort of pretrial notoriety Luka Magnotta is experiencing. I don't know how change of venue works in Canada, but it might be good if the prosecutors know a little Inuit. ;) Wnt (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of renaming International Reaction to Reaction and adding it there, along with other relevantly significant and well-sourced reaction from notable people/states/corporations/talking cats. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if we had a talking cat weighing in, that would quite possibly make the best DYK in the history of Wikipedia. (goes to teach a cat how to speak)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Due to the ongoing dispute, bordering on an edit war, over whether the Murder of Lin Jun article should exist as a stand-alone or as a redirect, or whether this article should be moved per the RM above, I have requested the assistance of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Murder_of_Lin_Jun_and_Luka_Magnotta. Regards, Resolute 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

They're just going to say it's a content dispute and close it. May need to go to DR. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The current votes on this page are roughly six supporting the change and fifteen opposing it. This needs to be taken on board, and there is definitely no consensus for a change to "Murder of Lin Jun" at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in stopping the conduct dispute, and we'll need an admin to close the requested move anyway. Dispute resolution will likely become necessary if people can't accept the result of said RM closure. Resolute 14:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that closure of the WP:RM does not constitute consensus for or against a WP:SPINOUT of the murder itself to a separate page, it only addresses whether this page in its entirety should move. This is a content dispute. The only way to determine whether there is support for {{split section}} is to place that tag on the "Murder of Lin Jun" section, start the discussion on the WP:SPINOUT of just that topic and let the debate run its course. A firm "no consensus" to move the page does not tell whether a split will succeed, fail or also end up at no consensus. This discussion needs to take place *before* running to WP:ANI or anyone else as otherwise we haven't tried to address the issue before seeking administrator intervention. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do, quite well, actually. We're bordering on an edit war because of an attempted fait accompli on the latter title, and that is what I hope to end/prevent. If an uninvolved admin decides that the latter article should be redirected back, or if they decide there is no harm in letting it stay while that subsequent discussion plays out is not my concern so much as stopping the redirect-restore-redirect-restore cycle. Resolute 15:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I supported the rename, but now that you've pointed it out, it's pretty clear we've lost the vote on that one. You're free to AfD that article if you want ... doubt it will make it though. Like it or not, it would appear the split is going to happen a bit prematurely. It was bound to happen sooner or later anyway. I don't think there's any precedent that people editing one article can tell those editing another to stop. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, WP:SPINOUT is based on article length, and it's currently not long enough to justify a split on those grounds. Perhaps you meant WP:SPINOFF, which does not justify a content fork as it is. Until the addition of some (unspecified) "related facts" bloats it up to that point, I don't see how this applies. Skullers (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Once the charges are laid and the matter goes to trial, this already-bloated article will become huge. It already is getting fairly unwieldly given the sheer weight of material about Magnotta's online self-promotion and the endless, pointless "Internet controversy". A reader looking for information on the murder itself should be able to find just that without having to wade through pages of irrelevant Magnotta self-aggrandisement. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't that big. I've seen articles 2 to 3 times longer than this one. And as sad as Lin Jun's death is, Wikipedia isn't a memorial, so calling Magnotta's self-promotion and aggrandizement "irrelevant" is off the mark. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So your issue is with that particular section. I agree that it's bloated/redundant. Only relevant facts should be included. You're basically using a fork as a sandbox so you don't need to make edit requests. I suggest you make an account so you can contribute directly or try to get this unprotected. Do you have any relevant information on the murder of Lin Jun that does not belong in this page? Skullers (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the article isn't too long and I'm guessing the reason the IP is fighting for the Murder of Lin Jun is because its the only one they can actually edit. As for the length, the article is under 50 kb and could use some trimming. There definitely not enough here to split based solely on length. AniMate 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the more I look at this fork the less I think of it. There are a total of twelve contributors to the article. Three of those are people undoing the split, one is a bot, one has been indefinitely blocked, six have made less than ten edits, and the most prolific is the one editor who can't edit this article. I'm not going to advocate edit warring, but if it persists the article should probably have some sort of protection. AniMate 19:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Suspect in Other Crimes

Is this "Suspect in Other Crimes" section backed by any probable belief that Magnotta is believed to be involved in these other crimes, or are cops just checking every outstanding murder with a weird modus operandi against this case as a precaution on the slim off-chance that there's anything here? It would seem that any link to the LA case has already been dismissed by investigators, for instance. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a current-events issue. If leads don't go anywhere, then after a certain period of time, it may be best to delete them.Ryoung122 19:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Hollywood killing in January 2012 looks too speculative per WP:BLPCRIME at the moment. This should be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen reports of this, but at this point it just sounds like something investigators are looking in to. There's a distinct difference between "Authorities believe X-suspect to be responsible for X-crime" and "Authorities are checking to see if X-suspect may be responsible for X-crime". --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've renamed the section "Investigation regarding other crimes". I'll admit it isn't a great title, so if someone wants to better it, feel free. But the word "suspect" should certainly stay out of it, unless he is actually named as a suspect in any of these cases. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The word "snuff"

It doesn't seem to belong in the article as it is. "Snuff" and "snuff film" are slang. The lead already explains that Magnotta allegedly posted a film to the internet of him killing someone, and it also doesn't seem like the word is used in the sources cited there. Psalm84 (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely it shouldn't be characterized that way without the source. At least the 10:24 version actually shows nothing at all of the killing of Lin Jun; it flips directly from him being alive and healthy as far as I can tell, to him being too dead to bleed. So I think it fails the definition, but the sources should be honored if they define differently. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Back then when I made that edit, I replaced "gruesome", which I found POV, with "snuff", which I thought more neutral. I wasn't very happy with it, it's best to remove it. -- megA (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

'he brought home a male five days ago'

According to neighbour Derek Mackinnon, Magnotta brought home a male on the 25th, which was an "unusual sight" then left the next morning wearing a red wig.<ref name="TS_mirror" />

The original source http://www.thestar.com/article/1202735--body-parts-delivery-was-criminal-act-say-conservative-minister says "He said he saw Magnotta bring home a male five nights ago, an unusual sight because he never previously saw the young man with anyone. He saw Magnotta leave the building the next morning wearing a red wig. “I thought, ‘What is going on with that?’ ”"

The victim was killed on the night of the 24th; the suspect had already fled on the 25th. Something looks one day off with this bit of synthesis. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My bad, the article was published on the 30th, he was probably interviewed a day before. *facepalm* Let's leave the arithmetic to the sources. Skullers (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed this bit on fr:

Il a été signalé dans un hôtel de [[Bagnolet]] le {{date|2|juin|2012}}, en [[Seine-Saint-Denis]]. En réalité, Luka Magnotta a alors déjà quitté Paris, et le territoire français. Son téléphone portable, qu'il a abandonné dans le métro parisien, continue à activer des [[antennes-relais]], ce qui laisse à penser qu'il se trouve encore dans la capitale française<ref name=piste1>{{cite news|url=http://lci.tf1.fr/france/faits-divers/comment-le-depeceur-de-montreal-a-balade-la-police-7334154.html|title=Comment le "dépeceur de Montréal" a baladé la police avant son arrestation|author=Laurent Deschamps|site=TF1 (France)|retrieved=8 juin 2012|date=4 juin 2012|language=French}}</ref>.

"He had already left Paris (and France) by June 2 but abandoned his mobile 'phone in the Paris subway, where it would continue to actuate cell sites to leave the impression that he was still in the French capital."

Hmmm... 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The quote from Derek Mackinnon needs some caution, as even if he is acting in good faith he could have been mistaken. The mobile phone angle is more interesting. There was some surprise and annoyance when the French media reported on the mobile phone, as it may have caused Magnotta to stop using it. Coincidentally, the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs were caught after a call from a stolen mobile phone was traced (this is known as Mobile phone tracking).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Links question

While I didn't go through the edit history in enough depth to determine when it was actually added, I've just noticed that at some recent point somebody actually did add direct external links to the bestgore.com discussions about the video, as well as to a mirror copy of the video itself on another website. I know that we had previously discussed whether we should upload a copy of the video to WikiSource and link to that — with the obvious consensus being that anybody who thought we should do that needed to give their head a shake — but it's not entirely clear whether we ever actually established any particular consensus against linking to other sites that were mirroring the video.

I believe it's inappropriate (as well as a WP:COPYRIGHT grey area), and I'm pretty sure that most users here would agree with me. Nonetheless, I want to ensure that we have a clearly documented consensus as to whether such external links are acceptable or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Links to shock sites fail WP:EL pretty much automatically. Another reason not to link to the video is that it would be a major piece of evidence in a future trial. Anyway, a person who really wants to see it should not have much trouble finding it. Much as Wikipedia respects copyright, it is not at the top of the list of worries for this video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ianmacm on all points, and also oppose it per WP:BADIDEA. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC) And although I'm not a lawyer, it would SEEM to violate Florida law. Breaking Florida law is expressly prohibited by WP:EL InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would being "a major piece of evidence" be an argument against linking something? And as bad as they are, since when did obscenity laws prohibit telling someone where something is found? But for sake of argument, I shall experiment with attempting a video-less version of the link, just to see what the next batch of complaints are. Is there any way to note who actually solved this crime, or the fact that they are probably going to be prosecuted for it, without being "immoral"? Wnt (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You could find a reliable source saying what you want to say, then cite it when you add the info. Nothing immoral about that. Uploading a direct link to obscenity (not "telling where") would likely count as circulating and disseminating it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So what would make it a crime in your view? The "[" and "]" to make the link appear as a number, or the http:// to make Wikipedia print it in blue? Somehow I thought obscenity was, well, longer than that. Wnt (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't answer that honestly without violating WP:CIVIL. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you say, the conception of obscenity in the U.S. excludes most serious purposes, such as understanding the nature of a crime and how it was solved. We could have the video and not be breaking the law, let alone linking to it from an encyclopedia article. Wnt (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried - it's obviously fruitless to argue with moral imperative of helping the next murder go unsolved. Encyclopedia Dramatica has the better article; so why work on a second-rate encyclopedia? Wnt (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly disrespectful towards the family of Lin Jun to give a link to the video, this is why Jimbo removed the link to the Yatzenko video from Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. This is not an "OMG censorship" issue, because the article says that the video is known as "1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick" and this is enough for any motivated person to find it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Because Google pays more attention to doing its job than being "respectful". You know, Google isn't a law of nature - they're just a corporation which happens to have remained truer to its ideals than this project to provide a free encyclopedia. Why is it that a tenth as many editors working on ED, not even allowing themselves to be serious, can do a better job on this article than Wikipedia? Because they're honest. You could throw a thousand times as many editors at this article as you have now, and it would still just be a slug-fest to see who gets to spin it the way they want, with more information thrown away than added. Things like being "respectful" turn articles like this into a battleground for power instead of a genuine effort to provide a useful resource. Wnt (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I really can't agree with this analysis. No mainstream media story has given a direct link to the "1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick" video, but it is available online. You could ask for a request for comment to find out what other editors think, but linking to the video itself clearly fails WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns regarding International Reaction section

A:) It only mentions the reactions in one nation (China), B:) It includes a statement regarding the family claiming the remains.

The word "international" strongly suggests (probably outright requires) that more than one nation be involved. Lin's mother (albeit off of an international flight) was not speaking on behalf of a state (as is the case in similar International Reaction sections on Wikipedia), nor were her words intended as a statement to the media (as is also typically the case elsewhere). The statement is a secondhand account from someone who (partially) heard her. I'd make the change, but figured discussion was in order (the long line of footnotes says "potentially controversial" to me.) InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

She might not be speaking on behalf of a state, but the China (mainland) consulate did speak out to ask this go to trial as soon as possible and Canadian government officials have offered their condolences to the Chinese. China is not part of Canada, therefore does qualify as international. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Per the definition of "international", I believe we would need reaction from at least one other nation (even Canada) to justify its use here. I don't see how the Chinese responses you mention have any bearing on whether a Chinese citizen's personal activities qualify for inclusion in this section (if that was what you meant). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For a wider international picture, I can give you yesterday's reaction of German tabloid "Bild": Front page headline: "The Porn Cannibal's Horror File!" (and a picture of Magnotta from better days...) ...no comment :P -- megA (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No connecting evidence

• - http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120609/miami-police-magnotta-cold-case-investigation-120609/20120609/?hub=TorontoNewHome

I removed an addition (edit summary, "if they declare a connection we can add it - till then he's a living person and speculative connections to crimes need more reports than that", but its been reverted back in - that the subject is under investigation for a murder in Miami - the cite itself says "Though there's no clear evidence linking Magnotta to the cold case, homicide investigators in the Florida city see similarities to the Montreal murder of 33-year-old Chinese university student Lin Jun last month in which the 29-year-old is the chief suspect." - there is no evidence - its pure speculation about a crime with similar aspects and doesn't belong in a WP:BLP - This is the current content in the article..

On June 9, 2012, Miami police announced they were investigating the possibility of Magnotta's involvement in a murder and dismemberment case which occurred in 2009

This is still a WP:BLP and the citation says itself - Though there's no clear evidence linking Magnotta to the cold case

Can we please remove this - we can add it if he is charged or if actual details emerge that there is some evidence to a connection - Youreallycan 20:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it, but clarified it is the possibility of involvement being investigated, not Magnotta being investigated for murder. It was definitely inappropriate the way it was worded, but I think it passes BLP now. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need "clear evidence" of a connection to say police are investigating whether or not there is evidence of a connection. And how could we? Also, please respond as a response, not as an edit to your original post. It makes my original response look like I ignored your point. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict - I will separate it if you ask me to - please let me know - As for the content you have added - the citation clearly states - there is no evidence to connect this person to that crime - its normal for police to look at similar crimes and that can get reported - but this is a wikipedia biography and we have strong guidelines that protect living people, even ones accused of crimes - Youreallycan 20:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• As per WP:BLP - I prefer it removed but till then I am going to add the detail that "there's no clear evidence linking Magnotta to the cold case," - Youreallycan 20:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your BLP concerns, but no accusation is being made by this claim, therefore there is nothing to protect this living person against. The reliable source is all the "evidence" needed to report an impartial (presumably) investigation. I see nothing wrong with you adding the disclaimer if you feel it absolutely necessary. And you can split your edit if you want, but then my second response is going to look weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I will just leave it now, sorry about that - As for the content you have added - If he is charged or closely associated to a crime then it belongs here- if it is just some report of - hey we have a similar unsolved crime then as per WP:BLP it doesn't - Youreallycan 20:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add the content, merely reworded it. As for the way you've now reworded it, that wasn't what I'd imagined when I said I was cool with it, but I'll let another editor deal with that (if they see fit) InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You added the content in this diff (the content was not in the article and you added it) and as per the foundations guidelines Wiki foundations terms of use you are now completely legally responsible for it - Youreallycan 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're coming really close to WP:NLT territory there, over a pretty reasonable news summary. I've put up my own version. Yes, random cops telling a news outlet someone is under investigation, in a very vague sense like this, is a pretty poor sign that they committed a crime - but it is evidence that the police were talking about it. When following public phenomena like this, understanding the perception, how public opinion was shaped, is just as important as understanding the actual crime (if it occurred). Wnt (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@User:Wnt - As you have accused me of violating WP:NLT - I will refer this discussion to my mentor - thanks - Youreallycan 21:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a legal threat in the least to me. Wikipedia doesn't own any content here, nor the copyrights, nor are they responsible for your actions. The creators and uploaders of content do and are. NLT covers when an editor makes a threat of legal action toward you or the Foundation. I'm hoping this is just a misunderstanding of the NLT policy, and we can just put this to rest. And to be clear, my statement should not be taken as endorsing or condemning any content nor commenting on the accuracy of Youreallycan's observations, I'm simply here to explain NLT only. I'm not interested in the BLP debate as it isn't my expertise, and will leave it to you two to reach a consensus and compromise, hopefully staying on track with the discussion itself. We could probably just drop the worries about legality here, and move on... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I was editing the claim, but was edit-conflicted by You's (can's?) deletion of it. So I restored it to finish my edit. If that counts as "adding" it, I guess I added it. As for legal threats, I personally don't feel at all threatened or see where Wikimedia might have been. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-forking of this article

It appears, once again, that someone has attempted to fork this article at Murder of Lin Jun. I'm opposed to this for several reasons: #1, We have a clear majority of Oppose votes to move the article there, and #2, having two articles covering much of the same information means that, if/when we reach a final consensus with regards to whether we should keep the article here, there, or "split" them, people's work and research will be spread around over two articles, requiring a complete rewrite. It's not a smart idea to take it upon oneself to begin spreading information out over two articles without clear consensus IMO.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the split is an end-around the consensus and an attempt to get this article deleted. I also oppose the split. It should all be here with the redirect from Murder of Lin Jun pointing to this article. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, And over time with good faith editors contributing to BOTH articles, we'll have a mish-mash with half the story over there and half the story over here, which only creates a lot of unnecessarily tedious "busy work" for some poor editor (and it sure as hell aint gonna be me, I'll tell you that much) to recombine them if/when this debate FINALLY reaches a conclusion . --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to splitting the article if you folks must keep all the endless text about this suspect's online self-promotion (which has bloated to be half the article about a prime WP:BLP1E candidate) but if a split is made, it should be done in such a manner as to ensure the two pages do not overlap. A second article with all the same content is pointless. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why the Murder of Lin Jun article should be reverted to being a redirect IMMEDIATELY. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My reaction would be to shorten Murder of Lin Jun to a stub by removing all the Luka Magnotta trivia except for facts pertaining directly to the murder itself, then tag {{Split section}} onto this article so that the matter may be opened to discussion. The question of whether to split the page clearly has no consensus, for or against, given that the discussion so far has been on whether to move or delete. It's a valid question and needs to be raised. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

First things first. As far as I'm concerned, the proper procedure should be to let the "move" discussion play out BEFORE creating an article that the majority is clearly opposed to. I'm not necessarily against a split, I'm against splitting without any consensus (the forking has already been repeatedly reverted by other editors), while in the meantime, good faith editors are simultaneously expanding both articles independently. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I already reverted back to a redirect, the editor re-reverted. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And I've re-re-reverted (as have others). As I've said, I'm not necessarily opposed to a fork, but if people keep this up, I'm taking this to dispute resolution. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a fork and a WP:SPINOUT. The latter is worthy of discussion, the former only replicates the problems with undue weight being given to an entire printed page's worth of supposed "Internet controversy" which is of the suspect's own making. When reading this article, it's necessary to scroll through all of that text before finding any useful info on the one notable event which this page seems to be intended to cover. Splitting the one notable murder as its own topic is one option, cleaning up some of the on-line trivia and Luka self-promotion in this page is another. I think it is premature to rule out a spinout of just the Murder of Lin Jun as a topic. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

But most of the content at Murder of Lin Jun was a straight cut-and-paste of existing content at Luka Magnotta. This is contrary to WP:CONTENTFORK which lists "redundant content forks" under "unacceptable types of forking". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

66.102.83...whatever, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you're saying. I'm saying we need to reach a consensus first BEFORE forking (for the reasons outlined above). Forking first and then getting people's opinions later because the current discussion for a "move" hasn't gone your way is not the way Wikipedia works. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that there is support for a Magnotta article. It is also clear that Magnotta is not more notable than the Murder of Lin Jun. So, you can have your article filled with self-promoting and self-destructive nonsense, let us write a serious article about the actual event. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I expressed that there was possible justification for two articles before any of this tom-foolery began tonight (see my Oppose post in the "move" proposal a couple of nights ago). This isn't about whether there should be a "Murder of Lin Jun" article. This is about the problem of having two articles being expanded simultaneously without any consensus. It's not up to any one of us to take it upon ourselves to do this. After the "move" discussion is resolved (I hate to break it to you, but proposals can go on for several weeks whether we like it or not), then a "split" proposal can be introduced. After hearing everyone's rationale (following proper procedure) I may very well be one of the people who votes with you. But this is the type of thing that needs to be done carefully with all of the editors familiar with this article on board. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And yes, imo the background info could be trimmed down by some amount. I'd suggest WP:SOFIXIT to present only the relevant facts, possibly addressing your scrolling issue in the process. Skullers (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't re-read the article today, so there may be some unnecessary peripheral information that's part of the article. However, again, I'd suggest we follow proper procedure and make a note here to bounce it off other editors before we begin removing any sourced information. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's even possible to discuss "the murder" separately from Magnotta. There are no other suspects. All the sources I've seen pretty much state it as a fact and the whole alleged/suspect as a formality. What would the "murder-only" article cover, the precise details of the dismemberment based on the video filmed in the apartment? Mailing of the limbs? To cover the "murder only" without any of the evidence being presented would require a great amount of cherry-picking all the "Magnotta trivia" out of every source, which is about the majority of the content being presented. Skullers (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Let us worry about how to deal with the Murder of Lin Jun article. I agree that the move request should be wrapped up, in fact it can probably be closed right now. We can then get on with the issue of creating another article that deals with a related but distinctly different set of facts. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We are not the arbitrators of who edits what on Wikipedia. I've outlined the problem clearly - Having two separate (but all to similar) articles being created independently of each other will create a HUGE pain in the @$$ for some poor editor later on down the line once the issues of "keep", "move", and/or "split" are resolved following proper procedure. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You are very much playing arbitrator of who edits what on Wikipedia if you keep making edits like this or this removing portions of others' comments. Please stop. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't a "comment". It wasn't signed. It was incredibly deceptive and you know it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm not opposed to a vote on having two articles. I'm opposed to having two separate sets of voting (which overlap) taking place simultaneously, and I'm most definitely opposed to creating a fake thread masquerading as such. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What are the related but distinctly different facts? Is it something we should know about or are the us in question saving them up for later? Skullers (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support waiting for move proposal to close. Aware this is not a vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Crakkerjakk on this issue. Articles should not be forked without a consensus, and at the moment there is no consensus to rename the article "Murder of Lin Jun".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the article should indeed become appropriate - somehow I have a feeling a lot of bizarre Luka Magnotta trivia is going to come out over the next few months, and so will a lot of background about Lin Jun, reactions of people in China to the Canadian government about Lin Jun, etc. But it is probably not quite time to do it yet. Wnt (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I noted below, I have asked for an uninvolved admin at ANI to help settle this. With luck, we can end the bickering and get on with building one (or two) articles. Resolute 14:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• I Oppose the content fork, and oppose a rename. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• I would expect that we will learn more about Lin Jun as this case goes to trial (remember, no charges have even been laid yet - let alone tried - so the evidence isn't all in public view and Luka Magnotta is technically just a suspect in the Murder of Lin Jun as the one notable event here). The sleeping dragon has been disturbed and will not remain silent on this case. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• CAUTION There should be caution to two aspects.

1. Before in the Olympic bombing in Atlanta, the press was so sure Richard Jewell did it. He was even a misfit, living with his mother, they said. What if the Richard Jewell article was plastered with bomb details. Turns out he did not do it. How about Dr. Hatfield who people thought was responsible for anthrax attacks. Turned out he did not do it. The Canadian Psycho probably did it but the Court of Wikipedia (us) should not be the ones convicting him, the proper Canadian court should do it.

2. The AFD decision was to have a Murder of ___ article. That is part of the consensus, a formal decision.

As for me, I favor consistency and fairness above all else. Auchansa (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are many differences between this situation and the examples you cite. Editors must remain flexible and realize that 'one size fits all' often does not hold true. Taroaldo (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Murder Scene

5309 Place Lucy Apartment 208 is now rather infamous. Why mention the apartment number but not the address?

The exact address is mentioned in this story from Global Edmonton http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/timeline/6442651932/story.html In other Wikipedia crime stories articles as Joe Orton, or Paul Bernardo addresses are given. 89.242.66.126 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Hmmm, just happened across [12] which says "“Thorough investigation by the [website] community [led] to an assumption that the 1 Lunatic 1 Ice Pick perpetrator could be a renowned cat killer and internet attention whore Luka Magnotta,” the website reads." [the Internet reality news website that posted the murder video].[13] Obviously I'd like a source a wee bit better than that. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/05/30/pf-19819606.html is a link to an article that references this poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.72.203 (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a news article about the hunt for Magnotta by animal rights activists here. It is important to stress that while activists believe that he was involved in the kitten cruelty videos, there is no reliable evidence for this. On the question of giving the address of the murder scene in the article, it is given in some news stories but adding it does not lead to significant value. It also has some privacy implications for the other occupants of the building.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Another animal rights video about Magnotta posted the serial number and make of his camera, probably obtained from the video files. I believe this one was on Daily Motion. 2.101.63.109 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wording of the lead

Resolved

Should the last sentence read 'He was previously sought in connection with videos of a person torturing kittens by animal rights groups.' The wording now may have legal issues that could effect the case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The current wording "He was previously sought by animal rights groups for allegedly posting videos of himself torturing kittens" is in line with the sourcing and WP:BLPCRIME. Although he has never been convicted over an animal cruelty incident, there is enough material about this in reliable sources to justify a mention.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem with me. To me it just reads like he was alleged to have posted the videos, not making them and that the videos are actually him.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• "He was previously sought by animal rights groups for allegedly making videos of himself torturing kittens and then posting them" Better? --Canoe1967 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly clearer to say "posting videos online", to avoid confusion with traditional mail.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Could we remove the "then" from before "posting them online"? It goes without saying, and is a tad clunky. Wikipedia encourages conciseness. I'd do it myself, but the page is too large to edit and crashes my browser. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I marked this section as 'resolved' as well. If we want to discuss further lead changes we can remove the tag or start another section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a resolved tag? That's pretty cool. I should start using that. Anyway, thanks for your promptness. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional Alias

Turns out he did some gay porn under the alias of 'Justin' as well (site NSFW) - http://www.daddymugs.com/?page=Models&id=mod1160MUG574630

Kind of an unsavoury twist that Justin was the preferred English name of his victim.

Thought this may be of interest for the article 203.79.101.96 (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - regarding the 'notability' issue... this guy has been fighting for fame for well over a decade, through increasingly aberrant, antisocial and violent attention-seeking behaviour. I'm in favour of naming the article 'Murder of Lin Jun' to deny him this extra sliver of notoriety and to respect his victim. 203.79.101.96 (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not based on emotionalism. Taroaldo (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. I searched for his porn work before but couldn't seeing any pictures. Using your link though I came up with this site, where they've gone about compiling a list of all work, which leads off to other sites doing the same, with a fare number of pictures, titles and aliases:

http://blog.iafd.com/2012/06/02/murderous-canadian-porn-stars-filmography-outlined/ [NSFW] --122.151.35.74 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A fair number of pictures, titles and aliases? The page you cite closes with the position "The media might want to keeping tagging Luka with the porn “star” moniker but a better one might be porn “dud.” A paltry 8 scenes spanning a near decade, it’s quite apparent that not even the porn industry was much interested in him." Only one of the scenes ever made it onto a commercial DVD, the rest are video clips on random paysites and even there there's nothing beyond 2010. Add to this that he's turning 30 within a year and capitalised primarily on appearing "young" to get the few scenes in which he did appear and the result is that he's a little desperate for publicity (even if much of the self-promotional lunacy lacks notability and is not worth including here). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"the rest are video clips on random paysites" - That's what I was talking about. I thought the porn talk was just self-promotion, that he was just lying to fill out his biography, and was surprised to see otherwise. I don't think he's a porn star, no, but he's certainly appeared in porn. Many people, by the way, use 'star' in place of 'actor' when it comes to porn. I don't think a lot people out there in the news, etc, saying 'star' are thinking he's Jack Wrangler. --122.151.35.74 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Can an animal rights group "seek" a person? (intro again, sorry)

English isn't my first language, and this is probably excessive legalese, but isn't "seeking" used in combination with legal authorities (ie the police)? It sounds (at least to me) as if animal rights groups were in a position to apprehend a person. (I'd rather use "accused", although I understand that in this particular case, the mentioned groups seem to have actually tried a manhunt.) -- megA (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem in discussing the wording, and no need to apologize for opening discussion on it again. English is my first language and I have a few issues with the way the media uses it. 'Alledged suspect' irks me as much as 'irregardless'. With the terms 'seek/sought', I would think the opposite though. Police actually 'hunt' people since they have weapons and 'hunting licence'. They try to avoid 'catch and release' when they can I assume. A citizen can seek a lawyer, doctor, information, etc. The media may use it with police because 'hunt' or 'man hunt' may seem too harsh.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Seek" is perfectly acceptable. See the definition. This group had "gone in search of" Magnotta, and "tried to discover" him. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I had "police is seeking [suspect] for questioning" in mind... -- megA (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

DNA testing

Resolved

The claim "They will be transported to Montreal for DNA testing.<ref name="CTV_schools">" needs to be updated to indicate the DNA results have come back, all portions match and a match against both of Lin Jun's parents identifies conclusively the identity of the victim (ici Radio-Canada et en anglais). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at the source and verify the change. In the meantime I will edit your post to follow policy closer. IP editors should read policies before adding to this page. Please feel free to remove my strike throughs and add terms such as 'possibly', 'may have' etc. Try to avoid statements that sound like they are accepted as fact without RS checks. I am sorry again if I seem a little harsh.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What policy? The cops sent the evidence to the lab, they got a DNA match. Scientific fact, no possibly about it (or at least no more than a one-in-a-few-billion chance) and no need to WP:WEASEL on this point. The remains are indeed those of the late Lin Jun (RIP). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Added. Canoe1967, fyi you shouldn't strike or edit others' comments. DNA matching is about as factual as it can get, and he has only stated the facts. 66.102.83.61, thank you for the information. Skullers (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry again 66.102.83.61. I will probably owe you many apologies in the future. Your sources are accurate RS and your logic is sound. I am just very anal about BLP talk pages. Far too many are abused and violate policies. I assume that Skullers has had time to check your sources and thus removed my strike throughs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I added resolved tag to top of the section. Feel free to remove it or start a new section about the issue if there are any changes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)