Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Jun Lin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Can Someone please help me put an image up of him???

I do not know how to upload images, everytime I try and upload images of him, I cant and im sent a message??? some help would be appreciated/ I think its a good idea to have photos up of everyone so we know who we are reading about. Thank You Kindly!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancouverlover449 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you need to upload the image here first. Then use wikitext to include it. Geocator 19:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I just saw your talk page, it looks like the issue is that you are not supplying proper fairuse criteria. Look at the links on the upload page for more info.Geocator 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i just uploaded an image from Luka's videos on youtube....luka_magnotta_model_toronto.jped I believe this to be fair use...everyone can see it and its NOT one of his copyrighted images....nor is it an images from any of his copyrighted Films,magazines or interviews. Can someone please upload it, i am finding this terribly difficult to figure of and to post. Thank You lots!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeleyes995 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he's goodlooking but he's also a whore....Alot of people really dont like him to be honest....he's just to slutt...but hot at the same time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicinstinct43 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

...I needed it for a project I am doing on adult film strars.........please someone expand it and UNprotect it! Thank you for having this article up— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.238.239 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to see a photo of him on here, I think it would complete the artice...why is the page locked? I tried to add the photo also but it never worked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.25.157 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please help me with the videobox and uploading it, I seem to be having trouble. thanks alot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeleyes995 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Luka Magnotta, there are reliable facts and sources in this article. Which ARE sited. Keep page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.9.82 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"KEEP" I edited the article to be more nutral and reliable. Please let me know what else I can do to make the article more acceptable. I think I did an excellent job in editing and removing sentences that were not backed up by documents. Thanks everyone :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttercupbaby77 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fake citations

I'd just like to exercise my duty as a concerned passer-by and point out the fact that few of the citations in this article are real. They mostly to Magnottas myspace page or some stuff from youtube, which can only be a clear violation of the wikipedia:bio guideline that articles must have multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. There is one cited reliable secondary source about his non-relationship with Karla Holmolka (see 9), which really goes to show how truly unnecessary this article probably is. This isn't really an encyclopedia article although it looks like one. 74.12.208.131 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy posts all over craigslist and, obviously, here in a pretty daft attempt at viral marketing. Last summer he was posting everywhere (anonymously, of course) to attempt to link himself to Karla Homolka; hilariously, people here have let his spam of both this article and the Karla Homolka one stand, because he's so persistent that he can outwait anyone in an edit war. 24.148.93.45 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

History of Article

I was surprised to see that this guy has had an article for a very long time.... If you go to the beginning of the history it is being created and deleted and recreated with the same copypasta over and over. Dude seems like an attention whore from what I know, and it certainly doesn't belong in the article, but I thought others might find it interesting. It was probably him creating his own article. 24.69.114.254 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's in no way a reliable source that we could ever actually cite for anything, but Encyclopedia Dramatica certainly alleges that he was creating (and sockpuppet-editing) the article himself. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Radio-Canada is saying "L'encyclopédie en ligne Wikipédia a censuré à deux reprises des pages créées à son nom, sous prétexte qu'il cherchait à faire son autopromotion"[1] in reference to the two AfD's in 2008, but that's just their saying that we thought the page was self-promotion and deleted it — it's not WP:RS to actually confirm he made the edits in question. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Video

This isn't going to happen. Closing an unproductive discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Erm, wp is not censored therefore is it acceptable to use the video itself as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.251.61 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be original research (WP:NOR). Use Reliable sources that discuss the matter or the video. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • At the very, very most it could be seen as a primary source since it was supposed to have been released by Magnotta himself. However, even in that case the video would have to be posted on what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable site, which to my knowledge is not the case. (I haven't really dug to see the video, but I know it's available out there.) We would pretty much have to tread carefully as far as posting pictures from the video goes. Wikipedia isn't censored but that doesn't mean that it has to be gratuitous. There's also the police investigation to worry about, although I doubt very seriously that posting a still from the video would really show up as even a big blip on their radar. Apart from Magnotta coming on here to edit his own article, I don't think we're really that much of a concern.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo reverted an edit which added the Yatzenko video to Dnepropetrovsk maniacs after an edit war broke out. This type of material fails WP:EL, and should be reverted if added. The sites carrying the video also have numerous links to hard core porn material which also fails WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"Trying" will be the operative word. Once somebody has a copy, it will always be available somewhere, as the 2007 Yatzenko video shows. In any case, the video allegedly showing the murder of Lin Jun would be a major piece of evidence at any trial, so there would be issues involved that could prejudice a jury if they had seen it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) To be fair, and while I absolutely agree the link should not be on Wikipedia, there is no legal obligation for us not to link to it, nor is the website in question carrying links to hard core porn material; in fact the website is fairly clean and safe to browse... though obviously the content it hosts is disgusting, or at least morally questionable. That being said, the police doesn't have a legal case for removing the video from the website, which is why it's still up despite being hosted in Canada where the RCMP has jurisdiction. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Details about his time in London

The Sun is running an in depth article about his time in London 6 months ago, I will leave the link for anyone who might find these bits worthy of adding into the prose. [2] --Þadius (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • We should check to see if The Sun is usable as a reliable source. They're pretty much the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer, so I'm not sure how much of that we could or should use.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

BLP

It might all be very exciting and is an extremely intriguing set of events but BLP still applies. GwenChan 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy link: WP:BLPCRIME "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." WP:BLPGOSSIP "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." GwenChan 15:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I have two issues with this citation:

1. "Relatively unknown"...actually, Magnotta was relatively known, whether or not he warranted a separate article before the latest current event.

2. "Seriously consider" is not a total ban. As I pointed out elsewhere, this man is alive, accused of a crime but not convicted, and has an article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

In Luka Rocco Magnotta's case, it was not the murder that led to extreme media focus, but the mailing of body parts and the creation of a snuff film. This has an impact on society...not as much as Breivik, but enough to have an article, BLP or not, convicted in a court of law or not.

It should also be noted that there's no denial of the allegations. Policies such as BLP: Crime are intended to protect people who maintain their innocence. People like Breivik and Magnotta do not do so. The only thing Magnotta has denied is dating Karla Homolka.Ryoung122 15:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Noone is suggesting there shouldn't be an article. But the article must still adhere to BLP. You cannot suggest that his mother is guilty of incest, for example. You cannot insert speculation about his private life from 3rd parties and anon 3rd parties. You cannot say that he has killed kittens unless he has been proven to have killed kittens. You cannot insert speculation at all. GwenChan 15:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Raised at WP:BLPN. GwenChan 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd ask you to be a little bit more judicious in how you handle this. Based on your comments here, I can accept that the "Julie" interview is a problematic source because of her pseudonymity, so I've removed that while restoring the parts of that paragraph that could be reattributed to other references. However, your edit summary implied that the problem with that was not the woman's anonymity, but Xtra!'s basic validity as a reliable source at all, which is absolutely not on — it's every bit as reliable as any other source in the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The anonymity fell under the "Be wary of sources... that attribute material to anonymous sources" in WP:BLPGOSSIP that I raised above. As for Xtra! I still disagree that it falls within the definition of a "high quality reliable source" for the purposes of BLP. But I have no desire to WP:BATTLE or edit war here. It isn't about winning, it is about doing what is best for the project; I've raised what I consider important issues here about the type of material that is being added, and I'm concncerned that WP:BLPCRIME is not being followed. I leave it to the rest of you to decide what you are going to add. GwenChan 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not interested in getting into a war over this either; as I've already noted, I trimmed the paragraph in question to that which could be reattributed to other sources that were already in the article, and dropped everything that could be sourced only to "Julie". I'm merely asking you to be more careful in how you express yourself; for instance, the onus is on you to prove, not merely to assert, that Xtra! fails to meet the standards of a reliable source. It's a valid source until you prove otherwise, not vice versa; the problem with Julie falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP, as you've noted here, not under the fundamental reliability of Xtra! as a source. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It has long been established that tabloids are not RS for BLP. Even assuming that it was considered a RS, potentially controversial material should be taken from a high quality secondary source: if Xtra! publishes an interview, then they are acting as a primary source, and WP:BLP notes that extreme caution should be used with all primary sources and that secondary sources are much preferred. GwenChan 17:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The mere fact that a newspaper happens to be printed in a tabloid size and format doesn't necessarily make it a "tabloid" in the sense that's precluded by BLP; plenty of reliable, serious newspapers with properly bylined journalists and proper editorial standards and reputable records of fact-checking and accuracy are also printed in tabloid size. BLP certainly precludes gossip rags like the National Enquirer and papers which have reputations for being excessively sensationalist like some of the London Fleet Street rags; it does not preclude papers based on their printing format alone (which is the only sense in which Xtra! can be considered a "tabloid" rather than a legitimate newspaper.) But at any rate, the only citation to Xtra! that's still present in the article is to a piece which primarily summarizes the new developments being reported by other media rather than engaging in original reporting, so I trust that should satisfy your concerns around primary vs. secondary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
"if Xtra! publishes an interview, then they are acting as a primary source...", no, wrong, utterly wrong - the person they're interviewing is a primary source but the paper is a secondary source. Key distinction. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Material Cited in Reliable Sources

The National Post is a reliable source. Please do not delete material based on one's personal opinion of the subject matter.Ryoung122 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"According to the National Post, Magnotta's identity was discovered by members of the BestGore.com website after a "snuff film" video of the murder was posted to that website." Speculation. Not proven to be Magnotta. GwenChan 15:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The facts are clear. It's not speculation.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-01/Chinese-victim-body-parts-murder/55328662/1

"Police suspect Magnotta filmed the murder. The video, posted online, shows a man stabbing another man with an ice pick while the victim lies naked and tied up. The first man later reveals he has slashed the other man's throat. He also dismembers the corpse and performs sexual acts with it.

"We have quite convincing proof of the crime he committed," Lafreniere said Friday, referring to the video.

You should be discussing the individual issues on the talk page first, rather than deleting material sourced to reliable sources.Ryoung122 15:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

50:50 on this one. Like it or not, BestGore members first suggested that the person in the video might be Magnotta based on past knowledge of him. Initially, they had difficulty in getting police to accept that the video was genuine, but Magnotta is now being sought in connection with this incident, and the video is accepted as genuine. The real issue is WP:BLPCRIME, not whether the National Post is a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Until Magnotta is proven to have killed the man in the video, it cannot be stated that he is the person in the video - which has been called "authentic" by the police. It's quite simple. GwenChan 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The USA Today story says "Police suspect Magnotta filmed the murder" which falls within BLPCRIME. To clarify, the killer's face is never shown in the video, and suspicions were aroused because the background scenery in the flat looked like it might be Magnotta's flat, which is now a crime scene.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Please visit this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

It could be stated that he is "alleged to be" the person in the video. That reliable sources, including the police, say it is him is relevant to the article and should be included, even if phrased in a way so as not to indicate 100% certainty.Ryoung122 16:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Inside body parts suspect Luka Rocco Magnotta’s apartment explains why Magnotta is now a suspect, and could be used as a source in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the religious affiliation

The source for the religious affiliation is blog that the subject himself wrote, not a third party. As such it is reliable.

This is different from a self-published source or the such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.232.125 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnotta appears to have routinely lied about himself both in his own writings and in other media, and therefore it is not a reliable source for a statement that he was a member of the church of Scientology. If you wanted to assert that he claimed to be a Scientologist, that might be different (but would still be of at best questionable relevance), but it isn't sufficient to support a statement that he was an active, practicing Scientologist. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, if he's still alive he's a clued up guy and it's possible that he's monitoring this talk page.

Discussion isn't about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

-he is

This section was deleted by its creator User:Egg Centric - diff

This is not what wikipedia en is here for

I deleted this - (its totally out of policy scope) - User:Egg Centric has sadly replaced it - the user claims he is talking to the subject of the article/crime allegations off wiki ..? = WP:Talkpage guidelines etc etc... Youreallycan 21:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What?!!?!? No that is not at all what I claimed - I claimed that I am talking to the guy who hat'd the discussion (Ianmacm (talk · contribs · count)) off wiki, in that I have sent him an email asking for him to reconsider hat'ing it. I have also emailed you, in fact. Egg Centric 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
What are you doing here, reaching out to a crime suspect asking if he is reading wikipedia to comment on his article and revert warring to replace it when your out of scope talkpage comment is correctly removed - delete this nonsense asap or I will take you to ANI - Youreallycan
There is no way that the hatting will be reconsidered. This is a crazy idea and totally fails WP:TALK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Fine, it's gone, if only because of the impracticality of emailing everyone who removes it. I never "revert warred" though, that's absolute nonsense. I'm actually quite irritated with the way you (yrc) have handled this. But that's the last I'll speak of it. Egg Centric 21:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You replaced a good faith removal of a WP:TPG violation - Youreallycan 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The edit summary was "archive". Egg Centric 21:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, archive, means in such clear cases, goodbye and good riddence to such policy and scope violating content content - Youreallycan 21:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
My point is I assumed you were, in fact, archiving, which is not an unreasonable thing to do to a thread that has been hat'd in its entirety. Had you made it clear (or even hinted) you were removing it for policy violations I would have contacted you before reverting it (although you'll note I contacted you immediately afterwards anyway to explain what the plan was) Egg Centric 21:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It's completely crazy, it's original research, and it's just not appropriate at all. Especially in a matter this sensitive, we need to restrict ourselves to reliable sources and not to potential input from the subject himself (especially from a subject who seems to have an established history of making wildly inflated biographical claims about himself.) Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I consider the discussion over. Perhaps someone can hat again Egg Centric 21:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I object to User:AniMate's unexplained hatting diff off - Your (Egg Centric's) reverting of your policy violating discussion disallows you to request closure - Youreallycan 22:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Aside from continuing drama, what is the point in keeping this section open? The offending post has been removed and I can see no possible reason to keep discussing it. AniMate 22:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Drama , was started by User:Egg Centric and he continued revert warring his disruption and his request to close it without his accepting his policy violations is unresolved, as was your unexplained attempted close - I would also request you avoid editing and administrating in relation to me as you hold a clear citable opinionated position - we have many admins that are uninvolved and please defer to them in relation to any issues in relation to me - thanks - Youreallycan 22:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree. I am not going to respond any more unless I can see anything I should be responding to. Egg Centric 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
" reverting of your policy violating discussion disallows you to request closure" <== I don't even know what this means. Egg Centric 22:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Its not difficult - do not post violations of WP:TPG on talkpages and if that content is hatted or removed from that talkpage, do not revert war it back to the talkpage - easy peasy realy - Youreallycan 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Speaking down to other users in this manner is not constructive. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging of different versions of the article

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

It would help if you would actually name and link to the "multiple versions" in question so that we can see them. This is the only article I'm aware of, and numerous redirects are already pointing to it — so what other titles do you have in mind? Or are you talking about edit histories from some of the past self-promotional blitzes? Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I think he means the edit histories from the previous deleted versions (I think there are at least two, maybe three)? The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
She. And yes. However, given the lack of enthusiasm, it is probably better to let everything settle down for a while, so I won't further pursue it. Risker (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
There were two versions of this page which were AfD'ed in 2008, one with this name, the other with the suspect's full name (including middle name). As both were self-promotion, I'm not sure why anyone would want them undeleted. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This discussion already happened up above. Adding the video does not have a consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As many of you are aware, Magnotta filmed the murder and dimemberment of Lin. Magnotta has posted the video on the Internet for anyone to view and use. The video is currently available on the Internet. The police have not charged the websites showing the video as it is not illegal to show the video:

QUESTION: Should we add the video to Wikisource and put a wiki-link in the article to the video?

  • SUPPORT: The video is evidence about the murder and we have Wikisource for this type of information, it should be added to Wikisource and a wiki-link in the Magnotta article. We should allow viewers who want to watch the video the chance to watch it. If readers choose not to watch the video it is their choice! We could put a *warning*. JunoBeach (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource does not accept material which is under copyright, so is not a suitable venue to host the video itself. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Murder Scene

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

If you have a source, please add something about this to the article, which doesn't cover it currently! (or at least, post a link here) I looked up and I found three versions of this, which doesn't say anything about the kitten-and-snake video. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, just happened across [3] 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].[4] Obviously I'd like a source a wee bit better than that. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

His Childhood

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

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

I´ve found a website where he has written much text about his childhood signed with Vladimir Romanov. http://answers.psychcentral.com/Depression/i-hate-my-mother-and-i-dont-care-enough-to-change-it-/ search for the username "cutelittlenemo1". Someone should add some information from that to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukaLeaks (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Again, it's already been well-established that Magnotta routinely misrepresented or outright lied about himself on a regular basis — so his own published claims about himself need to be taken with an even bigger grain of salt than usual. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Early life includes errors

The topic of this article was actually born in Tolyeti Russia and was sent away to Canada at the age of five because of the Russian mafia [5]. His parents are named [REDACTED] and he is of Russian and Italian origin [6]. However, I'm unable to make the corrections to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.151.218 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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

The article should be deleted

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

WP is not censored - nor are we concerned about offending people. That said I do see the argument to move this page to "about the killings" but unfortunately the article is more about a person then the incident - thus must adhere to BIO rules.Moxy (talk)
In principle I agree with you, but there's already been an AFD which closed as keep — so the consensus stands unless you can make a much more convincing claim of non-notability rather than simply repeating points that have already been considered. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The AFD was closed as keep with a strong support for renaming this to be about the crime, not tha man, because it otherwise violates WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Adult films

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

---

Magnotta was in several pornographic films including:[1]
  1. ^ iafd.com - Luka Rocco Magnotta bio
  2. ^ iafd.com
  3. ^ iafd.com
  4. ^ iafd.com
  5. ^ iafd.com
  6. ^ iafd.com
  7. ^ iafd.com
  8. ^ iafd.com
  9. ^ iafd.com

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

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

Hmmm, to nail down the primaries a bit better, I found [7], [8], [9]; apparently much came from [10] but navigating the site from there confuses me. Anyway, I took these four, put "link:" in front of them, and tried them in Google, but none of them gave any results. There's a chance I did that wrong somehow... anyway, I don't know how obscure they are, but he's pretty clearly in them. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, he has done a few porn videos and modelling shoots, that's not in question. The National Post link that InedibleHulk posted in the thread below this one certainly confirms the Badpuppy shoot, and a few other video appearances are confirmed. However, it also does seem to be the case that especially in later years he sometimes uploaded clips to amateur porn sites like XTube under his name which were either unverifiable or outright fakes — so not every porn video out there that has his name on it is actually him. A few are definitely him, yes, but there are also many that aren't. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Porn and modelling career dubious

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

Has anyone tried Googling "Tony Luciforia"?

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

  • My suggestion would be that such things should only be added if they're reported on by a reliable and trusted source, which Ripoffreport.com is not. If you think that this might be something that could help the case or be reported to the media, report it to them. We have no real way of verifying that the person who is mentioned in that site is really Magnotta or just someone completely different. The problem with that site is that anyone can enter anything under any name, so it could be Magnotta or it could be someone else. That name isn't common, but I bet there's more than a few others with the name "Vince Luciforia".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about TONY. Vince is already covered in the press. Tony has just the three comments. But yes, it would be original research. And I can only assume any news organization with Google has seen this by now, but decided not to run with it for whatever reason. Maybe not. I have no phone or e-mail, so it's hard to tip a paper directly. Doesn't seem like something that would help police this far removed. I'll keep looking for a reliable source. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Beyond adding one more example to the pile of self-promotional internet identities that we already have dozens of examples of, I don't see how this link would be particularly useful to anyone. Even if it can be proven to be him, the comments don't add any significant new information to anybody's understanding of the case besides yet another pseudonym. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, they were posted the day Lin Jun disappeared and the day the video went up. Also the first mention of alleged human victims or (potential) self-description as a "serial killer" I can see. Even if this (or "Fucatti" or "Toronto" or "Starakova" or "Ft Lauderdale) isn't Luka, it begs serious questions as to who knew what, five and four days before it became news. But yeah, WP:OR and WP:BLP. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a blog titled "Necrophiliac Serial Killer Luka Magnotta" (gone now, obviously) that went up in March, actually. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Forgot about that. And we have "him" promoting the vid by title and description in forums on the 15th. Still, hours before would look better to me than months or weeks before if I were a newsman. I'm not arguing we should include it sourceless or that I know who anybody there really is, just that it isn't "just another example". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I'll just shut up now, per WP:NOTAFORUM. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Terminology in intro

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

Do you have a link or a citation for this law? Many of the sources used in this article are reputable newspapers, which refer to him as a murder suspect. I find it hard to believe they are all breaking the law. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
He's a convicted criminal (he was convicted in 2004 on fraud charges) and a suspected or alleged murderer. Nothing libellous about that. 124.176.159.243 (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

HIS name

ITS NOT CLEAR WHAT HIS REAL NAME IS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.84.193 (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The article points out that his current legal name is Luka Magnotta.[11] He was challenged about this by Alex West, a journalist from The Sun (United Kingdom) in an interview here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Chinese and International Reaction

This story is causing fury in China and becoming a public relations disaster for Canada.Yahoo It also is drawing high amounts of international attention perhaps an international reaction section should be added? --Kuzwa (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I have added a section entitled "international reaction" that can be expanded as more news outlets report. The Garbage Skow (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Try searching on the phrase « dépeceur de Montréal » (which is being loosely translated as "butcher of Montréal")... you'll find many French media reports and a handful from Belgium using this terminology to describe this crime. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Canada Post location in Ottawa

The correct address of the Canada Post processing plant in Ottawa is 1424 Caledon Place, not Industrial Avenue as described in the article concerning where the second body part was found. Gpjoa (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Ottawa Mail Processing Plant has long been known as "Alta Vista" (the mail sorting factory's original official name, based on its location at Alta Vista and Riverside Drives). It's at the north end of Alta Vista, a major local street, and originally took the name of that street.
The use of an obscure one-block-long side street's name, itself a neologism ("Caledon Place" appears to have been renamed "Sandford Fleming Ave" in March 2006 [12]) does not make immediately clear what or where this is, even presuming a reasonable familiarity with Bytown. "1424 Sandford Fleming Ave" means absolutely nothing without taking a map from sometime after 2006 and doing some searching for a non-notable one-block-long stub of a street. Local news coverage in Ottawa has this as the "Ottawa Mail Processing Plant at Alta Vista and Riverside" as Ottawans *know* the "Alta Vista" name and associate it readily with the local K0A J0X postmark. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, for the purposes of this article it's not particularly important to provide the precise address of the facility in question at all — because to any reader who isn't already familiar with Ottawa, any address at all will mean absolutely nothing. There's no real need for our article to be any more specific than "a Canada Post processing facility in Ottawa". Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

He was editing Wikipedia as recently as August 2008

I read this article [13] that says he was constantly trying to insert his name into the article about Karla Homolka. Well, one of the accounts that did just that was Motherland2russia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and given his other false claims of being born in Russia, this was pretty clearly Magnotta's account, or one of them. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably many of these are him too [14]. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a thread about this at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Luka_Magnotta. There is no direct evidence that Magnotta ever edited Wikipedia, and some of the IP edits in July 2008 inserting his name into Karla Homolka look like the media gossip that was going around at the time. The edit history of Imastarok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("I'm a star, ok?") is more interesting, and this may have been added by Magnotta himself. If the mainstream media states as a fact that he did edit Wikipedia, this is wrong because it is speculative.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
While it's certainly possible or even likely that Magnotta was creating and editing his own article, it's virtually unprovable at this point — even if we did run a checkuser on all the suspicious names and IP numbers, the edits are stale enough that it would be nigh on impossible to definitively link them to Magnotta. And the Homolka rumour in particular took on enough of a life of its own that some or all of those edits could very well have been good faith contributions from people with no personal connection to Magnotta whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
At least someone tried to put the name Magnotta in the article of Karla Homolka: here and here. That he tried it is stated here. --178.8.127.65 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
His name was added to Homolka's article dozens of times, actually, and we know perfectly well that he was likely the person doing it at least some of the time — but it's not at all clear that it was always coming directly from him, given that the rumour was widespread enough that a good many people genuinely believed it. Could we please stop getting into these tangential discussions about him as a person, and stick to discussion of the article's content? Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The two articles which were AfD'd in 2008 were created by Motherland2russia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Imastarok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("I'm a star, OK?") a single-purpose account which only edited this topic. It's possible that both are socks but the trail is likely cold now. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Stendhal Syndrome

Discussion isn't about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If 8 july 2008 as Imastarok and 19 August 2008 as Motherland2Russia are accurate (if not, must be someone close) and a month after the death of Michael Jackson who would have turned 50 just 10 days after this last edit, understand, that the direct consequence of this death, conducted young Stefania Germanotta, Winehouse look like, brooklyn bisexual unknown singer, to be the new zombie/gore/monster gay icon. Luka MAGNOTTA and Stefani GerMANOTTA's names are alike. He is talking a lot like being the new James Dean, role first dedicated to Paul Newman, his homonym. Is there on your point of view the beginning of something that could say this boy is absolutely victim of a Stendhal syndrome ? If so it's highly possible that a total absence of "Superego" allied to a narcistic point of view makes him identify with higher standards and to loose entirely empathy with the rest of the world. He is born on the same day as:

I just found out Lin identified to actor Justin Chon, asian-american actor from The Twilight Saga (film series) aka Eric Yorkie, classmate of Bella, he invites to a school dance, but declines, so he goes with Angela Weber instead.Franck Holland (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • No. Until Magnotta is caught and treated, we should not speculate on what potential mental disorders he has. All we have are bits and pieces from various media outlets, which can be either played up, misrepresented, or twisted around to fit the story that station is peddling. For example, if Fox News wanted to say that this murder was a result of Magnotta's porn background, they'd twist the story to where it supported that position. On the same note, CNN could report on a minute detail and make it sound immensely important when it isn't. Basically put, you can't always trust that what the media is saying is unbiased and untainted, and since that's all any of us have to go on (unless you are involved with the case or are Magnotta himself, in which case it wouldn't be a good idea to be here openly speculating), we cannot and will not post speculations on what mental disorders he has. The only time something like this might and I stress might fly is if you have a predominant and notable person doing the speculating and it becomes something that many news stories comment on. Even then it'd have to be very carefully added since it would still be speculation, it'd just be by more notable people than us.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to sound harsh, just stating that we can't put speculation into the article. It generally falls into the category of original research, which should be avoided. (WP:OR)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It's also worth noting that he was already using the name "Luka Magnotta" well before he could ever have had the slightest opportunity to know who Stefani Germanotta was, so she's not a likely source of the name. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I read this: "The Fame was first released on August 19, 2008 to slow radio play. Gaga supported it by performing around Europe and in small gay clubs around the US in addition to being billed as a supporting artist on the North American leg of New Kids on the Block's reunion concert tour." Isn't it stunning for anyone ? Franck Holland (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No it is not stunning. He changed his name to Magnotta in 2006, nobody had heard of Lady Gaga at that point, and her Wikipedia article was not created until June 2008.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying he took inspiration, i say the wikipedia project of Magnotta and the career of Gaga started on the same day. That's it ! FACT ! ? Not speaking of Basic Instinct, Hannibal Lecter, Dexter and the Mickey Mouse drawing on the T-shirt the next day at the airport. Franck Holland (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Cool it with the speculation, please. This talk page is for discussing necessary improvements to the article, not a forum for speculative or opinion-based discussion of Magnotta as an individual — and speculating about mental health conditions he might have, or posting monitor lists of every user who ever touched his article, or looking for meaning in random coincidences about his name, is simply not adding anything productive to the discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this subsection should not be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM? You seem intent on applying your own analysis to the case (WP:OR) without any indication of how this benefits the article. This is not an appropriate use of a Wikipedia talk page. Resolute 17:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Final Cut

Discussion isn't about improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

He'll be the one that doesn't post anymore. As simple as that:

[List of usernames redacted; this is unproductive and pointless, and if we ever actually need this information we can consult the edit histories directly.]

Franck Holland (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A significant number of those names are well-known and well-established Wikipedia editors (and a couple of bots!), whom there's absolutely no reason to associate with such an allegation. Further, this list of names is hardly necessary here anyway; in the unlikely event that there's ever actually a need to investigate for Wikipedia usernames that might have been Magnotta himself, we can consult the edit histories directly and have absolutely no reason to maintain a monitoring list on this talk page.
Could you cool your jets a little bit with all the speculative posting? It's not really helpful or relevant. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

History merge

{{adminhelp}} Would someone be willing to merge the history of this article with that on Luka R Magnotta? The Garbage Skow (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You can request one at WP:SPLICE. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this should wait until the article is more stable. The other article redirects here, anyway. Risker (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles with separate origins on the same topics are not history merged. History merges are for where the content of one article was taken from the content of another, often by a cut and paste move rather than using the move function. As far as I can see, these articles have separate origins and they also have parallel pages histories which would be shuffled together creating a copyright and history jumble. If you meant to say they should be merged, that is not the same as a history merge.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The edit history of Luka R Magnotta looks fishy, in that the page was created as Luka Rocco Magnotta in 2007 (where it quickly attracted observations that he'd started the bogus Karla Homolka rumours himself), was nominated for deletion on 21 Jan 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Rocco Magnotta and then moved to Luka R Magnotta the next day (while the AfD was still open) with removal of the AfD tags:

  • (cur | prev) 14:04, 24 January 2008‎ Crossmr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,726 bytes) (+6,726)‎ . . (Do NOT remove the AfD template until the AfD is finished. Issues still relevant, several citations don't pass WP:V.) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 08:37, 24 January 2008‎ Buttercupbaby77 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (empty) (-6,677)‎ . . (moved Luka Rocco Magnotta to Luka R Magnotta: better known without iddle name) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 08:34, 24 January 2008‎ Buttercupbaby77 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,677 bytes) (-750)‎ . . (Cleaned up ARTICLE, Toned it Down, Fixed RELIABLE sources. I spent ALot OF TIME.) (undo)

From this history, it looks like a cut-and-paste move made *during* the AfD was somehow spliced back together at Luka R Magnotta (which would require administrator intervention). The AfD was closed on 27 Jan 2008 as delete with a grain of salt. Not sure why this copypasta is even still here if it failed AfD... some dang fool undeleted this mess, but why?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Luka+Rocco+Magnotta

  • 03:42, 27 January 2008 Kylu (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka Rocco Magnotta (AFD: Deleted after discussion at Articles for Deletion)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Luka+R+Magnotta

  • 19:07, 31 May 2012 CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs) restored page Luka R Magnotta (173 revisions restored)
  • 08:36, 10 December 2010 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka R Magnotta (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  • 01:06, 19 August 2008 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka R Magnotta (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Rocco Magnotta)
  • 03:42, 27 January 2008 Kylu (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka R Magnotta (AFD: Deleted after discussion at Articles for Deletion)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Luka+Magnotta

  • 23:32, 30 May 2012 CharlieEchoTango (talk | contribs) restored page Luka Magnotta (80 revisions restored: restoring history of recreated article)
  • 14:28, 10 August 2008 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka Magnotta (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person: repost after AfD)
  • 13:04, 7 August 2008 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka Magnotta (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person: repost after AFD)
  • 16:54, 6 August 2008 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka Magnotta (G4: Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta)
  • 13:09, 6 August 2008 Iridescent (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka Magnotta (Speedy deleted per (CSD G4), was a copy of material previously deleted per XfD.)
  • 23:46, 22 July 2008 PhilKnight (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka Magnotta (AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta)
  • 10:17, 27 January 2008 Od Mishehu (talk | contribs) deleted page Luka Magnotta (CSD R1: Redirect to a nonexistent page)

Perhaps these should have been left deleted in the absence of any clear consensus to restore them? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please no. That page history should be left visible for researchers curious about Magnotta's self-editing, but the sources (from the prior long version) generally don't back up anything they're cited for. We would be better off doing a merge from the Encyclopedia Dramatica version, which is much more reputable. ;) Wnt (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, well nevermind folks. The Garbage Skow (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

I can understand how the fact that he filed for bankruptcy might be relevant here in a very general sense, particularly given that Glen McGregor's article specifically points out the disconnect between the bankruptcy and Magnotta's self-cultivated veneer of jetsetting celebrity. But is it really necessary for our article to list many of the individual debts that he was discharged from, or a breakdown of his actual post-bankruptcy budget? Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to remove this altogether, it goes into way too much detail. A brief mention is all that is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

expanding bio of the victim using the Chinese Wikipedia

hello. the Chinese Wikipedia page for Lin Jun appears to be a disambiguation page. could the victim's bio be expanded with stuff from there? -badmachine 20:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Anyone here understand Chinese or know who to ask? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
i missed the addition of the interwiki link earlier. the Chinese article says "The current entry is the translation in accordance with the content of the other languages ​​of Wikipedia". and i dont see anything there on the victim. maybe as this unfolds, more will be available on the victim. -badmachine 21:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese page for "Jun" sadly lists nothing relevant, the machine translation of zh:林俊 is:

Jiun can refer to:

  • Chiun (Ming Dynasty) , Ming Dynasty Chenghua 14 years of Scholars , the official Ming minister of works , birthplaces of the ministers of the Ming Dynasty .
  • Chiun (Qing Dynasty) , the military generals of the Qing Dynasty , a former the Penghu Naval Association lieutenant .

This is a disambiguation page, a list of the same or similar title, but a different entry. If you are an entry of the internal links to this page, I hope you can help fix the department's internal links, point to the correct entry.

The interwiki link points to an article on the suspect which (as noted above) was translated from this page. The German interwiki link points to a one-line stub; the French page is a little better but contains nothing which isn't already here. I see nothing on other languages that can help us at the moment. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Image

I've been looking around for a free image to use on the article. Bummer that Interpol doesn't release their "wanted" images into PD. No pro photos on Flickr that are CC by SA. Anyone else have any ideas? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Luka_Magnotta#Photo. If any new image of him in custody after his arrest is released, it would probably qualify for Template:Ir-Mugshot. However, if anyone has a free image of him or Lin Jun, please upload it to Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Canadian police don't generally release mugshots unless someone is a fugitive. I don't know about the Germans. 74.198.9.115 (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Arrested on murder charges" = "Charged with murder"?

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15998206,00.html uses the first phrase in the headline, but doesn't explicitly state he was charged with anything, just arrested in accordance with the INTERPOL thing. So, does a headline count as something citable? And how does German law define "charges" (in English)? If he IS formally charged, a "However,..." should be tacked onto the part that says the warrant accusations are NOT charges. Or it can be deleted, perhaps. Or whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless he's committed a crime in Germany the Germans won't charge him with anything. They're holding him on in international arrest warrant from Canada and it's up to Montreal police to charge him. 74.198.9.115 (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The Crown will formally lay charges of murder, threatening the PM and several others once he is in Canadian custody. Resolute 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Berlin police have released a mugshot. see here. The National Post uses it in this this article with the cutline "Photo taken of Luka Rocco Magnotta by Berlin police shortly after his arrest." Where the credit is usually given the word "Handout" appears. 67.69.104.66 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

This is as much a general policy question as it is a Magnotta-specific one, but since it applies here, I thought I should ask anyway. Does Wikipedia actually have a specific policy or practice regarding what to do when Wikipedia itself becomes a detail in the story? Of course, in most normal circumstances, it's obviously inappropriate original research for a Wikipedia article to call explicit attention to the Wikipedia editing process — but does that change if a reliable media source makes note of Wikipedia edits, thus making it suddenly possible to reference content about Wikipedia edits to a secondary source?

For example, given that secondary media sources have already noted these facts in this case, would it be appropriate for our article about Magnotta to make note that Wikipedia was one of the sites he used in his self-promotional "I'm a big celebrity model" campaign, or that Homolka's article was still occasionally being edited to list Magnotta as her husband as recently as this past spring? Or are these the kinds of details that we should still avoid acknowledging, on the grounds that it's best not to call attention to this kind of behaviour in case other users feel inspired to emulate it?

Again, I don't have a strong opinion either way; I can see valid points on both sides. But since I don't know if we have an actual policy one way or the other, I thought I should ask nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

looks like WP:SELFREF has a subsection WP:SUBJECT. sure looks like it could be mentioned along with the numerous others. -badmachine 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The article on James von Brunn provides some guidance on this. Apparently he had edited Wikipedia and had an account here. His account was blocked after the shooting he was involved in and the article mentions it was because he violated our policies on hate speech. The Garbage Skow (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
At the moment, there is no strong evidence that this was a notable factor in the case. We don't know for a fact that Magnotta ever edited Wikipedia (although the edits by Motherland2russia and Imastarok are obviously suspect). If strong evidence did emerge, it could be added if there was reliable secondary sourcing about it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Article in The Sun

The Sun mentions Wikipedia here, which references the request for Magnotta to contribute to this talk page. This edit and several others were made by 71.30.235.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is a shared mobile IP address. Given that Magnotta was arrested while reading about himself in an Internet cafe, it would not be surprising if he did look at his Wikipedia page while on the run. Unfortunately, the IP address is not enough to draw any conclusions about the contributions from this editor.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that IP was him, as it resolves to a US mobile phone network whereas Magnotta was arrested in Germany. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I notified CU about it at the time, quietly, and it was not an issue. They were also looking at a few accounts that were known to be his to see if they logged in anywhere, or at least I suggested they do so. Actually the entire reason I started that thread was to run a "sting" operation, which is what I was explaining to users in emails. But it quickly became impractical. Nevertheless I am convinced it could have worked in certain circumstances. I understand how attention whores think Egg Centric 15:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Murder in Los Angeles

There is a news report that Magnotta has possible links to a murder in Los Angeles [15] --Þadius (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now THIS can under no circumstances be added to the article. WP:CRIME definitely applies to speculation about a link to a crime for which he hasn't so much as been charged. That would be a major WP:BLP vio.- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

He is a rasist

Speculatory, unsourced and does not serve to improve the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Luka Magnotta is Famous American Celebrity -- He is most special man in world. Luka Magnotta , he hates all asian people.

— - Sock account sharonstone2011 on Youku.com

This comment was sent 7 months ago ( 11.2011 ). Sock account sharonstone2011 --88.189.221.53 (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR. I doubt that a random contributor to youku is a reliable source (much less a sock), and unless sharonstone2011 is Luka Magnotta, it's not reliable information. Proving that they're the same person would require original research. Find a real news source that says it, and we might include it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Google "magnotta white supremacist." You'll find plenty of sources there. Auss00 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There are several accounts suspect on Youku.com, their videos are created from 1 year to 7 months ago - discussion on Douban

1、sharonstone2011「11 Videos uploaded」

2、beautybird 「4 Videos uploaded」

3、tracyguest 「7 Videos uploaded」

4、kitty604323 「8 Videos uploaded」

5、catherinen7 「3 Videos uploaded」

Perhaps he has begun looking for his prey an Asian 1 year ago. So he has sent his videos on a website Chinese. --88.189.221.53 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Google translate is getting better and better [16] and you can follow the gist of this conversation. Apparently he was posting stuff on Youku. But I missed the original link, without which it is harder to follow, especially given little uncertainties of language. (The link above, posted both here and at ED by the OP, is some sort of concert - I don't know if that's an accident or "river crab") Also I suppose someone else could have posted some of these photos/videos, which (from the thumbnails) look like ones we've seen elsewhere. -- OK, this might be something. [17] and particularly [18]. Something about this is "one year ago", think it's the video. But the thing is, the video is a snapshot collection - it might have been copied from anywhere by someone who just happens to like the view. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

title

magnotta has not been tried nor convicted, therefore is not notable. perhaps the receipt of the body parts is notable at the moment, and it seems that Magnotta is finally getting his article, but it seems mistitled at the moment. plz reconsider the title for this article. -badmachine 11:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore is not notable"? Notability=/=convicton. The guy is on all media outlets in Canada, has made headlines around the world, and is a prime candidate for a high-profile murder trial, of course he's notable. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 11:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
and you're a sysop. tsk tsk. -badmachine 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Your point being? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 12:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
well, i suck at policy, but off the top of my head it seems like you
  • removed the cn tag from challenged material without replacing it with a source (although the sources i have found vary, the most reliable of the sources, which is not suitable for wikipedia, states he was born in 1982, not 1984. also, simple math would show that he cant be 29 and born in july 1984
  • WP:BLP
  • WP:NNEWS
  • WP:BLP1E -badmachine 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) [edited 12:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)]

please note: i am not requesting deletion. only a review of the title. -badmachine 12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I think that for right now, the article should stay. It's entirely possible that the media hubub will die down and that there won't be much more beyond the initial shock and gasp, but it's highly unlikely considering how visible the crime was. He posted a video of him mutilating and sexually molesting a corpse, so that alone is going to keep the media machine turning for a while. If I'm not mistaken, I think he's one of the first to get so publicly noticed for posting a video of this nature online, which has probably already started a million psychiatrists' and journalists' keyboards clacking, so odds are there will be at least one book and professional paper written about him. This is speculation, of course, but it's a bit early to say that he himself is not notable. Renaming would be best, but until we have a viable alternative for another name, we're stuck with an article on Magnotta himself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Title idea: how about when the Police identify the victim we rename the article "Murder of (victim's name goes here)"? As I noted on the AFD page, the Greyhound beheading is Murder of Tim McLean not Vince Weiguang Li... Thoughts? Paris1127 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There is precedent for these being under the victim's name, Bobby Greenlease for one (with all perpetrator's names redirected there). "Murder of..." once police openly identify the victim is reasonable. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It took a lot, but after being not notable for over a year according to wiki, it's now notable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.235.82 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know that a name change is necessary here. There are a number of things here, proven and unproven, that make this more than a BLP1E. The previous incarnations of this article included were just about the "modelling" and Karla Homolka. Add those to the possible kitten killing, murder, video, mailing, and international manhunt, I think the subject has passed the threshold for inclusion. AniMate 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The only thing that gives me pause is that there have supposedly been articles about him in the past that included this stuff and were deleted. I don't know for certain what they were made up to look like, but I know that the kitten killing and murderess dating was supposed to have been posted. Then again, by the time we discover the victim's name we'll probably have more than enough info to post separate articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

I have a suggestion regarding the naming of the article; I feel that it should be named "Eric Clinton Kirk Newman" with a 'Luka Magnotta' that redirects to it instead. The reason for this is that Newman is the only name this very sick 'person' never picked for himself, and Magnotta is one that he felt pride in having. Perhaps it would be better to deny him the narcissistic satisfaction of having his chosen name used as the title to the page. (Vgoudreault (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

  • No. Wikipedia's concern should be the convenience/ease of the reader. Not to look for petty ways to "punish" someone we don't like by referring to them by a name nobody recognizes. If we're going to use the birth name criteria, we'd be retitling half the bio articles on Wikipedia. Granted, Magnotta isn't a "celebrity" like Judy Garland or Marilyn Monroe, but the rationale for the standard MOS is in place for a reason. BTW, this subject is being discussed in a more curent thread linked from the top of the article page (here), I'd suggest any further suggestions/debate on this subject should be posted there. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Split

Add {{split section|Murder of Lin Jun|Talk:Luka Magnotta#Split}} to the top of the section "Murder of Lin Jun".

That would allow the question of splitting the page to be properly discussed as we seem to be heading rapidly to no consensus on moving the page outright. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not real keen on starting a "split" discussion while the "move" discussion is still active. Particularly when we have a vote of MORE than 2 to 1 Opposed to a move. You may not think that's a clear consensus, but I've seen Wikipedia decisions decided on far less votes than this. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The "move" discussion was started on June 1 and runs for a week. I don't see a huge overlap here. Also, this is not a vote. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just a request to add the proposal of one. As you pointed out, it's been eight days and we have an overwhelming number of Oppose votes for a move. The fact that people who support the move have taken it upon themselves to create an article over there despite this, makes their motives highly suspicious. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mdann52 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Chinese name

Lin is his surname; in Chinese, names are given surname first, personal name second, hence "Lin Jun". When rendered in English, i.e. with his English name Justin, it is correct to write "Justin Lin". "Jun Lin" should probably be avoided altogether as it introduces unnecessary confusion and does not reflect any common usage either in English or Chinese. siafu (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

READ THIS FIRST

This talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. I quoted this from the hat note buried in the top of the page and entered this post at the top of the TOC. Editors should read the policies and guidelines and possibly think about edits before posting. Wikipedia has strict policies and guidelines about what comments can be posted on this page. I have done this boldly and in good faith in the hopes to keep this page under control. If another editor wishes to move/delete/edit this post, please feel free to do so.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This policy also applies to the recently deceased out of concern for any living relatives and other persons closely connected to them. Contentious or questionable material should be removed from both the article and its talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jun_Lin/Archive_1&oldid=1217186794"