Talk:Murder of Jun Lin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

view 1 lunatic 1 icepick video

96.22.235.34 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I assume you are requesting the video be linked to this article. This has been previously discussed (see the archives) and the consensus is that linking to the video would violate Wikipedia policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(I have edited this section header, due to a BLP concern) InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking in the lead

It seems to me that some of the wikilinks in the lead aren't needed. Thoughts? We can also change this section title to link spam in the entire article if needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

My first thought is "Which ones aren't needed?". My second thought is "why not?". I'm generally quite pro-Wikilinks, but I also listen to reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As discussed previously, one or two reliable sources per statement is enough, and the citations should go at the end of the sentence. The article needs a cleanup here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think this discussion is about "blue links" not citations. Taroaldo (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) I won't put them in order. kitten, Berlin, Canadian, Chinese, international student. I don't really care. I am pro-Wikilinks as well, but the lead just looked too blue on the trivial ones. If no one else really cares, then just resolve this section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything outrageously out of place. Within certain boundaries, what to link and what not to link is subjective. What might be of additional interest to the casual reader? If it isn't obviously frivolous, common, or totally irrelevant, I'd consider leaving it in. Taroaldo (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK would apply here. The wikilinking in the article as a whole at the moment is not excessive, the citations are more so.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The over-citation is by design, per WP:CYA, er, WP:BLPCRIME. Anything that isn't cited will be attacked as harmful to the alleged suspect's precious self-esteem given the history of this article. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just a guess, 66. An educated guess, perhaps, but a guess. I propose putting your hypothesis to the test. My guess is the "breaking news" hoopla that happens with cautious (and trolling) editors here has died down over the weeks. Most of these claims have gone from "recently reported" to "established fact". The backlash would not be as strong as you think, I wager. These footnotes are plain ugly and distracting, and make editing all the more cumbersome. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC) And nobody can hurt Magnotta's self esteem, because he's in jail. He can't read this. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Lin Jun or Jun Lin?

Resolved

There are several different articles and reliable sources that site the victim as "Jun Lin" and not "Lin Jun", and vice versa. The Globe and Mail shows a photo from a vigil held for the victim that reads "Jun Lin" in candles. CNews describes "Jun Lin" as the victim as well. ABC News also (very reliable source) describes the victim as "Jun Lin". I suggest that "Lin Jun" be changed to "Jun Lin" in the article header. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Some say "Lin Jun" others "Jun Lin". In China, where surnames go first, he would be "Lin Jun". The Montreal Gazette and Globe and Mail call him Lin Jun, the Toronto Star and Vancouver Sun Jun Lin. Paris1127 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the links in this section so they should be working now. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is some variation in the media coverage, but the best practice is to give the family name first, which is how it is given in the Chinese language. See also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Names_of_people.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• What is it in the 'statement from family' in the external links section? We may wish to go with how the family sets the order?--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The family statement uses Jun Lin. Since the media coverage varies on this, there would need to be a consensus to prevent edit warring.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see I pointed out something that might lead to the improvement of this article. I would think the majority of reliable news sources would be relevant. Do more describe the victim as "Lin Jun" or "Jun Lin"? I don't think the Chinese language or the family's preference would be relevant at all, being that the victim's connection with Luka Magnotta is a high profiled alleged murder case. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there more English readers in surname first cultures or surname last ones? I say we say it the way the majority of readers expect to read it (with a note saying the minority says it the other way). InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. This is en:wp. If it is reverted then we can seek consensus then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This was already discussed; Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Order_of_names favours leaving these family-name-first unless the English reversal of the name already has wide notability and substantially more frequent use outside Wikipedia. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another. I will tag this section resolved unless someone wants to propose a consensus discussion. If so feel free to remove the resolved tag and or start a new section on consensus. I am also wondering if any sources have changed the name order in later articles after they had the same discussion. If so then there may be valid reason to adapt or maintain their newer style if it matches ours.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actual moment of death not there. The victim's sexual orientation

1) The people who have seen the film in the Internet say the actual moment of victim's death is not there. It starts with scenes of the Chinese boy alive and then it shows him already wounded several timees (apparently dead).

Actually it starts with Jun Lin alive, tied up but moving. Magnotta's back facing the camera then blocks the camera view. Lin's neck could have been cut at that moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.77.153 (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

2) Is it known whether Magnotta's victim was gay too?83.7.162.110 (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is curious in articles like this, but they must remember that wikipedia is not in a hurry like a newspaper or tabloid. Asking such questions on talk pages of articles can be against our policy here. This page is to discuss the article improvements, not discuss the subject of article itself. You may wish to see the 'read first' section at the top and then edit your post.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment points out two areas where the article can be improved and asks for sources. "Read first"/other Wiki restrictions would apply here if I tried to insert unconfirmed tabloid gosspis or my personal opinions on the topic which I haven't done.83.7.162.110 (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

As discussed previously, the ice pick video on the Internet is edited, and the police have suggested that they have access to a longer version. The actual killing is not shown in the Internet version, and the body/torso is dead during part of the action. On the question of Lin Jun being gay or in a relationship with Magnotta, this has been widely reported but also denied, eg here in the National Post, which says "A lot of information is not actually true. He has never been a relationship with this guy. I’m very certain."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll agree that the information whether the 'longer version of the video' contains the actual moment of the murder is pretty relevant to the article and should be investigated for sources. As for that poor boy, the National Post writes nothing about his sexual orientation. It only has two confilcting statements on whether he was in a relationship with Magnotta83.7.162.110 (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the Chinese-language sources were citing Lin's friends as claiming that, while the victim is openly gay (and being "out" can be difficult in China, at least by Canadian standards) there is nothing in which he claims a relationship with the accused. They were also mentioning Lin as being educated at Wuhan University and having worked for several years in Beijing (not mentioned in the English-language sources, which have him as an undergrad in Canada). The police do have whatever computers were left behind at the crime scene, but I'd presume details of any unedited video on them won't be disclosed until this goes to trial. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please post links to the sources here? Your summary in English is also welcome ;)83.7.162.110 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1). We can't speculate that he wasn't unconscious or paralized at the time. You can't tell this from the video itself.

2). It's only fact if he explicitly stated so himself. Same with Magnotta, there are claims of straight porn/dating women (if she was a woman at the time), but you couldn't say he was bisexual unless he explicitly identified as such. That's why the intro says "gay pornographic actor" and not "gay pornographic actor". Subtle difference but important. Skullers (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese sources are listed in 卢卡·罗科·马尼奥塔 (Luka Magnotta) and 2012年林俊謀殺案 (2012 Jun murder case); in the last pre-split version they'd be references 17-25. The machine translation is less than ideal, but if you click through from the reference to the original sources it should be possible to get at least a general idea. The Sing Tao (Toronto) and Ming Pao (Vancouver) Chinese-language daily papers are most likely to address the question of whether the victim is "out" as openly gay and would give a fair amount of biographical background. Chinese media in China itself are more likely to focus on his studies at Wuhan University, his time in Beijing and his relationship with his family. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

AFD 4

Ive gone ahead and listed this article for deletion, per the reasons discussed above. Its at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (4th nomination). Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet another AfD

This article is now going through another AfD in what is becoming a disruptive circus. Previous consensus is clear. Editors should be allowed to work on the ongoing development of this article without being distracted by constant machinations. Taroaldo (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a bad faith nomination, Silvertigo. You know full well that neither the previous AFD nor the RM above showed a consensus to move, and continued WP:POINT disruptions serve only to waste everyone's time. If you can't accept that consensus is against you, then just unwatch the article and go edit something else. Resolute 03:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I will deal with that bullshit. Others carry on with the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This nomination should be withdrawn. AFDs have nothing to do with whether an article should be renamed. The article easily meets WP:GNG, so the basis of the AFD nomination is flawed and an abuse of the system.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. There are not enough significant reasons for the article's deletion. Maintaining an unbiased point of view when handling/editing this type of article is very important. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the nomination was not in bad faith. It sought to uphold the actual consensus at the third AFD, which was to keep and rename. I respect the fourth AFD. Was the third AFD respected? It is a gross mischaracterization to say the third AFD was simply a "keep." It was not. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The 3rd AfD was a closed as speedy keep by a non-admin, and it didn't advocate a move, the closer said there was a degree of support for it and discussion should continue on the article talk page. How was the third AfD not respected? AniMate 05:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

By my count, a slight majority voted keep and rename to something like Murder of Lin Jun (some votes came before the victims name was known, and thus don't specify the victims name). If the majority consensus was actually respected, the article thus should have been renamed to Murder of Lin Jun, and onus would have been on those wanting to rename it to Luka Magnotta. The closer of AFD 3 mischaracterized the vote by saying "degree of support" when in fact it was majority support (for a rename). Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Majority ≠ consensus. From WP:Consensus which is policy: ...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority). AniMate 05:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If majority ≠ consensus, then how is consensus determined? Is minority = consensus? Of course a majority indicates consensus! And if we were to actually adjudicate based on 'quality of arguments,' as you suggest, this issue would have been settled in favor of the rename. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately everyone does not agree with you. Counting votes would be so much more simple, though not nearly as simple as declaring this the encyclopedia only agrees with Stevertigo. Sorry the AfD didn't go your way, but a speedy keep/move would be a controversial non-admin closure and likely would have been overturned. I'm also sorry the requested move didn't go the way you wanted it to. If you're really that upset, you can always initiate an RfC to get the policy changed to something along the lines of admins should only count votes or admin shouldn't count votes if Stevertigo disagrees. Good luck with that. AniMate 07:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the text in the article at the moment is about Luka Magnotta, not the murder of Lin Jun. This is why other editors oppose a rename. BLP rules would apply regardless of what the article was named.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I can go along with that, but that doesn't prevent us from doing a spinout. BLP is not the issue at hand, Ian. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that two articles are necessary at the moment. Magnotta has not been extradited yet, let alone put on trial, which could take up to twelve months if and when he arrives back in Canada. Spinouts or forks are best avoided unless the article has WP:SIZERULE issues, which this article does not at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit needed under murder of lin jun (typo)

 Done

The sentence "A poster for the 1942 film 'Casablanca' was visible the wall." is grammatically incorrect. The sentence should read, "A poster for the 1942 film 'Casablanca' was visible on the wall." -- 70.120.83.126 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I made the requested correction and combined the sentence for flow. Taroaldo (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Last Chance for Animals link

This external link should be removed. It makes the common mistake of stating as a fact that Magnotta is responsible for the animal cruelty videos, even though he has never been charged or convicted. Likewise, the alleged e-mail to Alex West with the words "Well, I have to say goodbye for now, but don't worry, in the near future you will be hearing from me again. This time, however, the victims won't be small animals.” is not reliably proven to be the work of Magnotta. Although not within the article text, this link has sufficient WP:BLPCRIME issues to be misleading as a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be gone now. With edits like that, I just remove them speedily as per BLP. Then they can be discussed on the talk page as to whether to add them back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Address

Why is the actual address not listed when it is all over the media? 89.241.77.153 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. It is not strictly true that the address has been all over the media, although some stories have given it. My own view is that giving the full address does not add significant value and has some privacy implications.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it's really that important to the article. The Garbage Skow (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking of privacy, should we re-name the title of this section? Talk pages should follow blp as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did that. The Garbage Skow (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

-I say include [address redacted]. The building is becoming a news story in itself. There is a precedent in other articles ie: Moors Murders, Paul Bernardo, 10 Rillington Place, amongst others. here is another article that mentions it: http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=669785289.241.77.153 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Bernardo has been tried and convicted though. There is no evidence that the address is connected to the videos. Only accusations and speculation. We may need consensus to even include it on this talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether a reader really needs to know this to have a full understanding of the murder of Lin Jun, and the answer is no. Many news organizations are wary of giving the full addresses of private residences in case it leads to a problem with sightseers being a nuisance. Since this is an apartment building with other residents, they can probably do without the hassle of being constantly associated with this crime.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There were multiple reports of a torso being found in a suitcase in the back lane off Place Lucy. There are videos posted on the Toronto Star website of tours of the apartments. There are stories where other residents of the building talk of the numerous drug overdoses and suicides in the building. I say include the address as it is a vital part of the story. Peter Tobin's article includes his addresses and workplaces, so do several other articles about murderers. 2.96.26.74 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Montana attorney

"On May 26, an attorney living in the US State of Montana attempted to report the video and its contents to Toronto Police, his Sheriff's department, and the FBI, but it was initially dismissed by officials."[1][2][3]"

Surely he wasn't the only one to report the video, including bestgore themselves.[4][5] Toronto police denied being offered the link after reviewing recording of the call. And what could his local sheriff do about it? Skullers (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we should add something about bestgore trying to report the video to police or just criticizing the guy in Montana? The first seems like a reasonable addition, the second doesn't seem to have much to do with improving the article. The Garbage Skow (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since his claims (about sending the link) appear to directly contradict the statements of Toronto Police, and he wasn't the only one to report it, is there any value to including that particular statement? Skullers (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. Perhaps we should do spin-off articles that could include statements that may violate this blp article. The video(s) article, the address article, the PETA article, etc. Can we think of the name of an article that can include all?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. Good idea, but, I think it would be better to put all of that under a new section titled "controversy", to avoid displaying things being stated as facts throughout the article, instead of creating completely new articles. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not seeing the value in deleting cited information. If you want to add that the police denied they were offered a link then go ahead. Probably also worthwhile to expand that paragraph to mention others who tried to report the video. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

neighbour statements

There's a number of statements given to the media by neighbors of both Lin and Magnotta, but they are informal and could be considered subjective or unverifiable. If used in court it could be considered established fact.. but as of now, is there anything worthy of inclusion? Skullers (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This is why it would be a good idea to create a new section in the article titled "controversy" or something like that. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Update on "Tony Luciforia".

Early on this talk page, I made some claims and questions suggesting the sketchy "Tony Luciforia" posting on Ripoff Report the day of the murder was Magnotta. In the interest of BLP and fairness, I totally rescind my veiled allegations, based on this link (Pun not necessarily intended). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional details.

Upon viewing this article there was no mention of the following

1. He was gay 2. He was a bi-sexual ?. 3. He is alleged to have killed __________________. 4. His former girlfriend was actually a transexual. Born male ?

Here is the information link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2153370/Revealed-Victim-Canadian-porn-star-cannibal-Chinese-gay-lover-police-reveal-murderer-run-France--dressed-woman.html

--Batmanrobin327 (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(comment censored, sorry) - see the large sign at the top of the talk page

1-2: it's only fact if he explicitly identified as such (which is it?) 3. The biographies of living persons policy, which applies to talk pages as well as articles, also covers the recently deceased. There is much speculation in the media about the relationship between the victim and the accused but as of now none of it can be considered established fact. 4. Her claims of being his former girlfriend(?) cannot be verified unless confirmed by LRM himself. -Skullers (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC) edit: clarify

French translation

Can anyone fluent in French translate what the other officer (not Lafrenière) says in [6]? Too bad they didn't add subtitles. Skullers (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The first six minutes or so of this June 5 "point de presse" is Lafrenière's prepared statement (in English). At the beginning of the French-language question period (6:33 to 14:20) "Il nous en manque trois parties, dont le pied droit, la main droite et la tête..." (We're missing three pieces, the right foot, right hand and the head. We have the torso.) followed by a description of documents, cutting instruments and clothing retrieved by police from a garbage pile. The officer then explains that there is always co-ordination between the various police across Montréal and Québec in these instances to examine any unresolved cases in order to determine whether any are related. While there were three pieces (a foot, a hand, a head) still missing there was nothing (at that time) to indicate these remains had been sent somewhere else. There is no information from Berlin police to indicate that the suspect was collaborating with anyone else and he was found not on the basis of a document left behind but primarily because he had made a long series of small errors. The time taken to extradite him is unknown as it depends on the various international agreements. It does not appear to be a case of the victim being targeted on the basis of a specific orientation. It is unknown what relation (if any) exists between victim and accused, although they likely knew each other; it is unclear whether there are any ties to the dépanneur or whether they crossed paths on the Web. The attempts to get the video removed from websites were being made by Edmonton, not Montréal police, but are being rendered difficult by users who had downloaded the file to hard drives and were re-posting it on other servers. While other open cases are being examined, this suspect has only been tied to this one investigation, the 11th murder in Montréal in 2012. The officer then lists various names (such as Newman or Romanov) used by the accused and cautions against associating the case with any particular ethnic group (such as Russian) based on what is presumably just one of multiple fake names. The rest of the video (from 14:20 onward) is an English-language question/answer session along similar lines.

At least that's what I think they're saying. Admittedly, I'm in Ontario alors pas tellement francophone. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. What were the cutting instruments specifically? Would be good to have the French text and time stamp to verify. Skullers (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

*Bump* This would be highly relevant information. Skullers (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Another alias

iafd.com lists another alias besides those mentioned in the current article: "Justin" (Warning! Second link is to porn site, DEFINITELY NOT NSFW!) Should this be added, and if so, with the iafd link or the... other one? -- megA (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Murder details

I was thinking, do we REALLY need so many citations and details for practically every aspect of the murder? Of particular uselessness would be the observation of the music playing during the murder video, and the movie poster in the background. It's just extraneous information. Do there also need to be so many citations? There are several on practically every sentence. Why can't we have one nice citation about it overall at the end?72.160.122.102 (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The article has been tagged for cleanup on the citations. The choice of the song "True Faith" has been noted in the media as a reference to the film American Psycho (film), and the Casablanca poster has been cited as evidence by animal rights activists that Magnotta may be the person behind the animal cruelty videos. Since the article is not going to link to the video itself, a text-based description of what is in it is acceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised how short the article was. I don't think it has too many details and even if it did, it is subjective as to what is considered extraneous. Don't removed information just because you feel like it, I dissagrea with 72.160.122.102. --67.217.225.12 (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Some details, like the movie poster, may be relevant in proving where the video was made.

This article must adhere to BLP, and since the subject is alleged to be involved in serious crimes, over-cautiousness may be needed is citing material. Taroaldo (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of details omitted. Among other things, do we need to describe the scenes of necrophilia or is one word sufficient in that case? Skullers (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I forget exactly where it says this (EDIT: It's WP:OR), but there is a Wikipedia policy to the effect of "Statements must be able to be attributed to a source, even if the source isn't actually cited in the article". Per that, I see no reason one wouldn't be enough for each "fact", with the other twelve or so ready IF somebody questions it. I'd have cleaned it up long ago, but I'm only capable of backspacing at 2-3 letters per second. Too tedious, and outright maddening when I hit an edit conflict after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "citable if questioned" in a WP:GRAPEVINE article. It's either cited or not, and if it's not then it's to be removed immediately. And yes, one or two RS are sufficient per sentence. No need to pit policies against each other. Skullers (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't saying we don't need one good source. But where does it say multiple sources are ever needed (or suggested) for non-exceptional claims? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, do we have a ^{[way too many damn citations]} for this kind of thing? :p The total number is a bit excessive too since they overlap. Which claims can be definitely considered non-exceptional? Skullers (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Any claim not meeting the criteria in WP:EXCEPTIONAL, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Online news coverage is often based on news agency material or syndication. This means that it can be traced back to the same source material, so giving half a dozen citations would not necessarily improve the verifiability of the article. As stated before, one or two reliable sources per statement is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Relationship between Magnotta and Lin

According to Montreal police, Magnotta and Lin were lovers. If Magnotta killed his lover it should be mentioned in the artical. I´m sure if the victim was female it would be mentioned that they had a sexual relationship. Why not in this case, just because there are two men? The begining of the artical should be changed from: Magnotta...accused of killing and dismembering Lin Jun, a Chinese international student,..." to: " Magnotta....accused of killing and dismembering his lover Lin Jun, a Chinese international student,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plektronti (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Montreal police used the word "lovers" only because they were in a relationship. We don't know if they were technically "lovers" or not.

How it is worded right now ("Magnotta...accused of killing and dismembering Lin Jun, a Chinese international student") is accurate and neutral. Auss00 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, one of Lin Jun's friends denied that they were in a relationship, saying "A lot of information is not actually true. He has never been a relationship with this guy. I’m very certain."[7] For WP:BLP reasons, there needs to be more than hearsay evidence for this claim.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Auss00, what do you mean by "technically lovers" vs. "in a relationship"? -- megA (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lin Jun's head found?

There have been reports of the possibility of Lin Jun's head being found in a park in Montreal.[8][9] However, it is too early to say whether it is Lin's head.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but until it is actually identified as his head there's no need for us to include it here. AniMate 08:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the police seem to be playing this cautiously at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim that "the head has not been found" is inaccurate now that a head is awaiting Montréal police identification. I ask that statement be removed. Either say the truth (a head awaiting forensic identification) or say nothing, but don't include false and outdated info. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove "As of June 21, police have not reported finding Lin Jun's head."

Replace it with "Remains appearing to be a human head, found near a small lake in Montréal's Angrignon Park on the afternoon of July 1, 2012, await police identification."

66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As per the previous section: Until it has been confirmed that the head has been found, there's no need to change the text. I have no idea how to answer the edit request with "no" :-) Nczempin (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The instructions are in the template itself, but I shall leave the request to remove the old outdated claim "head not found" unless you have a crystal ball to tell that these remains are unrelated to the murder of Lin Jun. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No. The onus is clearly on anyone claiming that the found head is the missing one. I mean, I consider it highly unlikely that there happens to be 1 head missing and 1 other head mysteriously turning up nearby, but until it has been officially confirmed, we are engaging in speculation. And it's not like there's a rush to keep this page updated with the latest news, let alone speculations. I don't understand the instructions in the templates, so I'll just leave it up to someone more experienced with "officially" answering these requests. Nczempin (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For a request to add "Lin Jun's head was found in Angrignon Park on the afternoon of July 1, 2012" the onus would be to match these remains to this case first. For a request to remove a claim of not having reported finding Lin Jun's head? Other way around... the police *have* reported remains found and awaiting identification. We can't presume those remains unrelated to the case any more than we can presume a match without the DNA. Any claims regarding the head should therefore be removed from the article. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

By that logic we also can't presume it isn't Amelia Earhart or Jimmy Hoffa's head. Or anyone else's. All missing people have heads. Should we change their articles accordingly? Of course not. "Awaiting identification" pretty much says it all. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the police have not reported finding his head as of June 21. That is a fact. Since Wikipedia is not here to report the latest news, and there's no rush, we'll just wait. Nczempin (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Remember that third foot found in Montreal? Almost made it look like two victims were "distributed"... Skullers (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Split discussion

There have been numerous attempts to split the Murder of Lin Jun into a separate article. It has been redirected and redirection has been undone several times. I would like to discuss the validity and necessity of the split here. AniMate 20:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What's to discuss? One article describes a person, and the other describes an event. Yes, I know all about the policies by which some editors have argued to rename or merge the articles, but if both can stand on their own—and it certainly appears that they can—then the appropriate course of action for people who want the topics to be covered in one article is to propose a merger. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So lemme get this right: you want to get around the failed move request by first splitting the article to the new title then merging the original one into it? Real clever move (pun exists) there, huh? Skullers (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no that's not what the original poster said. The post to which you are replying appears to be made at a time when murder of Lin Jun existed as a page, partially overlapping the section "Murder of Lin Jun" here, and the 'merge' question was whether that page should be merged to Luka Rocco Magnotta (effectively the current status quo). That's not a request that the Magnotta self-promotion (what was the "Internet controversy" section, filled with controversy he [or his sock puppets] had fabricated himself, like the Homolka nonsense) should be dumped into a split page specifically on Lin Jun or the specific WP:BLP1E event, to which much of this is off-topic. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes. And then of course we'd have the interesting question of what should be merged into what... I think it's rather obvious which side you'd be advocating. Skullers (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose rename/split. The consensus is clearly against it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose because the consensus is against it' is not a very useful argument. It would be better to explain why you oppose it. Note that the proposal higher up this page was for a rename, this one is for a split, so you shouldn't assume the outcome will be the same. Robofish (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: split. Ideally all of the content would be at Murder of Lin Jun and Luka Magnotta would be a redirect, but convincing other editors of that seems to be a hopeless task. A split between the suspect and the event is certainly not unprecedented (e.g., Jared Lee Loughner and 2011 Tucson shooting). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support The high-profile murder investigation is notable, but should be its own article so that the page does not become a WP:HATRACK for every self-promotional stunt from the fabricated Karla Homolka nonsense to the "Internet controversy" that Luka Magnotta appears to have clearly created himself. There's a lot in this page which has nothing to do with the murder, whereas Murder of Lin Jun needs to be on-topic to the murder and arrest with none of this wild speculation about other crimes, individual gay porn appearances on questionable-notability paysites or anything not part of this specific crime and investigation. Two different topics. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Ah, are we voting? Support --BDD (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As of now there just doesn't seem to be a need. We don't need two articles that repeat the same information, and everything in the Murder of Lin Jun article is already covered here. AniMate 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but the talk page for one article doesn't have the mojo to cancel another article's existence. Really, even this vote belongs there, because you're arguing whether to change that article to a redirect. But admittedly this is much better attended for now. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - we're getting to the point now where there's enough information to support an article on the murder separate from Magnotta's article. There are plenty of other cases where we have separate articles for a crime and a person suspected of committing it: Jared Lee Loughner/2011 Tucson shooting, Anders Behring Breivik/2011 Norway attacks, Amanda Knox/Murder of Meredith Kercher, etc. None of those are directly comparable to this case, of course, but I'm just saying there are precedents. Robofish (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - There shouldn't be any opposition to writing an article about the murder itself. The murder is the notable event. -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support One is a notable event, one is a notable person. Related, but not identical. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support It seems to me that it would be logical to have the article on Magnotta to contain biographical information on him, including things of which he has been accused. The bulk of the information on the murder should be in the article on that. I advocate that, in part, because Magnotta has not been convicted or even arraigned yet, although there is little doubt in my mind that he will be. There are things to be covered on Magnotta that do not bear directly on the murder and vice-versa. Sterrettc (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Vice-versa? Like what? Skullers (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of info on Lin Jun in multiple Chinese sources (both in China itself and in Chinese-language Toronto media) providing background about Lin's family, his undergraduate studies at Wuhan University, his years working in Beijing, his decision to pursue graduate studies outside China, his hopes of finding love or acceptance more readily in Canada (as LGBT are marginalised to a greater degree there than here), a description by an uncle, by friends or by an employer that claim that he was friendly, hard-working, filial, that he'd been sending money back to family even though he was holding down part-time jobs in Montréal to pay his way through Concordia and was only able to come back to Beijing for the Lunar New Year... most of it reads like obituary, but none of it has much of anything to do with Magnotta per se and therefore really only belongs in the article on the victim. Even info as basic as education (which programme of study he followed in Concordia, his efforts to learn a third language at Académie Française) should at least get a line in an infobox. That sort of data belongs in a page about Lin Jun but not in a page about Magnotta. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Also a scholarship being named after him, memorials and statements of support, and other friendly efforts. [10] Wnt (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons that others have given. The crime should be separate. Psalm84 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Both subjects are independently notable. West Eddy (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose premature attempts to split while a proposal to move is still ongoing. However, I may Support a proposal to split after the current proposal to move is resolved. It doesn't appear that there is so much information at this stage that we need two articles. However, 66.102.83.61's rationale with regards to the Chinese-language media sounds like a valid point. I'm sure they're probably covering the same set of facts from a completely different perspective. It's simply that this is the English-language Wikipedia, so the majority of editor's here wouldn't and/or couldn't know about it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: A separate article is not required. JunoBeach (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

if the article be split and it shall be removed around 31 000 bytes from the article. Is that so?--80.161.143.239 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: A split usually leaves a short summary behind of whatever text has been split out into a separate article, as well as a {{seemain}} link to the split article. The total length of both articles together is therefore a little more than the length of whatever existed before the split. A split is usually followed by the addition of new material (for instance, Lin Jun's infobox, categories or obituary belong on murder of Lin Jun but not here). An example I'd been working on is U.S. Route 66 in Arizona and Arizona State Route 66; the latter page is about one small *piece* of what used to be US 66 but isn't the whole state's worth of road. The US 66 article therefore contains {{seemain}} and a summary for the portion between Kingman and Seligman which was turned into state highway in 1985. Each article has its own mileage table as the endpoints are not the same. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature. The present article covers the event effectively. Taroaldo (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as inseparable. Skullers (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment They are only inseparable if this is indeed a WP:BLP1E with the murder of Lin Jun the one notable event, in which case the entire page should move with the topic being the murder and not the one apparent prime suspect. That would preclude titling this Luka Magnotta as putting his name into the title of the article on the murder itself implicitly infers that he is the culprit (something which technically has not yet been tried in court), a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is enough material/incidence that WP:BLP1E does not apply. Taroaldo (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: The individual and the event are independently notable.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: I supported the original split and I support the resplit proposed. I agree that, if the two are inseparable, the more logical title is “Murder of Lin Jun”. The contrary argument would be equivalent to saying that the only reason the murder is important is because Luka Magnotta is suspected. Should it turn out that Magnotta had nothing to do with it (which seems very unlikely), would the murder no longer be important enough for a Wikipedia article? However, there seems to be enough other notable things about Maqnotta other than this murder. Sterrettc (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Sterrettc (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

It was never my intention to have my vote counted twice. Between when I posted on the 8th and when I posted on the 15th, it seemed as if several people had concluded that the matter was settled, but could not agree over which way it was settled. In my post on the 15th, I thought I had made it clear that I had already voiced my support for one side of the debated. Sterrettc (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Leaving Murder of Lin Jun] as a redirect to Luka Magnotta seems to imply guilt. Since Magnotta is not convicted, this seems wrong, somehow. To make a comparison, imagine if Richard Jewell was a redirect to Centennial Olympic Park bombing. I can not cite your policies, but common sense dictates that Murder of Lin Jun should be a separate article. 8nate (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Maractus (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarify Subject himself is non-notable, whilst event has received significant news coverage. Maractus (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Zlotykrol (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The murderer is notable in and of itself, but no such article on it exists. This should be corrected. 2001:470:C:116:DEAD:DEAD:DEAD:DEAD (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support.: The main subject of the article is notable without notability from The Murder Of Jun Lin alone. "The Murder of Jun Lin" should be split of into it's own article. (This is not a Casey Anthony type of matter.) --70.120.83.126 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question for the move/split and person/event people. Let's see:

“ The Murder of Lin Jun (____) allegedly occured on ____ at ____ involving an ____ followed by ____. Then his ____ [...] ”

*The alleged perp's bio (a nice guy) is replaced with the unlucky victim's bio (nice guy also).* And then what? What is added or removed? Kittens? Skullers (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would assume the biographies would be removed, or just briefly touched upon, and the article focus only on what is notable: the event itself. Maractus (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The murder is a notable even - but the person is not regardless of it. Therefore the two must be merged and their shared content must follow the WP:DUE guidelines. BO | Talk 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If we take away the "sleazy" details involving the suspect, would the murder still be notable? What exactly makes this murder more notable than any other murders involving dismemberment? Will we get an article for every such murder ever? -- megA (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Should it turn out that this suspect with all his “sleazy” details had nothing to do with it, as implausible as that currently seems, this murder would still be notable for a couple of reasons: the dismemberment and mailing of body parts; and the taking and posting of the video. Sterrettc (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

All been done before, not on Wikipedia. Just take a look on bestgore.com, if you got the stomach. -- megA (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• It still says that this article is under consideration for splitting, and nothing seems to be getting resolved. I have seen several places where people have declare it obvious that the consensus is for not splitting, but reading all the comments convinces me that that is simply not the case. If we were just vote counting, which I am not proposing, the yes votes outnumber the no votes by about 2 to 1. However, consensus does not mean majority rule, but usually agreement or at least acquiescence from all parties. I think the article should be split, and I have said so already. I have not been convinced otherwise, and if I aquiesce it is only because I have wearied of the strong tactics of those who insist that the only appropriate answer is one article and that it should be on LRM. Sterrettc (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You just won't acquiesce until you get your way, huh? For some length of time it was tagged for both moving and splitting, with the same users advocating both. For known reasons. There is no other logic to it and you know that. A few are obvious meatpuppets. You voted twice, by the way. Skullers (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@Skullers please AGF here and focus on the content issue instead of focusing on Sterrettc. As for "meatpuppets" I need to see some evidence from you. Thanks. Caden ^cool 20:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been focused on plenty (see archives one through five for reference) The issue at hand is Nutshell "LRM does not deserve an article named after him". Now that a move failed, it's Nutshell "LRM is notable, and deserves a stub named after him". As for meatpuppets: there was actually a fifth plane. It took off from one airport then successfully landed at another airport without incident. Skullers (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if the "Murder of Lin Jun" is separated out as a separate article, so long as the biographical article "Luka Magnotta" remains. I think that some have failed to comprehend that the most valuable feature of Wikipedia is the WIKILINK...the ability to link articles on similar subjects. If we have a page that focuses on Luka Magnotta, media personality, and another that focuses on the murder of Lin Jun, notorious crime committed, I'm fine with that.69.15.219.71 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm surprised this discussion is still going on. It was probably clear from my comment at the beginning, but I want to explicitly voice a strong support for the proposal. Both the event and the suspect are plenty capable of standalone articles. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible inspiration

Has anyone commented on the similarity of the disposal of Lin Jun's body with Wertmüller's Seven Beauties? (Not saying he had to have gotten the idea from that movie, nor that this should be added to the article, but I was struck by the similarity, & how that movie has a twisted sort of relevance to Magnotta's behavior.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Nczempin (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And your point is? I was asking for information, not presenting a theory. -- llywrch (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that Talk pages are not for "asking for information" or to chat about similarities to movies that should not be added to articles, but for discussing how to improve the respective article. Like it says in the link I posted: "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages." Nczempin (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Lazy templating of established editors result in snide responses. There. I've drawn the points for you. Since you're uninterested in considering new points of possible interest for this article, kindly run along & find some newbies to intimidate. -- llywrch (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But to answer your question, no. Reliable sources haven't mentioned the theory you (indirectly) present. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Any theories then, or is it too early for any reasonable ones to have emerged yet? -- llywrch (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Basic Instinct and American Psycho have been mentioned as possible movie inspirations. Many others speculate he was just a fame-seeking troll who took things to the next level, possibly inspired by pop culture's tendency toward sensationalism. But until we hear something more definitive on the matter (i.e., trial testimony), it's all just guessing. I don't think an encyclopedia is meant to document uninvolved people's guesses about a topic in that topic's article. Just the facts, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Rewording

From "Police announced having found" the head, to "Police found" it. I'd do it myself, but my browser crashes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC) And change the date to when they found it. The announcement itself isn't what is notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. They got it due to a tip, so it's currently unknown who actually found it. Skullers (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Still, it's not incorrect to say the police found it, even if someone else found it first. They didn't discover it, but they recovered it. But yeah, it's also fine the way it's worded now. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Head

The head has been verified as his head, so the find at Angrignon Park can be added to the article. The head was found 1 July [11] and verified 4 July [12].

Since this article is edit protected, someone else will have to update it. There was a discussion on 2 July about it in a section further up the talk page.

The update banner needs to be added. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Airbus CC-150 Polaris

This article mentions that Magnotta was taken back to Canada on an Airbus CC-150 Polaris, a military aircraft for legal reasons, especially if the flight had to be diverted because of mechnanical trouble.

Question 1: Is this a notable fact that should be included in this article?

Question 2: Include this fact in the Airbus CC-150 Polaris article?

The first question should be considered here.

The second question should be discussed in the Airbus article eventually but perhaps some early discussion should be here because knowledge of Magnotta is better here to gauge if it is even worthwhile to discuss on the Airbus CC-150 talk page.

I seek understanding first so I won't voice an opinion to start. Auchansa (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's notable here, but not in a hugely significant way. I see no problem with a Wikilinked mention. Wouldn't be worth mentioning in the plane's article, I think, any more than Magnotta is notable to Canada Post, The Brick or DNA. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is notable that Magnotta was flown back to Canada on a military plane. This is highly unusual, and seems to have been based partly on the worry that he might seek asylum if a civilian plane landed in a third country.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

First, the edit discussed here, which Auchansa made to Airbus CC-150 Polaris, was incorrect, because it was not the VIP plane that was used for Magnotta (VIP is 001, Magnotta's was 004, which is one of the combi freighters). Second, the fleet flew countless statesmen, politicians and celebrities, to and from Canada, Kandahar, Germany, Cyprus and what have you, the list would be simply be too long and not all that relevant. Bottom line, Magnotta being flown on a military plane is definitely relevant to this article, but not to the plane article. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I seek discussion not a desire to push an opinion. However, if the Airbus CC-150 Polaris article was new and featured in "Did You Know", the Magnotta fact would be very likely to be in the DYK. The wingspan would almost certainly not be included in the DYK. This suggests that the Magnotta fact is very important for the Airbus article, even more so than the Magnotta article. I do understand, however, that airplane enthusiasts might want to keep their article pure and not have notable, but gory details, like Magnotta smeared into the article. Auchansa (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. The fact that one person flew on a plane one time isn't much of a hook for DYK, and certainly isn't what makes the plane notable. Wing span might be just the kind of hook they want at DYK. Besides, for an article to be eligible for DYK it has to be less than five days old or expanded five-fold within a five day period, and the Airbus article is neither. The plane is an extremely minor part of this article, and Luka Magnotta almost certainly doesn't belong in the article about the plane. AniMate 04:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. If The Airbus article were created 5 days ago, it is far, far more likely that the DYK would be about Magnotta being transported on a military jet to avoid asylum claims if the plane were diverted rather than "DYK that the wingspan of the Airbus CC-150 is ___ meters." Auchansa (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lin Jun or Jun Lin

The victim is referred to as Lin Jun in the body of the article but as Jun Lin in the cutline of the picture of the memorial. Please correct. 74.198.9.80 (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Done, the article should be consistent on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Expert needed

Resolved

Could some skilled in the wording here pop over to the Snuff film article and check the wording of the entry there? I would adjust myself but if the wording matches this article it may avoid edit wars, further oversighting, etc, etc. You may wish to leave a good edit summary as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some WP:BLPCRIME issues with mentioning Magnotta by name in Snuff film, but it is no great secret that he was arrested in connection with this case. I removed the part about the animal cruelty videos being linked to Magnotta, because this is more speculative and is dealt with in more detail in this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will keep an eye on it. I will revert to your version if there are any further issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the powder thing notable?

Verifiable, no doubt. But, as the powder was determined to be non-hazardous, isn't this just as noteworthy as if he was sent paper containing ink? A two hour break in business at one mail facility is hardly anything to have lasting significance. And aside from his name on the envelope, this has virtually nothing to do with Magnotta. One of those "not a newspaper" cases, I think. How about you folks? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please remove, because no, it is not notable. This Wikipedia article should not be reporting every single trivial detail of Magnotta or insignificant mentions of him. Auss00 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, this looks to have WP:RECENTISM issues and should be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Mailing scurrilous materials is one of the five crimes LRM is charged with. He denies all the formal charges, the animal abuse videos he was pursued for, and the web accounts as impersonation and parts of a smear campaign. The fake foot may have been an accident, but emulating past terrorist attacks (hence the powder, they wouldn't shut down from paper and ink) specifically involving his name relates directly to the case. Skullers (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that "suspicious powder" has some connotations that paper and ink don't. I just meant now that it's no longer suspicious or hazardous, it's just as mundane. It would have been different if it was anthrax. Could you elaborate a bit on how this relates to the case (aside from his name), or anything you mention in the first two sentences? I'm not quite following. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that it is suffiently noteworthy if was likely he that did it and if it is likely that he did it in order to incite panic, whether the powder turned out to be innocuous or not. A believable threat can be very effective terrorism even if the purpetrator is not able or not willing to follow through. Sterrettc (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The powder incident needs some time to settle down, but if it turns out to be an unrelated hoax by a crank, it is off-topic and should be removed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are we assuming Magnotta may have mailed the powder to himself? Or that someone else sending it can somehow be considered terrorism? What do you mean by "hoax"? We know it isn't real anthrax. There was no powder at all? Addressed to someone else? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused too. There has been only one substantial news story about this [13] which leads to issues with WP:UNDUE. If Magnotta did not post this powder himself (he probably didn't) and it was not anthrax (it wasn't), then none of this is really notable enough for a mention the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The envelope was mailed to L. M., not by him on July 17, while he was already in prison. I don't know about Canadian prison security, but L. M. sending a (suspicious) powder-filled envelope to himself from prison would sound like very lax mail screening practice... -- megA (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Article split tag

Please remove template:split section from the article, as the discussion is now archived. 174.253.226.103 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Concordia pages and archives

• English:
  • http://www.concordia.ca/alumni-giving/giving/areas-to-support/in-memory-of-jun-lin/ - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuJk5ifg
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/media-relations/news-releases/20120612/open-statement-from-jun-lins-family.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuKEnGHw
    • PDF version: http://www.concordia.ca/now/docs/statement-from-jun-lin-family.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuJi4bfr
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/campus-beat/concordia-community/20120608/jun-lin-award-established-at-concordia.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuK3qwgk
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/campus-beat/concordia-community/20120720/approximately-70000-raised-in-memory-of-jun-lin.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuKGkLB6
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/university-affairs/in-memoriam/20120626/private-memorial-service-held-for-jun-lin.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuKKcDWE
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/campus-beat/concordia-community/20120601/concordia-president-extends-condolences-to-family-and-friends-of-student-jun-lin.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuKR6wk9
• French:
  • http://www.concordia.ca/alumni-giving/giving/areas-to-support/a-la-memoire-de-jun-lin/ - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuJlrL0Z
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/media-relations/communiques-de-presse/20120612/declaration-de-la-famille-de-jun-lin.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuK1d9jo
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/campus-beat/concordia-community/20120608/creation-de-la-bourse-jun-lin-a-concordia.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuK6147f
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/campus-beat/concordia-community/20120720/environ-70-000-recueillis-a-la-memoire-de-jun-lin.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuKImiAc
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/campus-beat/concordia-community/20120601/le-recteur-de-concordia-presente-ses-condoleances-a-la-famille-et-aux-proches-de-letudiant-jun-lin.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuKSmRUx
• Chinese:
  • http://www.concordia.ca/alumni-giving/giving/areas-to-support/in-memory-of-jun-lin-mandarin/ - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuJnw6S0
  • http://www.concordia.ca/now/campus-beat/concordia-community/20120611/post.php - http://www.webcitation.org/6AuK8DxAJ

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Position of photo

Would it not be logical to have the picture of him at the top of the page within the box on the right? I noticed that there is a picture of him halfway down the page but the top box on the right is empty! --Natharnio Armarnio (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Berlin Police mugshot is not in the infobox because it is non free. It is also controversial to use a mugshot in the infobox of a BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Ian, Thank you. I thought it might be something like that. Just thought I would check. --Natharnio Armarnio (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Newsmaker of the Year

It should be added that Magnotta was named Canadian Newsmaker of the Year by Canadian medias. I was about to add it myself to the aftermath section, along with a line about the controversy it caused[14] but I can't edit the semi-protected article. Thanks. Odsu (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Lucien Rivard made the list for 1965 and it is listed in his article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

More recently, in 2010 Russell Williams was nominated. It's in his article as well. Paris1127 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. I added it with a low key statement. Canadian Newsmaker of the Year article should have a controvery section with more details. The 1st section title of this article: 'history' doesn't seem like a good title, thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

According to Scott White, the news agency's editor-in-chief: "The Newsmaker isn't an honour or a popularity contest. It's a determination by the journalists in Canada -- the people who make up the front pages and put together the daily newscasts -- about what Canadian made the biggest impact on the news that year." The current brief mention is enough, it is not worth a separate section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The history section I was referring to is the 1st one where it is usually early life, beginnings, type thing. Can we find a different name for it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still rather confused, this article and Canadian Newsmaker of the Year do not have a section titled "History".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, seems it was changed to biography a few edits back in Luka Magnotta article. I was referring to that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Train wreck?

This is a BLP article. It has a section about a murder. It mentions a video that I don't think has been legally linked to the murder or the BLP. We may yet need 3 articles. BLP, murder, and video. Thoughts?

I don't think so. Regardless of whether he did the things he's become notable for, he's still involved in them, insofar as he's the prime suspect. Every reliable source about the videos or murder likely has his name in it. Pretty much inextricably linked. As long as we don't say he did anything he hasn't been convicted of, I think we're fine and proper. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Could we make new section just for the video? Having it in the murder section may indicate that we say they are linked.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The police and media have linked the video and the murder. We're just relaying what they've said. Given the circumstances, I think it would be inappropriate to suggest they aren't linked, at least without sources expressing doubt or positing some "big coincidence" theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Fine with me as is then.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence at Trial

Canada has very strict non-publication orders for a variety of criminal proceedings. As we saw in the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka trials, such bans were circumvented by publishing out of country. During that trial, Canadians tuned into local Detroit and Syracuse television stations. Perhaps some of our friends to the south could publish more details which we cannot. Just a thought :)Billturner1983 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered about that. Are Canadian Wikipedia editors held to the same standards as journalists? That is, if Detroit reported something, could we relay it without legal fear, or would we have to let a non-Canadian edit the article? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is all rather hypothetical at the moment, but the Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality of content applies. It is possible that the trial judge could ask the Canadian media not to publish certain information but it ends up in the foreign media. If this happens, a decision would have to be made about verifiability, notability and NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have brought this up before. Canadian judges can only limit Canadian media. They cannot legally limit Canadian Wikipedia editors .--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What if that Canadian Wikipedia editor half-finished school for journalism, and has only written for papers in towns most Canadians don't know exist? Does he count as "the media"? What if that Canadian Wikipedia editor makes a comfortable living as a reporter for a major paper? Does Wikipedia count as a Canadian publication? The bits and bytes are in Florida, but the actual information is sent and receieved here. Seems a bit iffy. Could you point out where you brought this up. I'd like to read it. And no, I have no scoop. Just wondering, in case. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was actually an American judge banning something, I think. I asked WMF legal and they said we are not covered by the ban. Canadian judges have no backup to ban publication in other countries. Since the bytes are in the USA then that is where they are published. The judge could insist on ISPs blocking certain Wikipedia articles or Wikipedia as a whole from being viewed in Canada though. A judge in Vernon, British Columbia once had a jackhammer operator in the area stop or face contempt of court charges. Could be an urban myth though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to the question as to whether Wikipedia editors are held to be journalists, as a criminal lawyer in Canada, I can say so without hesitation. Publication ban legislation came out before social media and even the popularity of the internet. But it is broadly worded to cover even a facebook user posting it in a facebook group or even on their own wall. But I have never heard of anyone actually being charged. As said earlier, during the Bernardo trial, Canadians tuned into Detroit television stations. There is no law against me having a private chat with an American friend and that friend posting it online :). My POV on publication bans is quite obvious in my posts! Wikipedia is about free flow of knowledge and information.Billturner1983 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting in the Magnotta trial that every shred of negative information - real or fake - winds up being published.. but NOTHING which shows how it would be impossible for Luka to have committed the crime is published. For instance, the head was found in a tiny park - used by hundreds of dogs and people every day - over a month after Luka was in custody. The head was said to be in remarkably good condition. That head would be found by smell alone after a couple of days. After a week, it would have been 100% stripped of all flesh by insects, maggots, etc. and be a skull, not a head. If there was no publication ban on the pretrial testimony, I could tell you that the day the head was found in the park, on July 1 2012, an off-duty cop witnessed a person throwing a bag into the lake which contained the head. But since there is a publication ban about that, I can't tell you. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knut Rumpe Hodet (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Edit request on 15 August 2013

So this animal gets his own page on Wikipedia? What about Jun Lin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.161.6 (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything we'd say about him in his own article would already be here, and redundant. Besides, Jun Lin didn't really do anything notable, it was all done to him, allegedly by the will of Magnotta. It sounds a bit shitty to call the things he's famous for notable accomplishments, but they are, and he passes the general notability test. Jun, as a passive victim, could have been anyone and the story would still be basically the same.

Definitely not a question of who the good guy or bad guy is. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

For better and for worse, Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources are saying. And given Sun Media dedicated a full page to Magnotta just today ([15]), it is clear that he is the unquestioned centre of the story. That is, unfortunately, how the entire affair has been covered. Resolute 21:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of civility, I'll just express my thoughts on Sun through font. But Wikipedia is apparently still OK with them, for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh. I just mentioned the Sun because I got a free copy today, but the fan mail story is all over the place. Resolute 23:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. You don't become Newsmaker of the Year without making actual news and Sun News. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how the entire affair has been covered to date. That does not make it right. The Sun Media is a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.180.255 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. So is PostMedia, the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, etc., all of which have provided disproportionate coverage of Magnotta. I'm not saying that is right either, merely that it is what it is. Our job is to reflect what is, not what we think it should be. Resolute 02:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so Jun Lin is not "notable." He did not torture and kill innocent humans and animals and post it on-line. Jun Lin came to Canada to make a better life for himself. If what Luka Magnotta did makes someone "notable" in the eyes of Wikipedia, then count me out. This is what perpetuates these sociopaths to keep going and take their fantasies to the next level. They continue to get their name's and stories accessible. I am done with your useless journalists and disgusting posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.180.255 (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

142.167.180.255, we are faced with the same problem as other media. We cannot fail to document infamous subjects. I agree we may be glorifying many subjects. There have been discussions to create an article called the Murder of Jun Lin. We could probably do that even before a court decision. I think the discussions were close to 50/50. I could create it in my user space if you wish to flesh it out. Avoid BLP issues though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. The unsatisfactory thing at the moment is having a BLP article about someone who is facing criminal charges but has not been convicted. Some people wanted to call the article Murder of Lin Jun, but this would lead to issues with WP:BLPCRIME, as Magnotta has not been found guilty by a court.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Clifford Olson is notable, his victims aren't. That's the way of life and media. It sucks, but getting mad at us for reflecting reality isn't going to change reality. Resolute 14:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)