Talk:Murder of Jun Lin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Renaming the article: Murder of Lin Jun

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, with no opinion on whether the article can or should be split. The citations in reliable sources prior to the murder indicate that this article is about Magnotta more broadly than his association with the murder. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Luka Magnotta → Murder of Lin Jun – Article was created under a suspect's name in a crime not yet brought to trial as the page was started before the victim's identity was verified and disclosed by police. The crime is notable but giving the individual suspect an encyclopaedia page is only feeding his desire for notoriety while creating WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP and WP:CRIME issues given that his prior notability is shaky at best. An AfD is currently open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (3rd nomination) with strong support so far to either keep or rename at least the information on the crime itself. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The AFD result showed a tremendous support for rename. This was closed as a snowball. This should be considered. AFD had a SNOWBALL CLOSURE FOR SUPPORT name change to Murder of Jim Lin Auchansa (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, we have an ID on the Asian man that had been killed. It's Lin Jun, a 33 year old Chinese man. [1]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, at least according to the Toronto Star, Lin is the man's surname, in case we need to talk about him in the third person. Toronto Star. I do not know his name in Chinese characters, although this may be good information for when the page says "Lin Jun (Name in Chinese)(YOB-2012)" Paris1127 (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm proposing the following as a compromise for right now: I do believe that Magnotta has or will eventually have notability outside of the murder. I've found enough to make me think that this is possible. However, most of the sources in the here and now focus on the murder and mention his previous acts within the range of the murder of Lin Jun. I propose that for right now we name this "Murder of Lin Jun" and work on a separate article for Luka Magnotta in AfC or (better yet) in someone's userspace. There's no question that the murder itself has notability, although I can see arguments stating that there isn't enough to show notability separate from Jun's murder. This would just be a good compromise in the here and now. With a good crew working on Magnotta's article and inevitable media coverage, we should have a functional separate article by the end of June.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, but I think there should be a discussion and consensus, to be safe. I do believe that it is the murder that's notable (it's not every day body parts are sent through the mail), not the alleged killer, and besides, all this attention on him and not his victim is just feeding Magnotta's alleged narcissism... Paris1127 (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• I agree on the consensus and discussion, especially since there's so much debate from both sides. I've mentioned a renaming on the AfD page, but I'll comment to let them know that there's a discussion going on in the article talk page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah! Didn't notice that! I'll go and change the information in the article to the surname. For some reason I thought Jun was his surname. (shakes head) I'm glad you noticed that!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You didn't have to change the order, Lin Jun is fine (and correct) as long as when only last names are used it's "Lin" that's used. My comment was to be used as reference, so that he wasn't referred to as "Mr. Jun". Paris1127 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there's some sort of preference on Wikipedia as far as that goes. I know that traditionally they Westernize the names when it comes to the English Wikipedia, but I don't know if it's a rule or not. In any case, it does remind me that I should make a redirect for the Lin's name.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

• Wikipedia policy: WP:Chinese Names. Also, Lin Jun is the order that's been released by the police so that's probably what we should use. Paris1127 (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Proposing rename to Murder of Lin Jun per Tokyogirl79. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• FYI: it appears that Mr. Lin took an English name for when he came to Canada. The Toronto Star is saying that he was known as "Justin Lin" when he was in Montreal. Paris1127 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing unusual there (a translated name will often be the complete Chinese name transliterated, with one extra given name added as an Anglicisation) but this may require disambiguation as we already have Justin Lin (director) and economist Justin Yifu Lin as valid topics. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm aware of this practice. Also, according to our counterparts at Chinese Wikipedia, the victim's name in Chinese (if anyone would like to put it in the article) is 林俊, or in Pinyin Lin2 Jun4. Paris1127 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• CTV is reporting that Mr. Lin went by Patrick on his Facebook page. Paris1127 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• SUPPORT rename, with possible revision deletions of the 2008 magnotta vanity piece. -badmachine 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• OPPOSE this character is known for more than just the recent alligations. There are news stories of him from last year with allegations of animal cruelty and a reward offered by animal rights activists (last year) for his arrest. Furthermore, we should not be basing our decisions on considerations such as "feeding his desire for notoriety". He is certainly more notable than any other wanted criminal suspects already on this site (say Eric Justin Toth). You do not need to go all the way down to WP:CRIME to check notability. According to the lead of that guideline WP:BASIC "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". He certainly meets the basic notability qualification. Poyani (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename and support "Luka Magnotta" or something like "Montreal-Ottawa body parts case". Lin Jun is non-notable. Very few of the sources mention "Lin Jun". As WP:COMMONNAME suggests we should use the term most commonly used in English-language reliable sources.VR _talk 14:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  Support renaming, at least until he is convicted. Although I agree with Vice regent that using 'Lin Jun' in the title would raise COMMONNAME problems; something like Montreal dismemberment murder might be better. While I think an article on Magnotta can be justified, it seems more in line with BLP policy to focus this article on the crime and victim foremost, and only cover him as the suspected perpetrator. (However, I don't think there's any need to delete previous revisions of this article, as suggested by badmachine - there's nothing particularly BLP-violating in the history, just self-promotion.) Robofish (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  On further consideration, I'm going to have to Oppose this rename proposal. While the news coverage initially focused on the murder, more recently it has been on Magnotta himself. It appears now that he probably does meet our notability guidelines, and might continue to do so even if acquitted for the murder. Robofish (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Stop and think about it...what made this story "notable?" It was, in fact, the mailing of human body parts to Canada's major political parties, NOT the murder of Lin Jun, that really gained the media's attention. If there must be a rename, it could be to "Body Parts Killer". The focus is really not the murder alone but the way the suspect set up the aftermath (putting a snuff film online, mailing body parts to political parties) that gained this crime so much attention.Ryoung122 16:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The alleged murder itself is not the only notable element of this story, and it might not even be the most notable, given the mailing of the body parts and the flight from Canada of the suspect, so teh proposed title isn't appropriate. At this time I am neutral about other suggested titles, eg., "Body parts killer" or "Montreal-Ottawa body parts case." Dawn Bard (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Poyani. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I write this, his photo and name are prominently displayed at the top of the INTERPOL home page. If this individual only wanted international notoriety... he has certainly achieved it. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• SUPPORT because it is the usual Wikipedia practice. Even the last big murder, that of Tim McLean, was in WP as "Murder of Tim McLean". Basically, I support uniformity and not vote counting (support or oppose). Whatever we do, we should also follow BLP. Auchansa (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Frankly, this move request is just an unthinking mis-application of part of the BLP policy and suggested without applying a shred of common sense. The story here is Magnotta and the actions he is alleged to have made. The murder is only part of the story. The article title and focus is appropriate as is. And indeed, it is consistent with what you might see at FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Resolute 04:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Response: This move request was started as a result of a heated debate on the AfD about whether or not the article should be moved or not. I simply started this out of necessity because I didn't want the AfD to be five pages of people arguing back and forth about what the article title should be. I just figured that moving the discussion here would be a good compromise and would be a better arena for such discussions, since it'd allow the AfD to really close (since it's obvious that there's notability here) and it'd give both sides a venue to argue their points that wasn't an AfD discussion. So believe me, it wasn't "unthinking" on my part. Please remember WP:CIVIL before you start spewing venom. There was large enough of a debate to warrant starting a proposal to rename the page. Whether or not it should be is what proposals like this are for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is nothing uncivil by pointing out when policies and guidelines are applied without thought. Certainly several others in the AFD shared the same opinion, but most came down to "rename because we just do it that way." Resolute 01:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• And if the consensus is to not rename the article and there's no reason to do so, then so be it. But when there's enough of a hubub to change the name and people argue that there's enough precedent and that the article would be better off named "Murder of ___", then at some point there should be a debate just to get the argument out of the way. My initial goal was to suggest a compromise for the people debating on the AfD page and give them a better place to do so that wasn't on an AfD forum. Everyone can hash it out here rather than bog down the AfD forums. At some point in time there would've been a proposal to rename the page. If I hadn't started one, then someone else would have by now. At least now this is already partway through and it's been a better outlet for discussion than if someone were to just try to move it on their own and end up with a potential revert war. There were enough people saying that it could be better renamed, so we started a discussion to debate the merits of doing so based on precedent, the sources, and such. If that saves some other trouble down the line, then so be it. A rename discussion isn't really hurting anything and even if it stays under Magnotta's name, you can always point back to this discussion if anyone suggests it again.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Looking at the sources out there, the focus appears to be on Magnotta, his past, his multiple crimes, the videos, the kittens, the porn, and not just the murder. Unfortunately the murder has pushed him into being notable. AniMate 04:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per immediately above. The fact that Magnotta would likely not be notable but for the latest murder doesn't mean that what's called for is just an article about the murder. We don't decide to include or exclude material from an article based on whether that material would be notable as a stand alone, spin-out or separate article. The notability question is a separate issue and once it is settled is no longer relevant to material inclusion or exclusion and by extension article naming (a retitling here would imply a narrowing of the scope of the material).--Brian Dell (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The move to the new title would not only follow precedent of other similar articles, but specifically, the high point of this article is the homicide. All of Magnotta's prior activities/crimes seem pretty obscure. Wikipedia doesn't usually have articles about a suspect, but rather about the crime, as it is the incident in which both suspect/perpetrator AND victim become notable. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The move to the new title as per Boneyard's comment above - Youreallycan 11:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename for wp:NPOV treatment: A separate bio-page is an NPOV view of a person. It is difficult to pretend that person is described in a wp:NPOV manner when the article is titled "Murder of Lin Jun". We have had this situation before, and there should be a separate article for the suspect; otherwise, the remainder of a person's NPOV details about their life typically become wp:UNDUE details in a murder article. It would be like a college professor of 30 years who was charged with a crime, but details about the professor's career often would be viewed as an off-topic tangent (with wp:UNDUE weight) in describing the crime, whereas "30 years" is a major part of having an NPOV view about a person's life. Fortunately, Wikipedia is large enough to allow 2 articles in this case: 1 for the crime, and 1 for the professor. If a person is notable enough to name in a major crime, then they are notable enough for NPOV treatment in an article named for them, as a person, rather than as a crime which happens to name them. A person's entire life should not be viewed as the few hours related to a crime, as that is not an NPOV-neutral view of a person's life. Even the court cases are titled with people's names ("A versus B") rather than names of crimes, as if the court case were "Prosecution of suspect in Murder of Jane Doe". Suspects should have separate articles filed by person's name, if they are to be named in a crime. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Rename per WP:BLP1E and Boneyard90. Previous, less notable events concerning Magnotta can go into a "background" section or a section describing the suspect. Sorry Wikid77, but but we're not talking about someone who's notable for performing a certain profession for thirty years. You're talking about someone who attempted to gain infamy throughout his life. An article on the murder wouldn't be less "neutral" than an article on the individual. The connection to the murder is Magnotta's only claim to notability of Wikipedia standards. That's why the article was deleted previously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A candidate for public office, let's say a big city mayor, might unsuccessfully run for the office and have his or her article "deleted previously" because as an unsuccessful candidate never achieved notability. Suppose the candidate runs again and wins, achieving notability. But for this election as mayor the subject is not notable. Do we rename the article from the subject's name to "the mayoralty of subject X" using this argument that the individual is not notable but for his or her service as mayor? That's simply not the way Wikipedia has worked. A decision about notability settles a delete or not delete decision, it does not settle content questions or article naming questions (which are fundamentally content questions). Lee Harvey Oswald has his own article. Yes, there are "Murder of..." articles out there but these are generally restricted to cases where the murderer is either unknown or the subject of minimal attention (at least relative to the victim). Has the coverage in this case been centered on the victim here and particularly on his murder? I would argue that there's been at least as much attention paid to Magnotta.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP doesn't apply to deceased individuals such as Lee Harvey Oswald. In addition, we tend not to articles for unsuccessful local candidates. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to successful candidates since politicians tend to "accomplish" stuff (or at least do a few notable things) while they're in office. There's also WP:BLPCRIME. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to the assertion: "there are 'Murder of...' articles out there but these are generally restricted to cases where the murderer is either unknown"
I would like to point out the following article: Murder of Brooke Wilberger, Murder of Rie Isogai, Murder of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña, and in many other articles, the murderers were convicted.
In response to the assertion that "there are 'Murder of...' articles out there but these are generally restricted to cases where ... the subject [is] of minimal attention (at least relative to the victim)"
Not exactly sure what you mean, it seems contradictory, but if I understand it, it's the assertion that the "Murder of-" articles focus on the victim because the media is focused on the victim over the suspect. In that case, I would like to point out the article Death of Caylee Anthony, Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of Oksana Makar, all of which have as much or more media attention focused on the suspects/perpetrators as the victims. In other notorious crimes, where the scope of the crime or notoriety of the incident outweighs names, then it is named after place, such as Chappaquiddick incident or Akihabara massacre. So I think in this case, a "Murder of-" is perfectly appropriate. Boneyard90 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Resolute. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Weak support. There is abundant evidence to show multiple notable events. However, do we know that this person did each and every one of them? The media is not "presenting as true" that he did these things; they're presenting as true that he was charged with all these things. So although the things are multiple events, the charging of this person remains, at this time, a single event, and so BLP1E does apply. Under other circumstances I might try to look for some way to argue around this logic (e.g. whether the charge and the international alert are two events), but here my inherent POV starts to have an influence - I am quick to distrust censors, and to me it seems plausible that police would accuse the man of a murder in order to get him extradited on the python-and-kitten video from a country that might otherwise refuse, in a parallel to Julian Assange's troubles. In any case, of course, I'm not suggesting to take anything away from the article wherever it lands. Wnt (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC) (I should add that apparently this article did exist before the murder accusation [2] but was found non-notable, despite an abusive pattern of editing promoting him, documented in loving detail, oddly enough, at http://encyclopediadramatica*se/Luka_Magnotta (replace asterisk, stupid spam filter). Wnt (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• comment i wouldnt call that "loving detail". :3 -badmachine 23:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is notable not because any particular individual(s) were murdered and/or dismembered, but because limbs were mailed to members of parliament. The rest of him might as well still have been alive, or they may have come from multiple living victims. The murder of Lin Jun is not notable in itself but the mailing of body parts, kitten cruelty, and international manhunt are. Skullers (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps you did not read the article in detail. You're argument about the mailing body parts vs. killing might have merit if it happened over an extended period, such that the body parts became a media phenomenon in their own right, but this was all within two days. They received packages on 29 May and confirmed it was the same individual, along with a torso, on 30 May. People don't usually live when they're missing a torso. The murder prompted the manhunt. You wouldn't have one without the other. And the kitten cruelty? Not sure why that's notable, except as something to add to the list of charges and make him seem more monstrous. I mean, a python has to eat. Would it have been less cruel if the python was fed a rat or rabbit, or something less cute? Maybe there's something more to it, but it seems that's just symptomatic of his psychopathy, rather than an actual notable crime.Boneyard90 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are many murders each year, some of them involving dismemberment. When body parts are discovered it usually makes headlines locally, even with serial killers, but this became known from where they turned up. The hand and food specifically. It would have been notable for this reason even if there hadn't been a murder, if the limbs were from a living victim, the perpetrator's own, stolen from a morgue etc. And about kittens I'm referring to the vacuum cleaner gag. At least no place important is known to have received dead kittens in the mail. Skullers (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

comment the movenotice template was removed twice today by the same user. someone is getting antsy, but i think three days is a little short for a titling discussion. consensus is usually attained within a few months month. -badmachine 00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article is predominately about Magnotta not the killing. JunoBeach (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• comment: the problem with this is that when magnotta is exonerated, the murder will still be notable, but we will then have an article on a non-notable failed porn actor and fraudster, who is rumored to have harmed animals. per WP:CRIME:

  A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

  just because the article is currently about magnotta is not a reason to circumvent policy. there are BLP issues to be considered here. consider also that this event may have been perpetrated by more than one person. -badmachine 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reason given by JunoBeach above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. IMHO, it is the murderer who has been the subject of all the media attention, and not the victim, however unfortunate that may be. I am not sure that the murder, however gruesome, would have received all that publicity, if the perpetrator's profile had been less "extreme". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

here we have a BLP on a wanted man who is not convicted of this crime. naming this article for the notable event and not the unconvicted suspect is supported by precedent and policy. -badmachine 11:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed Compromise: Move all information regarding the crime into a Murder of Lin Jun article. Then see if Magnotta is notable without the crime info - although sources delving into his background and character because of the crime are acceptable. If he is notable, include a 2-3 sentence blurb, with a wikilink, in the Magnotta article, saying that he is the current suspect and there is an ongoing manhunt. But per WP:CRIME leave most of the crime information in the murder article until such time as Magnotta either a) is caught, tried and convicted, or b) dies. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  But we already know he isn't notable apart from the crime. That was determined by AFD back in 2008. Robofish (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  You're just making the same proposal as above, which is well on its way to rejection, just in different words. The man is notable, more's the pity, the story is about him and the murder he is suspected of committing is only part. The title is correct as is. Resolute 17:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  He's only notable in the context of this one crime, therefore WP:BLP1E. The crime itself (Murder of Lin Jun) merits a page, the rest of his attention whoring from 2008 onward does not except where it provides a possible motive or identifies an incident specifically leading up to this murder. The 2008 versions of these pages should not have been undeleted without obtaining consensus as two AfD's have already concluded that he is not notable either for the token small-time porn appearances or the cynical self-promotion. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  No, we don't know that. Yes, the AfDs found that he wasn't notable apart from the crime. But here's the really important difference. There has been, as a result of the crime, accusation, and investigation, a lot of journalistic attention being paid to his background by RS. As such, any such sources can be used to build an article about him without violating WP:CRIME. This should be done first, without assuming that he's not notable. If, that having been done, he's still not notable without facing WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME issues, then delete it and focus on the crime. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No RS talks about the Murder of Lin Jun apart from Luka Magnotta. So all our sources, as well as the RCMP and Interpol, have BLP issues? The proposed solution is basically renaming the article about Luka Magnotta to "MurderER of Lin Jun", which doesn't exactly address the whole "not convicted" argument. Skullers (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: I can understand why some editors would want to rename it, but it seems to me Magnotta was in fact somewhat a public figure being he is/was a porn actor and also I think he was involved in the cat killing incident. I think in this case the killing should be a subset of his article --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: He doesn't meet the criteria in WP:PORNBIO for notability. The murder is notable, the porn isn't notable enough for a page. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  comment he was not a public figure, he maintained an extensive online farm of accounts in order to inflate his name in this very discussion. the truth is nobody cared. i doubt that hordes of internet denizens went online and googled "i wonder what Luka Magnotta is up to today". there is a difference between being a "somewhat notable public figure" and maintaining an extensive online profile. the only person googling Luka Magnotta was Luka Magnotta. -badmachine 19:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC) ... and possibly an accomplice. -badmachine 20:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• SupportStrong support - fails WP:PORNBIO and, other than this atrocity, the subject simply isn't notable. I'd support renaming to Murder of Lin Jun or similar, as has been done with similar articles in the past - Alison ^❤ 21:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC) - Switching to strong support, per Jorgath (talk · contribs) below, and per WP:CRIME. As it stands, he is a suspect only and has not been convicted - Alison ^❤ 07:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per the opposition comments, the individual is notable enough to have his own article. PwilliamQ99 22:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: per Alison's comment. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Two previous AFDs and one AFC overwhelmingly concluded Luka Magnotta fails WP:GNG on his own. Notoriety is not nitability. Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP and WP:CRIME in its current form. Rename and discuss the crime, not a person who is at this stage only a suspect and has not faced trial. ShipFan (Talk) 00:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Fails criteria for notability outside of crime, and moving the page is right for ethical reasons as well (in my opinion). Buttonwillowite (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per everyone voted "Oppose". Steam5 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this should settle it:

Canada murder suspect Luka Magnotta arrested -BBC

Canada murder suspect Luka Magnotta held in Berlin -BBC

Luka Rocco Magnotta arrested in Germany -CBC

Magnotta arrested -CBC

Suspect in grisly Canadian murder arrested in Berlin -Reuters

Suspect in body parts probe describes himself as 'a people person' -CNN

Alleged porn star killer's past may include abusing kittens -CNN

Fugitive Canadian porn actor found in Berlin reading about self -MSNBC

Luka Rocco Magnotta: 'Cannibal' porn star arrested -Daily Mail

'Canadian Psycho' Magnotta arrested in Berlin, report says -Fox News

per WP:COMMONNAME there is clearly no contest. The notability is evident. Now considering the 12000 views today does the earlier dispute still warrant full protection? Skullers (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Response: "suspect." WP:CRIME:

A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.

A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.

Therefore, this article SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT Magnotta, per WP:CRIME and WP:BLP. Period. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 06:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The above WP:BLP points out policy flaws in Wikipedia. First, it erroneously assumes that anyone accused of a crime would NOT want the general public to think that they did it. In this case, the suspect clearly relishes the attention and wants people to think that he did it...so the whole notion of attempting to protect a suspect per BLP is void. This is why the WP:IAR idea sometimes comes into play. I am reminded of the Biblical "it is not lawful to heal on the Sabbath". Following policy to the letter, without examining intent, is really missing the point.Ryoung122 01:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• comment the article was non-notable until the crime and was deleted as such. now suddenly because of the crime he is notable but the crime isn't notable? -badmachine 08:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Would his coverage for the kitten killing video count towards his notability apart from the murder charges?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• reply: there were several of them, none proven to be Magnotta, and so far, it seems like he will not be prosecuted for this. imo the cat videos do not make him (or whoever made them) notable. -badmachine 11:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with badmachine.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reply: I'm certain that (unfortunately) he is not the first person, nor the last, to post a video of himself killing a kitten in a shock video. I'm also certain that I've never heard of any of the others, nor seen any coverage. RS seem to treat that as either unproven or possibly background to his mindset before the murder. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• Irrelevant, actually. He IS notable now, so his history - proven and alleged - comes into play. Same with his Karla Homolka stories. Also, Jorgath, the guideline you cited said "...should not normally be the subject of a separate article..." I would maintain that this is a qualifying exception. Resolute 14:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Which is why, if you see my proposed compromise above, I didn't argue for a complete rename. I argued for a split article - an article about him, including a blurb about being suspected, maybe some info about the manhunt, etc.; and a separate article about the crime, where it is noted that he is the primary suspect, etc. I argue for this on BLP grounds. I have no objection to there being a Luka Magnotta article, as long as said Luka Magnotta article is about more than this one crime, especially since he hasn't been convicted. I'm worried that failing to do that could open Wiki up to defamation/slander/libel/whatever-the-right-term-is problems. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:CRIME says "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Technically, it doesn't forbid us from creating such an article. I think we have given serious consideration to other alternatives, but its clear that Luka Magnotta is very notable. Best route now is to ensure this article doesn't state any unproven allegation as fact.VR _talk 04:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support rename And remove the trivial detritus from the article while we are at it. Wikiopedia is too rapidly becoming the "Internet Enquirer" with such articles. Collect (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Nobody will remember the name of the victim - let's be honest, it is all about the killer. Also, the killer's desire for notoriety is irrelevant to the arguement of whether it should be renamed: he will be notorious due to this, so it is doesn't make sense to rename it so as to not give him attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.211.1 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  But that's the problem. He's not "the killer." He's "the accused killer." Do I, personally, think he's guilty? Probably. But until such time as he is proven guilty in a court of law, it is borderline defamation to call him "the killer" or to do anything that is not STRICTLY in line with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I asked Jimbo for his input here. I was not trying to canvass, merely asking for his freely given opinion. His response, in full from here [3]:

It's pretty standard practice in such cases to rename to the event, not the person. The event is notable, not the person. I don't know anything about this particular case yet (other than seeing some lurid headlines on television) but unless Luka Magnotta would have qualified for an article before this event, then I can see no rationale for naming one after him now. A lot of the arguments that I just glanced at are typical in BLP1E cases, but longstanding tradition is that BLP1E trumps "common name" (and "common name" is not as strict a policy as some people like to believe!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I freely acknowledge that that's just his input, not some sort of order from on high. I just wanted the discussion to include that input. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - BLP1E is moot as Magnotta received media coverage before this event. Also, the argument that other articles are renamed in this faction is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. The current title seems the most accurate and the one people will be looking for when they search. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Primarily for the string of "kitten killings" which were attributed to him back in 2010, as well as dozens of other pieces of the puzzle that are just now coming together. I'm not an expert on this case, but from glancing at quick google searches, there appears to be a string of news stories about the "kitten videos" (which, as the story appears to be unfolding, bore more than a passing similarity to the recent killing of his boyfriend). I haven't taken the time to look up all the Wikipedia guidelines on this particular subject (my particular field of "expertise" on Wikipedia is vanilla "celebrity" and showbiz awards articles, not true crime articles), so I realize consensus may reach another conclusion, but there is a lot to this story and I think we need to judge this type of thing on a case-by-case basis. If the page is retitled to be specifically about the murder of his boyfriend, I would still propose keeping this page (and not simply as a redirect) in order to provide the full picture of events leading up to this most recent killing. I realize that if his boyfriend turns out to be the only human victim that he's accused of killing, many would not consider the kitten killings as a qualification to technically dub him a "serial killer" (such as Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein, Andrei Chikatilo, Andrew Cunanan, etc, etc, etc, all of whom have pages here) however, the kitten stories and videos did receive press attention and have been cited by numerous recent news articles providing context regarding the most recent Lin Jun murder. As others have said, I think Wikipedia's first concern should be for the ease of the casual reader, not whether we should or shouldn't be "feeding" the egos of narcissistic serial killers (I highly doubt anyone is going to be inspired to run out and do the things Magnotta is accused of, simply because they want a Wikipedia page named after them). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: It was already decided before this event that he fails notability (after multiple instances of his attempting to add an article on himself). The event is certainly notable but that doesn't mean a separate page on the alleged perpetrator is needed. If he's clearly connected to other notable events in the future, the page can be restored then. It'll need some editing, though. Excalibre (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Although normally the format should be "Murder of xxx" (indeed I recently arranged for Graham Coutts to be renamed accordingly), Magnotta's widely-publicised actions after the murder render him more notable than the incident.—A bit iffy (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose An article about the murder of Lin Jun would end up, by necessity, containing a lot more information about Mr. Magnotta than about the single crime. The crime attracted attention to the man, true, but the various odd aspects of his life (porn acting, kitten killing, his reality show appearance) have now started to overshadow just the single crime. siafu (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If Mr. Lin is Magnotta's only victim then maybe the page should be moved. However, if it turns out that he's killed others, the page should not. At this time, agencies across North America are looking into this possibility. Paris1127 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support rename - Subject is not notable. Prior criminal activity ≠ notability. -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Jun Lin is not notable and if he had been shot in a drive-by shooting, for example, there would be nothing about that event in Wikipedia.

The crime is notable by its nature and scope. Circumstances for the nature and scope were created by the actions of Luka Magnotta, not by the presence of Jun Lin. Post-murder coverage has revolved mostly around Luka, and additional significant events related to him continue to unfold. Undertones of the support for the rename seem to be POVish in wanting to focus on the victim and not the "attention whore" perpetrator of the crime. Although that is an understandable sentiment, it should bear no effect on the status of this article. Taroaldo (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Magnotta has had much media coverage for other reasons besides the murder. He has been invited to news prorgrams over his wide-ranging sexual career as a gigolo and porn actor, he has recceived media coverage for animal torture. Additionally a lot of the news coverage surrounded him being politically active. Therefore the proposed title does not do justice to the article. He has had a wiki article with this title since August 2007. Pass a Method talk 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Jun Lin was murdered. Once the case goes on, more information will be learned about him. Psalm84 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: He has not "had a wiki article...since August 2007" under this or any other title, at least not on en.Wikipedia. That rubbish was deleted as lacking notability in two separate AfD votes under two different variant titles in 2008. No idea why it was undeleted, but that only happened after he was wanted as a fugitive suspect in the murder of Lin Jun in 2012. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the history may have possibly been restored by Wikipedia admins just in case anything Magnotta had written here might (and I emphasize might) have been of any use to the investigation. I've noticed numerous websites will often do that with anything regarding active investigations. They'll close or archive threads, restore the history of old pages, etc (YouTube has already closed several accounts pertaining to this case). I can see how the 2007 threads on this talk page would be confusing for people, but I believe they'll be archived and disappear from the top of the page soon (provided someone doesn't post in them, thereby breathing new life into them). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant that there would be more focus on the victim. Right now there's a shock factor over what the killer did, and there he received a lot of attention too because he was a fugitive. Psalm84 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Right now, the "vote" is 13 for, 29 opposed to rename, and the page has been open for 8 days (longer than the 7-day period). I suggest this be closed for now.

Also, as an aside, when we make it more difficult for narcissists to achieve "notability," we just make it more likely that they will kill more people in the future. After all, if you kill 77 people, like Breivik, you get your own Wikipedia article. We don't want to go down that road. This is a moot argument for this suspect, since he has been arrested, but it is a point to ponder.

The real reasons I support the current article name as-is is that the suspect, no matter how evil, shows evidence of notability across multiple time frames and for multiple reasons. This is not just a "one event". Think of a singer who has a song which scores a big hit...after they achieve fame, then the previous body of work comes to light, even if they were not yet notable before the big hit. That is the case here. That the previous material by itself was not yet notable is irrelevant. That the seeds of a biography were planted many years ago, and contribute to the current context of the current events in the news, is. The media has clearly picked up an interest in the kitten-killings, the porn, the TV show appearances, etc. Much of the coverage is "about" the subject. On a positive note, an article on Luka Magnotta can serve as a cautionary tale. He put out multiple warning signs of mental instability and disordered thinking for many years, warning he might go over the edge. Society ignored his warnings until after the fact. I have more to say but will save it for later.

Also, I do not oppose a separate "Murder of Jun Lin" article if that needs to be created. But it should be a subset article that is branched out due to being a "tangent" to the article name.Ryoung122 01:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

8 days? Can't be... we didn't have the victim's name until June 1 and without that the move request could not be made. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method wrote: Magnotta has had much media coverage for other reasons besides the murder. He has been invited to news prorgrams over his wide-ranging sexual career as a gigolo and porn actor, he has recceived media coverage for animal torture. Ryoung wrote: The media has clearly picked up an interest in the kitten-killings, the porn, the TV show appearances, etc. Much of the coverage is "about" the subject. - So all thats required for notability on Wikipedia nowadays is to fornicate on camera and torture some kittens? Sigh. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Or, you know, become known as the world's most wanted man. Resolute 03:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So what is he wanted for? Is it the same reason as his notability? -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we also move Mohammed Atta, then, by following a strict adherence to WP:CRIME? siafu (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Atta is a sub-article of September 11, 2001 attacks. The main article here should be Murder of Lin Jun, and if there is enough material, Luka Magnotta (or his actual name) can be a sub-article. But we start from the main article dealing with the notable event - the 9/11 article was not originally named "Mohammed Atta," and if it was it would have had to have been changed to reflect the notable event. -Stevertigo (t | c) 06:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you are saying that the path that led to current state of affairs with Mohammed Atta, i.e. what the article was formerly called and how it was formerly arranged, should constrain us to follow the same path. This seems quite unconvincing; the final result is a separate article on the man himself, due to the large amount of information that has arisen about him after the crime. We are in the same situation now, and I can't see much reason to walk through the motions of shuffling the articles when we know exactly where it will lead. siafu (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The article existed and was passing AFD after being nominated before the victim's name was known--proof enough that this article should not be renamed.Ryoung122 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to look at the actual AfD discussion; it does acknowledge that the article may be a target for rename to "Murder of ...(victim)..." even before Lin Jun's name was released by Montréal police. It was closed only after the victim's name was published and the requested move discussion was already opened here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Siafu wrote: you are saying that the path that led to current state of affairs with Mohammed Atta... ...should constrain us to follow the same path. ...the final result is a separate article on the man himself, due to the large amount of information that has arisen ...We are in the same situation now. - I agree with this. Now we need an article on the Murder of Lin Jun, which is the actual notable event, and since there appears to be enough information for an article, Luka Magnotta can be a sub-article of that one. Lin Jun is the notable person in this scenario, because he was the one actually murdered. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. No, Lin Jun is NOT "the notable person" in this scenario. One person is murdered, worldwide, every 60 seconds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-524231.html

It was not that someone was murdered, it was that body parts were mailed to the Prime Minister of Canada, schools, a snuff film was put out, and that the suspect had a bizarre past history that makes this case something that caught the attention of the media. Let's not get into the parent/child article debate, but the reality is that the "Murder of Lin Jun" is a fork of the original story, which was that human body parts were e-mailed to the Prime Minister of Canada.

Also, Lin Jun's story is quite ordinary...there might be some interest in that, as a foreign-exchange student from China was murdered in Canada, there is some feeling in China about this, in a sort of "international relations" event. But I see nothing in Lin Jun's past history that makes this an "issues" story, other than he fell for a serial killer's deception and being from China may cause a minor international stir.

Meanwhile, we now see claims that Magnotta is being investigated for a murder in LA:

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/08/12120339-did-canadas-alleged-cannibal-killer-luka-magnotta-strike-in-la?lite

Whether true or not true, what is evident is that the media has bought in to the "Canadian Psycho" story line as something that sells news stories. It's not our job to push POV editing to "rectify" a wrong committed in society. Instead, we should try to edit these articles in accordance with the direction taken by outside sources.

Further, for future "vain" criminals who want to become famous, saying things like "he only killed one person" is just setting up future situations where a vain psycho will feel the need to kill several people to get the attention desired.

The real goal here is not to give the killer attention...it's to identify the story in an encyclopedic matter. Encyclopedias, such as the Britannica, emphasize "biography" for humans. Biographies, or life-graphs, entail contextual reporting of a person's life, especially as it relates to how they came to "achieve" what they are known for. That's why biographies give details such as where a person was born, their childhood situation, where they went to school, and how their career developed. In the case of Luka Magnotta, we have a long trail of articles covering how Luka went from being an ordinary "Eric Newman" kid living in the suburbs to becoming the disturbed person he is today. Rather than a one-off spree event, there is value here in studying what led someone to become a psycho killer like this. Given repeated red-flag warnings in his history (from poor parenting to him warning online that he would kill more than cats next), it's also a cautionary tale of how society ignores those who "cry out for help" with bizarre behavior. It surprise me not that Magnotta surrendered without a fight...his goal was not just attention but to tell his story. The trial will tell, and you know that's coming.

So, let's just have two articles and link each to the other, but in reality they cover different foci. The Luka Magnotta article takes the long view, the biographic view, of how Luka Magnotta came to be the "Canadian Psycho" the media has dubbed him today. The Murder of Lin Jun article focuses on the event of the murder.

Have a nice day.Ryoung122 18:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Note, there is now an article on the notable event Murder of Lin Jun, which is largely based on this article, with some notable differences. The material on Luka Magnotta is not given undue WEIGHT, and there is a template suggesting a split between the murder article and the Magnotta article. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems that would be the best compromise to this debate. They can be merged at a later point if necessary.Boneyard90 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That has been done numerous times and has been reverted citing the landslide Oppose consensus here. Given this fact, I don't believe disregarding this and forking the article again is a wise idea at all. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no "landslide oppose consensus" nor consensus for anything else. That said, the {{split}} should appear on *this* page and a discussion on whether to split would then take the same format as the discussion on whether to rename. It would also be best that the two articles post-split not overlap in any huge manner. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, "consensus" was the wrong word, but last time someone tallied it was roughly 2 to 1 voting Oppose (in any other context that's a landslide). And that is most definitely NOT consensus to split the article, for the reasons I've outlined in the "Re-forking" thread below. I'm not outright opposed to a split, but I don't condone anyone taking it upon themselves to do so without clear consensus either. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus to move this article. Fine. We are creating an article Murder of Lin Jun which deals in an objective (NPOV) way with the actual event which makes Luka Magnotta notable. Any objections? -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record here, but I'll say it again. I'm not necessarily opposed to a fork. I'm opposed to the way this is being done. If you're really looking to get blocked by an admin, then just keep it up. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, original nominator here. I just wanted to verify that yes, I did open this on June 1st. I'd opened it immediately (and I mean immediately) after the name of the victim had been identified in a Canadian paper. Now assuming that this is going to be the typical week run, there's been enough time for an admin to close the debate based on the arguments from both sides. I'm not really endorsing a side anymore, just stating that there's been enough time for everyone to make their arguments and at this point, most of them just seem to be variations of the same thing. I think it's about time to stick a fork in this rename debate, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Especially now that we have separate articles, it would seem the issue is settled. If anyone wants to propose merging either article into the other, they're welcome to do so, but I doubt they'd have much success. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• If by separate articles you mean the 5th revert of the copy-paste fork from several days ago, see the three fork/ani/split threads below. Skullers (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: I've been researching and tracking down Luka Magnotta for over a year now and for reasons unrelated to the murder of Justin (Jun) Lin as that hadn't happened yet. It's not Wiki's job to 'punish' people but to objectively and factually present information. There should, imo, be two entries; one for Magnotta and one for Jun Lin. I came here to add some information to Magnotta's article and hope you won't dismiss my opinion just because this is my first edit. I've used Wiki as a source for a decade now and feel very strongly about this. --CatherinaJJ (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Since notifying each editor is impractical, I'll just announce here that I've requested an administrator close this request. If you want to argue for more time, I believe that would be the place to do so. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Magnotta in London

Although The Sun (United Kingdom) is not always a reliable source, one of its journalists met Magnotta while he was living in London, and there is an audio interview with him here. He was accused of shooting the "Python Christmas" video while living in London, but Scotland Yard has denied that the incident occurred within its jurisdiction, saying "Officers from Islington investigated the origin of this video and others linked to it and they were found to have been posted from somewhere in North America. Therefore, no crime could be proven to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the Met. During the initial stages of the investigation, officers liaised with the RSPCA."[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnotta's coverage in The Sun was characteristically lurid and speculative. Although it is notable that Magnotta met a tabloid journalist while living in London, there is no reliable evidence that he made the python video or sent Alex West a threatening e-mail. This leads to WP:BLPCRIME issues, so it needs to be mentioned cautiously to avoid overstating the evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There were a couple of other articles at the time (Dec 3, 2011) about the "Python Christmas" animal abuse, but they were Daily Mail and Fox News so still sources prone to a bit of hype or sensationalism. Odds are, most WP:RS didn't cover this at the time as too little info was available then. Try http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069512/Python-Christmas-video-Hunt-twisted-sadisctic-thug-fed-kitten-python.html as this and the Sun tabloid were the main sources. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Python Christmas" video has some puzzling aspects, and the media coverage is sometimes contradictory. The cat in the video has been described as being named Jasmine, although [5] points out that the video was uploaded to YouTube by the user account Jasminethecat666, which gave the address of the user as Islington in London. The cat is not named in the video itself. The video was also uploaded to Liveleak and to Flix. The last one is more of a puzzle. Flix is an Israel based video sharing website, and the site interface appears to be in Hebrew only. "1 boy 2 kittens" was on Flix at [6], but the page now says (according to Google Translate) "This content has been blocked". It seems unlikely that Magnotta uploaded the video to a Hebrew language website, so this may have been a repost by somebody else who had seen the video.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation Spam

I don't know how the policy is regarding citations, but I find the article more and more annoying to read: "Magnotta was apprehended by Berlin Police at an Internet cafe in the Neukölln district on June 4, 2012, while reading news stories about himself.[3][17][67][80][81][82]" Do we really need six citations establishing this simple fact? On other sentences, we have two to five citations for every single subclause, for example: "...was found in a locked brown suitcase[50][51] by janitor Mike Nadeau,[50][52] left in a garbage pile in the alley behind an apartment building in the Snowdon area of Montreal.[53][54]" Can't that be made more readable by deleting redundant references? -- megA (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the content, I think there is no such thing as too many sources. Kingjeff (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, one good source should be enough for most relevant info. Two, for reasonably controversial claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is citation spam in several parts of the article. One or two reliable sources is enough. Also, citations should not be in the middle of a sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better now, thanks. -- megA (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone think the number of WikiProjects to which this page has been added is approaching the level of spam? Alberta? BC? Politics? Many of these are on here only because a hand or a foot was mailed or a video uploaded, but have no other connection with the case (the crime was Montréal, the arrest East Berlin). And no, I don't advocate adding WikiProject NonNotable Elementary Schools just because a school received one of the infamous packages. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit tedious scrolling down past the box on this browser. At least Wikiproject Luggage hasn't claimed ownership of that suitcase...yet. Any rules against moving all that stuff to the bottom of the page? Or under the table of contents, at least? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Scratch that request, I just noticed the "Skip to table of contents" button. How long has that been there? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• As to wikiprojects: should I just delete all of them and see who wants to discuss which ones should be brought back? The RS spam: I can agree that fewer with more info is better. Should we also seperate this section into project and RS spam? Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My take on the WikiProject spam:

• Biography: filmbio-work-group: seems a bit redundant to the WikiProject Pornography listing as the only "film" appearance is one scene in a porn DVD - nothing he has done has actually been projected in a film-based cinema, remove this
• Animal rights: maybe, although it seems to be mostly a precursor to larger crimes and not the main topic in itself.
• Canada: QC : remove as redundant to Canada:Montréal
• Canada: Ottawa : no tie other than the address on some of the packages, remove this
• Canada: Toronto : suspect was born there but grew up elsewhere in Ontario, crime scene is Montréal. Marginal: tempted to remove.
• Canada: Montréal : yes
• Canada: Vancouver : no tie other than the address on some of the packages, remove this
• Criminal Biography : yes
• Death: I suppose, but a 'crime' category is a closer fit
• LGBT studies: yes
• Pornography : yes, although I'd avoid the specific term "porn star" as there's too little here.
• Politics: no, the parcels were sent to wherever they'd get attention, this has nothing to do with politics (or education) itself.
• Spoken Wikipedia: yes

Criminal biography in Montréal would be the main topic. LGBT and porn might be worth a mention, the rest should be mostly trimmed. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried as you suggested. It failed and messed up the format. Someone with more knowledge of the syntax may wish to attempt again. Some projects are rated, does that mean the project editors would like to keep them? The collapse parameter could be added to some of the others as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to propose and discuss these issues on the relevant Wikiproject talk pages. I don't know if that's official policy, it just seems right to me. They're like the merchants, managers and parents, and the articles are their merchandise, clients and children. Know what I mean? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if the editors here who added all the irrelevant or marginally-related wikiprojects aren't monitoring the corresponding WikiProject pages. We have many WikiProjects that are very much dead, so that talk pages sit unedited (or questions on them sit unanswered) for months at a time. Unless the history of the project/project talk page shows some sort of recent activity, you are likely to be talking to the wall in many of these. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be all collapsed now, so they take far less room. I don't think the long list at the bottom of the page is any problem. My attempt failed but I think you could try to remove the obscure ones 66.102.83.61? IP are allowed to I assume. I don't think they were added by the project members themselves, and if they were they can just add them back if they wish. Just leave a note to that effect in your edit summary or the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Official Website of Luka Magnotta

I see "Official Website of Luka Magnotta" is now in the External Links section. It should be removed. It is not a reliable source for anything, and is merely commercial advertising. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. There is an element of original research in this link, as it is unclear to what extent Magnotta himself was involved in creating the site. Domaintools says that it was registered on 29 July 2011.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not that I really care, but isn't it common to include the main website/blog of a BLP in external links if they control it? I also removed the unsourced comment above about a BLP on a BLP talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that http://luka-magnotta.com/ is a WordPress site. Magnotta may have done this himself, but describing it as the "Official Website of Luka Magnotta" has an element of WP:OR, given his claim that other people were stalking him online. It would be better to find a secondary source that refers to this site, since it is primary source material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL. It isn't used as a source so I don't feel the above apply as a reason to leave it out? As I said before I don't really care, but other editors might see the article as POV if there isn't at least a link to another POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It would seem to be a relevant link, given how Luka Magnotta's attention-seeking behaviour has factored in to his life in general, and his alleged crimes and his capture in particular. Media coverage of Luka's "musings" and self-posted photography has been extensive as well. NPOV doesn't allow for exclusions of material based on emotion. Taroaldo (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I added it back. @Taroaldo, I am not sure what you are referring to with 'exclusions of material based on emotion'--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some editors have advocated for the exclusion of relevant material based on the heinous nature of the crime and on their desire not to give Luka Magnotta any more of the attention he obviously desires. While these editors' views are entirely understandable, such views are not in keeping with a NPOV. Taroaldo (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Linking to self-promotion does nothing to help the cause of WP:NPOV... au contraire. Linking to this and not linking to any of the "wanted" posters or the arrest warrant is a clear POV bias in favour of Magnotta; the "wanted" info is still on the Montréal local police site (zh: lists it as an external link) so I have no idea why these sort of links were removed here. There's also nothing on this supposed "official" site that can be considered a reliable source, even were we able to verify whether he does indeed control this site nothing on it is verifiable as fact. Furthermore, the website itself is not the topic of the article nor of any real importance to the topic... if this were an article about Google, sure, link Google's site because it is of importance to that topic. The link adds nothing of value here. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL as well as the other policies stated above. Any BLP article is allowed to have their website included in an article about them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the question of whether the site contains any neutral or reliable information which could possibly be of any use. If it does not, it is WP:SPAM because it exists as WP:POV for WP:SELF promotion and not for adding actual verifiable factual info on the topic. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to remove it, but don't want to set off an edit war. It is clearly hard to say if it is the work of Magnotta, let alone his official website. As such, it has WP:RS issues, as 66.102.83.61 points out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a wikipedia article so it doesn't have to meet our guidelines and policies. It just has to meet the external link policies that I linked above, which it does. It is also mentioned in many reliable sources that it is his official page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ELOFFICIAL -->"Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject."--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable."

I doubt the link meets these criteria; the subject is notable primarily as a key fugitive suspect in the murder of Lin Jun (on which the linked site offers no useful data) and he is not able to control the site as he is languishing in a German jail cell. You might also want to look at the bit about WP:NOTLINKS; Wikipedia is not a link farm. Unless the site adds useful and reliable information, why is it here? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He is notable for his public personality as an actor etc. as well as his alledged mental state. Both are well covered on the site and he should still have control over it through Canadian Foreign Affairs, lawyers, managers, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Canoe here. Seems to jive with Wikipolicy. There's always a shadow of doubt about whether he's actually behind the site, but that goes for nearly everything on the Internet. Unless there's reliable evidence that it's an impostor, we have to give it the benefit of the doubt. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to apologize to 66.102.83.61 if I seem harsh. You have brought up some valid points. Wp policy is that we don't censor and go with consensus. It does seem to meet policy and other editors agree it does. You could seek more input from the BLP notice board etc. if you wish. I don't know if we can put some well worded statement beside the link to let readers know what exists on the site, if that may help.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• It is an external link, not a Wikipedia page, and external links are not judged in the same way as content written in Wikipedia. If he posts on his website that he is the "King of Canada", Wikipedia editors cannot write 'so-and-so is the King of Canada' in a Wikipedia article and cite his website as the source of that information because it is not a reliable source. However, questions of possible factual inaccuracy or vanity do not mean we should omit a listing for the BLP subject's own website. If we did that, we'd have to eliminate a heck of a lot of external links across Wikipedia. Taroaldo (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If a link adds nothing useful to a page, we remove it. No amount of policy will change that. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If Wikipedia believes that getting a glimpse into the mind and thought processes of the subject of an article "adds nothing useful", then I'm editing the wrong encyclopedia. Taroaldo (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't deserve the fame he seeks.

Newman is [allegedly] a murderer and [allegedly] a psychopath. He doesn't deserve a page on this database for the soul reason that that is what he craves. If he hadn't [allegedly] murdered that poor guy, he wouldn't have a page of his own to begin with. The page isn't about him, it's about the [allegedly] psychotic nature of his personality that [allegedly] led him to commit the most heinous murder in recent Canadian history.

I vote to change the title to Murder of Lin Jun. Chadillaccc (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added [allegedly] to that as he technically has not yet had his day in court per WP:BLPCRIME and may not have even been formally charged yet. Allegedly. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:605 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

He will be. Chadillaccc (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• What Magnotta deserves or "doesn't deserve" is irrelevant on Wikipedia. The topic Magnotta is notable. Taroaldo (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Which topic? The murder of Lin Jun? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarified above. Taroaldo (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rename, split, re-direct, DAB

I have noticed that there is more than one section relating to the article title. Could we combine them into this section? I do hope that statements will remain logical and follow policies. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two different proposals being discussed so two sections discussing the title would be correct:

1. Rename this article in its entirety to murder of Lin Jun, leaving Luka Magnotta as just a redirect
2. Split out just the info on the murder and associated pursuit and arrest to murder of Lin Jun, leaving a brief summary (plus anything not directly tied to the murder, such as other crimes or alleged crimes, the porn or biographical info that's not about Lin but Magnotta) on Luka Magnotta

The de-facto third option is the status quo, where a reader looking for information on Lin Jun is instead directed to a page about Magnotta.

Admittedly, the two proposals are all but mutually exclusive (once the murder info and any biographical data on Lin Jun has been spun out or spun off, there's no further need to rename this page) but procedurally they are two different discussions about two different proposals. The only way this would become one section only would be if the move discussion were closed (presumably as no consensus) with just the {{split section}} discussion active. That's a question best handled by an uninvolved admin. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• It seems the name change section has moved on to admin for closure. Further discussion may happen there. As to the split: I had another thought that the talk page may be impossible to split. Status quo may be the only option for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to split the talk page; it will be archived after a few days of inactivity on any particular thread in any case. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Body parts

Re this edit. While true, the edit summary stating " this is not known, if the police have it but aren't telling then it's only 'missing' by the media" has an element of original research. The police have given no indication that Lin Jun's head has been found to date, and the body parts that have been recovered in the post do not include the head. It is important for the article not to give the impression that all of the body parts have been recovered, as the sourcing says that it is still missing, eg here in the National Post.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Do original research rules apply to edit summaries? I would think not. No more than to a talk page, anyway. If the summary "gives the impression", this section really hammers home the point. See WP:BEANS, perhaps? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line is that police have given no indication that Lin Jun's head has been found yet.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The other bottom line is I misunderstood your complaint. I thought I saw that editor adding the bit about the head, not deleting it. Sorry for any confusion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InedibleHulk (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As of June 7 (date of article), it has not been found. The facts are that the other parts have been found as of the time of the writing. The statement said "Lin Jun's head has not yet been found." (at the time of the writing) implies that it will be found and reported in the media. The new wording "Police have reportedly not yet found Lin Jun's head" is better but still does not address the issue. When (or if) it's found it would make the statement factually inaccurate. I wasn't sure about "The limbs will be transported to Montreal for DNA testing" either, but they were in fact being transported at the time. The statement became factually inaccurate when the testing has in fact been concluded. That is also why it didn't state "all the parts have not yet been identified" until they were. My bad on the edit summary, could have been more clear. I've added a note on the date (and a newer cite), but imo we shouldn't be stating things that have not happened. Skullers (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Skullers here. Lots of things are yet to happen. Or not. I say keep the sentence, but lose the "yet". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the "yet" as being significant either way. I certainly don't think it implies that it will be found at some point. A "yet" statement can easily be seen to have an qualified second part, for example: "We have not yet found, and we may never find, life on other planets." Since we don't have a crystal ball, "yet" cannot definitively imply anything. Taroaldo (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

English dictionary definitions 2a and 2c applies to this sentence. The crystal ball policy is there to prevent editors from adding words which may imply Wikipedia can see the future, not to reassure readers that such implications are indeed baseless. Saying "Lin Jun's head has not been found" is accurate, less wordy and free from the "eventually" implication. If someone does find it, it's an easy edit. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the sourcing at [7], postage to some international destinations can take up to six weeks. If the head has not turned up by mid-July 2012, it is unlikely that it was mailed anywhere. As the sourcing also points out, there is a possibility that it will never be found, e.g. if it was dumped in trash and then collected.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In theory, it would be possible to lengthen time for delivery by addressing this to some distant place that doesn't exist, then putting the actual intended recipient in the return address field... so that it has to go out and back. A package addressed to "Twenty-Nine Palms Scenic Parkway, Whitehorse, Yukon" with bogus return address "24 Sussex, Rockcliffe Park, Ottawa" would still be an attempt to send something to Harper (as there is no 29 Palms as a street in Whitehorse, ensuring this comes back) but the package would have to go to the high Arctic and back before eventually turning up in Ottawa... whereas a package sent directly from Montréal to Ottawa is only going two hours down the road and would arrive in a more timely fashion.

Nonetheless, a foreign address wouldn't surprise me in the least. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for removal of Move tag

As the 'move' discussion has been closed as "not moved, with no opinion on whether the article can or should be split" the {{movenotice|Murder of Lin Jun|discuss=Talk:Luka Magnotta#Renaming the article: Murder of Lin Jun}} banner should be removed from the very top of the article. The {{splitsection}} on the "Murder of Lin Jun" section should remain in place. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done, thanks for noticing it was still there. Monty₈₄₅ 15:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Spinoff article

The move section (far above) should be closed now, as its been long overdue. Hence we can proceed with the spinning off of this article to a Murder of Lin Jun article. An interesting fact, the AFD (third) for this article was snowball-closed as "keep," but it seems a majority of those voters indicated that the article should be *renamed to something else, like Murder of Lin Jun. I don't know exact numbers, perhaps someone can do a count. Anyway, we should continue the spinoff/split discussion. -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

How about we split it into six parts and add them to different wikis? There is too much overlap in content. Video/Magnotta's apartment/Postage: belongs here? yes. belongs to murder? yes. Manhunt/extradition/aftermath? yes. Curiously, I don't see a lot of Murder of Lin Jun-related content being added. The way I see it, the reasons for the discussion is getting rid of Magnotta (in the title and in intro) and building a memorial to Lin Jun (RIP). You're the not one to write his biography, are you? Skullers (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

With the article just about Magnotta, though, the focus is more on him than the case. Even the info-box is all about him, down to his height and weight. Psalm84 (talk) 08:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As much as it probably galls everyone to admit, the fact is that none of the other content would be notable without the presence and actions of Luka Magnotta. A few editors continue to push a certain slant (likely for the reasons Skullers noted above) without basis. Sorry, but Magnotta is the focus. In fact, I'm looking at a picture of him on the COVER of MacLean's magazine right now. Taroaldo (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Conversely, Luka Magnotta is not notable except for the murder of Lin Jun. His supposed porn career (now over) is one scene on one DVD and a handful of clips on some Internet paysites. He was forgotten entirely after 2010. Two AfD's have already established he fails notability under WP:PORNBIO. Were he not rotting in a Berlin jail cell as a fugitive suspect for a high-profile murder, his picture would not be on the front of anything.

Oh, and shouldn't that be "How about we split it into six parts and mail them to different cities?" That would better fit the modus operandi. :)

The split between zh:Luka Magnotta and zh:2012 Jun murder case was already made on the Chinese version of this page. There is plenty of biographical info on the victim cited there. The split means that the Lin Jun article appears with Lin's infobox, Lin's photo, Lin's categories, Lin's bio instead of reading like an endless list of the alleged perpetrators various attempts at attention whoring over the years. All of the Magnotta self-promotion (with corresponding cat's and infobox) stays behind in the Magnotta article. As much as he'd like to be the focus of everything, his fifteen minutes of fame are just about over. No new and notable info is coming out now.

If we were to steal the zh: sources, odds are they'd tell us far more than we already have about Lin Jun but tell us nothing new about the accused. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As sad as it is, Lin Jun and his biographical information and even his murder wouldn't be notable without Luka Magnotta... it's the combination and the sleazy details that gets the media (and Wikipedia's) attention. -- megA (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Lin's categories? Seriously? Of his bio, which parts are relevant to the murder, whatever sheds light on him in particular being targeted? I doubt he would pass 3 AfDs on his own either.
2. Chinese policies don't apply here any more than German ones do.
3. The AfD from over 2 weeks ago is about as relevant as the 2008 ones. A lot happened since then.
4. Height and weight are listed from the time he was wanted by the Interpol. If an infobox is unnecessary then the relevant information should be diffused into the following section. Skullers (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

By Wikipedia (and press) standards, Magnotta has indeed become a notable person. Yes, Lin Jun's murder was the catalyst for all these reliable sources significantly covering him and his personal/professional business. But now that they have (in huge font, front page fashion), it doesn't matter if anyone dislikes this fact. Wikipedia is not a vehicle through which an outraged readership denies an infamous character that which it is reported he desires just to spite him. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"Conversely, Luka Magnotta is not notable except for the murder of Lin Jun." Sorry, 66.102.83.61, but that's a lost proposition. The development of the article has shown that statement to be false. Regularly repeating it will not cause things to change. Taroaldo (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Taroaldo. Because of the alleged murder of Jun Lin and his alleged past, Luka Magnotta has gained significant notoriety. It was what Luka Magnotta did in the past that made this a big case in the first place. Unfortunately, he got one of the things he wanted from the very beginning, to be famous, to be notable, to have his own Wikipedia article. He made a deal with the devil because he was too lazy to achieve fame the legitimate way, and the terms: legendary status in exchange for life in prison. We can all agree that he is a horrible excuse for a human being, but Wikipedia is not a place to let your emotions dictate what is and what is not notable. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What he did in the past? Notable? The alleged kitten atrocities got just a mention in tabloids like Sun (UK) and the Daily Mail, the Homolka nonsense is a fraud which he allegedly fabricated himself, his supposed porn career was half-over by 2004 and one scene on one alleged DVD in an alleged entire alleged career does not a porn star make. This stuff would be marginal had he not allegedly gone on to murder and then very thoroughly self-incriminate in an alleged attempt at alleged publicity. His alleged past would never have been allegedly dredged up were it not for the murder allegations. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that is what I said, 66.102.83.61. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. His "accomplishments" were not notable before he became a suspect. But then they became notable (because they were then covered indepth, by reliable sources) So it is true to say "Magnotta would not have been notable except for the murder of Lin Jun", but not "Magnotta is not notable except for the murder of Lin Jun". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

<attached split section>

One of the main acting principles among those of us in the move/split camp is that someone should not gain notability from a heinous crime, leaving the victim unrecognized. That seems to be the case with this article - the keep/don't-split camp thinks that Magnotta has acheived notability if you add up all of the stupid and heinous things hes done. I can accept that, provided the murder of Lin Jun article is split off.

I think its interesting to note that the previous AFD resulted in not a plain keep, rather a keep and rename, quite different things. The majority of votes there appeared to stipulate "rename." Hence it is probably a good option for us in the move/split camp to simply re-list this article for deletion, whereby we can figure most of those who voted for rename last time will probably do the same again. This time though we will suggest a split as a compromise solution rather than an all-out delete. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are "camps"?! I object to the notion that this is some sort of competition and that "strategies" are needed to outmaneuver other editors. You have been flogging this persistently and there is no traction to it. Wikipedia is no place for the if you don't like the first answer, keep asking till you get an answer you like tactic. Taroaldo (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)