Talk:Murder of Jun Lin/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Edit request on 1 September 2013

This Wiki report of Luka Magnotta is LOADED with information. Frankly, it is far more accurate that the media coverage of Luka. However, although just about all of the information in this report is information that has been published elsewhere, there are quite a few inaccuracies in it. This report is a prime example of the power and usefulness of Wikipedia. The mainstream media is controlled by corporate interests. In Canada, the media is pretty much monopolized by a corporation called TVA. When a big story breaks, the initial reports are invariably filled with inaccuracies. The problem with the media is that they rarely correct their mistakes, rarely make retractions, and frankly, they don't care. They won't let the facts get in the way of a good story. I would prefer to leave this post as it is.. BUT I would like to ADD to it, and point out corrections. It will take me several hours or even days to do this, in fact, I would like to do it gradually. If you have any questions, just ask me and I will either have the answer, or get the answer. When this case goes to trial in September 2014, there will be a record of Wikipedia being RIGHT and all the mainstream media being WRONG. I would point out that just because something has been published in a newspaper does not make it a reliable source. In fact, quite the opposite. For example: about 3 weeks ago, a reporter in Montreal contacted me about the case. She wants to write an article about the fans of Luka Magnotta. (By the way, I am not a FAN of Luka Magnotta, I am interested in getting the people who actually did this series of crimes convicted). Luka seems like a very nice fellow, but I am by no means a fan of his.) Anyway, I asked this reporter about the PRE-TRIAL, and she responded that she definitely will be attending that. She had no idea that the pre-trial was in March and April of 2012 and already OVER WITH! I would also point out that every alleged fact used to get the interpol arrest warrant for Luka turned out to be wrong. #1 Luka was not Jun Lin's lover #2 They were not roommates #3 After an investigation, Luka was cleared of having anything to do with the three mutilation cases in Los Angeles, Miami, and NYC. There are many other things about this case that I know, because the actual killers were taunting ME and I played dumb with them. (redacted per WP:BLP) Also, despite Luka having a traceable cell phone on him when he went to France.. and they were tracing him. He was NOT arrested by the police. He was spotted by a man in an internet cafe, who found out that there was a reward offered for Luka. After Luka was at the cafe for over an hour, the man went out on the street and waved down some cadet trainees... 10 of them in a group.. who took Luka into custody. Oh..and about the kitten videos.. they are fake, and I can prove that. In the existing WIKI article that I am wanting to edit, it even mentions that the python video which supposedly has Luka in it was submitted to Scotland Yard. Luka was living in London England at the time. Scotland Yard dismissed it, because they realized that the video was made in North America! In one of the copies of the python video, you see an electrical outlet. It is the North American style of two vertical slots about 3/4 inch apart with a ground hole under it.. sort of like the configuration of two eyes and a mouth. The electrical outlets in England, where Luka lived during the time that the Python video was made, are two round holes, spaces about an inch apart, not slots. Also, in that video.. there are TWO sets of human arms on camera at the same time. One of those arms looks like that of a female. There are braclets on it, etc. (redacted per WP:BLP) Knut Rumpe Hodet (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Knut. I have to admit straight off the bat that I am concerned about this post and your intentions. First off, I have redacted several accusations and removed mention of various named persons per our biographies of living persons policy. We absolutely cannot accept such claims without significant support from published, reliable sources. I must insist that you not restore this. Second, it appears that you intend to promote theories or "inside information" you may have regarding the case. I would suggest that you consider our policies regarding original research and conflicts of interest. That brings me to my third concern. I linked our reliable source policy above, and yes, newspapers and major media qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. Blogs, forums and sites promoting fringe theories generally do not. I can't say for certain at this time because I do not know exactly what you intend to add, but my first impression is that the material you wish to add may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time. If you do wish to propose any additions here, I strongly suggest you pay close attention to the above mentioned policy regarding biographies of living persons. Infringing material will be liberally removed. Thanks, Resolute 00:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Too much of this is original research and would not go into the article if it made allegations against living people. As for the animal cruelty videos, it is unclear whether Magnotta is the person involved, and having seen some of the videos and screenshots myself, I am not convinced that he is the person in them. An electrical socket in the UK looks like this and round pin sockets are used on the continent. Scotland Yard dismissed the python video, saying that it was posted from an IP address in North America (have they heard of proxies or VPNs, though?) It is also true that friends of Jun Lin denied that he was in a relationship with Magnotta, despite claims in parts of the media. Ultimately Wikipedia can include only material that has appeared in reliable secondary sources, and cannot attempt to disprove what the mainstream media has said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that a Sun reporter, by any chance, Knut? And are you familiar with the online detective work of Beavis Butthead (probably an assumed name)? If not, you may want to Google that name next to Magnotta/Newman's. You two seem to have similar goals. Good luck to both of you, but like was said, Wikipedia can't help. We're essentially tied to reliable sources, for good or bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I have very little to contribute beyond what's already been said, but nonetheless need to call attention to the assertion that TVA has a complete monopoly on the Canadian media. It's true that media consolidation has resulted in control of the Canadian media being concentrated in far too few hands, but there are still numerous distinct media corporations operating in Canada — and TVA, which is a single francophone television network that is a subsidiary of Quebecor, does not have a monopoly on anything. Rogers Media, Bell Media, Remstar, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Postmedia Network, Jim Pattison Group, Torstar, Shaw Media, Gesca and Newcap Broadcasting, for just some examples, do still exist as alternatives to Quebecor/TVA/Sun Media, so we are in no way tied to a single media company that has a monopoly on all of our possible sources.
The problem with presuming to add "corrections" that are based on unsourced personal knowledge, rather than referenced to media sources, is that absolutely anybody can come here and claim to have inside knowledge of absolutely anything they want. I don't want to presume that you don't have good intentions, but I've seen countless cases in the past where people have had an agenda that led them to claim personal knowledge of an article subject that was either needlessly inflammatory (e.g. insider stuff about an article topic's sex life) or completely false (see Wikipedia biography controversy, for example.)
So we have to insist on verifiability at all costs — even if the sources are getting the story wrong, such that what's verifiable and what's actually true are two different things, the corrections still have to be supported by reliable sources, not original research or unsourced assertions of insider knowledge. So if you come across a specific fact in the article that's wrong and can find another reliable source which properly verifies exactly what the necessary correction is, then by all means feel free to post an edit request specific to that situation so that we can deal with it properly — but especially in a situation where there are still high WP:BLP sensitivities to consider, you can't just have free rein to alter statements in the article in an unsourced way. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Psychopathy

Under the Mental Health section the article claims he's been diagnosed as a "psychopath" and "borderline psychopath".

  1. One cannot be diagnosed as a psychopath. Although I can not know for certain, it's likely the intent of the editor was to convey that Newman/Magnotta has been diagnosed with dissocial personality disorder, or it's DSM equivalent.
  2. Taking that into account, of the three cited articles none mention dissocial or antisocial personality disorder, and in fact only one mentions psychopathy at all:
Drew University professor Bonn shares a similar view.
"Based on what has been reported, it sounds like Magnotta is a sexual sadist and a psychopathic mission killer," Bonn said.

Opinion based on reportage does not constitute diagnosis. Indeed, I suspect the majority of the listed contemporary 'diagnoses' are spurious, but lack the time to look into them further as they're not as glaringly obvious as the claim of diagnosed psychopathy.

As the article is protected can someone evaluate the above and, if deemed necessary, adjust the article accordingly please? 86.147.223.178 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it wouldn't take too long to read the three cited articles in full and, after doing so, only the first mentions any diagnoses and that's the 2005 document mentioning paranoid schizophrenia (Montreal Gazette July 17 2013). If a third party could verify my findings and remove all but paranoid schizophrenia, I'd be most grateful. 86.147.223.178 (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, the Montreal Gazette article is the only worthwhile RS being cited here. Media talking heads who have never met Magnotta are not a reliable source, and some of the material is not in the sourcing given. WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS are important here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Sources notwithstanding, the idea that someone can't be diagnosed with an outdated label is (as it used to be known) crazy. Plenty of people haven't been to a shrink in years. If there are still any "hysterical" women alive, they still were diagnosed. The name may change, but that doesn't retroactively change the actual diagnosis event.
Sources withstanding (is that a word?), certainly relay what's in them. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Magnotta's place of birth

Magnotta was not born in Scarborough, he was born in North York. I'd appreciate it if this was changed as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yupyupawesomeman (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This needs a source, because the mainstream media reports (which we have to rely on) seem to agree that he was born in Scarborough in 1982.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I realize this comment isn't productive, or helpful, or constructive in any way, and I apologize for that...but..."as soon as possible"? I get that it may be incorrect, but what's with the urgency? And if it were so critical and time-sensitive, as you imply, and if you're a registered user on the site, and know how to access and edit talk pages...why wouldn't you just simply edit the information yourself, and cite a source?

People are just fascinating to me, sometimes. Ultranothing (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The account is new, just used for this post so far. An account needs to make a few edits and wait a few days before the user can edit semi-protected pages (they have padlock icons). Can't explain the urgency, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Misspelling

On one of the sections it says "Magnotta's defence team requested the media and the public be barred entirely from the hearing". "Defence " should be changed to "Defense" obviously. What a laughable misspelling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.205.44 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR and Canadian_English#Spelling_and_dictionaries.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Laughable is your ignorance of the world beyond the United States. Resolute 19:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
In fairness, English gets ridiculous everywhere. "Hearing" rhymes with "steering" and "clearing", but not "tearing" (except when it does). We're taught to not write "laff" or "staugh", and for some dumb (with a B) reason, "colonel" has an R sound. Is it Bobby Orr or Ore or Oar or Or? Madness. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Both OP Anon (68.96.205.44) and Resolute should see WP:EQ. As Anon appears to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and protocols, the appropriate response would be to explain the WP:ENGVAR as ♦IanMacM♦ did. ♦IanMacM♦ perhaps could have gone one step further and explained that disrespectful comments are not acceptable but maybe chose to let it slide because it appears OP Anon is not an experienced user. As for Resolute, there was nothing constructive in your comment, just a personal insult. A registered user should know better. Alexandria Steele (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Socketpuppets of LR Magnotta checked

Today we checked near 20 possible socektpuppets of Luca R. Magnotta in Special:Logs Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons for his own possible uploads of himself. Just his socketpuppet Santamonicablvd3 incl. one magazine scam image, what cant acually be used. Fab Magazine was contacted with request to upload one of his images to Wikimedia Commons. Rudko (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The key word here is "possible". There have been many claims that Magnotta did things on Wikipedia and Commons, but they should not be stated as fact, partly because they are unprovable WP:OR, and partly because some bored journalist may try to make a sensational story out of it even though it is unprovable.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2014

The Concordia student that Luka murdered is actually named Jun Lin. As you can see in numerous news articles, such as http://globalnews.ca/news/1606434/berlin-man-who-took-magnotta-in-to-home-continues-testimony/ and http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/01/victim_jun_lins_boyfriend_expected_to_testify_today_at_luka_magnotta_trial.html 67.193.167.72 (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Both would be correct, and the article has followed Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Order_of_names. Lin is the family name, which is usually given first in Chinese names. Some western media sources reverse the order to give the family name in the normal western way.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request October 18th

In the "aftermath" section, appears the line Magnotta was named "Canadian Newsmaker of the Year by Canadian media, which caused controversy". This is not quite true, he as named Canadian Newsmaker of the Year by the media outlet Canadian Press. The citations work, but the sentence is incorrect. You can find the wikipedia entry for Canadian Press's Newsmaker of the Year award here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Newsmaker_of_the_Year

Can someone change that? Cheers.

174.6.113.244 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Wasn't exactly untrue, since a lot of independent papers repeated the title, but best to name the official origin. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

It appears that he used his real name and passport on the flight to Paris as many news websites have reported.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/1.2803849 "Documents show Magnotta bought his ticket on the Expedia website and travelled with one suitcase, using his own passport. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.238.71.97 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, some confusion occurred here. He used the passport with the name Kirk Trammel at the hotel in France [1] but the flight was under his own name.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Magnotta's father

Re this edit: I'm not sure how relevant this is, and have tried to avoid adding major material during an ongoing trial. According to this source, "That was the testimony put forward by Magnotta’s biological father, a 50-year-old man who sought and obtained a court order banning the media from publishing his name or photograph. He was called to the witness stand Friday as the first piece in the defence of Magnotta against first-degree murder charges." Since this gives only one person's viewpoint, it might be better to wait until the trial is over to give a more rounded view.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems a bit out of place and undue there, anyway. Would make sense in the Trial section, whenever. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Missing info.

I tagged it, so I may as well say something here, in case it's not clear. Plenty has happened in the trial aside from one guy looking at tools. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a good idea to add major new information during a trial, and it is best to wait until the trial is over so that the picture is clearer. The trial section does need expanding, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. When this thing was trending, I complained about recentism. Now everyone's too late. I guess I'm just one of those unpleasable people. In any case, the tag doesn't hurt just to let readers know this isn't, in fact, Canada's slowest trial. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

New diagnosis

Luka has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder on top of his paranoid schizophrenia.

  • "Dr. Joel Paris, psychiatrist, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal: Diagnosed Magnotta with borderline personality disorder but prescribed no medication."

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/30/magnotta-defence-could-begin-friday-his-dad-on-witness-list

  • "Magnotta has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and there is a history of schizophrenia in his family, Luc Leclair said on the first day of his client's highly publicized first-degree murder trial."

Read more: http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/luka-magnotta-s-lawyer-says-his-client-is-not-criminally-responsible-1.2029450#ixzz3J1pfkJrW

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/luka-magnotta-s-lawyer-says-his-client-is-not-criminally-responsible-1.2029450

So he has BPD and paranoid schizophrenia. --Psychosis84 (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

According to those stories, he was diagnosed with BPD. That he was schizophrenic like his dad is something the lawyer intends to prove. Good enough source for one, not the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
As stated before, what one side says when presenting evidence at a trial is not an ideal source. It is up to the judge and jury to decide how much weight to give to the evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
In the trial, yes. But how does their decision relate to the weight in our article? Do we only mention the diagnosis if he's found not criminally responsible? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The trial section needs considerable expansion, but it is best to wait until after the trial is over to do this. At some trials the prosecution and defence hire psychiatrists who say radically different things, so a fuller picture is needed to maintain NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

the name luka magnotta

can we please highlight the fact that 'luka rocco magnotta' is not his real name, and that he is in no way affiliated with the italian community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.4.73 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It briefly mentions Eric's real name in the lead but perhaps you're right that it should highlight his real name Eric Newman a little more. Caden cool 22:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Newman's his birth name, but hasn't been his real name since 2006. When you legally change it, it's as real as when your parents legally register you at birth. Doesn't make him Italian at all. Rory MacDonald is also not Scottish. We can't do much about conclusions people jump to, without a source saying they shouldn't jump to that conclusion. His photograph helps set the record straight. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Some media sources claimed that the choice of name may have been inspired by the character of Vince Magnotta in the 1996 video game Ripper.[2] This is probably too speculative for the article though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Histrionic personality disorder vs Borderline personality disorder

The diagnosis of histrionic PD was suggested by Dr. Gilles Chamberland, who did not see, interview, or evaluate Magnotta himself as Magnotta refused to see Dr. Chamberland. Dr. Chamberland suggested that Magnotta showed Cluster B personality traits - antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic. He claimed that Magnotta met criteria for histrionic PD and borderline PD along with antisocial and narcissistic traits. Dr. Joel Paris, however, interviewed and evaluated Magnotta on April 17th, 2012 at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal and concluded he suffered from borderline PD.Montreal Gazette link; Proof 1; Proof 2. Dr. Paris also stated that Magnotta was heavily into drugs, and was addicted to temazepam - going from clinic to clinic to try to obtain a prescription for the powerful hypnotic drug. Prior to that, on July 20th, 2011 Magnotta saw Dr. Andree David, who diagnosed Magnotta with borderline personality disorder and made several comments about Magnotta in his file. Dr. David wrote "[Magnotta] had a fixed stare and monotonous voice. Magnotta in Quebec for 4 months. Chronic fatigue, referral to Royal Vic sleep clinic." She [Dr. David] also mentions that Magnotta asked specifically for a powerful and highly addictive sedative-hypnotic known as temazepam (Restoril), which she denied to prescribe. Dr. Renée Roy, the forensic psychiatrist who has been treating the 32-year-old at Rivières-des-Prairies Detention Centre since November 2012, through his preliminary hearing, right up to the murder trial also diagnosed Magnotta with borderline personality disorder with histrionic features. in this link to the Toronto Star Dr. Roy is quoted saying "After a session in late January, Roy wrote 'it remains complicated to make a specific diagnosis,' because of Magnotta’s history of schizophrenia but 'his personality is fragile.' She placed him in Class B of borderline personality disorder with histrionic traits." Another clinical psychologist, University of BC, Dr. Don Dutton, believes Magnotta has borderline personality disorder. Though Dr. Dutton, much like Dr. Chamberland, never interviewed or assessed Magnotta.Link here. Shouldn't it state that Magnotta was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder since this was a diagnosis that was made by at least three independent psychiatrists/psychologists that actually evaluated and interviewed Magnotta? Angusticeps (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to Add:

He's been variously diagnosed as a borderline personality (Dr. Paris, Dr. Chamberland, Dr. Roy, and Dr. David; Dr. Watts conceded that Magnotta displayed borderline and histrionic traits), histrionic personality (by Dr. Chamberland who had not seen, interviewed or assessed Magnotta and Dr. Paris claimed Magnotta had histrionic features to his borderline PD, Dr. Watts conceded that Magnotta displayed borderline and histrionic traits), paranoid schizophrenic, substance abuser, malingering and paraphilias have also been mentioned. --Angusticeps (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Second psychiatrist diagnosis BPD

Dr. Christie Blatchford diagnosed Magnotta with borderline personality disorder w/ histrionic features. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/03/christie-blatchford-luka-magnotta-seems-more-an-anxious-neurotic-than-schizophrenic-after-doctors-testify/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.12.115 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Magnotta's profession?

Is it really appropiate to call Mr. Magnotta a "former pornographic actor and model"? Yes, he did participate in 8 gay sex "movies" over a span of 7 years and did some modeling. But it seems one could hardly call this his main profession and source of income. Would you call a plumber who appears in one or two porn movies per year on the side a "pornographic actor"? I don't think so... Someone who publishes one or two articles per year in the local paper is hardly a professional journalist.

But a full-time drifter qualifies as "pornographic actor" because he appeared (with little or no remembrance in the industry) in a few flics?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/01/little-evidence-luka-rocco-magnotta-was-a-gay-porn-star-or-many-of-the-other-things-he-called-himself/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/31/luka-rocco-magnotta-tried-to-drum-up-notoriety-for-five-years-before-being-accused-in-gruesome-murder/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.13.118 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If he got paid to drift, I'd support calling him a former drifter. But that wasn't professionally. The closest thing he had to a career was gay porn. He sure wasn't a porn star, and we don't call him one. What do you suggest we call him instead? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How about this? http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Luka+Magnotta+bankruptcy+filing+reveals+life+lacking+glamour/6727237/story.html "Despite his varied claims to be a model and adult-film actor, accused killer Luka Magnotta was an unemployed server with no reported income when he declared bankruptcy in 2007." After that: fraudster and occasional pornographic actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.13.118 (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't fit into "Luka Magnotta is...".
And there aren't many (if any) articles that define someone by the time they weren't working. "Former" gets that point across. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Unemployed bankrupt drifter, conman, and part time male prostitute. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Magnotta on prison dating site

Magnotta is back in the news again [3] with reports that he is on a prison dating site. The page is here. Not sure if this is notable, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Magnotta on Stormfront

Luka Magnotta reportedly posted on the white supremacist website Stormfront under two different usernames, and also followed Don Black on Twitter. In one of his comments he specifically denounces Chinese people (asking why they get their own country and whites don't). Given the victim's nationality, and the numerous other murders that have been linked to Stormfront, this seems very relevant. [4]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2015‎ (UTC)

This comes down to verifiability. Contrary to what the SPLC source says, it is extremely hard to prove that a person posted something online. It would require knowledge of the person's IP address and even this does not prove who was sat in front of the keyboard at the time. This is similar to claims about Magnotta editing Wikipedia; interesting, but ultimately almost impossible to prove.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is some more detail about the alleged posts here. This article stops short of saying that the person behind the posts was Magnotta, even though the evidence points in his direction. This is a recurring feature with Magnotta.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The SPLC is a reliable source, and so the statement is verifiable. There's no additional "truth test" for this, as Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not "truth".Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Postcards signed by Magnotta

Re this edit: it isn't very notable and has issues with WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. People will still want to know about about the Lin Jun murder in ten years' time, but they won't care about this. At worst, this is a promotional plug for the sale of the postcards.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That has no business in the article and from the editor's other edits to Wikipedia, they appear to be affiliated with the website selling the merchandise. They've been reported to AN/I. Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yup. Pure trivia. Resolute 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside the COI issue, it would be notable if Magnotta had written something on the postcards which offered a significant insight into the case which was not previously available. As it is, they are routine crime memorabilia and not worth mentioning in the article. It is also worth mentioning that the sourcing describes the cards as "allegedly" signed by Magnotta.[5] Anyone tempted to shell out the $250 being asked would be well advised to get a professional opinion about whether they are genuine.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"Luka Magnotta's prison paradise"

Magnotta is back in the news with an article in the Toronto Sun about his life inside prison. There is also a gallery of photos. Not really notable enough for the article, but may be of some interest.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Relationship With Clinton Teale

In June 2015, Magnotta joined a controversial dating site for prisoners, after nearly a month on the website Magnotta wrote a letter requesting to be removed after finding his "prince charming." This new lover of the convicted killer was later revealed to be amateur filmmaker Clinton Teale. Since this announcement, Teale has received a lot of hatred but also fan sites being made by obsessed lovers of Magnotta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarringtonMoney (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There are WP:BLP problems here, because I can't find any reference to this in reliable sources. Magnotta's involvement with a prison dating site was noted in June 2015.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The website Bestgore.com posted an article on December 26th, 2015 mentioning Clinton Teale and Magnotta's relationship. Bestgore was also the site where Luka uploaded his 1 Lunatic 1 Icepick video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LillyHammer123 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Homolka

I came across [6] which suggests rumours of a connection with Magnotta are just that rumours and possibly originating from Magnotta himself. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the source is already used in the article, but I can't say our wording "initially announced the pair had dated" is particularly reflective of what it actually says. The source seems to be suggesting that a minor ambigious comment in response to a seemingly irrelevant question in a long running press conference by a tired police commander was blown up out of all proportion rather than something the police ever actually "announced". If the source is correct, the whole Homolka should be drasticly pared down or even removed, since the sources makes it sound like the rumour has little credibility yet our article makes it sound like it's something which is unconfirmed and denied by Magnotta but possible. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

error?

Was he a former porn actor? I thought he was a porn actor at the time of arrest. If so, help me change it. Fiona Gump (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If I recall, he was on Badpuppy.com, but I would tend to think that one or two appearances doesn't make you a "porn actor" as a profession. - BalthCat (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

BLP discussion

AFAICT no reputable news source labels Magnotta a "murderer", and unless we have *multiple* reliable sources this label needs to stay out of the article. Anyone that restores this without gaining a consensus will be reported to ANI where an admin can decide how to handle this. I will now notify BLPN of this discussion.That man from Nantucket (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a weird objection, he was convicted of first-degree murder in December 2014, so he is unlikely to be suing successfully for libel over this any time soon. As for being a convicted murderer - which he is - this is his main source of notability in reliable sources. It could be argued that saying that he is a murderer is largely redundant in view of the WP:LEAD section, but it isn't a major BLP concern as you seem to think that it is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
BLP still applies. The article accurately says he was convicted of murder. Is a murderer a profession? How do we treat other people who are convicted of crimes? We use what the sources say. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree this is a weird objection. He's a convicted murderer; that's simply a fact. And plenty of sources describe him in this way. E.g., [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The Toronto Sun (the referenced source) is a tabloid. You then cite a columnist. And none of the others call him a murderer (hint, article titles are not to be used for sources on Wikipedia)
If there were some issue in neutrally referring to someone who commits murder as a murderer, then surely reliable sources would refrain from doing that in the title as well as the body. The titles of reliable sources do refer to the subject as a "murderer". The subject even described himself as a murderer. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • What an absolutely stupid objection. The man was convicted of murder. This is a basic fact. Please don't waste people's time with such nonsense. Resolute 13:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
We don't call people that commit terrorist acts terrorists. The same logic applies. Unless you're too stupid to see that.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
This is an absurd objection. He admitted to the killing and was convicted of first degree murder. No, the same logic dies not apply because terrorism has political components and there is no universal agreement about the definition of terrorism. There is universal agreement that those convicted of murder who admitted the offense are murderers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Also an absurd premise. Wikipedia calls high-profile Muslim killers terrorists at the first mention of "terror" in any reliable source, regardless of evidence, admission, conviction or even reasonable suspicion. Sometimes the mistake is eventually fixed, sometimes it's perpetually restored, but it always happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
"We don't call people that commit terrorist acts terrorists." Err... Yes we do. And not just Muslim terrorists, but others too. For example Carlos the Jackal is referred to as a terrorist in the first sentence of the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:13, 31 March 201 (UTC)
The Jackal is a valid case. Unlike the Muslims I meant, he, his defense and his prosecutors had ample time to test their sides of the stories in court. A few times. There were, and are, specific disagreements, of course. But nothing from either side to suggest he wasn't generally a terrorist (or at least a person who admits to doing what a terrorist does that a simple murderer doesn't). It's more like a boring noun with him than a scare word. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

this is easily resolved if anyone can provide a source per BLPThat man from Nantucket (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Every reliable source that reports that he was convicted of first degree murder is a perfectly acceptable source for calling him a murderer. Have you noticed that so far no other editor agrees with your pedantic argument? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a loaded term. It's not neutral. You'll notice that no sources choose to describe him this way. Sources 'do' label people with loaded terms, such as "serial killer" all the time. And we do use those in articles. If you want to ignore the spirit of BLP and boil this man's life down to a single phrase, then by all means do so. And now that I think on it, this is probably a BLP1E article. Unless you count the manhunt a separate"story"That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but that's just b0llocks. The man is a convicted murderer. I'm open to any form of wording in the lead that works, but not to this WP:HORSEMEAT debate about BLP and NPOV.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
BLP1E? You must be kidding, right? Per WP:PERP, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This person clearly meets that standard given the details of the crime, that at least two books have been written about him, he is discussed in several other books, and coverage in reliable sources has been ongoing for almost five years. Please drop it and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The book "Canadian Psycho: The True Story of Luka Magnotta" calls him a murderer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
There is only one person who objects to calling him a murderer. The Quebec Superior Court is a reliable source when it comes to crimes. Let's end the discussion, and restore the word. Ground Zero | t 22:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Aye. I've argued long and hard over the last few years against Wikipedia throwing the word around (even sometimes to describe dead people), but a conviction is very convincing, even to a zealot like me. That he's most notable for it is reason enough to primarily define him as one. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. (non-admin closure) Kostas20142 (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


Luka Magnotta → Murder of Lin Jun – per WP:NCRIME and WP:CRIME the article subject is only notable for the commission of this crime. Hack (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stay The execution of the crime is unusual, and persistent coverage has devoted significant attention to the criminal's role. The porn, kitten killing, modeling, fraud, bankruptcy, online personas and Homolka thing go beyond the weird murder and to the weird (pseudo)celebrity behind it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request

Magnotta craves attention and wants to be seen as beautiful. Will someone please replace his photograph with the ugliest photograph of him that can be found? Perhaps the photo where he has a big bruise on his lip and around his eyes? This edit might help against copycat idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Givemhell (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  •  Not done: We had enough trouble with getting the current infobox image to stay in the article because of the WP:NFCC requirement. Maybe if there was a free to use image of him with a bruise... --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"White nationalist"

Since you, User:John_B123, seem to be reverting (and close to edit-warring) [13][14] something that three different editors disagreed with [15][16][17] (with the last two edit summaries explaining why it's being removed), mind discussing here on why you're adding the material back per WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"? Some1 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The guideline to be followed here is WP:BRD, anything else is a red herring. Disagreements like this need to be discussed on the talk page not simply continually reverting to what your view is. --John B123 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The top of this talk page clearly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article" and per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged: "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." Are you saying that Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged is a "red herring"? And you still haven't addressed why you're adding the material back per WP:BURDEN. Some1 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Put whatever spin on it you want, the simple fact is that the talk page is here to resolve these issues where there are disagreements between editors rather than keep changing the page, which is what my edit summaries have advised. --John B123 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty weird to describe him as a white nationalist in the short description when this is not discussed in any detail in the text of the article, or mentioned in the WP:LEAD which is a summary of the important things to know. As far as Joe Average is concerned, the only thing that Luka Magnotta is famous for is the murder of Lin Jun in 2012. The white nationalist part would need significant reliable sourcing. Where is it?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ianmacm: As an experienced editor and reviewer I'm surprised you have reverted again whilst the conversation about this is going on.--John B123 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
As stated in: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion", so the editor has the right to remove it. See WP:BURDEN before you revert (again): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Some1 (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
"resolve these issues where there are disagreements between editors rather than keep changing the page, which is what my edit summaries have advised." Yes, and you are part of the disagreement since you keep reverting. So take your own advice and discuss: Why do you keep reverting and adding the material back when it lacks reliable sources? Some1 (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
How am I part of the problem? All I have done is asked people to use the talk page. One editor changed the description and another reverted that change. At this point BRD should have been followed and a discussion started, but User:ianmacm, who I would have thought should have a better understanding of policies and guidelines, decided to revert again. It was only at this point I stepped in trying to get people to discuss it. I understood WP:BLPSOURCE the first time you brought it up. --John B123 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
You reverted twice: first here [18] then again [19] citing WP:BRD (despite BRD saying clearly at the top: "If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." Also from WP:BRD itself: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy... In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach." Some1 (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining BRD, but I was already conversant with it. --John B123 (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I've rarely seen such a hoo-ha over a short description. These should be simple and uncontroversial. The "white nationalist" part in the short description lacks WP:WEIGHT in the article, and is not mentioned in the lead section. This risks giving the impression that Magnotta is known for his political views which he isn't. There have been suggestions that the murder of Lin Jun was racially motivated, but this is unclear. Prior to the murder, he was probably better known for being a B-list gay porn actor than a white nationalist.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. There's no need for "white nationalist" in the first sentence. Unless white nationalism becomes a prominent part of his persona or it is revealed as a major motive for his crime, there's no reason to mention it here. You wouldn't say "Luka Magnotta is a Canadian murderer and film enthusiast". In addition, it appears as if SPLC has retracted the claim (the material sourced to them regarding him being a white nationalist is no longer present in the current version of the page, only the archived version). Bueller 007 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Magnotta and the animal cruelty videos

Re this edit: there is a WP:BLPCRIME problem here, because none of the animal cruelty videos was ever proven in court to be the work of Magnotta. Even if he uploaded them, he is not necessarily the person in them. I have seen screenshots from some of these videos, and do not believe that Magnotta is the person in some of them. This leads to potentially confusing and misleading wording in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion as to whether he was in the videos is original research. The article currently states only what the reliable, third-party sources say. It does not declare him guilty or make any other unsourced claims or synthesis, so there is no BLPCRIME issue. EnPassant (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The reliable sourcing says that animal rights groups claimed that he had done this. He has never been charged or convicted over an animal cruelty offence. I agree that it is OR to say that Magnotta is not the person in some of the videos, but I am fairly sure that he isn't. In at least one of the claimed videos, it obviously isn't him. The wording needs to be careful on this issue to avoid giving the impression that Magnotta has been proven to be guilty of animal cruelty when he has not.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the current wording is good. EnPassant (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Ian, noting that he uploaded the videos has nothing to do with conviction for animal cruelty. Maybe he should be convicted for that, but that is neither here nor there. It isn't just an "allegation" that he uploaded them. Does any serious RS doubt that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
As I've said, the animal rights activists claimed that Magnotta uploaded the videos, and the media reported this, but the police and the courts never became involved. It is important not to use a form of wording that overrides WP:BLPCRIME. Also, although the animal rights activists had been checking up on Magnotta's activities, he had so many user accounts and aliases that it is hard to be sure what he actually did during this period.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any RS which dispute that Magnotta uploaded those videos? If not, then your speculations are OR and not a reason to delete that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Animal rights activists were checking out Magnotta. They believed that he had uploaded videos of animal cruelty but this is their opinion. There is some example sourcing here but it isn't really RS stuff. It does say "LCA reached out to law enforcement in the U.S., Canada, and to Interpol about the videos but didn’t receive a response." In other words, although animal rights activists believed that Magnotta was the person responsible, they were not in a position to offer law enforcement enough evidence to produce a full criminal investigation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that RS had said he uploaded the videos, and, of course, we should go by them. The existence or lack of existence of a police investigation of that matter is irrelevant and a red herring. We write what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
What has happened is the RS has reported the claims of animal rights activists that he uploaded the videos. I'm not disputing that Magnotta may have uploaded animal cruelty videos, but there was never enough evidence for the police and courts to become involved, which leads to the BLPCRIME issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Request 2

Can it be added that he also married a murderer in 2017? Plenty of news articles can be sourced. Chrysalisjade (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

There are various sources from June 2017 saying that he planned to marry another inmate named Anthony Jolin.[20] Presumably this went ahead, but there is a lack of clear sourcing. This source says that the wedding was scheduled for June 26.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the only source I could find that stated with certainty the wedding had taken place. It's dated the day after the ceremony.Orvilletalk 03:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Good enough. But only in the infobox. Starting an Incarceration section just to include a marriage seems preposterous, and it'd be hard to call this Personal/Private life, given the guards watching them stay apart. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Renaming the page to 'Murder of Jun Lin'

Shouldn't the article be renamed to 'Murder of %victim's name%' as per the usual convention? The goal is not to glorify a murderer (particularly in this case, given the determination of a criminal to gain as much media attention and recognition), but rather to focus on the actual crime. See Wikipedia:"Murder_of"_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1122:C4D5:2DFD:23A1:D65A:DAE1 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. However, there is plenty of material in the article which is specifically about Magnotta as a person rather than the murder, so I think that the current title is OK. Another problem is familiarity; and average person might wonder what the Murder of Jun Lin was about, although they may have heard of Luka Magnotta. I don't think that the article is trying to glorify Magnotta and give him the publicity that he wanted from the case, as has been suggested previously.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Its important to note this isn't the publicity he wanted, either. He wanted to be 'the one that got away' like Jack the Ripper or the Zodiac Killer, an identity-less killer moving in the shadows. He never wanted to be identified and he never wanted to be caught, despite his enjoyment of the chase. 75.134.45.1 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I would support this move. It would be in line with similar articles (Jodi Arias > Murder of travis alexander, Shayna Hubers > Murder of Ryan Poston, etc.). You might want to request this at WP:REQMOVE
BBX118 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I too would support the move. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I can't support a move because it has problems with WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Agree with Ian Macm's comments regarding both content and WP:COMMONNAME. --John B123 (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support the move. BBX118 made a good point about how this would be in line with the Jodi Arias / Murder of Travis Alexander article. Some1 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Request

The police did not uncover that Magnotta had opened many websites of himself, the internet group did. The police also didn’t identify Luka prior to the internet group, who had been tracking him for a while. Is this changeable, or are there no sufficient sources to cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androvax (talk • contribs) 07:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's all a bit vague. Magnotta was being checked out by online animal rights activists and they believed that he had numerous accounts under various names. However, this is difficult to prove and the police were not really interested in the angle that he had multiple online accounts, and stuck to the murder case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The article places virtually no emphasis on the Internet Sleuths and / or the docu-series

Given the pivotal role of the internet in how Magnotta's crimes unfolded, not mentioning in depth either the online research, individuals involved, nor the docu-series seems a striking omission. Core to the story is Magnotta's quest for notorious internet fame. The clues within "Catch me if you can" and "Basic Instinct" were uncovered by these amateur detectives, not the professional detectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.70.190 (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Someone should outline the events regarding the Facebook group huntig Magnotta down and their related animal murders before the screwdriver murder, along with Magnotta's obsession with fame and being a 'star' of his own 'story'. His escalation from cats to humans, the danger of him becoming a serial killer, and the methodical nature of his preparations (including the fabrication of a powerful abuser named 'Manny' more than a year prior to the murder) are all pivotal to understading what happened. 75.134.45.1 (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The "internet sleuths" did not contribute any new facts to any investigation. The only facts they ever determined were given to them by outside sources (most likely Luka himself), and they played no part in his apprehension or conviction. The Netflix documentary is noteworthy and should be noted, but anything beyond that seems inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.7.151 (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020

This sentence, first paragraph:

"After a video depicting the murder was posted online in May 2012, Magnotta fled Canada, becoming the subject of an Interpol Red Notice and prompting an international manhunt."

I believe that CANADA should be changed to FRANCE (specifically PARIS).

The murder was committed and he already lived in Canada. Absolutspacegirl (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the wording to "fled from Canada" to eliminate any ambiguity. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luka Magnotta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Many External Links Are Now Dead, particularly those in the Montreal Gazette, Ottawa Citizen, and the Leader Post. I don’t have the time to check all the links, research the content cited by bad links, backtrack new sources/citations, and add these new citations in each section of the article. And to be frank, reading about the despicable, horrendous, and uncommonly cruel acts of this guy is extremely unpleasant. Does anyone want to volunteer to check and then fix all the links? It’d be appreciated. BeachyBlonde (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@BeachyBlonde: It's not necessary to find a new source when a link is dead provided an archived copy is available. Fortunately the editor who added the refs had the foresight to provide links to archived copies. With the exception of two instances, where CBC had changed the url structure of videos, it was a just matter of changing "url-status" from live to dead (which changes the primary link in the ref to the archived copy) where the original url was no longer available. --John B123 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@John_B123 Thank you. I did check for archived copies of the links for which I found new sources and there were none. I also added new sources for other reasons, such as the content being misquoted and most importantly, being incorrect. However, I am always looking to improve and learn so I appreciate you taking the time to post this and give me advice. BeachyBlonde (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@John B123 (such as here - where I incorrectly copy-pasted your user name) BeachyBlonde (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@BeachyBlonde: No problem. When you reply on a talk page, if you use {{reply||BeachyBlonde}}, which displays as @BeachyBlonde, it sends a notification to the other user that somebody has replied to them. Cheers --John B123 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@John B123:, thank you for that (very useful) tip. I have a LOT to learn about the deeper Wikipedia features and hypercode so I’ll take whatever tips you may want to throw my way. Much appreciated! BeachyBlonde (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Subheading

Although he did model, he was widely unsuccessful. On top of that, he's a criminal. Shouldn't his subheading say something along the lines of criminal or murderer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.60.60 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

He is obviously best known for the murder of Lin Jun, but he had some minor league fame as a gay porn star/model/escort before the murder. I'm not sure what specific change you are requesting here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Jewish

Why no mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.198.212 (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Luka Magnotta's ethnicity needs attribution to reliable published sources. Relevance also needs to be shown. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Despite a web search, I couldn't find any source, reliable or otherwise, that mentions this; there would also need to be relevance shown. Leopold and Loeb both came from prosperous Jewish families,[21] but they don't seem to have become murderers simply because they were Jewish.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2020

Its stated that he is a canadian model and if you search anywhere on google it is the first word that comes up under his name! it would be nice to make it to Sex worker or Killer or Convicted Killer for him. Thanks! Drunkbatmaan (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drunkbatmaan:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. In this article, it appears that |occupation= and other parameters in {{Infobox criminal}} are populated properly, and the first sentence of the article makes it clear he is a convicted murderer. We cannot control how Google chooses to present the information, but specific suggestions to improve the article are always appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
See the section Talk:Luka_Magnotta#Subheading above. He did work as a gay porn star/model/escort but it was very minor league stuff compared to the amount of media interest generated by the murder. Maybe he wanted it that way.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Google might be skimming the infobox's Occupation line, so deleting, changing or rearranging that might help Google. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
What Google displays in its search engine results is highly complex and, as part of Goggle's "User experience", personalised to some degree. Google takes a user's search history, and more importantly pages clicked through from the search results, and builds a user profile of what the user is interested in. This profile is taken into account when displaying the search results. In effect it appends keywords from your previous searches/click-through to the search term you enter, so two different users searching the same term may see different results. This can effect (to a lesser degree) the ordering of the results and to a larger degree, the snippets under the individual results. Although the OP sees "prostitute" under every result, when I search "Luka Magnotta" the word prostitute doesn't appear at all on the first page of results. If I had made lots for searches for "narcissistic personality disorder" and visited lots of pages on that subject, then I would expect to see "narcissistic personality disorder" in the snippets in the results for "Luka Magnotta".
Google will take some notice of the infobox, but will also take into account the rest of the page. Because of misuse in the past, infoboxes, keywords etc have little sway with google. Similarly, word order, which used to be important, has little/no significance now. Google will also freely interchange common words, so prostitute and sex worker are largely seen as the same thing in a search unless the term is wrapped in quotation marks. Millions of pounds are spent annually trying to manipulate google (SEO), a change in terminology or word order is unlikely to make any significant changes to the results. --John B123 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
It was cheap and easy, so if it does anything for anyone, it was worth it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

He shouldn't be listed as a 'Canadian Model" when searched

Wikipedia automatically puts "Canadian Model" under his name when you search him up. However, this is a persona created by himself and he was never paid or published until he murdered online. I suggest it be changed from "Canadian Model" to "The Online Killer" as that is the name given to him by the media after his conviction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.153.72 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC) [1]

This is also discussed in the threads above. The cite here says "Magnotta is a self-described model and escort with a sprawling web presence" which is fair enough. His career as a gay porn star/model/escort was very minor league and would never have become a matter of note without the murder of Lin Jun. In the short description he is described as a Canadian murderer, and several external search engines that I checked also said this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree that His career ... was very minor league and would never have become a matter of note without the murder of Lin Jun. Shouldn't the article be renamed to Murder of Jun Lin? Some1 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ex-friend-says-magnotta-not-natural-born-killer-1.1259049

Requested move 21 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta → Murder of Jun Lin – "Luka Magnotta" wouldn't be notable or have his own article if it weren't for the "Murder of Jun Lin". Some1 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support this is an event, not a notable person. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Only weak support: As I've said before, "Murder of Jun Lin" isn't really the WP:COMMONNAME for the case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    The move follows all of the standard "Murder of" articles. Magnotta's name wouldn't be used or noteworthy if it weren't for the "murder of Jun Lin" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Casey Anthony (which is a much more common name, even a household name) redirects to Death of Caylee Anthony. Jodi Arias redirects to Murder of Travis Alexander. Some1 (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC).
  • Support - if only because doing so implicitly expands the potential scope of the article. We'd almost never have an article about a notable murderer but not the notable event. When a murderer does get an article, its usually because a WP:SPLIT is in order, or they've become independently notable beyond the crime. This subject is very close to that because the kitten videos and related manhunt before & after the murder have gotten so much attention, but again, that should be handled via a SPLIT when/if the time comes. -- Netoholic @ 12:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The event is the primary topic of the article. Magnotta's biographical information is supplied as background, mostly consisting of criminal history. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

In the trial section, the statement should read "Magnotta will serve a mandatory life sentence and will NOT be eligible for parole in 25 years" This matches the statement on the side banner under Penalty. 2601:803:8000:74F:9C2C:4E91:1A73:4593 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Does it? The infobox says they won't have the possibility of parole until 25 years have been served, and the 19 years are served at the same time. So they will be eligible for parole in 25 years since the 19 is served concurrently. Dylsss (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is the sidebar pic not of Jun Lin

instead of the murderer?

Are we just pandering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:6A82:8080:9969:E92F:33E8:C2F2 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The article was called Luka Magnotta until July 2020 when it was renamed to its current version. The mugshot of Magnotta used to be in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

wiki page for Luka magnotta?

is this intentional (given his previous attempts at making his own page/etc)? seems like there would be more than enough information to warrant the making of a separate page JointCompound (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Internet sleuths/kitten killing role in finding Luka?

should we include a small section detailing how internet sleuths investigating the kitten killing videos were able to identify magnotta from the best gore tape? there is a fairly thorough rolling stones article on this aspect of the case that was published during the murder's aftermath JointCompound (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, did they find him though? They were told by one of Lukas alt accounts that it was him donnellan Donnellan0007 (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jun_Lin/Archive_6&oldid=1218929908"