User talk:Ryoung122/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Luka Magnotta
I shan't revert further on the article, as I don't want to be seen as not assuming good faith, and I don't want to edit war over a topic that is only of passing interest to me =) But I am of the opinion that a good deal of the speculation and hearsay in the article is in violation of BLP. The line about his websites, for example, may be speculation by a reliable source, but it is still speculation. I find it amusing to read following as it does a quote from Magnotta complaining that hoax websites in his name are being set up. Anyway, I've said my piece, and I certainly don't want to start falling out with people over some canadian nutjob. Perhaps if nothing else I have highlighted that people need to think hard about BLP before adding every little bit of news the media drip feeds out. Have a nice day, Ryoung =) GwenChan 16:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, while I understand your argument about some of the potential issues raised by the case, at this point it seems like many of them have yet to reach the point where we could honestly write about them without violating Wikipedia's proscriptions against original research. If you've got actual sources to demonstrate that the issues in question are actually being discussed in conjunction with the case, then by all means bring 'em on — but so far it seems to me like you might be brainstorming possible issues that might be addressed by criminology researchers in the future rather than ones that are actually already being discussed in the media (or at least the media I've seen so far).
- It's also worth noting that internet notoriety isn't at all the same thing as real world notability; he may have already been an infamous figure in certain niches of the interwebz for several years, but until just a few days ago he had never garnered anything like the necessary volume of reliable source coverage in real world media that would make him notable enough for our purposes here. (Note that even the cat videos and the Homolka thing are sourced almost exclusively to media coverage that's been generated in the past three days, and not to anything that would suggest that he garnered any substantial volume of media attention for them at the time.) You're certainly free to have an opinion on whether the media and/or the police dropped a ball they should have caught sooner than they did — but without coverage in reliable real world sources, it certainly wasn't Wikipedia's responsibility to beat them to the punch. Which is why he is still a WP:BLP1E at the present time — the murder allegation is the only thing, to date, that would make him somebody who might actually belong in a real encyclopedia, rather than just a directory of "weird bits of internet culture". Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Greetings, I think there are several issues to consider here. IN regards to "potential issues," my point was that at the AFD we need to wait as this story appears to have "legs". We already seeing some social-article results, such as
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/31/magnotta-a-ticking-time-bomb-relative
It may be that I have a good sense of what the media is going to do next, but they are covering some of my hypothetical angles already.
In regards to the second issue, media coverage prior to the most-recent "events" in the past week: while, true, I never heard of this man before a few days ago, it's also true that a Google Images search of "Luka Rocco Magnotta" prior to this week's story cycle returned quite a bit of hits...kitten-killer, pornstar, male model, Homolka rumors. Whether "engineered" by Magnotta or not...and most likely he has planned this out...this case is extremely unusual and has impact factors on social culture. For example:
"Dr. Bradford explained that..it's unlikely that the suspect is mentally ill or psychotic. 'Most people with (a) serious mental disorder don't do these types of things.' He also said the thought processes of the mentally ill are usually too disordered to carry out such a deliberate publicity campaign.
Sexual crimes are frequently recorded on video, Bradford said, but rarely murders. Even those who commit sexually-sadistic homicides (such as Bernardo and Homolka) tend to record only the sex because it is erotic to them.
"It sounds as though the purpose of the video was the homicide itself. It seems planned. He had a video camera set up and does the killing on the video. You have to ask yourself what is the motivation for that. It doesn't sound to be sexual. Is he extremely psychopathic and he wanted to bring himself into a position of tremendous notoriety, to become infamous as a Canadian homicide perpetrator? People with extreme psychopathology would do these sorts of things," he said. "That is my gut feeling."
So, we have a deliberate-publicity-campaign killer who, very unusually, films the actual murder and uses this to "terrorize" political party offices, in order to achieve "attention".
We have, in fact, "waves" of media coverage.
1. Human body parts mailed to Canadian political parties 2. The human body parts connected to a murder in Toronto 3. A search for the suspect (Interpol)
After the immediate coverage, we are having "follow-up" stories, examining the social issues. There is talk of Magnotta growing up in a broken home without parental supervision. The bottom line is that in a case like this, there were "warning signs" of impending trouble years in advance. As sick as the crimes committed were, that it took years to build up the psychopathy needed to commit them suggested there was a chance for intervention, had the "red flags" been heeded.
That, of course, raises secondary issues: why did the Canadian police ignore the kitten-killing videos? Why did they ignore the snuff film, which could have made it easier to catch the suspect right away? Botched police work will be yet another angle of this story. Of course, unless/until the suspect is captured, it's difficult to predict what will happen beyond the secondary-followup story angles. But expect to see another wave of coverage in magazines such as Time and Newsweek that will get deeper into the issues than just the fast-paced press.Ryoung122 21:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Saint George, Georgia
Hello, Ryoung. A while back, you left a large deposit on the talk page for Saint George, Georgia. I didn't see how it fit in with the purpose of a talk page, and I almost deleted the entire section. But then it occurred to me that perhaps you were using the talk page as an archive of material you intended to incorporate in the article at some point in the future. You will find the material here, if you would still plan to make use of it. 76.106.149.108 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marinko Matosevic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryoung122 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Canadian Paul 19:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your biased, POV-pushing editing makes Wikipedia a worse place, and less-informed, CP. Considering the history you have shown against me, certainly you should have considered recusing yourself from such an investigation.
Again, your edits make Wikipedia a worse place and the Wikipedia reader less-informed. Have a nice day. Ryoung122 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)