Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Tim McLean

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.181.64.13 (talk) at 02:50, 19 May 2012 (→Speculations about possible mental issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled discussion

Keep: The individual is part of a notable event.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the passengers where taken to Brandon, MB they did go to the RCMP station. They were taken to a motel where they could clean up and rest. The RCMP interviewed the stranded passengers at the motel. Greyhound the next morning took the passengers to a nearby Walmat to buy clothes because their belongings in the over head and under compartments of the bus could not be removed as they were part of the crime scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.128.207 (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this article because the individual is part of a notable event, then we should also make a page for Vince Weiguang Li. --216.165.62.50 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept. First, as stated earlier, the individual was part of a significant event. Second, if this article is deleted or moved, shouldn't other articles about high-profile murder victims of crime, like Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy, Kimberly Leach or Sharon Tate, also be deleted or moved? (Demetri1968 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those victims have received attention for 10, 20 or 30 years, so it's not directly comparable. Sharon Tate was also notable for reasons besides her murder; she was an actress.--Gloriamarie (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why this crime won't receive lasting attention. Nothing quite like it has every happened before in Canada. Therefore, I believe it is directly comparable and should be kept. But, if the majority disagree with me, then shouldn't someone delete the article on JoAnn Wilson? She wasn't a famous actrees and her murder hasn't been talked about very much these days. What about Ronald Goldman? He wasn't a famous celebrity at the time of his death. Demetri1968 (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about this incident should be made including the victim's info, as the victim is not notable except for the fact that he is a victim. You offer a specious set of arguments at best. 1) Ron Goldman was allegedly murdered by a notable person, in a long-term case that received attention because of the notoriety of the killer. JoAnn Wilson was also killed by a notable person and was the wife of a notable person. 2) According to Wikipedia guidelines, French and Mahaffy probably should not have articles either, but that case has been around for 10+ years and have been the subject of books and films making them far more notable than Tim McLean. 3) Significant events do not make the victims notable if they were not notable before. Show me articles about individual VA Tech victims if you believe that is true. 4) Citing other articles that may not be appropriate according to Wikipedia guidelines in no way supports the argument, it's like saying "He stole something, so I should be allowed to as well." 5) I will bet you real money that in a year people may remember the crime, but they will not remember the name of the victim. I strongly suggest you read over the Wikipedia guidelines for notability at Wikipedia:Notability, as most of your points demonstrate you haven't... CokeBear (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I have read the guidelines for notability several times. And, in my opinion, there's nothing in there to convince me that Tim McLean doesn't merit a separate article. Second, I'm shocked by many of your statements. They come across as insensitive, bureaucratic and pretentious. The victims "French" and "Mahaffy", as you put it, had first names. Kristen and Leslie were young human beings who whose lives were cut short. Why is it that so much notoriety is given to the psychopaths and not enough to the victims of these horrific crimes? I would have no problem if the victims of Virginia Tech and other major atrocities had individual Wikipedia articles. Maybe then we wouldn't forget their names and the horrible crimes that were committed against them. Tim McLean is notable for the simple reason that he was minding his own business and was savagely killed, decapitated and cannibalized in front of a bus load of people. Many Canadians, as well as people around the world, were disturbed by this and want to learn more about him. That's what wikipedia is all about! Set aside your strict rules and semantics and search for your humanity.Demetri1968 (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How in the world is this subject and it's victim and attacker not fall under a notable event???? (24.78.178.64 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This is a large even in Canada and has made headlines around the world acording to this source.

[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.20.237 (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why the fuck this article would be deleted? 99.240.233.59 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be kept. However, it should be renamed/changed to be about the incident, not the actual people. Similar to the articles regarding the recent truck/stabbing murder spree in Tokyo. tyx (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is incumbent upon all of Canada's citizen journalists to defend this page from deletion by American cultural hegemonists. Those arguing for deletion are using specious arguments as well. Why not have pages for individual Virginia Tech victims; I also fully support a page for Mr. Li as a notable murderer. Only time will tell how important this story becomes; in ten years' time there may be books written and movies made about Tim McLean as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icon watcher (talk • contribs)


Wow... A Canadian citizen is murdered. In Canada. By a Chinese-born immigrant to Canada, naturalized under Canadian laws. And somehow the US is to blame.

What, is it 'cause the bus was built in Detroit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.176.177 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]



The previous argument engages in crystal ball projections about future movies and books. Such argements are not given much weight in AFD debates. Personal attacks on editors from the U.S. are also not acceptable, per the policy against personal attacks. Edison (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a Canadian, I am embarrassed by these comments. Although, I agree the article should be kept, there is no need to attack the United States. Plus, most of the arguments on this page are in favour of keeping the article. And, there is no evidence that “pro-deleters” are American.Demetri1968 (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article! The victim and event are notable. This is a very sensitive and emotional topic for Canadians. Whoever tagged this for deletion is guilty of poor timing.Ottawa212 (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow every page I see on wikipedia that relates to recent horrific news is being considered for deletion. Why should this be deleted? this is an article documenting a murder, should this be deleted i believe that jonbenet's murder should be deleted, Virginia tech shootings should be deleted, so forth. whoever tagged this article is wrong about this and guilty of having no logic. Keep Messiisking (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for a deletion debate. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim McLean —Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 August 2008)

Incident is notable, victim is not.

The Wikipedia policy WP:NOT#NEWS says " Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." In the AFD, I noted the many murders which are titled "Murder of ---" rather than being an article about the previously nonnotable victim. Several commentors at the AFD called for the article to be about the notable incident, not about the innocent victim, who was apparently simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Therefore I have move this article to Murder of Tim McLean. This is also in accord with the essay (formerly a proposed notability guideline) WP:NOTNEWS which preceded the similarly named policy.Edison (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the deletion debate

Some contributors have made arguments here for keeping the article which actually belong at the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim McLean. Please make your arguments for keeping or deleting the article there, not just here. Thanks. Edison (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low importance?!

The categories at the base of this talk page include three beginning with low-importance, including one stating that this was a low-importance crime. How can the repeated stabbing and beheading of an innocent person, on a bus, with many passengers on it at the time, possibly be a 'low-importance' crime? It is one of the most horrific, noteworthy murders that took place in the World this year. Categorising this event in such a falsely minimising way is as ridiculous as the unjustified attempt to have this article deleted! Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the purpose of the ratings. Please read this Jmount (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article renamed

Part of my move edit summary got clipped, so here's the full version:

The proper subject of the article is the incident, not Mr. McLean, and there have been other murders on Greyhound buses, but only one beheading (I hope!). "Greyhound beheading" would refer to a dog and without the "incident", it might imply that "Greyhound passenger beheading" is some ongoing activity. I think we can skip "bus" though.--Father Goose (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here expecting to read about the removal of the head of a dog rider. I am shocked and appalled at this semantic ambiguity and editorial laxity. Skomorokh 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was clear consensus, of 13 editors at the AFD, for "Murder of Tim McLean" and no consensus for "Greyhound passenger beheading incident," which has zero Google News hits, unlike "Murder of Tim McLean," which has 9 Google News hits. The most commonly used title is preferred in Wikipedia. Please seek consensus here before moving the article to some newly coined title one prefers. Edison (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9 hits is not enough to establish "common use". Further, those 9 hits are nothing more than sentence fragments, which doesn't make them "the name" of this incident, let alone a common name. In the absence of a commonly used name, a descriptive (and neutral) name should be used.
I'd say the consensus of the 13 was just for keeping the article, not necessarily for keeping it at "Murder of Tim McLean", since the naming of the article was not what was being discussed AfD. (A few did separately suggest renaming it, however.)
Anyhow, I'm going to turn this over to requested moves.--Father Goose (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion 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.

I've made my arguments; they've been rejected. No point in dragging this out.--Father Goose (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tim McLean → Greyhound passenger beheading incident — Per WP:BLP1E, this article should be about the event, not the victim (or the attacker). If Tim McLean were a name emblematic of the event (like Kitty Genovese is of her murder), then Tim McLean (or Murder of Tim McLean) would be the appropriate name. However, what is memorable about this event is not the names involved, but that some person was beheaded on a Greyhound bus. — Father Goose (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, the incident portion of the proposed title is not strictly necessary. However, "incident" is commonly used in Wikipedia's articles about specific news events (UCLA Taser incident, Chappaquiddick incident, Hainan Island incident, etc.), and without it, "Greyhound passenger beheading" might seem to imply some kind of ongoing corporate behavior, which is something we'd do well to avoid.--Father Goose (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Amending my rationale) What was memorable about the event is that a person was beheaded on a Greyhound bus, not that a person named Tim McLean was murdered. The proposed name more recognizably refers to that event than "Murder of Tim McLean" does.--Father Goose (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


Um, other than trivial observations, do you have any actual argument to make? 206.55.181.130 (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The incident which caused the Edmund Fitzgerald to sink was famous for resulting in the sinking of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald. The incident which resulted in Tim McLean's death is famous for involving a Greyhound passenger being beheaded, but not famous for involving Tim McLean. This is an article about a now-famous murder, but the murder victim remains not famous (unlike, say, Kitty Genovese or JonBenet Ramsey). If the press focuses on eulogizing the victim (which they do sometimes, especially if it's a missing white woman), then that's the best name for the article. In this case they're sensationalizing the (admittedly sensational) details of the murder: a beheading on a bus. Thus that's the better title for this article.--Father Goose (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In the AFD thirteen editors called for it to have the name "Murder of Tim McLean." "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." The made up term "Greyhound passenger beheading incident" appears no where in print and "murder of Tim McLean" appears numerous times, and is consistent with the common practice of naming articles about murder victims. The gruesomeness of the incident extended beyond beheading, which was considered an honorable end suitable for the nobility, to alleged cannibalism and continued hacking. Edison (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a new title The shortcut WP:BLP1E shows that this policy applies to living people only. But really, using the shortcut WP:ONEEVENT, this shows that a person who is notable only for a single event, whether dead or alive, should have their name redirect to the title of the event. There are actually two main figures in this event - The victim and the perpetrator. Neither are notable for anything else. Now that the victim is dead and the ongoing coverage is focusing on the perpetrator, it would make sense to give equal weight to the perpetrator. Other established factors are that it was a murder and decapitation that occurred in the year 2008 in Manitoba on a Greyhound bus. These are what the event title should be derived from. Hellno2 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that murder is an event regardless of the subsequent description of it. Eg, Murder (and/or decapitation) of Tim McLean is no different in that respect than Murder (and/or) decapitation aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba. The who's and where's don't subtract from the fact that the title of the article primarily describes an event (murder) not a person. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I'm not sure if citing WP:BLP1E really applies, since the victim is not a living person. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I also wish to point out that an article titled Murder of Tim McLean would still not be in violation of the statement Cover the event, not the person in WP:BLP1E due to the fact that the article, as the name suggests, primarily covers the murder (event), not Tim McLean (person). SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP covers recently deceased persons as well as the living. Again, what was memorable about the event is that a person was beheaded on a Greyhound bus, not that a person named Tim McLean was murdered. The proposed name more recognizably refers to that event than "Murder of Tim McLean" does.--Father Goose (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"BLP covers recently deceased persons as well as the living." Actually, it doesn't. Nowhere in WP:BLP are the recently deceased mentioned. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that after I mentioned it. I've seen that asserted in the past, so I raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:BLP#Living vs. recently deceased and so far "does not apply" is the answer. I'd say the principle of "cover the event, not the person" still applies in this case either way; as I've been saying above, it's the event, not the person that was notable.--Father Goose (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is deciding what a renamed article might be called. We already have two attempts to redirect to Greyhound passenger beheading incident and 2008 Greyhound murder case. Since there is an existing article titled 2001 Greyhound bus attack my two cents goes to 2008 Greyhound bus attack (but I prefer keeping Murder of Tim McLean). WWGB (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past the indisputable fact that the acts of murder and beheading are the most memorable aspects of the event and the article describing it, I think it's debatable to say what comes next in the order of memorability. It could be the fact that it happened on a Greyhound bus, it could be that it happened in Portage la Prairie or it could be that this is the only verifiable case of beheading in Canada during the last several hundred years. I agree that the fact that it happened to Tim McLean is not memorable but using his name in the title along with the only indisputably memorable aspect of the event is, in my opinion, very descriptive of the event and the best way to avoid any ambiguity. However unlikely it may seem, there is more of a possibility of another person getting beheaded on a Greyhound bus (which will make it into Wikipedia regardless of who the victim happens to be) rather than someone named Tim McLean being murdered again under such unique circumstances that his name would warrant a Wikipedia article. Therefore, Greyhound passenger beheading incident has more of a possibility of becoming a disambiguation page at some future point in time than Murder of Tim McLean does. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Phelps and Westboro Church quote - What's the point?

I'm not sure why it's important to have Phelps' or any other misanthrope's remarks in this article. They have no serious impact on the event, or the investigation or public understanding of it, or any Greyhound, drivers' union, or government policies. Phelps is like the John 3:16 guy at the football games, except way more odious: should Wikipedia-ists insert for every single NFL team and game that the John 3:16 guy was there? That's a rhetorical question, and the answer - I hope we all agree - is no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.164.219 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree and I've removed it. Not relevant to the event at all. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that someone had put back the Westboro "Church" part into the article - and I took that part out. If one wants to read about their picketing Tim's funeral like the filthy vultures they are, they could just go to the Westboro "Church" article on Wikipedia and read to their hearts delight there. And to Fred Krueger on Westboro Street - Matthew 25:40, you rat bastard! --83.249.234.219 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not disagree with you guys more. I too live in Canada, but I do not see this fact: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080807/funeral_protest_080807/20080807 as any less important than the rest of the article. The Westboro Baptist Church is a f**ked up organization with a f**ked up agenda. Although not the main attraction for this particular article, however it's an related event which has had some serious coverage in the media. I strongly protest its removal and request it be put back in. 207.216.33.144 (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McLean Memorial Web site

Just wondering about the removal, by WWGB, of the link to the Tim McLean Memorial Tribute site that I had added to External Links. The reason given was that this article is not about Tim McLean, and as such the memorial site is not relevant.

This article and notable incident is indeed all about Tim McLean as he was the sole victim and notably so given the extreme heinous nature of his murder... and as such many readers of the article may be interested in leaving a message of sympathy for him.

If we can have a link to Tim McLean's MySpace page in the External Links area, surely a non-commercial memorial site link is as relevant if not more-so.

RTM Communications (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In removing this link, I am relying on Wikipedia is not a memorial, in particular, "subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered". The focus of the article is the notability of the event, not the notability of the unfortunate Tim McLean. If it is agreed that Tim McLean is notable in his own right, and if an article is created in his name, then may be the time to consider a link to a memorial website. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WWGB in taking the time to consider the relevance of the memorial site. I agree with the purpose of Wikipedia, and indeed the article here on Wikipedia is not to serve as a memorial (the external site is there for that) but rather that Tim McLean is indeed notable in his ... role ... in this event. This article is indeed in his name, and is about his murder in quite significant circumstances. RTM Communications (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Regional Editors

We need regional editors. I don't understand why American editors should be allowed to write and rewrite Canadian history. Maybe we Canadians all need to just move all our efforts to a Canadian Wikipedia. A Canadian would never ask what the significance of having the Phelps gang picket McLean's funeral is; they would just know (where do you start the list? Foreigners coming into the country to desecrate an important funeral in Canada; hate language used by the Phelps which is legally banned in Canada... it just brings bile to our throats for a zillion reasons.) Americans just have no way of knowing this stuff. Check for instance their plans to carry "God hates Canada" signs, instead of the usual "God hates fags." That's because in Canada, they'd spend actual jail time for their usual signs.Randal Oulton (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say that "we" (I say we because I'm Canadian but I disagree with your rationale) need a Canadian Wikipedia in some protest would only be logical if there was such a thing as an American Wikipedia, rather than a non-nationalized English Wikipedia. Content should be written by editors who are best qualified on the basis of knowledge and ability to write solid, encyclopedic prose; it should have absolutely nothing to do with nationality. If you truly believed that national and regional proximity had something to do with one’s ability to compose a well-written encyclopedia article, I’m sure you wouldn’t have made any edits to Taxation in France‎ or Brackenheim. I, actually, would almost prefer non-Canadian nationals to write this article because that would give me more of a guarantee that there would be no POV issues. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki software is freely available, and anyone is more than welcome to start his own encyclopedia. There is Conservapedia. for instance, and encyclopedias in a number of langage, some with few editors who have any fluelcy in the language of the encyclopedia. One of my favorites is the recently started "The Complet Encyclopedia", which apparently is headquartered in Algeria, but written in English. Edison (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree. We should see Phelps under Aftermath. 65.92.109.58 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"alternately cutting and defiling the corpse"

what does this mean? can someone rephrase this part with less cryptic language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.240.196 (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

memorial site

jesus christ, just leave the frickin memorial site up, at least for a few weeks. it would mean a lot to people who knew Tim, and i don't see any real harm in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.240.196 (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li citizenship/ date of arrival in Canada

In the article, it is stated that "He became a Canadian citizen in 2007." Apparently, we don't know when he arrived in Canada and two dates are given: 2004 and 2001.

I doubt he arrived in 2004 because you need three full years to get Canadian citizenship, plus processing time (currently about a year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.234.66 (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be correct. This article reports on a court finding that he immigrated into Canada in 2001. I updated the article accordingly. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is this guy's name in Chinese characters, and which part of China is he from? Are members of his family now too ashamed to give details of this guy? 81.156.180.208 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but then this guy is a Christian, and some kind of lay preacher so why not have details of which branch of Chrisitanity and who his fellow parishioners are? 86.137.252.77 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations about possible mental issues

I made this edit in which I removed speculation about a living person’s mental issues by an individual not directly involved in the legal proceedings. This information is not reliably sourced – even though it was printed in a reliable source, it is obtained from individuals with no direct knowledge of the incident nor the trial. Diagnoses of schizophrenia et al can only be done after a formal psychiatric evaluation which has not yet been conducted. Also, the information was obtained after the fact, allowing for the risk that the murder incident played a role in interpreting what was already known and putting it into perspective with what happened afterwards. I see this section as a clear violation of WP:BLP and a dangerous one as such, seeing that the person being described is on trial for murder. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:BLP applies even to accused murderers, and we would not want to hurt his feelings or injure his reputation. Edison (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I find user Edison's comment just above quite disturbing. Reading the murder article was nauseating, but throughout I was feeling very sorry for the murderer, obviously an extremely disturbed person. Belittling him and his huge problems serves no good purpose, IMO. (I felt a need to say this. I hope it doesn't start an unfortunate discussion.) --Hordaland (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could Darren Beatty's $60 for Li's laptop be the trigger for this tragedy? Li had wanted $600 for his laptop, which it would appear to be the only worldly thing he had. In Li's mind, could this young guy Darren Beatty, be seen to be mocking and laughing at him for being a loser from overseas, so much so that his laptop and only possession worth anything could be removed from him for next to nothing? The next time he saw a young guy (Tim McLean) on the bus, he equated him to Darren Beatty and paid him back. Had Darren Beatty not been so opportunistic, greedy and mean, would this tragedy have happened? 81.156.180.208 (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may or it may not, but it's irrelevant. If any of the above speculation can be verified through reliable sources that this was the case, then it should be inserted into the article. Otherwise, it's original research and Wikipedia should not publish that kind of information about living people. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under Canadian Law, Li did not murder McLean. This is settled by the Court. Sad as the case may be, somehow the society Li found himself in changed him into an unwitting killer. The meanness of Darren Beatty must be the final straw and Beatty must bear some responsibility in the death of McLean. Let's just hope that as Canadian are well known for their hospitality, Darren Beatty is an odd one out, so that his meanness cannot be said to be a Canadian characteristic. 86.138.119.220 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146382/Schizophrenic-beheaded-CANNIBALIZED-sleeping-bus-rider-allowed-leave-mental-hospital--escort.html 86.181.64.13 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phelps/WBC Funeral Picket

Why does this keep getting removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.108.47 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion above. WWGB (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Li?

This articles states that the man who committed the killing was found not criminally responsible for this murder. Can anyone find out what that means exactly ... and insert it into the article? I think it's important ... and, without this crucial information, the reader is left hanging. Did Li get committed to a mental hospital for the rest of his life? Did he get committed for a week-and-a-half and is now walking the streets again? This is important information and necessary to the article. Does anyone know the outcome? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In a recent interview on the BBC World Service radio programme Outlook, the deceased's mother said Li was in a mental hospital, but could be released into the public as he has no criminal record. As Li was found not guilty of murder the title of this article should not contain the word 'murder'. 86.138.119.220 (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. Well, for what it's worth ... the title of the article says that Tim McLean was murdered. It doesn't say that Li murdered Tim McLean. Li committed the act; he just wasn't held to be criminally responsible for that act. Nonetheless, "homicide" of Tim McLean might be a more appropriate title. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Li was not found "not guilty." He was found to be "not criminally responsible" -- a subtle but important distinction. He will be held in a mental institution indefinitely, and released only if he is deemed to no longer be a risk to himself or others. An unlikely proposition. As to the title of the article, nothing changes the fact that McLean was murdered and that Li was charged with his murder. Just because he was found to be NCR does not erase the act itself.PoliSciMaster (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about incident

If possible, the article should explain how the incident occurred.Did the stabbing happen while the bus was driving? What happened next? The bus stopped and everybody just left the bus? Did anyone engage the killer? Maybe the mentioned "agreed statement" has the answers; we should definitely provide a link to that document. AxelBoldt (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McLean

This article could use some bio info on Tim McLean. I don't have time to do it now, but hope to at a later date. If someone wants to beat me to it, please do. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Tim_McLean&oldid=493286746"