Talk:École Polytechnique massacre/Archive 4

Congratulations

to the editors who worked so hard on this article to turn it into a Featured Article! — scribblingwoman 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Scribblingwoman, for this and for your comments on the FAC 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Slp1

Wow. From RFC to FA in just six months. Congratulations to everybody! Bearcat 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic?

Since Marc Lépine is a good article, and this is a featured article, is there a chance they can be combined to be listed at Wikipedia:Featured topics? The only stepping stone I could see is having to raise National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women to a recognized status as well. --Wafulz 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of featured topics so thank you. There are still things that I would like to add to the Marc Lepine article, and I won't have time any time soon for much work on the National Day of Rememberance anytime soon, but I would certainly be willing to help out. All of which is to say, sounds like a good idea, but perhaps a longer term project.--Slp1 14:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see it as a viable long-term project, so no pressure in that aspect (I've got some articles that I'm currently hacking away at). Just thought it'd be a good idea to bring it up. --Wafulz 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there is a minimum of 3 articles for FTC. I'd love to see it myself, though. Circeus 01:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

While I think that the latest info box was actually a new "civilian attack" one that was better in some ways than previous "terrorist" versions (ie no "motive" etc), I still feel that they do not really add anything useful to the article and in fact seem to detract, visually for instance. I therefore support bobanny's revert to the non-info box version. --Slp1 14:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat snotty question

Why is this talk page cluttered with projects that have "claimed" this article as within their scope? When we were editing it feverishly to try and make FA, I really don't recall any of these projects being involved. Why does it need to be part of three projects anyway? I'm frankly tempted to yank all those banners off. I'd be crankier about it, but I'm too psyched that it's going on the main page ;) Dina 14:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the lateste one "Project serial killers" or whatever, because Mark Lepine was not a serial killer by any definition. Dina 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I found it pretty funny too. The thing which cheesed me off was that they have classified it as only mid-importance! What do you mean "mid"? .. it is VERY important, Top or High at least!! But I supposed I am not totally unbiased here, so whatever ;-) It looks like the serial killer group is supposed to include mass murderers, spree killers according to their definition, which is why I let it stand, despite a very horrid photograph logo that thankfully was changed. It has always been the Disaster Management tag that has made me laugh the most, since in December and January it seemed to describe what was going on on the talk-page and article pretty well!--Slp1 15:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The serial killer has a list of which of "their" articles are FA's. This was the only one in it. I recall the disaster management tag showing up randomly during the Great Ecole Poly Edit War and I found it funny too. <sarcasm> I want to thank all the members of these projects who have made such valuable contributions to this article, and helped us out during the whole RFC process, the FA process, the couple of huge edit wars</sarcasm>. I have a little bee in my bonnet about this, so don't be surprised if these tags disappear for about 24 hours on July 31st. ;) And the "mid-importance" thing bugs me too. I suspect in this case there's a certain amount of yank-centricness involved. Dina 15:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what list of "our" FA articles you mean at the task force. We only started a little over a week and are still trying to classify and rate articles that should be in the project. I'm sorry we didn't rate your article of a high importance, we would have had you described its importance. I am sorry that you feel we were in someway trying to take credit for your work , which we are not. I am very glad that your efforts payed off though. Even though this article will not be part of project I think that having an article about mass murders at FA status will make more people aware of the danger these people are to society. Sorry for the misunderstanding, Jmm6f488 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the crime project tag and, not to add fuel to the fire or anything, I'm also adding the WikiProject Quebec tag. It's well within the scope of all 3, and the collapsible thingy solves the clutter problem. I don't think it should be an ownership issue, and project tags don't mean members of that project did any work on the article (only the article history will tell you who did). Project tags are a way to direct editors to subject areas they might be interested in. Some projects must have thousands of articles; I'm guessing lots of articles with the WikiProject Biography tag weren't worked on by core members of that project, but it still helps to organize the articles and direct editors. IMO, the tags aren't owned by project members either; it's easy enough to change an assessments, and I've added tons of tags from projects I'm not a member of to articles. I've also assessed articles without knowing much about the subject or having read through it carefully (which isn't usually required below B-class), so at least in some cases, it's not a voice of authority making the assessment. If anything, the tags might get more eyes watching the article, which would come in handy on main-page day when 12-year olds from all over the world will be replacing the page with things like "so-and-so is gay" every 5 minutes. I do agree though that the serial killer one doesn't belong. If it does fall within their scope, they ought to change the name of the project. bobanny 10:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't remove the Crime tag anyway, it seems like Jmm6f488 did. I had a little snit fit over the serial killers project, so perhaps I acted rashly in regards to projects in general. I agree with what you say -- if the serial killers project thinks this article is within their scope, they need to change their name. Cheers. Dina 12:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the shutter thingy is a great solution to the tooooooo many tags problem (gotta figure out how to do that!) which is what bugged me the most (OK, the very grim picture of the serial killer bugged me too). But I do have a nit-pick. This article isn't really a Criminal Biography, and when I look at the list of articles in their scope it is mostly people's names. I think it should be part of the larger Crime project, rather than this biography section. Do people agree? If so, I will make it a learning opportunity to figure out how these things work and how to change it. --Slp1 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that too, and I notice on their talk page someone from WP:BIO proposed merging tags. My guess is that the people who started the project were more interested true crime type stuff rather than, say, stuffy criminology topics, although both fit into their scope. Technically, just "crime" would denote the criminal act rather than the criminal, so it's really 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. I initially thought the disaster management tag was weird too, because it makes me think of natural things like earthquakes and plagues, but looking at their page, it's more of an "emergency response" project. bobanny 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this talk page littered with project banners for projects that have contributed squat to this article? Good question. I've said the same thing myself very many times. The long and short of it is - wikiprojects are a lot more willing to spam project pages with "Join us" advertisements than they are to actually improve articles. If they only tagged the handful of articles they improved (which, for most wikiprojects, would be 0 or close to it) they wouldn't be so objectionable. But they don't so limit themselves. In fact, the most useful wikiproject (Wikiproject war) is also one of the most restrained in tagging, while the least productive ones tend to be the ones that tag the most. Raul654 02:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I'd just like to say that this is a pretty unfair dismissal of all WikiProjects, as the WikiProject I am most involved in (WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers) caused me to help write the FA Californication (album) and just earlier today we had our second FA promotion (thanks mostly to User:NSR77) in By the Way. In fact I would say that I have edited most of the articles within our scope, and indeed have all the articles that we have tagged on my watchlist. Yes, some projects are wastes of time, but not all, and I would thank you not to portray it so. Kamryn · Talk 07:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

All of this complaining strikes me as rather snide; none of the WikiProjects have used words like "claimed", "our", etc. All that they have said is that this article falls within their scope, which it does. Bitching about people because of words you have put in their mouth is spectacularly wrong. Kamryn · Talk 07:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, snide and bitchy are two words I would have used to describe my mood when I posted this, so fair enough. But with all due respect, if I create a Wikiproject tangentially related to Californication (album), called say "musicians who are former drug users project" and then, a few days before your article hits the main page, slap my tag on it and disappear, you wouldn't be slightly cheesed off? Dina 13:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it's just a tag, and not even a full line of text in the edit box. Besides, most people who edit Wikipedia regularly have developed a mental filter for this kind of thing (I know I have!) and I'm sure nobody is going to see that this article is on the main page, come to the talk page and see a WikiProject Quebec tag (for example) and think "Wow, they did some really good work!". And really the tags are more of a way for WikiProjects to keep tabs of articles than to make any kind of statement about ownership. I have thought about making WP:RHCPs tag into something smaller and thinner, but I really have no idea how to mess around with template syntax and I don't want to fuck it up. I'll have a look into that now, actually. Anyway I think the solution is to have more wikiprojects with a small and focused scope, rather than the large WikiProjects with a seemingly endless scope (for ex. WP:CHICAGO which seems to tag anything and everything). i don't really consider any article to be 'mine' anyway, and it seems that the ownership issue here rests not with the wikiprojects, but with individual editors who see an article as 'theirs'. Kamryn · Talk 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there's some mixed messages here, in general. I know about WP:OWN obviously, and at times I have thought that folks who were overly possessive about specific articles were totally missing the point. But the FA process itself kind of contradicts WP:OWN at least in spirit. I mean, a few folks decide to put up an article, generally one they've worked on, other's criticize it, the few folks fix stuff, it gets promoted and the few folks give each other virtual high fives. Is that ownership? There's a userbox out there, related I believe to Wikiprojects that allows a user to congratulate themself for having helped bring an article to FA. Editors frequently list "their FA's", it's often considered a criteria for adminship ("You must have at least one FA"), and editors who "write FA"s are often highly regarded. I didn't say I was the major contributor to this article, because I know I wasn't. A lot of my contribs have involved more janitorial stuff, like dealing with editing conflicts. But why can I say I was a contributor, slap a userbox on my userpage if I want to. but when I point out that another group or indvidual was not a contributor, I have WP:OWN issues? I really don't get it. I'm not directing this question at you specifically, it seemed to happen a lot in the discussions Raul links as well. Dina 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree with you to some extent; I myself use that userbox you're speaking of and I think it promotes a healthy editing atmosphere to allow people who have put in a lot of effort to specific articles to be able to say that they did.

I assumed that you were trying to imply that WikiProjects had ownership issues because of the language you used - i.e. "claimed", etc. But really they are not 'claiming' it or anything of the like so that point is moot. The members of the WPs mentioned here may not have contributed to it, but they are not saying that they did, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. They're not allowed to tag it because they didn't edit it? Like I said above, WP tags are mostly for statistics purposes etc. I do agree that it's pretty pointless for them to tag an article that is really only tangentially related, but I don't really seem the harm in it either. Kamryn · Talk 16:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Let it go Dina. I completely see why the late additions of tags would concern you. I appreciate your use of humour to express your feelings. But chalk up the omission of tags to a lapse by your FA reviewer. Your article describes emergency management implications and so it's understandable that a disaster management project would be interested in this article and it's completely understandable that their ranking of the importance of the topic may differ from that of another project. Getting FA is not the end of editing anyway. Imagine how the Fighting in ice hockey people felt when their article got FA and it got completely re-ordered and edited heavily while it was featured. This is an excellent article and people wishing to learn from it or promote it (or maybe contribute in the future) is all a natural part of this article's success. Canuckle 16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My experience is opposite of Raul654's generalizations about WikiProjects. I joined 2 projects soon after my 1st contribution, and as a result improved articles that I wouldn't have otherwise (one of which, SkyTrain (Vancouver), was FA'd not long ago). Working on those projects has drawn my attention not so much to the FA and GA articles, but the kazillion of stubs comprised of 1 or 2 sentences. In the big picture, those are more of a concern that projects can potentially address and tagging them at least brings them into the line of sight of project members; it might only mean that they'll be brought up to "start" class in one year instead of languishing neglected and orphaned for 3 years. I echo Dina's sentiment that the FA process contradicts WP:OWN. It really does force you to take ownership of an article and defend it from interlopers, regardless of whether their critiques are valid. I've seen it bring the worst out in editors on a number of occasions, and it turns a normally cooperative-based project to something much more messy and competitive. But it does get the job done and I don't see an alternative. bobanny 17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

I thought I should check through some of the links to make sure they are work still, and of course they all don't. The Jan Wong article and Keith Leslie "Ontario blasts Ottawa on gun registry" which now take you to a "you need to pay" screen, though for the Wong article you can get the full article for free by searching Google and/or pasting [1] directly into the toolbar. Sneaky, eh? Does anybody have any solution or suggestions for this?--Slp1 13:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

G&M is evil. I've tried using a cached version of one of their articles once, and the "u gotta pay" page still came up. I think it has to do with their haughty view of their rag; the more inaccessible it is, the more they can charge adverstisers to target their "exclusive," well-healed audience. It is still legal to use print-only sources though; online access is nice if possible, but at least the little snippet they give confirms the article exists and wasn't just made up. bobanny 18:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okydoky. And after (semi) listening to Cross-Country Checkup on health care, I am very much enjoying the thought of the readers of a "haughty" G&M being well-healed! --Slp1 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent capitalisation of "massacre"

The article name is "École Polytechnique massacre", but then the first sentence has "École Polytechnique Massacre". Which should it be? (I don't really care myself - I'm just pointing this out because the inconsistency grates on me.)--86.149.54.190 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias?!

Look at this article. Does anyone see what's wrong with it?

28 people died, 14 of them were women, 14 of them were not women, making them obviously not at all important. I don't mean to be spreading Masculine pride, but 14 men also died that day. Throughout this whole article not a single death was recorded as "two men were shot in the hall" but students. However if one of those students was a woman, it's certainly mentioned. Understandable because he was an anti-feminist? NO! If you were family of one of the male students who died, wouldn't you want your son to be on the webpage of the wikipedia article!? I know I would. It's not fair that only women are mentioned, granted they may have been the "clear target" of the "shooter" but guess what, an equal amount of men died. This is the kind of bias that plagues this website. The fact this page has gotten to the very FRONT of Wikipedia as a featured article only brings more shame to the fact that wikipedia should never be cited as a source while those who get their message on the page only have to be grammatically correct. Such fiends create biased and appalling articles that hinder this general page for being an able source of valid information. 14 men died, 14 women died, I want to see both. I want to read in the article about the massacre when men died too, I want an equal, unbiased approach to this article because I want to know everything that happened. I care that he was anti-feminist, I care that he targetted women only, I care that he also killed OTHER genders other than women, however. I care for information, all of it, not this garbage.

Schamus 05:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm...no, 14 men were injured; 14 women plus the shooter died. bobanny 05:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 4 men and 10 women were injured. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. That's what I meant. :) bobanny 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What's really interesting is the notion that the men should have stepped up and saved the damsels in distress. That's feminism is motion. Equal rights and responsibilities with men...Except when that's inconvenient or unprofitable.ChiTwnG 08:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I find it interesting though that it is men (Jalbert, Steyn) who say that men should have done something and men (Cernea and the students) who felt that they should have done something. Feminist sources (that I read) do not say that men should have done anything, and survivor Nathalie Provost specifically told them that nothing could have been done. --Slp1 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It’s kinda moot, considering self defence is illegal in Canada, let alone stepping in to defend someone else. (As an aside, I urge all responsible Canadian citizens to disregard our gun laws, as they are in violation of the UN Charter of Human Rights, ratified by our own country no less!) — NRen2k5 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken about every single point you make! --Slp1 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken about that. I won’t bother with the flagrant ad hominem attacks. — NRen2k5 01:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion is missing the whole point. The women were targeted while the men were incidental. Certainly, that doesn't make the men's deaths any less a tragedy, but when analyzing the massacre and when retelling what happened, it is fundamental to the event that the women were the intended targets, that this was a crime of mysogny and sexism, not a crime of indiscriminate rage (note, I'm a man, and this seems fairly straightforward to me, I'm not sure why this issue needs to be continually rehashed). -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 13:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a crime of retaliation against perceived mysandry and sexism (not of mysogyny and sexism itself). It is indeed straightforward, and I’m a bit surprised you don’t see the distinction. — NRen2k5 01:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify again that there were no male deaths apart from Marc Lepine: all the deaths were women (and 2/3rds of the wounded too). All in an engineering school that had an overwhelmingly male student/staff body, incidentally --Slp1 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Perfect. Thanks for clearing that up Slp. Hopefully this nonsense will stop now. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 13:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me...but anyone shot, could have died, male or female. It seems the reaction by 'the feminists' reflects exactly what Lepine was suggesting, an anti-male agenda based on half-truths; how ironic we have allowed this.

The victims, both male and female, reflect the reality that there were both male and female direct victims, not ignoring the reality that these women killed, murdered had fathers, brothers, boyfriends and more. This female only world suggests something you don't want to hear !

Why did not the media suggest he was mentally ill, rather than taking on this anti-feminist agenda, if it were not true ?

The devil and half-truth logic fooled us on this one !

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this as clear as humanly possible:

• He shot twenty four women and four men
• His suicide letter has the following passages:

1. "...I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker...."
2. "... the feminists have always enraged me..."
3. It included a list of nineteen women he wished to kill

Several reliable outlets state this event as a spree aimed at killing feminists and women in g*neral.

• The government recognized that this was an attack on women, and created a national day of remembrance.

If you seriously think that it's just the media that believes this was an attack on women, you have been deeply misinformed.-Wafulz 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Caesar, for someone who throws around the word "logic" an awful lot, your own comments seem to be informed by mysticism rather than logic. You might consider reading up on the subject and weed out the non-sequiturs from your arguments before casting stones around here. bobanny 23:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I will join the chorus here to say that I removed your latest edits to the article, Caesar, because they were unsourced and appear to be your personal commentary on the matter. As you have been informed several times here and on your talkpage, about this and other articles, unless your ideas have been published by a independent reliable source they cannot be included, however true you believe them to be. Wikipedia does not publish anyone's original research and it is not the place to try to disseminate your thoughts and analyses of various world events. Your website is a good spot for that.--Slp1 23:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Complicated layout of building

I was in the Ecole Polytechnique building once in 1990. It was an exceptionally difficult building in which to find my way around. It had several wings. There were places where I could not find my way from one wing to another without going to another floor. There were many stairwells, but some doors to some floors were locked. The article says that police were slow to enter the building and isolate the shooter, but responded more quickly in a similar incident years later at Dawson College. Maybe someone more familiar with the buildings can comment, but I would expect that if police had to find a shooter in a building, the Ecole Polytechnique building would be about the worst building I've ever been in to do that in. I suppose it must be easier to find the big lecture halls than it was to find the office I was looking for.

I think the issue was that police protocol saw the first responders on the scene secure the perimeter and wait outside for back-up, giving Lepine time to carry out his rampage. bobanny 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I went there too, and I agree that it is a rabbit warren. But Bobanny is correct that this wasn't an issue for the police since they didn't enter the building till he was dead. You can read all the details of the timings of all of this in the coroner's report.Slp1 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is why we need more easily obtainable CCWP in Canada. You can’t count on the police to show up until you’re already dead. And as I pointed out further above, Canada ratified the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, which clearly states in Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Disarming law-abiding citizens runs completely counter to this. — NRen2k5 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I couldn't disagree with you more that easier access to firearms is implied or covered by Article 3 of the UDHR. And in fact the exact opposite could also be easily argued. However, I fear we are sliding off topic. --Slp1 02:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• NRen: This discussion belongs somewhere else- it's off topic.-Wafulz 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(comment on delete/not delete of the last three comments) I agree, as noted above, that this is off-topic, but I don't agree that it is off-topic enough to warrant its deletion from the talkpage per se. I have restored it (though I had meant to do so with an accurate edit summary, sorry! Slp1 03:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch (again!) Slp1. I just wanted to point out that a comment was off-topic, but the discussion, as a whole, was moving it back on track. The spirit of the talk page policy discourages removing others' comments without a really good reason, and we've been accused of so much here already, I'd hate to give someone a legit reason for claiming they're being censored. bobanny 03:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---Half-truth polarization of event adds credibility to Marc Lepine's statement ---

Lead on original research.

The promotion of inequality in the name of equality was an accusation made against feminism, especially radical or cult-feminists.

You will note that the incident manipulates the tragic murder of women as a crime against women, half-truth when in fact it was a crime (in protest) against humanity.

You will note that the incident polarizes the issues, as half-truths do by ignoring the men, the fathers, the brothes, the boyfriends, the husbands of these women who were also victimized, more so than 'women in general'.

While the crime, it was a crime, is a tragedy, the response by some shows how corrupt the logic was during this time period.

There is a site, The FAces of Feminism, (original research) that exposes this manipulation.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When the murderer explicitly chose to massacre women as opposed to men, and explicitly claimed that his act was a protest against feminism, I think it's fair to categorize it as primarily a crime against women and an anti-feminist act. Also, this page is not for general discussion of the event or of feminism, but for work on this Wikipedia article. Are there specific sentences or claims in the article which you think are misleading, polarizing or biased? If so, please be specific and we can work together to improve the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Dina 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Probably best to just ignore him. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

hee hee. bobanny 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As the wrighter who discovered half-truths(3-8) types, we require a critical thought process to avoid the pitfalls of the event.

1. As Marc Lepine used 'generalized false logic' or False dilemma, specifically generalized black and white logic to address his complaint. Ie, "some feminists, had destroyed his life, so now all women were to blame- this is flawed logic."

2. As the examples of half-truths go, there was an anti-male agenda by some feminists during the past 30 years. "Child abuse, "men who abuse, women and children victims'. is a monument to that.

3. The response to the illogical attack of women by Lepine, was followed by a generalized black and white response by 'some feminists'.

The point is that the article falls into the trap of blaming all men, and victmizing all women; the issue is polarized.

It may take years for social scientests to discover this polarization and bad logic used by those involved, none the less it is an error that should not be allowed to continue.

This was a great tragedy that affects humanity, tragically there was some validity in the original argument, and the response after the incident reflects that quite well.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone else had stated in this thread...

I for one cannot believe that a majority of feminists would find the actions of one intensely disturbed individual representative of an (existing, undeniable) larger cultural problem. In my own humble opinion, it appears to have been an opportunity to bring that larger problem to the forefront of the public consciousness—an entirely laudable goal accomplished through somewhat specious means. (I am not arguing that my opinion has any bearing on this article.) Thanks for considering this point

This is exactly my point, and in the world of false logic and half-truths this will stand as a monument of how corrupt logic was allowed to polarize Canadian thinking. (this incident hap[pened in Canada)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Caesar, your statements on half-truths are interesting, but they appear to be original research, and thus irrelevant to Wikipedia. Do you have anything to say about the article? As I see it, the article points out the responses of affected students, Canadian police, Canadian women's groups and the Canadian government, as well as mentioning a reaction (some might say "backlash") from one notable male critic to the feminist response. These are all demonstrable and cited facts. Do you feel the article gives undue weight to the feminist understanding of this event? If so, then the proper response is to find cited sources which give other perspectives and add them to the article, or to cut back the feminist discussion if that can be done without significantly harming the article. (My leaning would be towards "find more sources", but I'm not an expert on this subject.)

As for Sebum's point about public consciousness-raising, and Caesar's point about polarization, the article already mentions the opinion that viewing the crime exclusively as an attack on women "diminishes" the tragedy, with a cited quote. Is that sufficient to address this perspective? People who know more about the tragedy and the reaction to it in Canadian society than I do will have to answer that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the time to search for more references beyond those of mine, orginal research, that you are more welcome to use if you find valid.

As it already has been mentioned the fact that some feminists have exploited victimization to further polarize reality adds some credibility to Marc Lepines purpose, although his reaction was criminal; tragic indeed, but not as tragic as the full scope of the corruption within Canada and North America.

You ask for references, my work, has been so politcally incorrect, that many sources will not print it; a dilmena of sorts that I am certain will provide some rather useful information for an encyclopedia as yours.

My suggestion, and your encyclopedia does well to present it, is to present criticisms of a topic, and showing how it is flawed.

For example: How can women in general be victimized but not the brother, the boyfriend, the father of that woman ? Flawed logic at its best. Welcome to the dark side of truth; half-truths.

The Faces of Feminism: The Cult that Deceived the World.

For decades 'some men' have argued that the Canadian Justice system was anti-male, no doubt the creation and polarization of society with a political 'women's group' without a balanced 'men's group' was part of the problem.

It is tragic that society does not look to understand the criminal mind, through some logical perspective, they may have a legitimate complaint that some would rather ignore.

I have pointed you to a resource, I have given you leads, I have no purpose but to seek a more just representation of reality.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is fine as it is. Original research and undue weight are not allowed- remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.-Wafulz 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is half-truths and how Eve has deceived the world about truth; let us put an end to this cycle of flawed logic ?

In a deceptive way the article promotes hatred ! Without corrections the article promotes propaganda, from a cult-feminist perspective...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue here is Wikipedia's article on the École Polytechnique massacre. I'm sorry, Caesar, but you're not presenting any reliable sources to support your argument. Your own website is not a reliable source: please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) for the reason why we can't use that. If you can find a reliable source which speaks specifically to this incident, we can consider including it in the article. Otherwise, please step off the soapbox. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps someone can find a source.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

New Anti-Feminism

Should a further remark be mentioned about how another incident of anti-feminism has possibly surfaced in Canada with the B.C. pig farm? Canking 16:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna guess that you're talking about BC Missing Women Investigation and Robert Pickton. We would need some sort of documentation that there is a concrete connection between Lépine's actions and those of Pickton.-Wafulz 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a reach, and I doubt there's a usable source to mention it in the article. Robert Pickton wasn't trying to make a political point. The only connection I've seen is when the monument to the women killed at École Polytechnique went up in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver (pictured in the article). Local activists pointed out the contrast between how these murdered middle-class white women were being commemorated, while the dozens of missing (murdered) prostitutes, many of them native, in the same neigbourhood were ignored by police and city hall until mounting public pressure forced the investigation to become a priority. bobanny 17:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any specific connection can be made at present, (particularly on motivations, anti-feminist or otherwise) since the trial is in progress and people are innocent until proved guilty. Bobanny's observation is interesting but is probably more suitable for BC Missing Women Investigation page, if a reliable source could be found. --Slp1 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of the incident

I have seen an improvement in the article.

In a neutrual objective realtity, we see Marc as a victim of his actions as well, there were 29 people shot that day.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that he shot "twenty-nine people...before killing himself" because that brings the total up to 30, which is an untruth. bobanny 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, however I just wanted to avoid the polarization of the incident by ignoring the reality that Marc Lepine was also a victim of the incident. He was 100% wrong, yet perhaps 100% right; tragic as it seems, but the radical feminist aftermath verifies the anti-male agenda (including reverse discrimination) that was (and may still be) part of that time period.

I believe the article is improving, and is becoming more neutral in its presentation...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm so very glad you got banned.

Aftermath of the main page roller coaster

Well, it was an exciting ride. It looks like I managed to miss the most exciting moments, but the whole experience has made me truly appreciate anew the community nature of this whole project: the eyes and the typing fingers of so many, (some of whom knew the article and many who didn't) who did so many positive things in the last few days: improving the article, watching and removing the less-improving edits, reacting on the talkpage, and even protecting it when it seemed needed. Exciting as it has been, it will be nice to sink into blissful obscurity as far as the vandalism is concerned!
But I do have a question. Does anybody understand the user's preference for thumbnail override edit? I find the article visually much less pleasing since that was done. --Slp1 23:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never come across that before and had to look into it. It's because users can change a setting in their preferences, up there in the top right, to determine how big they want images to display on their screen. Specifying the size of the image doesn't allow them to do that. It's not a hard and fast rule though, and if an image displays better at a certain size, go ahead and change it (there's not much difference on my screen). And congrats again on this article's success, Slp1, and for being such a stabilizing force throughout the whole, sometimes aggravating, process. bobanny 23:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Monument to half-truths and false logic.

Promoting hatred in the name of promoting non hatred, this incident will be a classic example of flawed anti-male logic, the validates Lepine's complaint; tragic as it all is.

The polarization of the issues, (original research) was identified in 1987, with such other half-truth models as 'stop violence against women' that totally ignores men and children.

I suggest that a critical assessment of the incident, and the aftermath be further developed in the criticisms of the 'radical feminists' handling of this incident.

How can you logically aruge that 'women' in general were more victimized than the father, the brother, the boyfriend of these innocent victims ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We have already discussed this with you and why it is inappropriate to give undue weight to what is effectively a fringe theory (not to mention original research). If you want to discuss this somewhere, there are plenty of chat rooms and online forums that would accept your input- this is not the venue.-Wafulz 13:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It is is not a 'fringe theory' it is already discussed in the critisicm section. (Since you mention fringe, there is a theory that many radical lesbians are behind this anti-male agenda)

The feminist movement is periodically criticized for appropriating the massacre as a symbol of male violence against women. For example, Charles Rackoff, a University of Toronto computer science professor, compared those organizing vigils marking the event to the Ku Klux Klan. "The point is to use the death of these people as an excuse to promote the feminist/extreme left-wing agenda", he wrote, adding that it is "no more justified" than the KKK using the "murder of a white person by a black person as an excuse to promote their agenda."[44]

It is critical to understand this, and hopefully someone who has the time can find appropriate sources. --Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Caesar, the article already sources that quote. What exactly are you asking for? When you say things like "it is critical to understand this", it sounds like you're trying to initiate a discussion about the event and its aftermath, rather than discussing the article, which is the purpose of this talk page. If you're saying that the article should give more weight to the position held by Rackoff and other anti-feminists, then the burden of finding sources is on you to find sources indicating that this interpretation of the event is more widespread than the article would indicate. However, your view that calls to stop violence against women are "half-truths" is original research, and has no place on Wikipedia. Sorry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Most feminists?

Dina et al., Sorry to add another bone of contention, but since this excellent article was the feature of the day and I always read at least the pre-jump text in the FOTD, I was really taken aback by the following sentence: "The massacre is regarded by most feminists and many official perspectives as an anti-feminist attack and representative of wider societal violence against women; the anniversary of the massacre is commemorated as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.[4]"

Please understand that I do not take exception to the article as a whole, the viewpoints it discusses, or its neutrality. I explicitly acknowledge the inclusion of attitudes, presented as minority opinion, that the Massacre was not representative of the wider problem of violence against women. However, the sentence I cited is right here in the lead paragraph, and I believe it to be an outrageous, untenable, and uncited statement, presented as fact: that most feminists believe [x]. Furthermore, it is presented in a misleading way, as if the clause that follows the semicolon provides evidence of the clause that preceeds it, and as if the reference mark "[4]" applied to the entire sentence. In fact, reference #4 is to an article that makes no claim about popular opinion but merely reports public statements from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Governor-General Michaelle Jean commemorating the Massacre and deploring violence against women. The official stance of Canada, Quebec, or any other public entity has no bearing whatsoever on the majority opinion of any demographic group.

It may be the case that, of all the living persons on earth who self-idenfity as feminists (as I do, BTW), a majority believe that the actions of Marc Lépine are representative of the larger society's attitude of violence against women, but without any kind of evidence for that majority, the statement has no business in this article. I for one cannot believe that a majority of feminists would find the actions of one intensely disturbed individual representative of an (existing, undeniable) larger cultural problem. In my own humble opinion, it appears to have been an opportunity to bring that larger problem to the forefront of the public consciousness—an entirely laudable goal accomplished through somewhat specious means. (I am not arguing that my opinion has any bearing on this article.) Thanks for considering this point. Sebum-n-soda 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sections like this have seen a lot of editing, and some of them are the result of compromises long since past. But I see your point. For some reason I think at some point the sentence may have read "Most canadian feminsts" or "many feminists". But I really don't remember. Does anyone else remember a discussion on this? I could live with "many". Others? Dina 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)/

I may have introduced that problem just last night while trying to correct an ambiguity that was pointed out at WP:ERRORS. The sentence used to read, "The massacre is regarded as an anti-feminist attack and representative of wider societal violence against women by most feminist and many official perspectives;" someone pointed out that that could be read as saying that the violence was committed by feminist and official perspectives. (Just a writing style issue, you see.) I rearranged it to say "The massacre is regarded by most feminist and many official perspectives as an anti-feminist attack", but that still sounded awkward to me, so I changed the adjective "feminist" to the noun "feminists". I didn't think that changed the meaning significantly, but perhaps it introduced a level of assertion that isn't supported by the sources. If there's a better way to express this idea, please feel free to fix it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your very good point Sebum, and thank Josiah for pointing out what the original sentence was (less than 18 hours ago!), and where and what was changed and why. I agree that the current sentence needs to be clarified to be closer to the original sentence (but without the double meaning) and I will work on it as will others I hope! --Slp1 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to change the sentence causing difficulty to "Most feminist and many official perspectives regard the massacre as an anti-feminist attack and as representative of wider societal violence against women", hoping it will work for others. I think this manages to avoid the "most feminists" problem that Sebum correctly pointed out, and I believe this version can be well-cited by reference to the Eglin book, which talks about the various themes that emerged from the massacre, and how the violence against women discourse won out after a very few days. And indeed the articles critiquing the feminist view, Steyn, Kay, even Rackoff, which also confirm the connection. I will add one or two citations to that effect. Thanks, Sebum for bringing it up and if this doesn't solve the problem for anybody, let's continue the search for an agreeable solution Slp1 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I spotted the original error, I suppose I should weigh in on this discussion that my suggested correction caused. I had a problem with the original sentence even when corrected because it is a bit obtuse: how can something can be regarded from a "feminist perspective" or an "official perspective"? Meanings can be incorporated into the sentence, but we should be aiming for a single clear meaning so that different people do not come to different conclusions. Given the discussion of the sources, how about something as simple as: "The massacre has been called an anti-feminist attack that is also representative of wider societal violence against women"?

Benefits of this edit include avoiding the truism of feminists calling an attack against women anti-feminist (I'm only partly joking) and removes the obscure wording of being regarded from a perspective. The negative side is that it raises the question "by whom?", but with adequate referencing, that question is immediately answered and doesn't need to be directly answered in the text of the article, in my view. GDallimore (Talk) 10:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it extremely distressing that after the above careful and considered discussion of this issue, the objectionable sentence still stands intact; in fact, citation #4, which now purports to back the statement up, is WHOLLY antithetical to the opinion supposedly shared by a majority of feminists: Barbara Kay of the National Post writes that "In the massacre's wake, ideologues elevated Lepine's rampage from a random act by one disaffected individual into the gender equivalent of Kristallnacht or 9/11. A narrative evolved in which every woman became a potential victim of an organized, hate-driven enemy -- like the Nazis or al-Qaeda -- with the massacre as an ominous harbinger of more aggression to come. Both male and female feminists colluded in promoting the myth of lone killer Lepine as the symbol of all males' innate hostility to women..." and "A freak tragedy has thus become the misandric lens through which many Canadian children are taught to perceive gender relations." Kay laments what she calls the "Montreal Massacre commemoration industry" and cites a coalition of "male and female feminists," but nowhere does she state or imply that a majority of feminists believe or attempt to propogate "the myth of ... Levine as a symbol of all males' innate hostility to women." Indeed, her very lucid argument against that myth demonstrates that there's nothing like consensus on the issue, that saner voices are available for the hearing.

I have no access to citation #5, but #6 tends to support (if only passively) the idea of the massacre as representative of violence against women in general; however, even here, a single published opinion in favor of this proposition says nothing about the majority of opinions.

In short, the argument I made above stands: that it is patently absurd to attribute ANY proposition, much less one as counterintuitive as that stated, to "a majority of feminists" unless it is properly sourced and supported. Even then, speaking for a majority of any demographic group, especially one based on a notoriously varied set of ideological values, is iffy at best. This statement must be changed, and I am going to do so right now.Sebum-n-soda (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Sebum-n-soda, and firstly thanks for your contribution and thoughts. Secondly, it is not a good idea to post new comments in an archive... it was only by luck that I saw them and moved them out here into the open. Thirdly, while I'm personally not willing to quibble over 'most' vs 'many', I do not particularly agree with your arguments. 'Most' is "properly sourced and supported" from the Eglin book (as noted above), and it is unreasonable to claim otherwise, just because you do not have easy access to it. In fact, you probably do have access to large chunks of it, through google books, [2] The book, which is probably the most reliable source that we have, as it is published by a university press, actually uses the term "feminists" (unqualified in any way) in this context over and over again. e.g.

• "Thus whereas in the feminist version the offence (the murders) is abstracted to male violence against women...." (p 81)
• "For others, particularly feminists, it is an extreme example of the often violent male treatment of women woven into the fabric of Canadian life." (p. 79)
• "By privileging the stories of crime, horror, tragedy (private and public), and the deranged killer, the commentary can be heard as "counter-revolutionary" in so far it can be heard to challenge the feminist story of the murders as violence against women, and of what may be done and by whom in response to them" (p. 82) And there are others.

BTW Kay is not a reliable source of this kind of 'fact'. She is a highly opinionated opinion columnist, and WP does not use opinion columns as sources of specific facts. Thankfully, I must say, since in her National Post column on Wednesday she repeats Warren Farrell's fictions about Laurie Dann as a female killer of men, apparently without any kind of fact-checking: a quick read of the contemporaneous news reports or even the WP article on the subject would have set her straight on this one!

But like I said, I am not interested in quibbling about Most or Many, though I do agree that Bobanny's recent edits to the phrase are helpful, though I still may tweak it further at some point!.Slp1 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Last Paragraph

Judy Small has a song, "Montreal, December '89" lyrics at http://www.mysongbook.de/msb/songs/m/montreal.html, discussing the social issues involved in this incident. -gamerSRC (71.193.189.238 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC))