Talk:École Polytechnique massacre/Archive 5

Hate Crime

Having discovered the joys of Google books, I note some discussion in more recent books about the Massacre as a hate crime. E.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Is this an omission that should be rectified? Figuring I am likely to be opening a massive can of worms I thought I would discuss first ;-) Slp1 (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would tend to believe discussing the prime reasons that motivated the killings -- the "traditionally" misogynistic islamic world view (a false tradition, to wit) -- which in and of themselves are the causes for violence against women on a scale bigger in magnitude, annually, would result in hateful discussion. Just a thought. 128.214.133.2 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• The crime fits the Wikipedia definition of a hate crime, and should be listed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.171.106 (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Impressed

This is a very sad event. Even the best documentation could never be appropriate to the situation. However, I am genuinely amazed that, despite the strong emotions and differing personal convictions editors may have had regarding wider issues, this article shows relentless sourcing and uncompromising neutrality of tone.

To Slp1, who I have only recently come to appreciate, I would recommend not openning that can of worms you realise yourself adding material might trigger.

As one of the commentators opinions would lead us to appreciate, there are many women and men who feel angry about things, but do not choose this way of expressing their anger. Most people feel justified about their anger, most people know that even justified anger does not justify unilateral, indiscriminate retribution.

Perhaps one lesson to learn is that while most people raise themselves to resisting urges to retaliate, none of us should use this to justify actions we know might provoke others. Wars are cycles of provocation, if they cease, this means casualties surrendering any intentions to "equal up the score".

What a debt we owe to millions of mature people throughout history who have chosen to relinquish their anguished desire to retaliate, humbling themselves to place peace for all above their own internal equilibrium. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Marc Lepine's actions not representative of all violence against women

The third paragraph of the article mentions some of the interpretations placed on this tragedy, the main one being that it was an ‘antifeminist attack’ and that it was ‘representative of wider societal violence against women.’ The problem is that these killings, done by one man against women he did not know, were not representative of most violence against women, and certainly should never have been made to ‘represent’ them. Most violence against women is committed within a personal relationship, one partner against the other. Other reasons – interpretations – are given in the article, but the real reason, that Marc Lépine killed because he was not permitted to do the engineering program he felt entitled to, because places were being taken up by women, neglected to be mentioned in this paragraph, or anywhere in the article. I have written more about this Wikipedia article and placed it on my website, Montreal Massacre: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/files/ArticlesandEssays/ResponsetoWikipediaArticleEcolePolytechniqeMassacre.doc. Suemcp001 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sweet merciful crap, not you again. Sigh. Okay, let's go over this one more time: Wikipedia is governed by policies which require a neutral point-of-view to be supported by material that is verifiable in reliable media sources. It is not a place to promote your own alternative interpretations of events; it is a place to summarize what reputable media outlets have already published. The sentence you're disputing, in fact, quite clearly reads "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women," and then goes on to support that statement with three separate sources, all of which state that very thing. It's not a statement of our opinion about the event — it's a summary of what virtually every notable public figure and reliable media source has already said, and it isn't our job to insert or publish a personal opinion about whether they have it all wrong or not. This article and its talk page are not here to discuss whether the general media interpretation of Polytechnique is correct or not, it's here to summarize what the general media interpretation of Polytechnique is.

Whether you like the general media interpretation or not, discussing and debating it is not Wikipedia's role or responsibility. You can "respond" to our article on your website all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not Wikipedia's job to provide what you want. If you don't like it, write a letter to the editor of The Globe and Mail or the Montreal Gazette and get them to revise their understanding of what happened, because Wikipedia's role is to summarize what established media sources have already published about it. Putting together original research in a new way to question the existing interpretation of history is not only not our job, it's actually against the rules of the site. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as women eons ago were not considered worthy of working alongside men, so, apparently, if those whose pens now hold the (al)mighty truth are permitted to have their way, Marc Lepine’s actions may justly be considered ‘representative’ of wider societal violence against women simply because THEY say so. And black people, who were once widely reported as being inferior, would still be sitting at the back of the bus if the whole world thought that way. Wikipedia may well be simply reporting what 'most people' want to be seen as the truth, and in that respect, Wikipedia, and its majority of editors who have silenced me, are acting politically, not in an objective and unbiased manner. The perspective of articles and comments on my website add different dimensions to this tragedy, yet they have been ignored. Suemcp001 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this with you dozens of times already. Please go away. Wikipedia will not act as your soapbox.-Wafulz (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy explicitly states that our goal here is not "truth", but verifiability. That is, we are not an original source and do not publish original research or analysis. Our job here is to summarize what reliable sources have already published about the topic. That means newspapers, books published by recognized experts in the field, and on and so forth. It does not mean self-published agenda websites. You can think the media have it all wrong as much as you'd like, but Wikipedia is not the place to debate that. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What’s the matter. Are you afraid to deal with the issues? Are feminists rewarding you for being compliant? The articles and comments in my website have a lot to offer, certainly things that would bring a sense of neutrality to the Wikipedia article. Yet all you can do is try to act as though I am the problem. The problem is the article, and no matter how many times we have been over it (me and any number of persons at Wikipedia) only minor changes are made, and nothing significant which would alter the tone of the article, which at this point is biased in the direction of the feminist perspective, the one that tries to say that the violence of Marc Lepine is representative of all violence against women, when what he wanted was to try and make people understand how feminism had affected society, and in particular, his own life. Suemcp001 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly ignoring Wikipedia's non-negotiable rule about maintaining a neutral point-of-view. We are not an advocacy website. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made a correction to the sentence Bearcat quotes a couple of paragraphs above: "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women," adding onto it "although this view has also been strongly denounced." And it is #4 reference (re Lone Gunman) that denounces it. The next reference, #5, is the book Montreal Massacre by Eglin and Hester. If wik editors want to quote this as a source it would be nice if they gave the page numbers. I have read this book thoroughly, and in fact my book review on it has been published in an academic journal, and although like everyone else they say those words, about the massacre being an antifeminist attack, Eglin and Hester are not saying them in agreement with the idea, they are saying what some people believe. The Wiki article inadvertently suggests that these sources "characterize" the massacre in this way, but actually, only one of them does, ref # 6, the public offical one, which is also probably feminist. If anyone has any questions about this change, please mention it to me before deleting what I have added. Suemcp001 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't take one opinion column from the National Post and say (within the lead) that the view is "strongly denounced." Also, how are CanWest news, the Governor General and the Prime Minister suddenly feminist sources?-Wafulz (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you have reverted back to how the third paragraph (not the lead) was before I made the change. I can add more sources, but would it be permissable to suggest that some people hold strong views against the massacre being viewed as ‘representative’ of violence against women? If the article is to appear unbiased and objective, it should surely have both views in it, that "All feminist groups and many public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women” and "although this view has also been strongly denounced." Some public officials are feminists, and my change in the wording of the first part of the sentence above now reflects this. Suemcp001 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? There's already a sentence in the same paragraph that discusses other factors.-Wafulz (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Morning

How are you doing, Sue and Bearcat? Living down in North Carolina at the moment, I had heard nothing about this tragedy (or so little that I do not remember it.) Sue included mention of it in a message sent sent one of my personal groups.

I think a great mistake of the majority of people is to allow a rare and isolated tragedy to rule their lives. There are evil people out there, and they have the potential to do horrible things. But we must not let these terrible tragedies control us; if we do, they win.

As Sue says, violence against women is common, and it is tragic. But it is nearly always committed by a significant other. Marc Lepine's actions were very different, and in a totally different class. His action is more typical of the mass violence that modern technology makes available for those evil people with a political agenda. The terrorist who destroyed the Twin Towers in New York had a political message to deliver, and they did not care about their own lives, or the lives of others. They succeeded in their aim to bring about war between the US and Arab states.

We allowed the terrorist to win by our reaction. Lepine will win if a group of feminists are able to make his action some icon against which feminist focus and energy can be wasted. Abirchler16 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Wikipedia articles aren't for pushing an agenda. We're not concerned if Lepine "wins". We just summarize what has been reported.-Wafulz (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The writers of this article, École Polytechnique Massacre, have supposedly summarized what has been reported, but as I mentioned before, one of the sentences in the article is very oddly written. In "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women" (3rd paragraph into the article), there are three references provided, but only one of them supports the claim that the attack is “representative of wider societal violence against women.” It’s a poorly written sentence, and it should be rephrased. If the word ‘anti-feminist’ is left out, the fact there was an ‘attack’ remains clear and foremost. ‘Attack’ would be the referent. The part following the referent is what describes it - “representative of wider societal violence against women,” and it is this claim that has caused controversy among Canadians. Of the three provided, the one source that actually supports this claim is the one by Meagan Fitzpatrick (National Day of Remembrance, 2006). The article by Barbara Kay (Lone Gunman, 2006) actually opposes the claim made by the Wikipedia writers/editors of the article. The other source mentioned, the book Montreal Massacre (2003) by Peter Eglin and Stephen Hester, addresses the issue objectively, simply reporting what is now common knowledge about the Montreal Massacre, that it has come to symbolize ‘violence against women.’ My suggestion would be to omit the word anti-feminist as it is unnecessary, and rework the paragraph to include the idea that there is opposition to viewing the tragedy as ‘representative’ of violence against women. The way the article is worded suggests that it is an accepted truth that Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre (École Polytechnique Massacre) represent the wider social problem of violence against women. For some it is true, but not for everyone. Suemcp001 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct in your analysis, Suemcp001. All three references support the sentence "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women",

• The fact that feminists have "succeeded" here is Kay's major cause of complaint, "Both male and female feminists colluded in promoting the myth of lone killer Lepine as the symbol of all males' innate hostility to women, however dormant it might appear."
• Fitzpatrick has prominent government officials linking the massacre and issue of violence of women. e.g. Stephen Harper "As we mark this sad anniversary, let us renew our national resolve to prevent and eliminate violence against women. The motive behind the Montreal Massacre was hatred of women."
• The whole point of the Eglin and Hester book, as you know, is to examine how quickly the the 'violence against women' narrative became the dominant view of the episode, promulgated by politicians, feminists and the press. In fact E and H explicitly accept this view in their conclusion: "We were then, not mere onlookers, nor just analysts, because we too were appalled by the event and to the wider range of violence against women to which it belonged" (p. 126)
• And of course, there are multiple other sources that could be used to justify the linkage if desired. [7] [8][9][10]

The article lead already points out that there were other interpretations of the event (madman, abused child, immigrant, violence in the media etc). But you seem to specifically want to include in the lead that there is a widespread opposition to the association with the VOW narrative. Where is this opposition in WP:Reliable sources? I just don't see it. Yes, there is Kay and Rackoff, (already mentioned in the text), but one professor and one opinion columnist do not make the opposition itself notable enough to include in the lead. Including it would be give undue weight to these minority views based on reliable secondary sources. --Slp1 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are taking half-truths and passing them off as the truth. But part of the truth is missing. The sentence in question is a misleading one, implying that all three references support the notion that the Montreal Massacre is an accurate representation of violence against women. The sentence itself needs to be changed.

As I said before, the Barbara Kay article is opposing the claim made in the poorly worded sentence, and that sentence needs to be rephrased. The way it appears, though I have now brought this to your attention, it is a political strategy to maintain this notion or the ‘representation’ while not allowing readers of the article to see other perspectives.

Furthermore, the aim of the book Montreal Massacre, by Eglin and Hester, was not what you said but was to explore the Montreal Massacre as a ‘members’ phenomenon’, from many different perspectives (p. 4). Your suggestion, again, is half a truth. In Eglin and Hester’s statement "We were then, not mere onlookers, nor just analysts, because we too were appalled by the event and to the wider range of violence against women to which it belonged" (p. 126), the Massacre is talked about as part of the wider range of violence against women, which correctly implies that there are other kinds of violence against women besides the kind that took place that day in Montreal. That is the far different than the idea that the Montreal Massacre represents violence against women.

If the writers of the article want to quote sources that support the notion of the MM ‘representing’ violence against women, that would be an improvement. And if it were also stated that not everyone agrees with that, it would be a further improvement. There are those who have gone against this symbolism, of Marc Lepine and the Massacre representing violence against women. Gilbert McInnis’s play is one of them – from my website – the Introduction - http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/ArticlesandEssays/McInnisPrefacetoTheDieisCast.doc. Suemcp001 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The article, as is, does all the things you're saying it doesn't do but should do. Read Slp1's reply above a little closer, as it effectively moots your critique. Once again, your troll-like comments come off as disingenuous, petty, and counter-productive as far as this article is concerned. It appears you're still not prepared to engage in a two-way discussion, but are instead trying to persuade others to defer to you as an authority on the subject. In other words, if you're not prepared to collaborate, this is the wrong forum for you. bobanny (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I regret you see my comments that way. I am only trying to help Wikipedia portray the Montreal Massacre as it actually happened, bringing in other perspectives without making just one perspective (the feminist perspective) the main one. I have spoken to someone about the proper use of sources, and I'd like to repeat what he said, as it may shed some light on the situation regarding the sentence "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women" (see 3rd paragraph of the article). Following is the quote from an expert on sources, about the sentence in question from the article Ecole Polytechnique Massacre:

"This sort of thing is unfortunately common--the writer makes a claim, supposedly summarizing others, and then adds several references to support the claim, when in fact those sources do no such thing. . . . The citation of a source implies only that the author got the information, idea, or opinion from the source and is giving credit. The claim made by the writer is important, too. If the author of this article had stated, 'Opinions vary about the meaning of the massacre (4,5,6),' then you'd have no issue because that's a fair characterization of the three sources cited" (personal communication 15 May 2008, Robert Harris, author of Using Sources Effectively, 2nd ed., 2005). Suemcp001 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article does not say "the mainstream point of view is that it is the attack represents violence against women" or anything like that. It explicitly specifies that this is the stance of feminists and public officials. I get the feeling you won't be satisfied until we add "but this is the wrong view!!" into the article.-Wafulz (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sue, please re-read the paragraph. It already does exactly what Harris recommends when he suggests that it should include a sentence like "Opinions vary about the meaning of the massacre..." The lead already specifically says that there are many different interpretations of the event and then goes on to list the various theories (violence against women, madman, abuse, immigrant experience etc) that have come forward from reliable sources. And it specifically attributes the 'violence against women" view to feminists and public officials, never saying that it is main one.

To be honest, I am confused by your reasoning. In your own words, above you noted that there is a "feminist perspective, the one that tries to say that the violence of Marc Lepine is representative of all violence against women",[11]. In your 2005 letter to Western News you stated that the Massacre is "remembered mainly as an ultimate example of male violence against women."[12] Yet now you seem to disagree with a sentence that says more or less exactly this. I think Wafulz has it right, that the real problem is that you don't agree with the feminists and public officials. And indeed, your comment "I am only trying to help Wikipedia portray the Montreal Massacre as it actually happened" shows that you still don't understand the point of this encyclopedia. We are not here to promulgate the truth, your truth or anybody else's :"The threshold of inclusion is verifiability not truth" We are here to summarize what reliable sources say about the incident. Per WP:FORUM, we cannot be a forum for you to promote your views about how and why "it actually happened". --Slp1 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You’re getting off track, Slp. We were trying to deal with the sentence in the third paragraph and the references 4, 5, and 6 which have been used inappropriately as sources: "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women" (see 3rd paragraph of the article). You can use red print and tricks of language to try and convince people reading the Discussion page that I am in the wrong, but if they have any sense at all they will be able to figure it out for themselves.

There is another way of looking at it, if I may bring this up: The words ‘anti-feminist attack,’ in the last part of the sentence, are used to describe the first part of the sentence. Thus, the massacre is described as an ‘attack.’ One can reasonably certain that there was an attack that day in Montreal. I think we can safely state that it is a social fact that there was an attack (though whether only anti-feminist or also against humanity is another issue). The second descriptive phrase is “that is representative of wider societal violence against women", and it is this description we have been trying to deal with here, to have changed. This descriptive phrase, describing the attack, is not a social fact. Rather (and if there are any Sociology students here they may recognize this), this descriptive phrase is an example of ‘social construction.’ It is a bit of ideology that feminists have created; nonetheless, the references provided should support and agree with the idea that the attack was representative of violence against women. But two of them don’t. Barbara Kay’s ‘Lone Gunman’ article, and Eglin and Hester’s book The Montreal Massacre, take different perspectives on the significance of the attack. And those are two good reasons why that sentence needs to be changed, and the entire paragraph redone. Suemcp001 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Sue, I don't believe I have got off track. I am talking about the same sentence as you are and my analysis of the comments above is that you have not convinced anybody by your argument. The question is what do feminists and public officials say about this incident. Despite what you say, both Kay and E and H confirm that the VAW interpretation is a view held by feminists and/or public officials, as I have shown above.Perhaps others would like to chime in, but it seems to be that there is a clear consensus here that the sentence should remain as it is, and that it is appropriately sourced. In fact, it seems that academia has recently moved further, and above I have listed several books by sociology, criminology and law professors who discuss it as a clear example of a hate crime against women. Not included in the article at present, but I increasingly suspect it should be. --Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

To be sure, Barbara Kay acknowledges in her article that the attack happened, and also acknowledges that many other people, but not her, view the attack as representing all violence against women. The sentence is a complex one, but Wikipedia has bunched the two parts together, making the meaning of it confused and inaccurate. As far as other taking the time to give their views on this, I would suggest that that aren’t too many out there willing to stand up to feminists and Wikipedia’s ‘editors’ on these. And if this is comparable to what Marc Lepine experienced, in his efforts to deal with injustice by feminists and their friends, it could possibly be a reason for his rage. I doubt that Lepine was angry at women because they women (ie, because they had female bodies and reproductive capacities). No doubt it would be closer to the truth to say he was angry at them because they were taking places that had been reserved for men, and probably also because when he tried to discuss it with them, they wouldn’t do so in a rational manner. Most people are too busy with their jobs to spend time trying to convince people who have no intention of trying to see other sides of the story. I presume you get paid for this, or rewarded in other ways. I doubt that this has much significance to you, personally, except that it is the feminist diatribe to make a scapegoat out of someone who doesn’t have the power to fight back. The sentence as it stands is unsuitable and needs to be changed. I don’t like to think of young men and women reading it as it stands and coming away with the wrong impression. They might grow up to be like you. Suemcp001 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Meeeow! By "other sides of the story" I gather you mean your own speculation into Lepine's psyche (hidden narratives), which is neither social fact nor social construction. At best, it's creative non-fiction. The sentence is perfectly clear, though it could be more parsimonious by changing "that is representative of" to "that represents."

Listen up, Sue: the sentence says that the event has been widely interpreted as representing violence against women generally. It does not say, nor imply, that the event actually represents violence against women in society. The sources amply support the first, intended and apparent, meaning, not the one you're criticizing. Take another look at what the sentence actually says and means in its entirety, because your criticism of its individual components doesn't really make sense. This is basic English, not ideology. bobanny (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Afternoon

It looks like you haven’t been paying attention, bobanny (end of section, Good Morning). The sentence explicitly gives one side of the argument, claiming that the massacre is seen as representing ‘violence against women.’ The other side of the argument is that it is not seen that way, and there are many people who would agree it doe not represent violence against women, although it appears that some of them are afraid to speak out, possibly afraid of losing their jobs, or maybe of being cut off sex. But people have spoken out, and I have given examples, such as Barbara Kay in her article Lone Gunman, and Gilbert McInnis who wrote a play about Marc Lepine and the Massacre. And there are others, such as Stephen Roney, whose article ‘Spare us the White Ribbon’ is on my website: http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/ArticlesandEssays/Roney_SpareUsTheWhiteRibbon.doc . His perspective is that the White Ribbon campaign, which uses the symbol of Marc Lepine as its focal point, actually serves to make “all men guilty of Lepine's crime.”

Since you, bobanny, have commented on my article, The Hidden Narratives, which is on the website I have mentioned here, the Montreal Massacre, I wonder if you would mind repeating them for my website Comments page. You are welcome to email me privately, providing your name and the comment you would like posted. It seems to me it’s fairly easy for people such as yourself to make off-hand comments on something they may or may not have even read, relying on your anonymity to prevent backlash or having to take responsibility for what you say. I regret my contributions to this Discussion don’t make sense to you. I don’t know what education you have or how much you know about the subject. I do realize it can be as hard for some women as it is for some men (like Marc Lepine) to make it in the world. Speaking the truth about the Montreal Massacre in Canada can be as detrimental to one’s life and career as speaking up in third world countries about injustice towards women in their marriages. The problem is, once a group gains power – such as ‘women’ or black people – they are often reluctant to relinquish perceived sources of their power, such as the example in Canada of Marc Lepine and his horrific attack against those he felt were responsible. It is a power based on a lie, that Marc Lepine’s attack was the equivalent of ‘violence against women,’, but in reality the attacks happened because there was no way out for Lepine. There was no way for him to deal with it and have anyone listen and do something to help, not him personally nor for what he was doing to try and make our society a better place. Suemcp001 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll decline your offer Sue, although you are of course welcome to take any of my comments here and use them to trash me on your website or blog. Call me cowardly, but I prefer to remain anonymous for that sort of thing. Thing is, no one but you, at least in this round, is debating the meaning of the Montreal Massacre, or interpreting its significance (my dig notwithstanding). In fact, most responses to your comments here have pointed out that this isn't the place for it, regardless of what your views may be. bobanny (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

Hi. Uninvolved admin here. I've been watching this back-and-forth for a while now, and I must say that this discussion seems to have drifted out of constructive bounds and into the area of soapboxing. I'd like to offer some thoughts on the way things are going.

The sentence being debated uses the words "many feminist groups and public officials." This, as indicated by the sources and general knowledge, is true. Many groups do feel the way the article indicates. Importantly, though, the sentence does not say ALL - as indicated by the "Controversy" section further down in the article, there are some dissenting views. Thus, the sentence really does carry enough balance as written. It may benefit from a mention of the criticisms, but from my perspective, it works.

If there's a continuing dispute, then please let's stop posting voluminous statements that are mostly soapboxing and editorial comment - especially about other editors - and take the debate to informal mediation or third opinion or something. Continuing to go around and around and around and around is nothing but a waste of electrons. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Also, in case you're unaware, there's been an RFC and a fair amount of discussion in /Archive 2.-Wafulz (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope people will read what I have written and not simply dismiss it because of comments made by Tony. My first paragraph under Good Afternoon discusses what is missing from the sentence from the third paragraph.

Tony, even though you may be part of Wikipedia Admin, that doesn’t mean you are able to be objective. In fact, the thoughts you express suggest that you are not. The problem with the sentence we have been discussing (in third paragraph of the article) is not about "many feminist groups and public officials,’ but about the construction of the entire sentence. Please read the exchange on this page starting ‘Marc Lepine's actions not representative of all violence against women.’ I’m not sure that Informal Mediation would accomplish anything. It depends on who’s doing the mediating. John Scott was involved in this discussion last year, and he was outside to all of it, and was objective in many ways as to some of the issues that came up. He also is intelligent enough to be able to analyze it. How do I know, if someone from Wikipedia or someone anonymous gets to mediate this, that they actually have the ability. I would prefer to have an actual response to the issues I raised in my previous post. If the discussion goes round and round it’s because that’s not happening. Suemcp001 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My intention in stepping in here is to express an opinion from outside of the current group of editors, none of whom I've interacted with (that I can recall) in the past, from a fresh perspective. I've read through quite a lot of this discussion and the previous discussions that took place between you and editors of this page, and find that your arguments for editing the article in the manner that you wish have been refuted by experienced editors time and again. The article, from my look at it, is balanced and reflects a neutral viewpoint, and numerous other editors have pointed that out That should be an indication that your arguments are not going to be resolved in the way that you desire.Your editing history does not help your case either, as the RFC linked to above indicates.

Again: take it to informal or formal mediation if you feel there's a need to continue pushing for these changes, as it's bluntly obvious that consensus here is that the article is neutral and balanced as is. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, your earlier response suggests you don’t really understand what we have been talking about here - the sentence in the third paragraph. The article is not balanced nor is it neutral! The fact that Wikipedia ‘editors’ are refuting what I say is not proof they are right. It may well be the case that “it's bluntly obvious that consensus here is that the article is neutral and balanced as is,” but that still doesn’t mean that you’re right and I’m wrong. I’d like to quote to you something John Scott wrote about consensus, from the archives on 10 Jan 2007:

“Discussions on Wikipedia pages move on very fast – some of you must be editing almost full time! I made a small contribution to the discussion a couple of days ago and was asked by Atlant to try to make a case for the inclusion of an External Link to Suemcp’s site dedicated to the Montreal massacre. This is my case, put in the context of some general remarks on Wikipedia criteria. I am not a regular editor of articles but a relatively disinterested observer and reader of articles and I hope that this discussion might make a small contribution to improving the usefulness of Wikipedia entries. A general point was made by Atlant that Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus. This is, of course, its distinctive characteristic as an Encyclopedia. It should be recognised, however, that there is an inevitable tension between the criterion of consensus and the criterion of truth. Consensus does not necessarily result in the truth. At one time, it was generally agreed that the world was flat, but that doesn’t mean that it actually is flat. The question of ‘truth’ is itself, of course, problematic, but is related to ideas of objectivity, evidence, and consistency with other established knowledge. Contributors to Wikipedia should, surely, be ensuring that their contributions achieve a consensus that conforms to those criteria?” end of quote from John Scott.

It is my view, and others’, that the Montreal Massacre is not representative of violence against women. Furthermore, an expert on using sources, Robert Harris, has said that they have been used incorrectly in the third paragraph, in this sentence "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women" references 4, 5, and 6. I do not want any more editors who have a poor understanding of all this to be the ones to make a decision on this matter, especially if they remain anonymous. Suemcp001 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The view that this attack is not representative of violence against women is well represented. It's even got a section regarding the controversy of the school of thought. Also, many editors operate anonymously out of necessity - numerous editors have left the project after being harassed in real life. You have no right to demand they reveal their identities.-Wafulz (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The central thought of the third paragraph is that the ‘violence against women’ campaign, supposedly represented by Marc Lepine’s actions that day, is the main outcome of the Montreal Massacre. The references that support that thought are not used properly, according to the expert Robert Harris. Furthermore, that paragraph is the place where the other side of that thought should be expressed, not later in the article (if, indeed, it is there at all). There are people and groups that have opposed that ‘representation,’ and with good reason. Marc Lepine killed women because he and many other men got pushed out of education and career roles that had traditionally been for men, not because of any ‘relationship problem.’ The fact that he was so very angry is an indication that he must have felt very powerless, up against feminists and their middle class male colleagues who benefitted from the female presence on campus, and had probably tried to deal with them many times over the social injustice he had experienced. No doubt he tried to have someone in power help him present his point of view, and failed. Not a drinker, not an advocate of loose behaviour by women, he might not have been the type of person to be able to get that help, in his endeavor to get into the college of engineering. If anyone at Wikipedia plans to mediate this difference of opinion, then I would prefer that they do so while declaring their identity. It makes rather easy for people to be lacksadaisical with the truth if their identity remains anonymous. Suemcp001 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In the more than a year that you have been advocating for these changes, the consensus has not been swayed; this is probably an indication that your viewpoint is not supported by reliable evidence. If you have good reliable sources that are not involved with your website that you can provide to indicate that the above is a viable viewpoint that could be placed into the article on their basis, please provide them. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Men Women Anger and Powerlessness

Tony, any articles that have dealt directly with the Montreal Massacre get to be on my website, if I come across them and if the author agrees. The best I can do, in response to your request for more evidence, is to quote from someone who has written about women, anger, and powerlessness. I say ‘women’ and not men because feminists have written mostly about women’s anger, not men’s, and mostly in relation to women’s powerlessness. A quick search on google on ‘women anger powerlessness’ revealed this book advertisement to me: ‘Anger across the gender divide’ by MELISSA DITTMANN, http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar03/angeracross.html . When you read it, however, remember there are women now with a great deal of power, and men with far less than they used to have. Marc Lepine was angry, as angry as women used to be at being excluded from certain educational programs and careers, as angry as women used to be at men’s sometimes atrocious attitude towards them. It is plain to see that that, perhaps combined with men’s traditionally lesser ability to deal with anger within themselves, Marc Lepine’s response was almost a forgone conclusion. Do you know why women were at one time reluctant to express anger? It was because they feared retaliation and/or because they felt so powerless. Do you know why men now are reluctant to speak out when they see this poorly written article on the Montreal Massacre? It is, in part, because they fear retaliation – loss of job/career, no sex for a year, etc. They can sometimes feel powerless, working alongside feminists and dependent on their goodwill so they can keep their job. The evidence is in Marc Lepine’s behaviour. The answers are in how that behaviour is interpreted. Returning once more to John Scott’s piece on ‘Consensus,’ what we have to remember is that it is not how many sheep are following their leader, but on what constitutes the truth in this case. Is it the feminist interpretation, which feminists want to keep up front in the article, which holds more truth, or the opposite interpretation, that Marc Lepine’s actions were NOT representative of ‘violence against women.’ The problem is, of course, that feminists are still acting as though they are hard done by. They don’t seem to realize, or are unwilling to admit, that there just aren’t enough great careers for all the men and women capable of doing them. Feminism has changed the world, and not for the better. Suemcp001 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. Some people think that it's representative of violence against women. Some people don't. Both sides are represented and given appropriate weight, and you're trying to suppress one side because you disagree. Just give it up.-Wafulz (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Sue, we have tried to explain this so many times, but it just doesn't seem to sink in. Here goes again...

• Wikipedia does not care what the truth is. We record what is verifiable in reliable sources. Your website does not count as a reliable source for Wikipedia. WP:SPS
• Wikipedia cannot include your opinion and original research about this matter. Get your theories published in a reliable source such as an peer-reviewed academic journal or other reliable source and then then we can look at it again.
• Dittman [13] does not mention the massacre or Marc Lepine. Attempting to invoke her comments and connect it to this article is original research and original synthesis and not allowed here.
• Wikipedia has its own rules and policies about consensus and sourcing, so Scott's and Harris' opinions on the subject are irrelevant.

You obviously feel strongly about this matter. But however strongly you believe that you are right, you cannot use this article to promote your opinions and perspective. As Tony says above, please consider that over the time that you have been arguing your point, multiple editors and multiple administrators have disagreed with you, and not one has been convinced that the edits you propose are necessary and indeed within Wikipedia's policies. Please give it up.--Slp1 (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Slp, The way the Wikipedia article is written, it is an original piece of research itself, and a poorly-done piece at that, quoting sources inappropriately, in order to promote a particular agenda – in this case, the feminist one, that the tragic events at Montreal in 1989 represent ‘violence against women.’ And that’s just for starters. Obviously, the Dittmann article is not meant to discuss the Montreal Massacre. But it’s difficult for me to try and explain to you, if you unable to comprehend my reason for mentioning it here. I am not doing original research on the Talk pages. And neither is Dittman, but generally, throughout life, men and women, and boys and girls, reflect on what they read and apply it to new situations. I was asking you to do that but perhaps you are not ready for reflection. Perhaps you are still being too politically-minded for that, like the original feminists who responded to the tragedy of the killings and decided to dismiss any other perspective but ‘women’s’. And isn’t that how the Wikipedia article came to be written the way it was? When I tried to discuss matters and make changes last year I was met with a ferocious hostiltity, even to the point of being blamed for the hostility. Even this year, when I have tried to make small changes for for the Wikipedia ‘editors’ ro read and discuss, no discussion has taken place. My edit to the article was simply reversed, and at least once no acknowledgment that it had been reversed was made. I find it next to impossible to deal rationally and sympathetically in this kind of situation, though one thing it has done is make me increasingly aware of the frustration Marc Lepine must have felt, trying to deal with feminists about the situation he found himself in life. Consensus, even for the Wikipedia admin, doesn’t simply mean ‘majority rule.’ It means different perspectives need to be listened to and thought about, and any changes that are made need to be also. I’m not finding it on this list. What I’m finding is a bunch of small-minded feminists and the men who benefit from their association with them, perpetuating a false notion of what the Montreal Massacre was all about. Suemcp001 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine either way, as long as consistency within the article is maintained. Your points are all reasonable. bobanny (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Tony (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposed, per the same objections as listed on a similar item in Talk:Order of Canada. Dl2000 (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-heterosexual agenda by feminists proven correct ?

• In 1997, the Canadian Advertising Foundation ruled that a National Ad campaign that featuring Nicole Brown Simpson's sister Denise with the slogan entiled, "Stop violence against Women" was in fact portraying only men as aggressors, and that it was not providing a balanced message and was in fact contributing to gender stereotyping. (The murder of Nicole Simpson also included the murder of Ronald Goldman)

The above section was remeoved, and should be discussed for possible inclusion.

While this does pertain to the topic of violence against women in general as 'bearcat' as he calls himself suggests, it also applies to this incident, and to what is included in some of this section.

The original 'cause' of this was that 'feminists' had 'ruined his life'...well there is much to verify this, including the response to the tragic act. This was not only a crime against women, but a crime against humanity...

Violence against women is one of those classic half-truths, that has and is being used to attack not only men, but also divide the sexes...

Comments ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have a discussion around the validity or invalidity of "violence against women" discourse in a broader context, this isn't the article for that. This article is specifically about the Polytechnique incident; Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. And what in the hell is your subject line about? What on earth does any alleged "anti-heterosexual agenda" have to do with this discussion? Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much echoing the above. This article is about this specific incident, not violence against women in general.-Wafulz (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Read some of his other talk page contributions and you will probably start to understand his situation, or atleast my impression of where he is coming from. -Djsasso (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems obvious, that some are manipulating the incident away from the real issues, abuse, violence and injustice.

This 'women only' 'lesbian perspective is sometimes supported by others who are anti heterosexual, especially radical feminists and radical lesbian feminists, (not all lesbians).

The use of the label 'violence against women' when in fact some men were shot and could have been killed as well as all other fathers, boyfriends, brothers who lost daughters, wives, girlfriends is TOTALLY MISSING. Why ?

So you can't have your cake and eat it to. If the incident provokes inappropriate comments about 'violence against women' instead of injustice, abuse, violence against a community, then there is something wrong. The incident involving the late Nicole Simpson adds to the discussion and criticism of the topic.

The topic is being manipulated, and not in fairness to all the victims.

We have the manipulation by 'radical feminists' (male and female) corrupting the Childrens Aid Society, and Women's groups...

Has anyone attempted to see how 'feminists' had ruined his life ?

The article needs expansion.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The section about Nicole Simpson is irrelevant to the article at hand and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and there is no value added to the article by including it. In fact it actually takes away from the article as it actually confuses the reader (at least me when I read through the criticism section) as there is no context as to why it is included, or what it actually has to do with the massacre.

As for the rest of your comments, I have no idea what you are getting at, and I had no idea when I was reading it that it was being told from a "lesbian perspective"...What does that even mean?--kelapstick (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• A concern for women in general at the exclusion of men, ie the fathers of the women killed is biased ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really stretching things well past the breaking point to suggest that a woman's perspective is automatically a lesbian one. Heterosexual women don't have opinions? Heterosexual women are never feminists? That would be news to most heterosexual women and most feminists. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is clearly noted historically.

Some, perhaps most heterosexual feminists, are concerned about their partners, men, their sons, men,...

Radical feminists, (that might include some radical lesbians) are not concerned about the opposite sex. The inclusion of some lesbians makes logical sense, and in some cases they are obviously discrimininating against men.

The fairness of this article is in question. There appears a visible and notable attempt to generale and attack all men. Little to substantiate the 'anti-feminist' remarks made by Mr. Lepine.

Sadly he was partly correct.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am unable to understand much of Caesarjbsquitti is saying but I do agree with the removal of the section referenced at the top here. It is not sufficiently related to the subject of this article. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar, your responses do not explain your rationale for having the Nicole Simpson section included in the article (which was the whole basis for this section on the talk page anyway).

The article does not say that this was only a crime against women, it says that four men were injured. I don't think that anybody would deny that the families of the victims would be affected, regardless of gender, that just happens to not be in the article but it doesn't mean it can not be, but it has to be properly sourced.

There is much to substantiate the the anti-feminist remarks, for example the coroner's report. The article is not saying that the massacre should be used as a vehicle to fight violence against women, it is stating that the event has been used for that purpose, and is properly cited. The article documents a historic event, the article is not a soapbox for feminism or for fighting violence against women.

If by fairness of the article, you are referring to it not being NPOV, I think that you are wrong, not that I am the authority, but the article passed featured article status in May 2007, and there hasn't been that much of a change to the article since then, except for some copyediting.

I am really confuesed by the purpose of this discussion, or why it even got started...--kelapstick (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Attacked feminists not women ?

Attacked feminists not women ?

I ponder the validiity of the 'media sources' or others that try to equate the attack on "feminism" as an attack on women...

There are examples of blatant 'feminist abuses'....like this OR, that you should be aware of (true story)

Manager: "We are in accordance with all the regulations dealing with employment equity !............all our employees are women."

It is obvious that some have manipulated this situation for political gains.

Suggest a third party critical evaluation of the manipulation.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This talkpage is not for a discussion of the topic, but to discuss improvements to the article itself. This is not the place to suggest third party evaluations of the issue or to vent about 'feminist abuses'. If you have any reliable sources to support your contentions about the massacre then please produce them. In the meantime I will note that the coroner's report, numerous scholarly books and articles, multiple media reports over the last nearly twenty years, (all third party evaluations of a sort) consider women (not feminists) to be the targets here, and indeed some go as far as to suggest that it should be considered a hate crime against women.[14][15][16][17] --Slp1 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The coroner's report does state that -

"In two documents, Marc Lépine identified feminists, women, as the enemy, the bad thing to be destroyed. He regarded them as invested with negative characteristics, based on a projective mode of thinking: all the evil was on their side."

I would say though, that it is a misrepresentation of the actual statements in the two notes left by Lépine, as they quite clearly refer to "feminists" as the enemy, not women as such. There is also the mention of 'radical feminists' and, once, of 'viragoes'. Women as such are clearly not labeled as enemies. The report also seems somewhat contradictory of another statement in Lépine's notes, as he clearly blames "the Grim Reaper" - that has "forced [him] to extreme acts". So, there does seem to have been this perception, on the one side, of this traditionally male,individualized, "metaphorical figure of death" (and suicide), and on the other hand a particular group of women - "the feminists". I'm not sure how and if this could be incorporated into the article. But i would say that it is clearly relevant to the understanding of the tragedy. ΑΩ (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments, and while your thoughts are certainly interesting, it is not our place to second guess the Coroner and other scholars and commentators (who did other things than just study the notes, of course). It is our job to report the notable and significant reliably sourced views of this tragedy, and we can't include original research. As it happens, the article already makes clear the incontestable fact that in Lepine's view he was "fighting feminism", and that to him feminists were his targets, per his notes and statements. However, the Coroner (and all other reliable sources produced to date), have viewed the attack as one on the wider category of women, having noted, one presumes, among other things,

• that he stalked the halls saying "I want the women",
• that he assumed that women who wanted to be engineers must be feminists ("You're women, you're going to be engineers, You're all a bunch of feminists"),
• that he shot women even after they denied being feminists, and
• that he included on his hitlist 6 women whose only claim to fame was that they were police officers who played volleyball together.

All in all, it appears that Lepine chose his targets not because they were feminists per se, but because they were female beneficiaries of feminist-led societal changes that had opened up traditionally male occupations to women. It is ironic, therefore, that one of his victims was in fact a nursing student.

This is an emotive subject, and my history on the article suggest that it is a magnet for strongly held opinion and original research. In my view, the proper way to deal with this situation is to encourage editors to begin by researching the significant views found in reliable sources, and using them to guide the article writing. This is the way we got the article out of a very difficult dispute to featured status. This is the way we need to continue if we want to avoid discussions that turn out to be about the unverifiable personal views of contributors.

BTW, ΑΩ, are you sure the massacre qualifies as a spree killing? The murders took place in one location, so to me this event doesn't meet the criteria laid out in the WP article linked. --Slp1 (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The question of location. It seems to me that these murders took place at several locations within one fairly large building. It's possible, I guess, that I could be differentiating space somewhat differently from most people. (I am, first of all, an architect by education.) In fact, when I'm thinking about it, a (female) psychiatrist once said to me that my way of thinking did seem highly differentiated. I think it was a compliment, of sorts. I also checked the FBI website though, and found a general definition of "spree killing" that puts no weight on location. But the same article also said that the FBI has abandoned the "spree killer" category altogether, after a symposium in autumn 2005 -

"Central to the discussion was the definitional problems relating to the concept of a cooling-off period. Because it creates arbitrary guidelines, the confusion surrounding this concept led the majority of attendees to advocate disregarding the use of spree murder as a separate category. The designation does not provide any real benefit for use by law enforcement."

According to the FBI the useful categories would be Mass murder and Serial murder. The Ecole Polytechnique massacre should, then, be labelled 'mass murder'. What matters, in my view, is that this article should be linked to other cases of a more or less similar character, for the purpose of understanding. So, it could be right to link it to the article on Charles Whitman. He has been labelled a "spree killer". He did murder his victims at two quite separate locations and within 8-10 hours. It was however also a "school shooting", his act was clearly suicidal, he killed his mother first, then his wife, and the first victim targeted from the top of the Texas Tower was a young pregnant woman. If we are to follow the FBI recommendations all of the cases labelled as "spree killings" should be recategorized as "Mass murder". I'm not sure how relevant the article on Mass murder would be. Perhaps it could be.

I wouldn't say I am second guessing the Coroner, not when it comes to the literal content of Lepine's suicide notes. They do make it quite clear that his mind was very much fixated on "feminists". It does of course mean an attack on the rights of all women. As for the "Grim Repair", the original text turns out to say "La Faucheuse". And he was quite obsessed with female police officers. So, what you're saying is quite obviously true - he was targeting women benefitting from certain policies and, I would say, making certain choices.

I also found one article quoting a friend of his sister: Nadia's former roommate Lahaie speculates: "That's when Nadia left... to return to live with her mother and get on his (Marc's) back fulltime". I can still hear Nadia telling me: "If you really want to get him mad, call him Gamil and tell him he is ugly and stupid."[18] From what I understand, his sister later killed herself with an overdose. I see no irony. ΑΩ (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tremblay v. Daigle

The Polytechnique massacre occured just a few months after the Canadian Supreme Court removed all restrictions to abortion in Tremblay v. Daigle. I'm not sure there is any link to this, but it would be interesting of the article could determine whether Lépine had expressed any specific opposition to the pro-choice crowd of feminists, the ones that had previously hailed the Supreme Court ruling as a major victory for the feminist movement in Canada. If so, it would be a major precedent for the phenomenon of anti-abortion violence in the country. ADM (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's an interesting idea, but no source that I know of has made such as connection between Lepine and abortion; in fact none I know of discuss Lepine's attitudes towards abortion at all. To me, trying to make such a connection in any of these articles would be a clear example WP:Original research, since we don't try to determine in WP articles anything that hasn't been previously reported in reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Recent edits [19][20][21]have sought to emphasize the fact that Lepine's father (who actually didn't even bring him up) was a Muslim. Of equal importance, surely, is in the fact that he was baptised a Catholic and brought up by a former nun, who became a Protestant during his adolescence. Emphasizing the Islam connection at the expense of the Christian is a clear example of the kind of point of view pushing that occurs at various other website and blogs, but cannot occur here per neutral point of view.--Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A polemic Mark Steyn film review[22] is really not an appropriate source for factual information; but it is true that more appropriate sources are available if they are required. However the main problem is still that to mention his father's religion and not his mother's is contrary to WP's policies of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and appears to be part of certain partisan internet blather about this event and its causes.[23][24][25] I am not going to revert again immediately, but will do so soon unless there is some discussion here about why these additions are necessary or indeed appropriate. --Slp1 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity of parents

Does the ethnicity of his parents matter, that it should be mentioned in the lead? I have a fear that some users would make the connection, even subconcious, that the killer's father is Algerian is somehow connected to his abuse. Do you get what I mean? ValenShephard (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Article name

This event seems to be universally known in Canada as the "Montreal Massacre," so why does the title of the article not reflect this common appellation? fishhead64 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Montreal Massacre is probably the more common name, though not the exclusive one based on these recent googlenews hits. We had a similar discussion about 4 years ago [26]. It was suggested at the time that Montreal Massacre was being used less because of the Dawson College shooting, which was also a Montreal massacre of a sort. Per WP:NAME we are supposed to use the more common name, which does seem to be Montreal Massacre at the moment. So I am open to discussing a possible move of the article, depending on what others think --Slp1 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll make a formal proposal and see what comes of it. Ah, Wikipedia is so time consuming! fishhead64 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving article to Montreal Massacre

Following up on the above discussion, I'd like to formally suggest that we move the article to Montreal Massacre. Per common name we are supposed to use the most used term and that does seem to be Montreal Massacre. For example, googlenews searches of usage from 2007-12 found:

• Montreal Massacre: 127 hits [27]
• Ecole Polytechnique massacre: 26 hits [28]

Polytechnique Massacre; 35 hits [29]

When we last held a discussion it was thought that because of the Dawson College shooting the term "Montreal massacre" might be going out of use. But that doesn't seem to have been the case. Does this move seem to be a good idea to others? --Slp1 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where this has gone however, as a Canadian University student I feel I could chip in an opinion. Since high school (for me about a decade ago - well after this event) I have heard this incident referred to, almost exclusively, as École Polytechnique shooting. The current ariticle title of "École Polytechnique massacre" seems fitting. I understand the use of google trends however I would posit that referring to this incident as the Montreal Massacre is a US experience and not necessarily a Canadian, or global, one. ACanadianToker (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken/Missing Reference

The link for Reference 86 (regarding the book written by Marc Lépine's mother Monique) leads to nowhere. I'm fairly new to this, so could someone with more experience figure this out? Should the link be replaced with a cached version, or an alternate article?--Ibsavage (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ibsavage, thank you for noticing this! It appears that CBC simply moved the article to a different URL, and I was able to update the reference with the new location. Cheers! Resolute 21:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)