Talk:École Polytechnique massacre/Archive 1

Early comments
December 2, 2002

Hello..

&#8220;Bells&#8217; is a song written in dedication to the fourteen woman who were gunned down December 6th, 1989 in Montreal at the Ecole Polytechnique. The 13th anniversary of the tragedy is this Friday, December 6th. The video/CD hopes to bring the gender violence to the forefront in order to combat this ongoing problem in our society.

The song was written by former Montrealer, Ron Warwaruk who has since moved to Ottawa during the last ten years and has been active in the Ottawa Music scene for over ten years. The song itself was entered in the International Song of Peace competition last May in Ireland. The song finished 2nd among over 400 entries as they (Ron and Samantha Timmins) performed it Live in Tipperary, Ireland.

The song has been re-recorded from the original version and is now sung by 13 year old sensation, Samantha Timmins, of Embrun, Ontario. She has won several competitions in the area and continues to captivate the audience with her strong vocal presence.

All profits from the song/video to be donated to women&#8217;s shelter&#8217;s from Toronto to Montreal as well to the White Ribbon Campaign.

With the 13th anniversary this Friday, we hope that your station and it&#8217;s sister stations are able to air the video / CD  in memory of the persons who were taken away on December 6th, 1989.

Is there anywhere in peticular that I could send the video and/or CD to, including the families of the victims?

Thank you. The Bells Crew Contact:    Ron Warwaruk    613 720 9105 or 613 489 0274


 * I think this was written by somebody who thinks we're an "official" site about the massacre. We are #1 in google about it after all.  DanKeshet 18:16 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

Should include information on subsequent judicial proceedings. --65.174.35.65
 * Um, there were no subsequent judicial proceedings. Lepine was never tried, because he killed himself. DS
 * No one sued the school? ...wait, this is Canada we're talking about, not America! --Jacqui M Schedler 01:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the caption for the pic be in English? Moriori 01:15, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)


 * It is. It just so happens that the title of the work, the name of the square, and the name of the borough are all French - not an entirely surprising state of affairs in Montreal. - Montr&eacute;alais 08:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be dense, but what is the work? The concrete path?  Tempshill 18:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The photo does justice to the greenery but it unfortunately does not show well the texture of the path or the low and discrete memorial monoliths that line it. These 14 monoliths or markers are set very widely apart. You really have to go there and experience the progression through the pathway. Maybe a photo of one of the monoliths would help a bit.


 * How's that? - Montr&eacute;alais 05:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, good photo of one of the monoliths and the path inscription! AlainV 03:11, 2004 Jan 23 (UTC)

Memorial Plate
Maybe add a picture of the memorial plate on the side of the school, the one listing the names of the victims? (I can take the picture if no one can do it) - Sepper 17:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Added the picture. - Sepper 16:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Significance of bee?
Does anyone know this? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's part of the school's logo. -Rjo 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * JUST SAW THIS NOW - a bee is a symbol I think to do with Freemasons, that's where I've seen it. But it is also to do with female power. The head of the bees is the queen, of course. Suemcp 23:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Lepine's suicide note?
Is there no value in putting Lepine's suicide note, either here or on the page provided for him? Simply put, a lot of people even today refuse to believe that he actually hated feminists, and though his actions were anti-woman and not anti-feminist, the fact is that his suicide note spoke quite solidly that his rationale, and possibly what spurned him into action, was his hatred of the double standards of feminism.


 * I'm not sure it would add much besides a lot of upset stomachs, and doing him the service of publicizing his hatred. I haven't read the note, but I suspect that, even if it were to contain valid points, not many people are going to be quoting a mass murderer to further their arguments, and for those that don't agree, it'd probably be just needlessly disturbing. It's included in the Crimelibrary link on the article page, so those who are seeking very detailed information about the murders can access it relatively easily from here, but I feel it's probably unnecessary here--especially without additional (and not preferable, either) counter-commentary. FireWorks 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Aftermath
Shouldn't there be menchan of the white ribbon campaign? Also, the phrase "Sarto Blais, simply could not cope and hanged himself in the following months. His parents soon followed." is confusing... his parents also commited suicide? Will attempt to research and clarify

Also, purple ribbon? This seems to be either outdated or incorrect, as previously stated White Ribbon is used across canada for the purpose. Bigmacd24 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made the Sarto Blais and relative addition, and from what I can remember, both parents hanged themselves. (altougth I can't remember the source I used. Some research might be in order.


 * And the purple ribbon is misleading. I go to Polytechnique myself and we distribute White ribbons. - Sepper 06:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing references to the abiltity to cope with the event itself from the descriptions of the two who later killed themselves from the second and third paragraphs in this section because there doesn't seem to be any source cited for either claim. Without a source, I think the event's possible effects on their respective psyches should at most be implied without actually stating it as fact.

The paragraphs hitherto appeared as:

"The aftermath was especially hard on the students and the support staff that was present at the time. Many suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. One individual who had been there that day, Sarto Blais, simply could not cope and hanged himself in the following months. His parent also commited suicide.

Also, an article published in La Presse on December 7, 2004, stated that one student, working part-time for Urgences Santé, was there studying in the cafeteria that day. He can be credited for helping victims, but sadly he too could not cope with the idea that he could have done more, and ended his life."

Dan 08:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of adding 'citation needed' all over articles, so I thought I'd leave a note here instead. I removed the following because it needs a verifiable citation before going back in the article: A proper police investigation has never been conducted, and only recently have the deeper social isues related to Marc Lépine's application to the École, and the rejection he received, been explored to any extent. Bobanny 05:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

a white ribbon or a purple ribbon
The National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women page indicates that both are used. Can someone confirm this, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 06:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Compare http://www.polymtl.ca/carrefour/en/article.php?no=2158, http://www.whiteribbon.ca/about_us/ and http://www.thans.ca/ribbon.html


 * I am on campus and we use white ribbons. I can only find references of purple ribbons in Prince Edward Island and in Nova Scotia (from a quick web search). - Sepper 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I found an answer on Status of women Canada's Website. Both are 'ok'. See http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/dates/dec6/index_e.html and more specificly: http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/dates/dec6/actions_e.html - Sepper 07:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As a personnal note, I think the purple ribbon is misleading. I'm a student of Polytechnique and it's the first time I've heard of a purple ribbon in 6 years. It might be a good symbol but it's not used and not known on campus - Sepper 07:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sepper, for looking up. I asked a similar question at Talk: Main Page yesterday. You may be interested in Rod ESQ's reply there. --PFHLai 08:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been to the December 6th commemoration many times (mostly between 1992 and 2000) at Polytechnique, and I have only seen white ribbons. In fact, I wear a little white ribbon on my coat every year on December 6th. Hugo Dufort

Both the "ribbon" campaigns are the antithisis of a neutral POV. They are misandrist political advocacy promoting hatred of men. They flout the WP NPOV rules. Bob 69.19.14.43 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Campus commemoration
This might be notable: http://www.polymtl.ca/carrefour/en/article.php?no=2158 should it be included? - Sepper 06:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam
Wouldn't it be relevant to note in the article (this, or his personal page) that he and his father are/were Muslims? The anti-woman religion has definitely had a strong affect on his worldview. --
 * Please sign your entries User:142.161.68.238. I don't think it relevant to add that info.  An entry like that for the reason you cite will be challenged, by Muslins and others that that have views different from yours. Regards, Cafe Nervosa |  talk  17:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a blurb from an editorial in the National Post (see reference at the bottom of my edit) indicating his parents' nasty divorce. In order to keep the tone nonprejudicial, I just mentioned in passing that his father was an Algerian Muslim immigrant. What's more relevant is his mother's statement to the divorce court. Let the reader decide to make, or not to make, a connection between anti-feminism and Islam.
 * Please sign your entries User:24.93.165.214. Regards, Cafe Nervosa |  talk  17:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

How is Islam anti-feminism? Lets not "let the reader decide". This should be a point of neutrality as I can smear the George Bush article with allusions to Christianity being the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq. But I am sure if I did that, it would immediately be reverted. --Ayman75 19:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ayman, I see you were cited User_talk:Ayman75 for messing with the George Bush Article and you are new to wiki. Simply deleting edits by others before discussion will wreck Wikipedia.  Please review the pages on policies of debates and contreversies.  If you can not abide, then stop contributing.  Please keep debates focussed on one article at a time.  I agree, childabuse, on Marc Lépine/Gamil Gharbi, as alleged ,does not mean that all Mulslims are anti-feminism.  However in there are people that will try to link his family's Muslim faith with the poor behavior of the father.   Thanks,  Cafe Nervosa |  talk  21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Islam has nothing to do with this act anymore than Protestant Christianity did have to do with the Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact that Marc Lépine's father was an alcoholic, and the Gamil renounced his Algerian hertiage and took a French name proves that religion played no role here, Islam or otherwise. -- KB 03:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Islam isn't anti-woman. Many fundamentalists, especially Salafists and Wahabbists, have interpretations that treat women harshly and unequally. Implementations of Shariah that give the testimony of a woman much less than that of a man, require women to be completely covered, endorse honor killings, and put women to death for being raped, accusing another of rape, or for killing an attempted rapist are not exactly the most pro-female policies possible.


 * Your evidence that religion played no role is not dispositive. With his background and his further behavior, there is evidence that Gamil/Marc adopted his father's views to some extent. The power of Salafism in Algeria (such as the long and depraved civil war between the Army and the Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group) gives rise to justifiable suspicion that the Father's Islam was not the most pacifist, modern, or progressive. Austinbond06 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

-- After some reflection, I think that the best thing would be to mention his faith on the personal page (since it is at least part of his persona) but not neccessarily here (as there isn't any reason to suspect that it was that which drove him to murder).


 * I don't understand why everything that is bad going on in the world is reflected back to Islam..can't you people leave it alone...it really does bug me alot..because if i tell someone i am muslim they think i am a bad person..give it a break! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.98.81 (talk • contribs).


 * Well let's see ... I go to yahoo or cnn and what's going on in the Muslim world? Killings killings and more killings. From the Middle East to Thailand to Indonesia to the Philipines. Killings in Europe of people who criticize Islam, death penalties to people trying to convert out of Islam, killing of girls because they go to school, bombs and rebellion because the govt is majority Buddhist or Christian or Hindu or Jewish. The list goes on and on. And all we get from muslims who supposedly do not support such behavior is a tepid denouncement because if they denounce it too sincerely in public, they would probably get threatened or killed as well. The basic premise that the Quran is perfect, the demagogic Arab media, and the anti-female, blame-someone-besides-yourself traditions of Arab culture, just makes the fire bigger. Do you understand now why so much that is bad is reflected back to Islam?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sour pickle (talk • contribs).


 * Sour Pickle: While I cannot argue against most of what you said, I must point out that you're making it sound like all Muslims are horrible, violent, anti-female, etc., and it simply isn't true. --DearPrudence 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You sound defensive. I know of no Buddist call for holy way.  The Christians gave up crusading.  Facts are facts.  We are too tolerant of ideologies that are themselves intolerant.  This includes so-called "christains" that say god hates fagss Chivista 21:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This event is absolutely NOT related to Islam. I've studied at Université de Montréal (to which Polytechnique is affiliated) for 7 years, and I had plenty of time to learn all the details about Lepine and the shooting (I had many friends studying at Poly). Lepine was insane, and his hatred of women is clearly NOT related to his ethnic or religious background. It is unfortunate that Lepine's failure to enter Polytechnique happened exactly at a time when Polytechnique was launching a publicity campaign, in a bid to get more female students. The female/male ratio among engineering students was extremely low at the time, and it was an embarrassment for the school. Lepine simply transferred his frustration into the most obvious target of the time: women. Hugo Dufort


 * So you, Hugo, studied Lepine and can say that without question he was insane.? Are you insane. I think you must be, to makes such an irrational statemnet about someone whose life was ruined through changes in society. He probebly did hate women. Middle class feminist women are ignorant, selfish, greedy, and indeserving, most of them, of the high ppositions they get simply because of their birth, or their husband, or father. Lepine "transeferred" his frustration - what, for no reaon at all? It was women who were taking the positions that had previously been held for men. Is that not a reason (although never a reason to kill.) Lepine's bacground was mixed. Even if it had been a misture of Jewish and christian, that also could contribute to his not being able to fit in and get the support he needed. No Christian group for a half-Jew. No Jewish group that would stand by him. In this case, half-Muslim. So it is not about being Muslim per se, but about not being truly part of a group. Dec 19 2006 Suemcp 17:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Suemcp. While you are entitled to your opinions about Marc Lepine, it would be better if you could avoid insulting other users while you are expressing them.    It is very dimly thought of  around here. --Slp1 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I restored the info about his family faith because censoring out something that basic for fear of what conclusions some readers might draw is contrary to Wiki policy on censorship. This is basic biographical info, routinely included in any news item or bio of this type if known.  It is not an attack on any religion.  Bowdlerizing the article by removing a simple fact to serve a political point of view (however well-intentioned) is a violation of Wiki's neutral point of view policy. -- Lisasmall 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Numbers - contradict
The lead and the text contradict each other in numbers dead and wounded. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23 15 September 2006 (GMT).

Thanks for noticing it. I have searched the CBC/Radio-Canada archives at well and several other news sites, and could only find reference to the number of wounded and not their gender. I do remember that 4 or 5 men injured, but since I can't find reference for it, I left 'at least'. And concerning the number of victim, it as aswalys been 14: And so the summary as been modifed from 'female students' to 'women'. Sepper 12:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 12 Engineering student
 * 1 Nursing Student
 * 1 Employee

folk song in memory of the Polytechnique massacre victims
I recall in 1990 hearing on the public radio program "Mountain Stage" a song by the Canadian folk band "Courage of Lassie" with a title something like "Stars", which the host and the band indicated was meant to memorialize the victims of the Polytechnique massacre. I wrote Mountain Stage about it at the time, thanking them for airing the song and the band, and asking if it had been released in a recording, and I got a letter back from the host saying it had not. Mountain Stage's show list indicates the band was on their show on July 8, 1990, but there is no set list I've found for that date. I checked Courage of Lassie's official page today (September 15, 2006) and others on the web about the band and I can't find reference to a song similar to this. If someone could verify the name of the song and any recording that was released of it, I feel it would be worth mentioning in the Wikipedia article on the massacre. I noticed that the article on Marc Lepine mentions a few songs which apparently reference the massacre, but since they are on a page referring to him directly I don't know if the songs are so much about the victims. I think it's worth remembering that a very moving song was written and sung after the massacre about the victims, and by a folk band which I think was all men, as well. *** Burl, Southern Students for Choice

Affirmative Action
"He blamed it on feminists, who he believed had kept him out in place of women, (although the majority of students at the engineering school, and almost all the faculty members, were male)." Most accounts seem to agree that he blamed affirmative action for keeping him out (which he blamed on feminists0. I also think the fact the majority of students are male is nn, it doesn't specificly refute him and that stat countinues today. --J2000ca 18:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath

 * 'The friends and families of those involved, Lépine's mother, and many others, must also have felt severe emotional pain at the gravity of the event and their own losses.'

Doesn't sound very encyclopaedic - unsourced speculation. Is there a better way of putting this, sourcing it from someone related or talking about the case, or if not removing it? -- 86.128.50.181 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT. KNOWLEDGE OF THE MONTREAL MASSACRE DEPENDS ON FAMIY AND FRIENDS - ON FEMINISTS - THE MEDIA - AND ACADEMICS WITH THEIR OWN PERSONAL AGENDA. THERE IS NO ONE INTERPRETION. YOU WANT SOMETHING THAT SOUNDS ENCYCLOPEDIC? SO YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE FACTS. AND THE FACTS JUST HAVEN'T BEEN INVESTIGATED. OF COURSE LEPINE SUFFERED. AND HIS MOTHER SUFFERED. I JUST THINK THAT SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED. 20 Dec 2006 Suemcp 21:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy if whoever is wiping out my comments and external site to stop just stop it. Don't be so ignorant. In response to your question, it doesn't really matter. You know nothing about what this was about, desptite my efforts to inform readers. Marc Lepine was pushed out by middle class feminists and the men they are involved with. Middle class. It doesn't mean they're more intelligent. It simply means they have more power and more people on their side. If you cannot look back any farther than the actual killings, nothing's going to change. Do you think he did it out of some psychological problem that developed within himself, and nothing to do with this roteen rotten society in which we live, in which the middle classes have the power to take all the best that's offered, leaving the rest which nobody wants (the dead-end jobs) to people like Marc Lepine. Suemcp 02:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Order
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put the names of the victims first, then start talking about the murderer? Everyone remembers his name, few remember theirs.
 * Disagree: He is the one responsible for the event, and should come first.  It's not as though placing him first honors him. Also, to reverse the placement as an attempt to change what is remembered contradicts policy on what Wiki is not regarding memorials. --Lisasmall 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-attack fatalities
The section on post-attack fatalities makes no sense. Paragraph One: what ties the suicide of Sarto Blais and his parents to the massacre? Paragraph Two: is Blais the unnamed person in the second paragraph of this section who was studying in the cafeteria that day? Sourced material explaining the connections is needed here, or the section should be removed. -- Lisasmall 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment
I hae written extensively on Marc Lepine and the Montreal Massacre. Was it you, perhaps, who took my website off the external sites on the page itself? Lepine was pushed out of university, Not unheard of, but most people don't complain when it happens, they just try to make a life for themselves. Don't speak of this in abstract terms, about the 'double-standard' of feminism. Women were taking jobs and careers that had previously been held for men. He didn't know what to do in his life after that was taken from him. From what we know, it is entirely possible that he had personal interactions with feminists. And you can be sure they wouldn't have been pleasant. He might well have hated feminists. I'm not too fond of them myself, after what's happened to me. But he did not kill out of some internal misogyny.He had real reasons for not liking the social movement, the changes in society, and his own experience in education.Suemcp 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So his misogyny was not an idiosyncratic quirk in his psyche, but had roots in the material social world he lived in? That's what feminism argues. Bobanny 01:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits
Since I have noticed a number of specific errors on this page, I am planning to slowly work through the article researching and correcting as I go along. I will explain my edits on this page, since I understand that this has been a controversial page. I hope that others will also take the time to explain their edits too. So here goes

1. "Originally called" to "also known as": My researches suggest that the incident continues to be called the Montreal Massacre very often. See ;

2. "Few" to "Some": I am being bold but 4 seems more than "a few" to me.

3. "5 am" to "5pm"  see:

--Slp1 23:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edits to the first paragraph, Suemcp. I like most of them, and think they make the article read better.  I am going to return to "originally" to "also", however,  since there is lots of evidence that many people still call it the Montreal Massacre.  If you have evidence to the contrary it would be good to get the reference!  Thanks! --Slp1 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

(Reorganized to keep posts together and for easier reading)

i would be happy if you would leave my change the way it is - originally. It was originally called that before someone decided to change it to be seen as a school massacre. I don't agree with that but I did let it go. If the event in Canadian history continues to be called the Montreal Massacre then I don't think Wikipedia should be giving it a different title. But since it is, and if it continues to be the Ecole Poytechnique Massacre, then I believe it should be in there that it was ORIGINALLY called the Montreal Massacre, as that is what it was called, originally. 20 Dec 2006 Suemcp 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't who the hell you are, but I would ask that you cease to make changes in my editing without discussing it with me - and that goes for the Marc Lepine pages too. You are a really ignorant person for doing that - what - a feminist?@???? . Suemcp 21:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey there, please don't call people things like "ignorant" -- it violates Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. We're all here to try and make articles as neutral as possible, really.  I have no idea what Slp1's political views are, but I am a feminist, and I'm committed to working this out with you.  Please believe that.  This isn't about "men against women" it's about the basic tenets of Wikipedia verifiability and neutral point of view.  Work with people, and they will work with you.  Cheers. Dina 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for explaining why you want "originally", I understand the issue better now. If I am correct, you mean this Wikipedia article was "originally" called the Montreal Massacre, and you would like that recognized. Am I right? My problem is that the way that it is currently written implies to me that the world originally called it the MM and now doesn't. It seems we are agreed that the world at large still calls it the MM very often, and thus by my reading the statement is not true. Can you think of a way rephrasing it so that it doesn't cause confusion? On the other hand, I must say that I am not sure that WP really needs to reflect on its own past naming conventions, at least within the article itself. What do others think?

I am sorry if you feel frustrated that your edits have sometimes been changed, but that is a fact of life on a collaborative project like this. However, as you note, it helps if changes are discussed and/or explained, and I hope you will follow your own advice by explaining your reasoning and references in the edit summary and on the talk pages. It would help with the attempt to make this a good informative, accurate and neutral article. --Slp1 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A google news search for "montreal massacre" is more helpful here. If reliable third party sources like CTV Calgary Sun, and The Globe and Mail refer to it as "the Montreal Massacre" (all this month) then I think there's an argument there that it's still called that. Can anyone tell me why this is a point of contention? Cheers Dina 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

--Slp1 14:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure either. I thought I had got some understanding of the reasoning for wanting "originally known as" (see above) but on looking through the page history the WP article was never called the "Montreal Massacre".  I am wondering now that it may be to emphasize that the massacre was first known in common parlance as the Montreal Massacre and now is called by other names as well.

Proposed Edits
I would like to suggest to following edits and would be glad to get feedback on them first. Depending on what the comments are, I hope to go ahead with the changes in a day or so.

1. Francine Pelletier: In past versions of this article she was described as a "journalist" and this was deleted and replaced with "feminist". Mme. Pelletier is certainly a feminist but she is also a very well known and respected journalist who writes about all sorts of subjects, not just feminism. See. Indeed she gets 385 ghits for "francine pelletier" and "journalist" and only 150 for "francine pelletier" and "feminist". So I propose that the phrase is changed to "leaked to journalist and feminist Francine Pelletier".


 * I HAVE CHANGED THAT BACK AGAIN. Francine Pelletier may be a well-known journalist now but at the time she was referred to as a feminist, and at most, a reporter, possibly for her feminist magazine. To up her status to journalist is probably not appropriate. If you are repsorting on happenings at the time, it is importnat not to impose current knowledge inappropriately. And that certainly is. She was not a journalist when he got ahold of that letter. Suemcp 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While your point is reasonable, I have two references to confirm that she has been a journalist at least since 1984: the original reference, and  which notes that she was a columnist at La Presse (the largest circulation French Language newspaper in Canada) at the time at of the massacre.  So, actually, yes, she was a journalist when she got hold of the letter.--Slp1 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

2. The letter... was written in French, leaked to a francophone (Francine Pelletier), and was first published in French in a francophone newspaper (La Presse). See. Indeed, the note is available in Wikisource in French. Francine Pelletier may have translated it into English, but so could anybody and her translation could easily be checked and disputed if necessary. I do not think the translation issue is relevant and am concerned about Point of view issues for this whole sentence. I propose that the sentence be changed to "Marc Lepine's suicide letter was leaked to journalist and feminist Francine Pelletier a year after the attacks, and subsequently published in the press".

I HAVEN'T SEEN A FRENCH VERSION OF MARC LEPINE'S SUICIDE LETTER SO THAT'S GOOD IF IT IS ON WIKIPEDIA. BUT IS THAT THE OPRIGINAL LETTER OR IS IT FRANCINE PELLETIER'S ENGLISH TRANSLATION TRNALASTED BACK INTO FRENCH? this is certainly an important issues. For the last 17 years the original French cersion was not available publically. Of course it's an issues. What exaclty is the relationship between Pelletier and the victim of Marc Lepine who had the same last name. I am really concerned that we have to trust that a relative of a victim is going to give us the most honest version, undistorted, of Lepine's suicide letter. You are mistaken when you say anybody could have translated the lstter into English. She was the one who had the letter. I don't know that it was ever given in its original French by her to the media. It was given to her, apparently because she was a feminist. Suemcp 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The letter was first published in the original French in La Presse on the 24th November 1990 according to many sources including, , (on the 2nd page of the "Le saviez-vous" tab), and www.aegmul.ulaval.ca/files/mecano_04-11-23.pdf . As a result the letter has been publicly available since then at any major Canadian library if you cared to look. It was translated into English afterwards, but nowhere can I find any substantiation of your claim that the translation was by Francine Pelletier. In any case the point is moot since the French original is so clearly available to all. I would be grateful for some reputable third party sources for your (conspiracy) theories about the translations and that Francine P is related to any of the victims, but you should know as a start that Pelletier is an incredibly common name in Quebec. Until you are able to produce some evidence, your thoughts, ideas and theories should remain here on the talk page.--Slp1 05:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

3. List of Murder Victims

I think the presence of Marc Lepine in this list needs some thought and discussion.

In order to see what Wikipedia practice is, I made a search for other Wikipedia articles about similar attacks in which the shooter also died (usually by suicide), and that contain lists of the "victims/deaths".
 * WOULD YOU MIND TERRIBLE IF i DELETED ALL THIS FOLLOWING ABOUT OTHER SCHOOL KILLINGS. IT IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. Suemcp 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC),

The first 9 that I found were:

Amish school shooting, Dunblane massacre, columbine high school massacre, Capitol Hill massacre, Luby's massacre, Zug massacre, San Ysidro McDonald's massacre, Dipendra of Nepal, Strathfield Massacre. I was aiming for 10 but couldn't find a 10th that fit the criteria, though there may be one!!

As might be expected, many different titles for the lists are used, some of which we might want to consider for this list. These include "Victims" "Deaths" "Fatalities". None of the lists include the perpetrator as directly as Marc Lepine is included here. The only ones that come close is the columbine high school massacre, where the shooters' deaths are in the list, but in a separate box, and Dipendra of Nepal, where there is a note of the time of the shooter's death, at the bottom of the list. So I propose that the title of this section be changed to "Deaths", with a subheading for "Murder victims" and the list of the women. Then another subheading with "Suicide" and Marc Lepine's name. I suggest that the comment "was also a victim of this social-economic tragedy" should be deleted since it seems POV.

Comments and improvements are welcomed! --Slp1 15:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article already talks about Lepine; repeating his name under the list of victims is consequently unnecessary, not to mention completely mystifying. I've removed it. Bearcat 05:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Having not had any other comments or objections to these proposals, I am now going to go ahead with the first two, the third one having become moot --Slp1 14:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * LEPINE WAS ALSO A VICTIM AND WE NEED TO HAVE THAT ACKNOWLEDGED.Suemcp 22:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have included Marc Lepine's name as one of the victims. It's unnecessary to give that section the title 'Murder Victims'. Victims would be more appropriate. Lepine was also a victim, after all. No, I don't agree that Deaths is suitable at all. And I would prefer you don't all go seeking info from other school shootings on which to basis your decisions. Consider this for what it was. This was Montreal.And this was a man who had applied to go into engineering, traditionally a male-dominated field., He found he had been displaced by feminists/women and had no way of dealing with this happening in his life. So, yes, he was a victim, as were the women he killed. But this killing was unlike other school killings (as far as I know.) This was a specific circumstance, involving changes in society brought about by feminism, and which brought with it no way for the men who were affected to be able to deal with it. Suemcp 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Male entitlement. How...enlightening, in an "aroma of cowshit wafting off the fields" sort of way. Bearcat 23:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Misandrist Prejudicial POV
The title, "massacre" is pejorative language in violation of neutral POV guidelines. Most of the article is written feom a misandrist feminist POV and is the antithisis of neutrality. It needs to be substantially re-edited to show both points of view for balance or to remove the strong misandrist POV currently used. Bob 69.19.14.20 01:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A massacre is a mass killing. Fourteen woman died at the same location, at the same day hence it is a massacre.  Why do you have something against that word? Fighting for Justice 01:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to provide some specific examples of this supposed misandrist bias. Speaking as a man, I'm unable to see it, and speaking as an administrator I'm reverting your POV tag until you show specific examples for discussion. It is not sufficient to merely paint the article with a broad brush; you must show actual examples. Bearcat 05:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is full of pejorative words and biased political agendas. Among the many pejorative words and phrases are, massacre, rampage, murder, claimed, violence against women, etc. The white and purple ribbons are blatantly biased political activism.  A user with a name like "fighting for justice" is immediatly suspect of POV agendas.  The whole thing is loaded with misandry and feminist activism.  You have to do better than to blindly assert your flagrant bias and claim its neutral with a broad brush.  Bob 69.19.14.20 16:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bob, I am not sure how seriously to take the complaints of bias from someone who very likely (based on the IP addresses you use) repeatedly inserted unsourced (and not so neutral!!) information such as, that led to the article being semiprotected!  As well as this gem . But  in any case, you need to provide some reputable verifiable sources to your claims that it wasn't murder or a massacre, that Marc Lepine did not commit suicide (based on a change that you made at Marc Lepine).  As noted above in the Google searches, for example, the event is known as a massacre in common parlance and based on Naming Conventions it is hard to imagine how it would be appropriate to avoid this word. --Slp1 15:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The word massacre suggests an event in which those being attacked had no ways of defending themselves and no alternative. In other words, it suggests that the women were helpless. I don't think they were. I think they were stunned into submitting. I think the men were stunned into simply walking out on their fellow students when told to by Lepine. This wasn't an army of men. This was a one man who walked alone into the school. It wasn't a massacre in the sense that none of the students in the school didn't stand a chance.This wasn't the same as the US cavalry sending in the troops to destroy whole communities of indians. This was one man. I ask you to reflect on this. We don't want to blame individuals for their inability to act under such circumstances. The guilt felt by men who were there that day must have been tremendous. One killed himself later, and so did his parents. It's too bad there was no empathy for them. When something like that happens, one doesn't think it could really be happening. One thinks it's not happening. It's only afterwards it becomes clear that someon might have been able to jump him or throw something or whatever. But a massacre it was not. Suemcp 22:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lepine was armed -- the men and women were not. That greatly implies "helplessness" on the part of the victims.  The fact that those that were attacked could have made other choices and perhaps helped themselves or others to survive doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of a massacre: "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly."  That's what happened -- the fact that somebody could have played hero, or had a bit of luck, or whatever is irrelevant to the fact that the events occurred as they did.  Cheers. Dina 23:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW Bob, I know you have trouble keeping logged in. Have you tried using the secure server  ?  That may solve your problems. Cheers. Dina 23:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I DON'T SEE THAT NOT BEING ARMED IMPLIES HELPLESSNESS, although the women were at a disadvantage, to be sure. But massacre is simply a word, isn't it, and I don't think it is appropriate in this case. He was outnumbered, and he certainly didn't expect to survive the attack himself. The word massacre has connotations of power, which was not the case with Lepine. He was not the one with the power. Speaking of language, I have just changed the intro to this, taking out the word emotional word 'rampage', if that's okay, and rewording slightly: The École Polytechnique Massacre, originally known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6, 1989, at the École Polytechnique de Montréal in Montreal, Quebec. Marc Lépine entered the campus and killed 14 women, wounding 13 others, before turning the rifle on himself and committing suicide.Suemcp 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in general Wikipedia goes with what an event is more commonly called -- here in the US we occasionally use the expression school shooting to describe events such as this, but my impression is that this event is mostly widely called a "massacre". If you can provide reliable third party sources to dispute that, I'll obviously change my position. And in shooting of these kind (such as the examples listed above) the victims often outnumber their assailants -- guns are more important than numbers.  I think your edits are basically fine -- I agree that "rampage" is a loaded word and its probably more encyclopedic to avoid it -- it implies that one could know Lepine's state of mind at the time.  It is possible that he was cool and collected, therefore "rampage" would be inaccurate.  And in issues as controversial as this, we will all do better to stick to the cold, hard facts.  I am still confused about the naming issue.  The link that you've inserted into this article several times calls it the Montreal Massacre -- why do you disagree with that name? As a side note -- it's generally a good idea to avoid using all caps, it can give the impression that you're "shouting". Cheers. Dina 23:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only that Lepine made the choice to end his life. The women did not; Lepine is the least victim of them all.  Fighting for Justice 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * THIS IS A NEW SPEAKER, AS INDICATED BY THE CAPS. oKAY? I realize people call this a massacre, but that doesn't make it right. That was just feminist hype - a catchy phrase, intended to assist in portraying Lepine as the perp and the women as the victims. In reality, Lepine was a victim too. The title Montreal Massacre is one thing that needs to be changed, in my view. Montreal, yes. Massacre, no. I don't suppose you realize that ways of thinking about WW II have changed over the years, Social change happens when enough people perceive that it is time. The Montreal Massacre is not a "shooting of this kind" or of any kind. It was unique. The many changes I have made and which have finally been accepted have not been noted here, there are simply too many of them. But they are a reflection of my understanding of these kinds of situations, when people are pushed out of university for not being middle class and not having the support from their community. There was an interview conducted by Barbara Frum of the CBC the same day, as she too was trying to determine the state of Lepine when he went in. I wrote about it too on my website, in Perspectives on the Montreal Massacre. Lepine was passionate, politically, but controlled when he went in. It wasn't a crime of passion, by which aman kills his lover, for instance. He was killing the women sho took his future career away from him. He also arranged ahead of time to purchase the rifle, as he needed to have permission. So it was planned. He did not simply pick up a gun and go to the school and start killing.Rampage is entirely inappropriate. This whole idea of choice is debatable too. the middle classes have choice. Those left out have choices between bad and worse. What kind of choice is that - a dead-end job or death. Suemcp 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The pejorative word "massacre" has been widely used by political advocates for partisan political agendas. That is the antithesis of NEUTRAL POV, which WP claims to require. Claims that it is widely used do not make it neutral, nor even begin to address the biased terminology. Likewise the "ribbon" links are flagrant partisan political advocacy. You can't keep reverting to aggressive misandrist language and advocacy and comply with the WP required neutral POV.

As Sue says, "school shooting," would be less biased, but you biased advocates insist on the aggressively pejorative terminology. Bob 66.82.9.56 02:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Suemcp
Can somebody who has the time report this user to an administrator. He clearly has an agenda to push around here. He's already reverted the article at least twice today. I'd report him myself, but I'm going out. Fighting for Justice 00:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * aRE YOU THE PERSON who keeps changing my first line back in which the word rampage has been used and I an trying to rephrase that? Why do you not want to talk about this instead of going to the authorities to resolve it. You just got here! What about justice for Marc Lepine? Doesn't he at least get to be talked about using straight language instead of words like rampage? Suemcp 00:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An article about him does exist and it explains enough about him. I did not just get here.  I've been around since your first edit to the article.  I've been following all your edits and messages and I have come to the conclusion you have an agenda.  If Marc Lepine was wronged he went about resolving his injustice the wrong way.  He killed a bunch of innocent women and died by his own hands.  I do not have an ounce of sympathy for him.  Fighting for Justice 00:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am an administrator, but as I am tangentially involved in this dispute, I can't really act as an admin here. I suggest a Request for comment. I'll try and work one up, if all the parties agree that some outside input into this dispute would be helpful. However, I would caution Suemcp to read WP:CIVIL. Dina 01:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also suggest that everyone read Three revert rule. Dina 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * MOST OF THE EDITS I have made have finally been accepted. All the rest has simply been a repeat of what feminists and the media wrote about it several years ago. I doubt that this person signing Fighting for Justice even knows what changes I have made. All of them are in accord with the essays I have written on this subject, on my website. No, I don't imagine that outside authorites is going to help. When they see it is me being blamed, as ina is doing, and F for J, it will be me who gets sent off, despite all the benfical work I have done. Oh to have a title like Fighting for Justice, which gives people the impression that is what I am doing. It's too bad people talk and do nothing of the sort. Suemcp 02:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not defending anyone here, and there really isn't much "outside authority" on Wikipedia. A request for comment is simply an invitation to other editors to look into a matter and voice their opinion.  I am genuinely trying to be helpful here, so please don't feel attacked.  Neutral point of view is a challenging thing to create in any article.  Cheers. Dina 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the MOST BIASED articles I've seen on WP. It is nothing but aggressive misandrist political hate speach. Sue keeps tring to put a little unbiased facts but the hateful political advocates revert to aggressive political speach again. As an administrator, Dina, you of all people should not stoop to aggressive bigotry on WP. Do we have to complain about biased admins? Sue is probably the least biased person here. Bob 66.82.9.56 02:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bob, come on, I'm really not "stooping to aggressive bigotry", but rather trying to sort out an editing conflict. And I am allowed to be biased -- I'm an editor first, an admin second.  What I'm not allowed to do is use my admin powers to force my POV on anyone else -- by blocking them, protecting a preferred version of the page, etc.  And I haven't, and won't, you have my word.  I think that everyone here has a bias of one sort or another. I think some outside input would be very useful. Cheers. Dina 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh good. We'll have a political vote to determine if the biased political speach is effective. Gosh, how "neutral" can that be? Bob 69.19.14.21 04:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * DINA, I'M CONCERNED THAT SOMEONE CAN walk in here and simply make me the problem. And I question whether outside assistance would be helpful if they come in with their own biases, especially since most people's knowledge of this event come from 'popular' media and feminist understandings of the Montreal Massacre. Furthermore, people aren't always up front about their biases. I have explained where I am coming from on my website, http://www.MontrealMassacre.net, that I was a student at university when this happened and could see the horror of it, and only later came to see it from what must have been Marc Lepine's perspective. I wrote an essay on the Hidden Narratives of the Montreal Massacre, which allows other points of view as well as feminists' to have their experience taken into consideration. No one here would ever think that killing women was the answer, but from Lepine's perspective there doesn't seem to have been a reasonable alternative. Feminists, male academics and the media have done their best to destroy Lepine's reputation and prevent his side of the story from being told. No, it's not popular, and feminists would rather deny that Lepine had the ability to be an engineer, but it's about time they started to see that and acknowledge it. Suemcp 05:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good and you are welcome to feel that way, but wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox Fighting for Justice 06:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion IS the place to do this. It's easy for you, when you simply uphold the prevailing point of view - that only feminists suffered - but there are other perspectives. If not here, where is the discussion going to take place? In the universities - feminists and male academics talking about social justice for Marc Lepine and all those who get pushed out? Not likely. Suemcp 07:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I never stated anything about feminism.  I see the victims as victims and that's it.  I'm not influenced by their gender.  I would be just as outraged if the crime was one woman murdering 14 men.  You are right the talk page is the place to discuss this, the article is not.  It shouldn't be a soapbox for me or for you.  Fighting for Justice 07:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there's a misunderstanding here about the purpose of Wikipedia articles. They are not supposed to change prevailing points of view or reinterpret historical events.  There are other venues for such activities.  They are supposed to record, as neutrally as possible, the facts of the matter.  I agree that language choices can reflect bias -- however, if that bias is, as you point it, "the prevailing point of view", then it isn't an encyclopedia article's place to try and change it.  In the case of the name of the event, I have supplied several recent reliable sources that indicate it is widely called "the Montreal Massacre" in the press.  Another editor has supplied a number of sources that support the claim that incidents of this type are generally referred to as massacres.  You have supplied no third party sources to support your claim, only the argument that it "shouldn't" be called a massacre.  Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.  We don't rewrite history, we record it.  You have a self-admitted minority opinion, and one that I, frankly, have yet to see voiced anywhere besides here by you and Bob, and your own website.  If you wish to change the public's perception of this event, you are free to do so -- outside Wikipedia.  Once you have accomplished this goal, the article should certainly reflect your efforts.  However here simply isn't the place the start. Cheers. Dina 14:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
I have invited some other editors to come weigh in on the dispute at this article and Marc Lepine via a Request for comment. Cheers. Dina 01:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to let everyone know that the request for comment process exists because the issue here is a relatively common one. It's not a punishment or a "tattling" on one or more editors. There are policies and guidelines that exist on Wikipedia and inform how articles are created and edited. Since anyone arguing Suemcph or Bob seems to get painted with the same brush -- feminist, partisan, biased -- I think its important to have other voices, not involved in the argument, come in, look around and see how Wikipedia's guidelines and policies apply here. Perhaps then some agreement can be reached. Dina 14:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

ONE CAN CONCEIVABLY begin to develop a bias simply through the interactions and attempting to see justice done. It's always easier to look upon the ones who are struggling to get their perspective heard as the ones causing trouble. I see that, while the intro sentence to this was altered by someone yesterday, I think to a version that leaves out the word rampage, it has once again been changed back. The use of language is of course a priority here, but is those whose point of view is well established (as older feminists know) who don't have to put so much effort in at maintaining their position. Furthermore, the rule of 3x a change, only, for each participant, stands to benefit those with more people supporting their perspective. It shouldn't have to do with policy, not if the policy benefits some more than others. I would hope that the outsiders who come in to check do more :than simply advise on policy. For starters, the use of language, and in this particular instance, the use of the term rampage is being questioned. It is to the benefit of feminists to have Marc Lepine depicted as a madman, and the use of this term contributes to that illusion. He knw what he was doing. He planned it ahead of time, as far as he could. It was a political act, not a rampage. I don't see that relfected in the language of the opening sentence, and it won't ever be if all you and your 'outsiders' are going to do is advise on policy. Suemcp 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it simply is about wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how they are applied. One's feelings about whether or not it "should" be are not that relevant. Wikipedia is governed by consensus -- there are no "outsiders", only other editors.  If you disapprove of both the policies of Wikipedia, and how disputes about them are traditionally dealt with, then I suspect you will not be happy editing here.  I am trying very hard to not have this be about "my point of view" versus "yours".  It is not my interpretation of the facts at hand, or of the relevant policies that matters, but the community's at large.  Hence my invitation for them to weigh in. This is not the space to argue whether or not Wikipedia's guidelines or dispute resolution processes are effective -- merely to employ them. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dina (talk • contribs) 16:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

I see the problems here as fourfold:

1. A highly emotive topic

2. An article that has been desperately lacking in citations and sources.

3. A misunderstanding by some editors (on both "sides") about verifiability issues, which is not all that surprising considering the lack of sources and citations when editors have arrived. Looking through the page histories, the pages have been edited and changed significantly over the last few months, with deletion of material (some of which appears at first glance well-sourced, and some not) and the addition of other material (some of which appears at first glance well-sourced, and some not). The addition and deletion of material (and indeed phrasing) has quite often appeared to be more related to promoting a particular view rather than whether the material is verifiable or not.

4. A misunderstanding by some editors about the nature of Wikipedia, and whether it is a place to try to change people's attitudes to the event or the man, as noted above by Dina.


 * For solutions, I suggest as a first step that we go through the articles and the histories with a fine tooth comb, finding sources and citations for material, removing that which is not verifiable and adding back any deleted material that proves verifiable. Language issues also need to be looked at, as calmly as possible!! It looks to me that both "sides" will need to give some ground on this one! --Slp1 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I THINK THAT THIS SITUATION - THIS EVENT - IS DIFFERENT in many ways than others. Going through articles to try and find 'evidence' of something won't do any good. Many were written under the influence of strong emotion as well as there being a dearth of information. This is usual in such cases, except that in this one, the police investigation ended prematurely, leaving virtually nothing factual to go on. Rather than rely on articles written under such pressure, it would be advisable to use a little logic and a whole lot of reflection on the entire matter. You can find 'evidence' in articles that will uphold any perspective you want. So that is definitely not the solution. Just because a journalist uses the term 'rampage'(if one ever did) doesn't mean that it is the best term to use, or the most appropriate way of describing what happened. I for one am not willing to accept the word of journalists and academics with particular agendas, and feminists, the men in the academy, and some journalists too had their own way of looking at this. I think that we need to keep an open mind about what sounds reasonable and also try and bring in different perspectives, not only the feminist notion that the women who were killed were the only victims here. There is, by the way, a book that has been written on the Montreal Massacre which delves into it by examining very carefully some of the articles that were written at the very beginning. It is called the Montreal Massacre and written by Peter Eglin and Stephen Hester (2003). I did mention it by name in the Wikipedia article at one point but it was removed. At the very least, this provides a method -= a framework - for examining the Montreal Massacre. Suemcp 22:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * THIS TOPIC has had a huge amount of very biased propaganda published by many authors including many sponsored by government funding. A requirement for "references" in this case is a demand to validate and revert to the very biased propaganda that has been publicly funded. It is the antithesis of a neutral POV. Bob 69.19.14.43 01:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From a glance through this article and its talk page, it seems the biggest barrier to improving it is Suemcp trying to use it to turn it into something other than an encyclopedia article, i.e., his own original research/revisionsim. This subject is his only contribution to Wikipedia, which is in itself suspect, and the only sources he (and Bob) are apparently willing to accept are his own writings and the above mentioned book. Newspapers and yes, even government funded sources are credible for Wikipedia's purposes, and if there are significant debates within credible sources, then that should be reflected carefully in the article. That's not the case here. Suemcp's website and Bob's feminist-propaganda radar do not credible sources make, and so far as I've ever heard or read, it's not controversial to characterize this as a rampage or massacre. Drum up interest for your revisionism elsewhere, Suemcp, get published, and then, only then, do those views have a place here. I'm not intending this as a personal attack, but I think it's a mistake to see this as a content dispute where the emotional or controversial nature of the subject is making it particularly challenging. This is 2 users not accepting the conventions followed by the vast majority of Wikipedians. Assuming Suemcp and Bob are contributing in good faith, then please cite sources in your edits to the article. That's its biggest weakness right now, there's not a single citation, so on that I agree with Slp1's proposal to move it forward. Bobanny 02:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As an outside opinion, I wholeheartedly agree with Bobanny. The comment above sums up my thoughts exactly. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I REGRET THAT YOU SEE IT THAT WAY, Bobanny. (And I don't know why you would assume I am a man.) On my website there are comments by various individuals in all sorts of walks of life - religious, academic, career women, and so on, so, no, there is more available from others than just myself. But I did form these perspectives on this event manily from my own research on it. I disagree that "getting published" should be the only way a person's work can be seen as valuable or worthwhile. If this is another Wikipedia convention then I wonder about it too. But I think it is just your own way of measuring the standard of someone's work. Citing sources is not the way I would go about it anyway. As I has said, most of what has been written is deeply flawed, in its perspective and often in the content. Unfortunately, the police investigation that had been begun at the time was prematurly ended, leaving us with no authoritative document to peruse. If you read the comments on my website you can see the various kinds of responses there are, other than the overwhelming number of feminist reponses from years ago which are still carrying on today. Many of my changes on the Wikipedia article have finally been accepted and I don't see you acknowledging that. What I see is you arguing that nothing I have done on this article has been worthwhile. That is simply not the case. I have put a lot into it and much of it has been accepted.Suemcp 10:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I apologize for my assumption about your gender (maybe it was all the Johnny Cash I was subjected to as a child:). The point about sources has nothing to do about my idea of what's valuable or worthwhile, it's about writing an encyclopedia article that's properly sourced according to Wikipedia conventions. There are endless numbers of editors on Wikipedia, of all shapes and stripes, and readers shouldn't have to go to to another website to investigate which ones are credible and which ones are not. No one's saying that mainstream sources are immune from biases, mistakes, or agendas, but there are reasons for insisting on sources that are generally considered reliable. If certain perspectives or points of information are not represented in accepted sources, this isn't the place to introduce them to the world. That's Wikipedia policy, and in my view, it's a necessary one (WP:NOR). This is why I focused on you, Suemcp, because you don't seem to agree with this policy and it appears to me that your disagreement with this policy has been disruptive to the development of the article. It wasn't my intention to dismiss your or anyone's contributions that have been positive. Bobanny 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the footnote
Now it makes sense, it is from a research study. :) Chivista 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming dispute
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF changes I make to the intro are left as they should be - I am referring to the fact that for the first 17 years, what you like to call the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre was called the Montreal Massacre. Thanks. Suemcp 18:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the common name is simply what the recent edits say they are. Chivista 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well a lot of the sources seem to be demonstrating that it is still called the Montreal Massacre. I fixed your ref tag.  Two things to remember about footnotes:  You need to close the tag after the ref, and for citing the same source in two different notes there's a slightly different format.  WP:CITE is where those instructions live.  Cheers. Dinahttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestamp 18:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to clarify this dispute, because I'm very confused.
 * Suemcp asserts that for 17 years these events were called the Montreal Massacre. No one, I believe disputes this.
 * Suemcp asserts that these events are now also called the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre. Again, I believe no one disputes this (it's the name of the article.)
 * Suemcp, I believe, further asserts that these events are no longer called the Montreal Massacre. This is where I think the dispute lies.  My reasoning:
 * "Informal names" such as this are never officially changed. They change only in practice.
 * Major events are often known by more than one name.
 * Several current sources still refer to the events as "The Montreal Massacre".

Therefore, to me, Suemcp's edit is misleading, since it strongly implies that no one calls this the Montreal Massacre anymore. A quick google news search demonstrates that this is simply not accurate. I genuinely do not understand why this is disputed. Dina 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick log check tells me that a)this article used to be called Montreal Polytechnic massacre and b)someone once created an article called Montreal Massacre which led to the current redirect. So this has clearly been discussed in the past as well.  Cheers. Dina 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the "originally" because it wrongly suggests that it is no longer is referred to as the Montreal Massacre. I was in Mtl when it happened, and I'm in BC now, and I'm pretty sure the 2 different names are because people outside of Quebec aren't familiar with the school's name. A similar name thing is the Squamish Five, which outside of BC is more commonly referred to as the Vancouver Five. Anyway, if you want the 'originally' back in there for some other reason, go ahead but try and find a wording that doesn't suggest the MM name is out of date. Thanks, Bobanny 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Suemcp, the reason why the "17 years" got deleted is because a user called Atlant thought "The trouble is that any number will be wrong next year; reverting to the unnumbered form.". I rather agree that it is better without a specific number. BTW I presume you know about the "history" tab up at the top of the page. If you look there you can see who has made changes to the page (article and discussion) and when. It also has the edit summary, which is where I got the explanation above from Atlant. It is a good policy to fill in the edit summary: it helps other people a lot (and even you too, probably!!!) --Slp1 20:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While it's true that the phrase Montreal massacre was historically used in reference to this incident, it's not true that École Polytechnique massacre is some new way of referring to it; the names always coexisted. There has been a recent shift in the balance between the two — as a result of the Dawson College shooting, denoting Polytechnique as just "Montreal" is simply too ambiguous now. But we're not talking about old and new names here; we're talking about two names that have always both existed for the incident. Bearcat 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, Bearcat, about the Dawson college possible confusion with the phrase Montreal Massacre. Very helpful. Thanks.--Slp1 14:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Marc Lepine's life and the Police report
I want to thank you, Suemcp, for the way that you are helping with finding citations and sources for this article. I'm very glad that we can all work together like this.

I DON'T BELIEVE ITS UP TO you to do the thanking around here. If you do, then we will all hae to start thanking one another. THANK YOU TOO!. Wasting time in this manner is pointless. And if you are trying to impose yourself as some kind of authority, don't bother. We are all trying. I think. Some may not be. Suemcp 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things... "The authorities, however, soon aborted their investigation. On 11 December 1989, the chief coroner, Jean Grennier, told the press that he preferred not to call for a public inquiry since an inquiry would rehash "some of the gruesome and sickening aspects of the tragedy for no good reason. It would mean more pain and suffering for the families." The coroner did say that he would call for a public inquiry if he felt the public was not being properly informed, but he argued that so far "the public is very well informed" (Malarek "More Massacre Details" A14)......Eventually, the Canadian government would establish a Royal Commission to investigate violence against women, and declare December 6 an official day of commemoration for female victims of male violence. This essay recounts the events that led to the Canadian government's about-face and analyzes the conflict between feminists and postfeminists that emerged as an aftermath of the Montreal Massacre." From Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Unbearable Witness: towards a Politics of Listening (1999)
 * I realize that there are lots of interesting factoids about Marc Lepine and at some point we will need to decide how long or short the section on him needs to be here, so we don't reduplicate the Marc Lepine page. I also think that we might want to look into the information from the Coroner's report about his education etc, partly because it has some extra info that clarifies what Victor Malarek's article said (written 3 days after I note).
 * I think you might be confused about the police inquiry and the supposed lack of one. I think the issue is that there was no "public inquiry".  There clearly were some investigations (the coroner's which is quite detailed, and presumably internal police inquiries that led to changes in police techniques of dealing with these kinds of armed attacks, as at Dawson, for example).  The Chun article itself, focusses on the decision not to hold a public inquiry,  and even implies that the government sort of changed its mind:

I am going to delete the sentence about the police inquiry for now, unless you can actually find another source that makes that specific claim about there being no police inquiry. I do think that the fact that there was no "public inquiry" is part of the story and will need to be added at a later date. By the way, I think the Chun article provides an interesting framework for discussing the ways that the massacre has been interpreted which might be of use to us in the future  --Slp1 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, all this flurry of sourcing is kind of inspiring. And cheers to Bobanny for finding that Frum interview to cite! Dina 19:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A POLICE INVESTIGATION ABOUT THE ENTIRE MATTER IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM inquiries into various aspects of it, including the issue of violence against women. Marc Lepine's circumstances were never fully inverstigated. That it never was investigated left his life open to feminists and the media to interpret. You have no right deleting my entries or keeping on asking for more sources when I have provided what most people would accept as valid. Suemcp 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A few points about sourcing
Wikipedia uses a variety of ways of citing sources. The one we seem to have agreed on here is footnotes, which makes me happy because I think they look cooler ;). In line citations of the sort one might use in an academic paper ie. "Dina was a Wikipedia editor (Smith, p.124)" are redundant.  Secondly, I wanted to point out that this article is not an essay about the events, or any of the articles written about it.  Many of the sources cited analyze the events in ways that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.  They make arguments, propose new points of view, etc.  Therefore, simply because something can be sourced, doesn't mean it should be used.  Specifically, I have the following issues with this recent edit by Sue: ''Writers have worked at changing the way this unique event is perceived, Peter Eglin and Stephen Hester, for instance. As they state (p34), grouping this event among others of a 'collection' is to take a particular interpretive step. Eglin, Peter and Hester, Stephen (2003) The Montreal Massacre Instead of referring to it as a mass murder, a massacre, a rampage, a school killing, or as the ultimate example of violence against women, finding a more suitable title and way of referring to this social and historical tragedy is a challenge that still faces Canadians.''

My issues with this edit are the following:
 * The article is not an essay about how writers viewed the events, it's an article about the events themselves. Therefore the sentence "Writers have worked at changing the way this unique event is perceived" is irrelevant.  Furthermore, its a bit misleading, because while Eglin may be writing to change perceptions, I don't believe his work intends to change perceptions in the same way that Suemcp has expressed a wish to.
 * The expression "more suitable title" implies that it is generally accepted that the current title is inadequate, while in fact, that is a matter of opinion.
 * The statement about "a challenge that still faces Canadians" is prescriptive, not descriptive -- it tells people what they should do or think about events, instead of simply recording them. It is also unverifiable.  I could write a sentence that says that thinking of new ways to write and think about whether McDonald's is better than Burger King is a challenge that faces all Americans -- it's not wrong exactly, it just can't be proven or dissproven. Dina 20:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT HOW WRITERS SEE THE EVENT. It is about interpretation, and it is about power. Aand the feminist version of events that won't see Marc Lepine as being a victim in society also, as well as the women he killed, is missing half the story. Suemcp 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have placed a warning on your talk page that you are presently in violation of Three revert rule for inserting the same edit to this article, more than 3 times in one 24 hour period, in spite of much discussion and several removals by various editors. Violations of this rule are eligible for blocks of 24 hours.  Please stop inserting this edit.  Cheers. Dina 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, you have inserted this change three times in a 24 hour period.
 * Everyone here has been extremely patient and civil, in spite of your refusal to comply with standard Wikipedia practice. Perhaps I speak only for myself, but frankly, my patience is wearing thin.  Choose your actions carefully, please, and listen to what people are trying to explain to you.  Dina 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

PRECISELY WHICH EDIT IS THAT? WE may be trying out different versions, but I have not been simply putting it in the same way in the same place, time after time. You will have to more explicit as to to which change you are referring to, because as far as I can see, I have been abiding by the rules. At one point someone inserted the word 'commonly' which I then changed. So its not the same change again and again.Besides that, someone - You, I suppose, have said something to the effect that it won't read correctly in a year, but it wll. I don't know how you see that it won't. 17 years is 17 years, regardless of what year it is. Even in 2010, we will recall (if it's on the article page) that for the first 17 years it was known as the Montreal Massacre. I don't know how old you are or if you have any recollections of this event either at the time or in the years since then. I have always ever known it to be called the Montreal Massacre. It's only Wikipedia that has changed that, and I believe that is just over the last years or so. I would like this fact to be remembered - thatit was called the Montreal Massacre for the first 17 years. Suemcp 21:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, Try looking a few lines up for the change Dina is referring to. She even gave you links. You keep reinserting the 17 years edit again and again despite all the discussion here.  Noone can understand why you seem to want to imply that it is not called the MM anymore.  And to be clear, Wikipedia and its users are NOT trying to change the name of the event.  In the same way that you cannot use these pages to try and change people's attitude to the whole event, WP is not attempting to rewrite the massacre's name. In fact, as I said before,(caveat: knowing only what I know now) I would be quite willing to support a change of the article's official name to MM. --Slp1 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Immediately following my statement above are three numbers in brackets, followed by small arrows. They are commonly called "diffs" because they are the URL of one edit compared to the one following it.  If you follow those links you will see that you have inserted the phrase "for 17 years" into the first paragraph of this article 3 times in the past 24 hours.  Each time it was removed by a different editor.  That is three reverts in Wikipedia parlance.  Although it is a small edit, it has been a hotly disputed one and if you insert it again, you will be blocked, if not by me, then by someone less involved.


 * Listen, you clearly are having trouble understanding the process by which Wikipedia articles are written, and how content disputes are resolved. Several people have approached you, all quite politely to try and explain why this article need not reflect your personal interpretation of the events, since they are demonstrably not widely held.  You have also been rather uncivil particularly to Slp1 above who was being quite gracious by thanking you for your contributions.  You have made no substantial contributions to Wikipedia beyond your edits to this article, and you have been contentious about your edits since the beginning.  You also persist in writing in all caps in spite of being asked politely (by me) to stop.  None of these actions are productive, and editors who persist in behaving disruptively are asked to stop, and if they refuse, subjected to restrictions on their editing.  Please do not compel anyone to go down this path, as it's rather unpleasant for all involved.  You will find very little support among established Wikipedia editors for your disregard of basic policies and practices, or your contention that they do not apply to you or this subject.  In short, you will simply not succeed in changing this article in the ways you have stated that you want to do.  My advice, and believe me, I don't mean it unkindly, is to simply give up.  Dina 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

PEOPLE HAVE NOT ALWAYS APPROACHED ME RESPECTFULLY. Ignoring what I say, distorting it, and claiming not to comprehend can be means of undermining my efforts. Unless you bring in other social researchers/admin staff from Wikipedia, and not simply someone who claims to be a neutral outsider, this idea you previously suggested is not going to work. So far, you are simply litening to what others tell you and not considering the value of what I write for yourself. But maybe you don't have the knowledge so must rely on them - good enough reaspon to ask others on the Wikipedia staff. Ask, for instance, about this simple idea of inserting th piece about the 17 years since the event happened, and what it was called - the Montreal Massacre. there is nothin in your intro that provides that factual information. I have not written in capitals except for the beginning of each post so I would prefer that you ceased saying that. If anyone bothered to go back and look they would see I haven't done that. IAs for your other comment, my edits are made, not simply on the basis of personal experience, though I have come to see how people can be pushed out of university and other organizations when those in opposition and determined to pursue their own personal agenda have the power to do so. I have also studied and thought about the socio-economic circumstances of Marc Lepine's life, as well as that of women trying to gain equality in the workplace, and I know there are some really contentious issues here that need to be worked through. Simply imposing one's power and having one's own way, disregarding the other side completely, is not the solution. Suemcp 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether you intend it or not, writing in capital letters is considered the written equivilent of shouting at the reader. I understand you are using it to mark that a new person is speaking, but people still find it jarring, even if it's only the first line or few words of your entry. Try using a colon or multiple colons to distinguish your entry from the one before it, which indents your entry. Bobanny 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Dina: You said, "Instead of referring to it as a mass murder, a massacre, a rampage, a school killing, or as the ultimate example of violence against women,..." The article currently uses highly pejorative words such as "massacre," "murder," etc. IF you were actually attempting to describe the event and not attempting to advocate partisan political prejudice, more neutral language such as "school shooting" would be used. The use of biased language by biased sources does not make them less biased in a descriptive article. You can describe opposing partisan views in an unbiased way, but you can not just accept and repeat the biased speach in a neutral POV article. Sue has been trying to take some od the hate speach out of this article and has been strongly resisted by those with partisan views. Its time to start relegating the partisan views to a neutral description of various partisan use of the historical events and stop pretending that aggressive misandrist political advocacy is neutral POV. Bob 66.82.9.61 16:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Massacre' has a specific meaning, and is much more precise, and is therefore more appropriate than something like "shootings." Was he cleaning his gun and it happened to go off? No. The reason the word has a negative connotation is because of the deed itself: most people find massacres morally repugnant.--Bobanny 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Dina: You said, "Wikipedia and its users are NOT trying to change the name of the event. In the same way that you cannot use these pages to try and change people's attitude to the whole event, WP is not attempting to rewrite the massacre's name." The problem is that the event is not "The Montreal Massacre" or "The Polytevhnique Massacre" except in biased writing of people with a particular political agenda. If you blindly repeat their plainly political language WP becomes plainly political instead of "neutral POV." When you assert that the politically biased title is "The name of the event" you are pushing biased political activism. Some masculists call the same event "The First Counter Attack Against Feminists." Masculist lables are more frequently found on Internet groups, blogs, and discussion boards because the masculist perspective has been censored out of mass media by the "Lace Curtain" (See "Myth of Male Power" by Farrell)  Just because you can cite several biased sources for a biased title doesn't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. That is one of the most common falacies of argument, the belief that what is published must be true and neutral. The titles "Montreal Massacre" or "Ecole Polytechnique massacre" are no less biased than "The First Counter Attack Against Feminism." I have previously tried to include a mention of both sides of the political debate as a step toward neutral, but of course that was deleted by those with a particular bias. Bob 66.82.9.61 16:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Activism strives to change something in or about society. The name of this event is universally accepted as "massacre" except, apparently, in the tiny anti-feminist militant fringe. Yes, we live in a liberal society, so there's a liberal bias reflected in the sources, and on Wikipedia, which is a fundamentally liberal creature. Trying to change to a more illiberal society, presumably more rigidly patriarchal or 'masculist' in this context, is the activism that doesn't belong in this article. I do partially agree with you in that there is a debate that's not reflected in the article but should be. The event did spark a public debate that had to do with whether or not Marc Lepine's murderous misogyny can be viewed as representative of the larger social problem of male violence against women, or if it was so extreme as to make it fall well beyond any pre-existing social conflicts and should therefore be properly thought of as an isolated case of a madman. Unfortunately, the debates on the talk page aren't heading in that direction. It seems first we need to resolve the issue of whether or not the feminist conspiracy that seeks to silence men and other opponents needs to be exposed on the pages of Wikipedia.--Bobanny 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sue and Bob,

Can I politely ask you if you know the expression "When in Rome do as the Romans do"?. I expect so. Just as Rome had its laws, so Wikipedia has its rules and policies. This is not Sue's homepage or website or Bob's website. Neither is it mine or anybody else's. It is Wikipedia's, and so all of us contributing need to follow Wikipedia's rules and policies. You have already been pointed to these policies several times, but to repeat, the core ones are Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View. If you go to the pages and read them carefully you will note that it is specifically stated that these core policies are interrelated. Thus Neutral Point of View does not trump Veriability as Bob seems to desire. It also means that no matter how strongly believed or even known, Original Research cannot trump Verifiability as Sue seems to desire. I can totally understand that you don't agree with these policies, and I can even understand why you don't agree with them, but if you want to contribute to Wikipedia you need to abide by them, just like we all do. When in Rome, you see. If you find the rules too irksome, then I would suggest that you seek other places to post and explain your ideas, because these Wikipedia rules and policies are not negotiable.

As an example, I will deal with Bob's comment on the title. There is a specific naming policy which deals with this exactly. You may strongly believe that "Montreal Massacre" and "Ecole Polytechnique massacre" are as biased as "The First Counter Attack Against Feminism" but the policy states quite clearly "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." It has been verified several times that Montreal Massacre (especially) and Ecole Polytechnique Massacre are the commonly used terms, while "The First Counter Attack Against Feminism" gives 0 google hits.

Given the very clear policy and evidence, I am afraid that no matter how strongly held your belief is about the title's NPOV-ness I think it is dreaming in technicolour (to use another expression) to think you will be able to convince editors that the name should be changed. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia reflects common useage, and so if you want change your first step should be to change common useage outside of WP. You cannot use Wikipedia as a means to that end. Just as Sue cannot use WP to inform people of her original research. Sorry, but that's what your websites and blogs are for. --Slp1 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletions performed
I made a few changes to this article, having never seen it before nor being familiar with the event; perhaps the outside view will help. Besides changing a few words akin to weasel words, I removed the following:

''Writers have worked at changing the way this unique event is perceived, Peter Eglin and Stephen Hester, for instance. As they state (p34), grouping this event among others of a 'collection' is to take a particular interpretive step. .''

This may be referenced, but it is so vague that I as a layman have no clue what it means. "Grouping this event among others" - what others? "Collection" of what? What is a "particular interpretive step"? (Any interpretation is by definition a "particular interpretive step".) If this reference is going to be used, it needs context.

Instead of referring to this historical event as a mass murder, massacre, rampage, school killing, or the ultimate example of violence against women, finding a more suitable title and way of referring to this social and historical tragedy is a challenge that still faces Canadians.

I removed this as editorial content. If this event is widely perceived, for example, as "the ultimate example of violence against women", because, say, of the remarks of a government official or a notable person in the media saying so, it is worth noting that perception in this article - granting that such an assertion needs a citation. A suitable "way of referring to this social and historical tragedy" is best left as an exercise to the reader, having read the facts in a well cited article.

Best of luck, Skybunny 23:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Thanks. Dina 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these changes. --Slp1 03:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

SKYBUNNY. DINA IS FROM WIKIPEDIA ADMIN, I THINK. AT LEAST SHE TALKS THAT WAY. But I don't know what gives you the right - ot what makes you think you have the right to simply delete phrases and sentences simply because you don't understand them. Not every Wikipedia article will be able to be understood by everybody. The two sentences you quoted are tied together, even if they are not on the Wikipedia page. Maye the admin can tie them together more closely. I am not an expert at WWikipedia technology. I do my best, and that's all I can. Perhpas, now that this has been brought to the attention of Dina, she can put these two sentences in the smae paragaph so they make sense to readers such as yourself. as follows, with ref removed: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suemcp (talk • contribs) 29 December 2006
 * Next time you make an edit, look on the bottom of the page and you'll see this:
 * Please note  If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.
 * That's what gives Skybunny the right. IMO, the point being made with those quotes is too esoteric for an encyclopedia article, and it's therefore not surprising that laypeople find it confusing. Bobanny 18:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If it reads better and is more accurate, it is a good edit. :) Chivista 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough already
Gosh darnit, I look through my recent contribs and its 95% edits to this talk page -- not even the damn article! And yet, when I look at the recent editing history of this article, it's largely collaborative. Someone added a source, I fixed the tag, I wrote a sentence, someone else tweaked it. Formatting, citing, moving stuff around. I'll be frank: Pull Suemcph from this picture and instead of an edit war, you have a bunch of editors scurrying to bring an article to a state worthy of peer review. I have had the pleasant experience of getting to know and respect some new editors, as well as getting to learn much more about an incident in Canda than I expect I would, as an American, under other circumstances. I have come to care about this article, and to realize that some of this controversy will ultimately have the effect of making it a much better article. However, for much of this talk page dispute: enough.

As pointed out yesterday, this really is not a content dispute. This is a dispute about 2 new editors, with minority POV's attempting to hijack an article because they fail to understand, or refuse to understand the generally understood purpose of Wikipedia. Calls for "admins" fail, because when I, an admin, voice my opinion, I am called "bigoted". Calls for "outside views" fail, because when experienced editors, new to this dispute, make careful edits and explain their reasoning, they are asked "what gives you the right"? We need to all accept Sue will never understand why her edits are not encyclopedic, no matter how many times we explain it.

I propose the following: Cheers. Dina 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No one engage or argue with Sue on this talk page any more. While I don't actually think her intention is to troll, the effect of her contributions is undeniably that.  I mean, after all this back and forth does anyone, anyone even understand whether she prefers "Montreal Massacre" to "École Polytechnique massacre"?  Because I sure as hell don't.  I'm not sure what we're even arguing about, because she repeatedly fails to make herself clear, whether deliberately or not.
 * If she continues to edit the article in the way she has in the past, I will alter her edits to conform to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines of NPOV, verifiability, reliable sources, no original research, and all those other guidelines that we've all read. I expect that other editors will do the same.
 * If she continues to edit war by violating 3RR, I will not block her myself, but will report her, and have her blocked. It will only be for 24 hours, but perhaps it might teach her that she is not the target of a group of particularly biased editors, but instead, at odds with the policies of thousands of editors.
 * If she persists much more, on this talk page, article, or elsewhere, to accuse other editors, and refuse to read or acknowledge the policies and guidelines by which we all operate then I will create a request for comment on her as a user and perhaps, then, finally, she will understand that her agenda is simply not going to be fulfilled here.
 * Lastly, I have given my word that I will not use my admin priviledges in this dispute. This is simply because I value being a good admin more than I value "showing" Suemcph the error of her ways.  I am certainly guilty of reminding her that I have these priviledges, but that is because I am tired of the suggestion that there is some "authority" that will vindicate her point of view.  There's no damn authority here and if there is the one thing I know is that they really don't care about this little edit war.  I'm an admin and I think she's either totally misguided or a troll.  Find me another experienced editor or admin who disagrees with me, and I will argue it with them (civilly.)  But no more chats with Sue.

I WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN AGAIN, IT seems, about my suggestion for a changes of wording in the intro. My saying that for 17 years the name given to the event had been the Montreal Massacre refers back to the title, just above the intro, in which the title Ecole Polytechnique massacre is written. That shouldn't be so hard to understand. Your interpretation of what I said was off a bit. The number 17 will stay at 17, despite what that one reader wrote, that it would have to changed one year from now. It doesn't have to be changed. For 17 years, the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, as it is currently called by Wikipedia and as reflected in the intro, was originally called the Montreal Massacre. These terms are not equal. The wording of the intro in the article is innacurate and poorly worded, not reflecting the history of the terms. I would prefer a title without the word massacre in it. Or if people would rather keep the title Ecole Polytechnique massacre, even though it was scarcely been called that during the last 17 years, then an explanation below, in the intro, as I have suggested, is in order. I am really against the association of the Montreal killings with the school itself or the word school as it suggests this was another 'typical'school killing, which it wasn't. Suemcp 20:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that the terms aren't equal, but you're wrong about why. As of September 13, 2006, the general non-specific Montreal massacre can refer to two incidents: this one, and Dawson College. "Polytechnique" is an unambiguous name that can only refer to this incident; "Montreal" is not. That is the main naming issue here; titles have to be clear and create as little confusion as possible. Bearcat 22:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

DINA, ARE YOU TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT telling people not to respond to my messages is not an abuse of your power as administrator. By the way, how do we know you are an administrator. Do you have a number, sompelace we can call or email to inquire? I would rather have more admin editors look at what's going on here rather than simply have you report your one-sided view of what's going on, to them. And is it okay for you to accuse me of having an 'agenda' but I would not be able to say the same about you without being punished for it? Sounds a bit unfair. You continue to accuse me of not following policy guidelines buyt I have not been breaking any, or even bending them as far as I know. Yet you continue to harass me, without saying why? I have to respond to this or else it would mean that I simply accept your harassment as correct, which it is not. You are abusing your power. And you may well get away with it. You wouldn't be the first woman or the first feminist to do that. Suemcp 20:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Suemcp, you can confirm that Dina is an actual administrator by looking at her logs. (Click on her user page, click on "User Contributions" in the left hand column, and click on the "Logs" tab that is displayed.) A list of administrator-only actions are listed. Or you could just take my assurances that she is, in fact, an administrator (as am I, by the way). But meanwhile, I think you might want to take a brief break from this article. I don't believe you're going to be convincing folks of your point right now, and you run the very real risk of pushing someone's buttons regarding WP:CIV/WP:NPA and also of running afoul of WP:3RR, the "three-revert" rule. And at that point, admins will have no further discretion in the matter and will block you.


 * Please take this as the friendly advice that I intend it to be. You're obviously a committed, passionate editor, but sometimes it really is better to take a step back, enjoy the New Year's holiday, and return refreshed later.


 * Atlant 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, as an outside voice, I can tell you that Dina is not abusing her powers whatsoever. In fact, her promise to not use her admin privileges in this dispute is quite honourable, something not everyone would offer to do. Second, Suemcp, if you want anyone to take you seriously, saying things like; "you wouldn't be the first woman or the first feminist to do that." is NOT the way to go. Dina, and the other editors involved are in the right here, and even if you disagree with Wikipedia's process, the basic idea of "majority rule" should kick in. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Second of all, Chabuk is NOT an outside voice. And he's insisting that majority prejudice is the meaning of "neutral POV." Rubbish! All that means is that several people with a common political agenda can dominate WP's pages. Yes, that is the common perception of WP, a very biased leftist feminist propaganda page. Several men have advised me not to bother even trying to persuade acceptance of neutral language because it is always beatten down, regardless of the weasle words about "neutral POV." I guess they were right. The same agenda asserts its ugly head. Why am I not surprised? Bob 69.19.14.26 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your misogynistic comments are neither appreciated nor helpful. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I CAN'T FIND THIS WHERE IT I PUT IT SO AM PLACING IT HERE. FROM BOB, and my response; Several of the sources cited are admitedly biased (misandrist) feminist sources. You can not make a "Neutral POV" article by using material from flagrantly biased sources. Again, the article is rotten with misandrist political speach. Bob 66.82.9.61 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

YES, AND YOU'VE HIT UPON A RELATED MATTER, i THINK, WHEREBY SOME SOURCES using poor logic actually have worthwhile things to say, although inadvertently. For instance, a writer grumbling about Barbara Frum is the only source I've come across that actually mentions her views on abuse. Often, feminist writers, and male academics, as well as the media, try to claim that Lepine committed the murders because he was an abused child. This is nonsense, though it is a common argument whenever someone wants to lay blame at the feet of someone. Just say they were abused as children. That way, any abuse suffered in their lives more recently, for instance, Lepine at the hands of feminists, would not have to be considered as something that contributed to the killings being carried out. To me, it seems quite reasonable to think that Lepine ran up against feminists somewhere along the line and this would have been something that fueled his hostility. As for using sources that might draw this fact to readers' attention, it's risky to do so if the writer is loudly proclaiming the opposite. They might not realize that feminists don't always see things the way they really are. Suemcp 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Suemcp 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I SEE FURTHER CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. THE feminist Pelletier may have said that the list of Marc Lepine's., included in his suicide note, was a hit list, but I suggest that that probably wasn't. It would have been unreasonable for anyone to be able to get around and kill that many people, living in different locations. A list of feminists, yes, but not women he wished to kill. There is no proof that he wished to kill them, only Pelletier's exlanation for the list being there. It ties in with the fact he was a killer. But I don't think that should be stated in that manner, that he "apparently" wished to kill them. It's not apparent to me, and not to others, either, if they would stop and think about it. The final words he wrote are ambigious. It mentions 'the lack of time has allowed those radical feminists to survive.' But it could mean 'to survive as a social movement' and not refer to their deaths. It could mean, 'survive in their work.' He also writes "nearly died today." But he didn't 'nearly' die. We don't know what all this means, but it definitely would be unreasonable to assume that he meant to kill the women on his list. I think alternative wording would be better. Suemcp 00:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

THE SOURCE GIVEN FOR THE BIT UNDER 'The Massacre', about social change and the women's movement, etc as causes for Lepine's distress (City News Rewind?) is really inappropriate. I have a better suggestion. It is an piece - a comment - written by Prof John Scott giving his views on the Montreal Massacre (in terms of what he has read on my website about it, particularly, The Hidden Narratives essay. His comment is here: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/files/Comments/CommentJohnScott.doc . It is a far more appropriate piece as it acknowledges the social changes and changing power relations in society, and that is what that sentence is about. What do you think?  Suemcp 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting all the current editing bits and bobs together
I like the way the sources are coming together. Can anyone source the Barbara Frum bit? It's interesting, but I can't find anything. If there is more, it might bear a rewrite for clarity. If there isn't a source, perhaps it should go. Cheers. Dina 14:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have certainly seen something about Frum somewhere and will try and source it soon. In the meantime, I have some more puzzles for the populace:


 * Was Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz a nursing student or an engineering student? The web gives different stories.  Eglin and Hester 2003 and Malette and Chalouh 1991 say Engineering.


 * What was the number of injured? Different places gives different numbers: Eglin and Hester says 12 in the intro.  The Coroner's report says 29 shot (including Lepine), which would be 14 injured (29 - Lepine - 14 other deaths).   I am inclined to go with the Coroner's report on this one, what do others think?  Once we have sorted this out we can move on to the issue of how many men were shot!!!

--Slp1 15:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Confusing. My instinct says go with the coroner's report unless there's some evidence that it was mistaken.  But most news sources seem to say 14 dead and 13 injured + Lepine.

I'll keep looking. Dina 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * CNN.com (14 dead, 13 wounded)
 * CBC.ca 14 dead, 13 wounded)
 * not a very good source, but it gives 14 women dead, 9 women wounded, 4 men wounded
 * Capital news online? is that a real paper, they give 14 dead, and 4 wounded men, no total wounded
 * Winnipeg Free press 14 dead, 13 wounded.

Re:Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz. Is there an explanation of why a nursing student would have been there? Dina 17:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, the theory is that she was having dinner with her husband but most of the sources seem to be a copy of the WP page, which makes the argument distinctly circular!!! Perhaps we can all keep looking! --Slp1 18:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To respond to Bobanny, I too hope that we can include a section on interpretrations (Madman vs abused child vs violence against women are the main streams I have seen so far), which I agree are lacking and have said so before. But I myself have been first concentrating of details about the event that would help a reader understand the different intepretations. For example, all the (verifiable) information about his home life and the abuse he suffered from his father has been deleted in the last months for unexplained reasons. --Slp1 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not the main priority right now. The description of the actual event is super short and should go into much greater detail since that's the subject of the article (whereas Lepine has his own article, so that section needs to stay concise). Bobanny 19:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sound like a good idea to me. I will try and wade through the horrors of the coroner's report to flesh out details, since it has a lot of (presumably accurate) details. I agree on the need to keep the ML part short: I guess I am thinking ahead, since I guessing that the Marc Lepine page is part two of this project!!!--Slp1 19:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I firmly agree that the coroner's report should remain our primary source, even though it causes some confusion. I plan to read it as well, and we'll compare notes.  I'm also curious to source or remove the emergency worker/student in cafeteria who committed suicide part -- I think the original article is in French.  I can read some, so I'll give it a shot, but if anyone else is more accomplished, I'll defer. I've been making some changes -- please edit mercilessly ;)  And yes, Marc Lepine is phase two...Dina 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At first attempt I have failed to find any corroboration of the cafeteria person story, though I could go to the library if people think it necessary. The same story is on the French WP (saying that he was also a mech eng student) but also without source.  But in my brief search I found an interesting 2003 article about the long term effects on the survivors  which we might want to use as a main source, though it is in French!  I haven't time now, but my French is good, so I promise to peruse it and pull out some appropriate gems at some point. --Slp1 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Barbara Frum... I have found a source for the "crimes against humanity" reference .. I don't find the reference reliable at all, mainly because of the source but also because the article contains a major error in the timing regarding the leaking of the note!!! I will keep looking.  Even if we can source this comment reliably, I think it belongs in the to-be-created interpretations section not in "aftermath". --Slp1 22:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: I cannot find any source other than the above and references to Barbara Frum and Crimes against humanity interpretation in Suemcp's essays.  Given that the source above talks about an interview "the following night, Barabara Frum does not ask such relevant questions...." my guess is that it won't be on the videostream either.  Could someone check?  My internet connection doesn't seem to be strong enough!!--Slp1 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bobanny has solved this one! Thanks very much for this great quote. --Slp1 00:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * no problem. I checked the CBC archives and the actual footage of that isn't online. I agree with you it seems to beg for more context, i.e., the debates around interpreting the event, but I think Frum would be good for introducing that, and she's important because she comes off as so ideologically neutral. Her son is a reactionary nutbar, but that's a different story (he's the guy who wrote Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech). Bobanny 00:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aftermath... I have altered the paragraph about injured and witnesses responses based on the article cited.  Any improvements in phrasing welcome.  The cite refers to the whole paragraph, which I hope is clear, or does it need to be at the end of each sentence?  I am wondering what people would think about deleting the section about post-attack fatalities as a result.  I have mentioned 2 suicides but not the name or the sad story about his parents. Do you guys think these are relevant?   If so maybe the name and story could be worked into the Aftermath paragraph in some clever way!!  --Slp1 23:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the coroner's report and made an initial draft of the details of the massacre (complete with typos) at []. I thought that this might be a good idea to do this first elsewhere than the article since I am not really not sure how much detail to go into for this. I suppose it would be good to look at other similar events and see what they did. And of course Wikifying required etc, as well as looking at some other sources too. I thought maybe it would be good to get some initial changes done on a subpage, rather than in the article itself. But since I have never had anything to do with subpages before, so I hope I am doing things ok !! If page should be somewhere else or if anybody feels the urge to change anything on the page, please feel very very free. --Slp1 02:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a subpage is a good way to handle it. It's primary source information, therefore can't be stuck in the article, but its a valuable source.  In other situations I'd say put it on the talk page, but until we can archive this one, its just unwieldy. (I support your refactoring of this talkpage as well BTW) Thanks for organizing all that. Dina 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)