# Talk:Marc Lépine

I noticed 3 paragraphs in the introduction without any citation. I don't know how to proceed on a major change like this (or why there isn't any references). The paragraphs are as follows:

Lépine was born in Montreal, the son of a Canadian nurse and an Algerian businessman. His father was abusive and contemptuous of women. After his parents separated when he was seven, his mother returned to nursing to support her children. Lépine and his younger sister lived with other families, seeing their mother on weekends. Lépine was considered bright but withdrawn and having difficulties with peer and family relationships. He changed his name to Marc Lépine at the age of 14 giving as the reason his hatred of his father. Lépine's application to the Canadian Forces was rejected, and in 1982 he began a science program at a college, switching to a more technical program after one year. In 1986, he dropped out of the course in his final term, and was subsequently fired from his job at a hospital due to his poor attitude. He began a computer programming course in 1988, and again abandoned it before completion. Lépine twice applied for admission to the École Polytechnique, but lacked two required compulsory courses.
After several months of planning, Lépine entered the École Polytechnique de Montréal, on the afternoon of December 6, 1989. He had long complained about women working in non-traditional jobs, and after separating men and women in a classroom, he shot the women, claiming that he was fighting feminism. He then moved into other parts of the building, targeting women as he went, before killing himself. His suicide note blamed feminists for ruining his life.
Lépine's actions have been variously ascribed to psychiatric diagnoses such as personality disorder, psychosis, or attachment disorder, or societal factors such as poverty, isolation, powerlessness, and violence in the media. The massacre is regarded by criminologists as an example of a hate crime against women, and by feminists and government officials as misogynist attack and an example of the larger issue of violence against women.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anorth21 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 

... the victims were also all engineers, students, attendees at Ecole Polytechnique, Montrealers, Quebecers, and Canadians.  "Women Killed" is POV, just as "Engineers Killed" or "Quebeckers Killed" would be.  "Murder Victims" is neutral.64.229.158.254 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

removing gender references from an event that was explicitly motivated by gender is distorting that event. NPOV is not the same thing as genderless. Bobanny 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It was not motivated by gender, it was motivated by politics -- feminism to be precise.  Read the suicide letter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.229.158.254 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2007, 17:58 (UTC).
Read the dictionary. Feminism is all about gender. Bobanny 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the dictionary (m-w.com), feminism is:
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
Feminism has nothing to do with one's biological sex.  Many men are feminists.  Many women are not.
Marc Lepine was very clear -- he hated feminists.  He did not hate women. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.160.230.138 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Dictionary.com looks to be a little more up to date. Few feminists today would argue their cause is rooted in biology. Gender is not the same as biological sex. He killed women. He did not kill feminists. Bobanny 21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Dictionary.com doesn't say anything different.  Either way, it's a red herring.
2) He killed Canadians, Montrealers, students, engineers, and people in their thirties.  They were were equally all of those things as they were women.  He said, "You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists", before he killed them.  It's clear that he killed them because he thought they were feminists. He had a hit list of prominent femininsts who he wanted to kill.  Saying "Murder Victims" accurately portrays what took place, takes nothing away from the article, and is NPOV.  "Women Killed" implies that he killed them because they are women.   Please revert back to the NPOV wording of "Murder Victims" or let me know why you don't think that "Murder Victims" is more NPOV than "Women Killed".  Let's try to resolve this ourselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.160.230.138 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for reverting back, IP person, on Marc Lepine and Ecole Poly.  I appreciate the gesture and agree that discussion is the best way to proceed.  I am with Bobanny here.  "Women killed" an accurate description of what happened. This is a bit of a cause celebre here and as a result there have been attempts by some to try and use these articles to push their POV about women and feminism by adding things (which have often proved to be plain wrong!) and deleting too.    I think your link to the National Post article is a good one and we should incorporate something about these kinds of responses into the article. The Laurie Dann one was not so useful, but these together with others make me a little worried about POV pushing here (I apologize if I am misattributing contributions, but the IP addresses for all were so similar).  But let's not continue a revert war over facts like women being killed.  They were women, they were killed. And they were killed because they were women --Slp1 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You raise concerns about agenda pushing, then push your own.  Ironic.  "They were killed because they are women" is POV, and by extension, so is your justificiation for retaining the heading.  Again, I'll ask:  does "murder victims" take anything away from the article?  Don't  you agree that it is more NPOV than "Women Killed"? (aside: you're attributing those other edits to the wrong person)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.160.230.138 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2007, 23:42 (UTC).

I have friends who are IP addresses, but in the midst of controversy, they sometimes all look the same to me. User:64.229.158.254 has been revert warring on this question, but has temporarily been blocked for doing so. So my apologies if I haven't been making the distinction between IP editors I should have.
Personally, I don't think this issue has anything to do with NPOV, except that some editors have been using that card to try and insert a fringe and non-notable POV into the articles. Both "Women killed" and "Murder victims" are technically accurate. What is lost with "Murder victims" is not NPOV per se, but specificity, which is important in an encyclopedia article. It would also be accurate to say "Sentient beings killed," but that would be even less useful or appropriate. 
Lepine's own thinking and explanation of his intent is not the final word on the subject. As with any historical event, motives and intentions of the key players are only part of the story, and not necessarily the most helpful. For example, Abraham Lincoln was racist, yet he led the anti-slavery camp during the civil war. Charles Darwin was a creationist, but that's not the defining factor in the "intelligent design" debates. 
Marc Lepine separated the women from the men on the basis of their gender, not based on a survey of who supported the tenets of feminism, who was active in the womens' movement, or what was between their legs. He conflated gender with feminism, which is why he targeted university students rather than, say, a meeting of a feminist organization. If he did target a feminist group, it would be appropriate to say "Feminists killed." 
The difference with the dictionary.com definition is that it doesn't say equality between the sexes. That's not a red herring in light of your argument that biology is what defines women rather than the social and political context they live in. No, not all women are feminists, but feminism has had profound reverberations on gender relations in this society regardless of their own beliefs, something Lepine was reacting against. 
Finally, there's lots of room for expansion of these articles. There is an ongoing debate about how this has become a feminist cause celbre (which the National Post article is weighing in on). There's lots of published and verifiable sources for both camps, and some nuanced ones in between. There are class and ethnic implications that could be teased out. Instead, what we seem to get is the anti-feminist resistance movement, waging some kind of guerrilla edit-war. This frankly doesn't do anything to improve the POV or the quality of the articles, but rather fixates on the most inane details alleged to be POV as part of a feminist conspiracy. I'm not lumping you in here, 217.160.230.138, but there's been a history of editors being disruptive to make a point instead of doing the legwork. Bobanny 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC) PS: I wrote the above before your latest reply. Your argument still isn't clear to me. Are you saying they were killed because they were women? happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time? were feminists? Bobanny 23:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict with Bobanny's reply, so doesn't follow on directly!

First, I apologize for the misattribution.    On his list were not just "prominent femininsts" but a volleyball team of female police officers.   Marc Lepine asked the women and men in the class to separate, not feminists/non-feminists, engineers/non-engineers or anything else.  One woman went on to deny that they were feminists, but he shot them all nonetheless.  He killed those he did because they were women (and presumably in a place where he didn't think women should be).  The change to murder victims takes away from the article a clear indication of who his victims were.   Slp1 00:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Err, how about a title of "Murder victims" and then specify that his victims were all women and he specifically intended for them to be women? --Wafulz 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why not "Women killed"? Bobanny 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's address each piece individually:

Lepine's own thinking and explanation of his intent is not the final word on the subject.
He said, explicitly, "I hate feminists, you're all a bunch of feminists."  He may not have been accurate, but his motive was crystal clear. How could you possibly know the motive better than the murderer himself?  This wasn't a crime of passion:  it was pre-meditated (seems IMO to be years in the making) , and directed at a specific group:  feminists, not women.  Attributing a different motive to his actions from his stated intent is POV.
Marc Lepine separated the women from the men on the basis of their gender, not based on a survey of who supported the tenets of feminism, who was active in the womens' movement, or what was between their legs. He conflated gender with feminism, which is why he targeted university students rather than, say, a meeting of a feminist organization. If he did target a feminist group, it would be appropriate to say "Feminists killed."
He separated them because he thought that they were feminists -- presumably feminists who caused him to lose a position in Engineering school.  He might not have been right, but that's not the point.  Let's remember that he was psychotic and unable to judge reality.  Even if he was wrong about them being feminists, it doesn't change the motive.
Finally, there's lots of room for expansion of these articles
Agreed.
fixates on the most inane details alleged to be POV as part of a feminist conspiracy
This discussion has nothing to do with that.  Thank you for not lumping me in.  I sympathize with you.
One woman went on to deny that they were feminists, but he shot them all nonetheless
Again, he was psychotic and thought they were feminists.  The fact that he was inaccurate doesn't change his stated intent or motive, and it doesn't make his target women.
The change to murder victims takes away from the article a clear indication of who his victims were.
The names of the women killed are more precise than a heading.  It takes nothing away to say Murder Victims, but it does remove POV.  Unless you can prove that he killed them because they are women as opposed to because he *thought* they were feminists.
I agree with Wafulz -- let's change the title to "Murder Victims" and note the significance of the fact that all of the victims were female.  Let's also note that the significance of Lepines perception, correct or not, that they were feminists. 217.160.230.138 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want the explicit statements, they were ""You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists." , and on other occasions..""I want the women,".  Is that enough?  But in any case I agree with Bobanny what Lepine thought is not the point. They were women and were killed. And by the way, it is not a done deal that he was psychotic, either. Psychiatrists disagreed.  Can I try again? What purpose is there in seeking to deemphasize the gender of his victims when it is so clearly part of the story? Slp1 02:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm also still not clear on why you believe "Murder victims" is more neutral than "Women killed." That hasn't come through in your arguments, 217.160.230.138. I don't see how the article downplays that his beef was with feminism, and neither heading refers to feminism. Clarification of these points would be helpful.
His note and the quotes attributed to Lepine (courtesy of Slp1) are pretty straighforward in that he targeted these women not because of their ideological orientation, but because they were beneficiaries of feminism. They were de facto feminists to him simply by being women encroaching on a traditionally male occupation. It had nothing to do with them individually (they were all strangers to him as far as I know), but was about the position they occupied as female engineering students. "Female engineering student" is a social position that wouldn't exist if not for the womens' movement/feminism, which is what he objected to. That's not a particularly crazy interpretation, as lots of critics of feminism and affirmative action make the same case. In any case, this is an area that merits its own section: the "psychotic madman" versus "an extreme expression of misogyny" debate that rages on every Dec. 6th in the newspaper editorials.
The onus is on you to show that he made the same cut and dry distinction between "women" and "feminists" that you are making. As far as I can see, that would be a novel interpretation in light of his actions and his words. Bobanny 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This is becoming a circular argument -- either you're not listening, or this is an ideological point for you.  Let's try once more.  Failing that, let's put a neutrality dispute into both articles:

"They were women and were killed."
All the victims were were female.  But he didn't kill them because he saw them as women.  He saw them as feminists and he made that clear.  Whether his assessment was right or wrong is not the point.  Putting "Women Killed" instead of the NPOV "Murder Victims" *implies* that they were killed because of their sex.  They were not.  They were killed because Lepine *thought* rightly or wrongly that they were feminists (and thus he killed them based on what he perceived to be their ideology).  The POV that you're trying to push, as you said a number of times in this discussion, is that they were killed because they are women. There is no proof.
"I agree with Bobanny what Lepine thought is not the point. They were women and were killed"
In no other Wikipedia article that I know of does it say "Men Killed" when it's only men.  Take a look at the Denis Lortie article, linked from Marc Lepine.  All of his victims were men.  Would it be appropriate to change that article to have a heading that says, "Men Killed"?  No, because it implies that they were killed because they were men.  We simply refer to them as "Victims" -- not even noting specifically that they were parliamentarians or male in any special way.  The same must be done here for NPOV.
Here's another example: In the hijacked TWA Flight 847 from Lebanon, all of the women were freed and the men killed.  Does that mean that the murderous acts that took place were motivated by the gender of the people they killed?  Should we say, "men killed"?  The men's names aren't even mentioned int he Wikipedia article, much less that all murder victims were male.  By putting "Women Killed" in this article, you are pushing POV and making it incosistent with every other mass murder article found on Wikipedia.  "Women Killed" assigns special status to them, which pushes your politically motivated point.  "Murder Victims" is neutral.
"What purpose is there in seeking to deemphasize the gender of his victims when it is so clearly part of the story?"
The de-emphasis of their gender is to eliminate the POV that you are pushing: namely, that they were killed because they are women.  Once more:  they were killed because Lepine thought them to be feminists.  It had nothing to do with their sex.  Put another way:  imagine if Lepine said, "I hate Jews and you're all a bunch of Jews" to a crowd of Quakers.  Then he killed all of them.  Would the act have been anti-Quaker or anti-Semitic?  Clearly, it would be anti-semitic, even though he was wrong about their religion.
"Female engineering student" is a social position that wouldn't exist if not for the womens' movement/feminism, which is what he objected to."
... and here you say it yourself... Feminism is what he objected to.  Not womanhood or femaleness.
"The onus is on you to show that he made the same cut and dry distinction between "women" and "feminists" that you are making. "
His stated intent was to kill feminists, not to kill women.  See Quaker/Jewish analogy above.

Can we agree on this one or should I put it into neutrality dispute?
Addendum:  I apologize, I missed this point:

"I'm also still not clear on why you believe "Murder victims" is more neutral than "Women killed." That hasn't come through in your arguments, 217.160.230.138. I don't see how the article downplays that his beef was with feminism, and neither heading refers to feminism. Clarification of these points would be helpful."
Because "Women Killed" implies that they were killed because they are women.  "Murder Victims" does not. 217.160.230.138 15:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Circular discussion, maybe, but I'm clearer on what you point of contention is, however misplaced it may be. I'm not convinced any more than I was at the outset, but have no objection to a request for comment and will abide by any change that might come of that process.
Just to restate your position, in case I'm still missing something or "not listening." You feel that "Women killed" is biased because it legitimizes a feminist ideological point of view by implying an intrinsic connection between feminist thought and actual women. "Murder victims" is neutral in your view because his stated target was feminists, but the people he killed were not adherents of feminism, or at least not self-identified or active feminists. He got it wrong and was irrational anyway, making his intent irrelevant to our purposes of describing the event, at least as reflected in the headings. If this is a misrepresentation of your argument, let me know.
Your case falls apart with his "I want the women" statement, which is corroborated by his suicide note that goes on about women in the Olympics and on the frontlines in warfare, not just self-identified feminists. His actions were consistent with his beliefs.
The basis of your neutrality claim rests on sex, i.e., a biological and natural, and therefore neutral, division of the species into male and female based on reproduction. The operative term here is gender, which derives its meaning from the socio-political and cultural context. You're right that it had nothing to do with "sex," but you're wrong to extend that to mean it also had nothing to do with the gender of the victims.
You're bent on making a separation between gender and feminism, as if feminism only exists in an ideological vaccuum. It's like saying liberalism has nothing to do with individual liberty, fascism has nothing to do with the state, or Communism has nothing to do with economic class. These are absurd claims, and have nothing to do with the validity of the ideology, given that individuals aren't all liberals, statists aren't necessarily fascists, and very few proletarians are Communists. Its ideological for me because the subject is ideological, not because I'm POV pushing. Bobanny 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Once more:

There is a great deal of open debate, some of which is noted in the article, as to whether or not Lepine's actions were an attack on women or an attack on feminists.  That point, in the public eye, remains unresolved.
Wrong. The public debate isn't about whether Lepine attacked women or feminists. The debate is over the way the event has become a symbol to advance a feminist agenda. The event itself isn't controversial. He killed women, he intended to kill women. No one else is disputing that.
Nope:  It is highly disputed but Wiki prejudice has consistently deleted reference to his intent to kill feminists.  He killed feminists.  He intended to kill feminists.  But that is not the PC version.  

With that in mind, to say "Women Killed" is POV, because it leans toward one of the sides of the debate.  "Murder Victims" is NPOV: it offers no opinion on the matter.
Yes, it does offer an opinion.  It was intentionally "feminists" who Lepine intended to kill.  To sidestep the intention and outcome is to change the POV.  Mr. Lepine's POV was to kill feminists, and he killed feminists.  Changing it to anything else is not POV neutral.  If it's blood red, and you white wash it, you have changed the POV. 

The only way I can see this as making any sense is if these particular women were made to symbolize all women. I don't see how else "Women killed" could be construed as POV, in which case you're reading POV into something where it doesn't exist. "Women killed" is equally silent on any debate over this event.
Beyond that, there is the issue of precendent.  No other Wikipedia article on mass murders states the sex or gender of the victims in this way (kindly refer to my comment about TWA Flight 847).  Even in cases where the men and women were separated, and all of the men's lives were taken and the women's spared, which is similar to what happened here, it is not noted as prominently as in this article.  It is therefore inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles, which makes it notable, and in turn POV
Wikipedia isn't common law, and "being like other articles" isn't valuable in itself. These questions are resolved through consensus, in which precedence serves as a potential useful guide and possible indicator of a convention. I'd have no problem with the TWA article saying "Men killed" in a heading if it was a gender-specific massacre. If there are other mass murder articles where the issue of gender has been an issue for editors, it might be useful to look at those. The National Post article that's linked in the massacre article states that this event is unique amongst gendercides because no others before or since targeted women. That's probably a dubious claim generally, but likely holds true in Canada (if you can get past the term "gendercide"). Whatever your or my personal opinion on the subject, there's no doubt that gender is central to this event and its notability compared with other multiple killings.
Now, let me address your other points (kindly note that I address your points.  I would appreciate it if you did the same.)

"Your case falls apart with his "I want the women" statement"
First, you can't have it both ways.  Earlier, you said, "Lepine's own thinking and explanation of his intent is not the final word on the subject".  Now you bring up this quote (interestingly, only a fragment of it) as if it were the final word.  Pick one.
I stand by that statement and my use of the quote. The crux of your argument is that his true target was feminists and not women. My argument doesn't depend solely on his own interpretation, though that is a factor.
Second, that quote, in its entirety was: "I want the women.  You're all a bunch of fucking feminists.  I hate feminists."  I won't debate the minutia of the statement, because we'll continue going in circles.  The bottom line is that publicly, there is no definitive answer as to whether this statement and his suicide letter indicate that he was a misogynist, a lunatic, or a radical anti-feminist -- or a combination of all three.  Until a consensus is reached, Wikipedia needs to treat it neutrally.
"Women killed" says nothing about about those labels. The elaborated quote, on the other hand, even further undermines your argument that feminists and women are mutually exclusive in this event.
"his suicide note that goes on about women in the Olympics and on the frontlines in warfare"
Again, context.  He mentions the Olympics and the frontlines of warfare as things that *feminism*, in his eyes, has not fought for women to have equality because it doesn't advantage women, which he felt to be sexist.  Those are not complaints about womanhood, women, or female gender that he's making:  they are complaints about feminism.
Again, the context only further strengthens my position, because he is indeed complaining about feminism by referring to women who've been advantaged by feminism even though they aren't feminists. Ideology and reality - feminism and women in this case - are related. Unless I missed something, the debate here isn't about whether he's a misogynist or anti-feminist.
"The operative term here is gender,"
This is a red herring.  If you want to flex your intellectual muscles and muddy the waters with this type of intellectualist rhetoric, do it elsewhere.
And this is where your disingenuous boast about engaging with my points shows itself for what it is. Ad hominem attacks are unecessary. If you don't know the difference between sex and gender, just say so. The distinction is important here.
"You're bent on making a separation between gender and feminism, as if feminism only exists in an ideological vaccuum"
There is a difference between gender and feminism.  A person can be of any gender or of any sex and be or not be a feminist.  To say that feminists are of a certain gender or sex is closed-minded, and frankly, wrong.  Anyone can be a feminist, and by extension there is a separation between gender and feminism.
When I take something out of context, it's not to misrepresent the intended meaning. Look at the second clause of that sentence qualifying the first. I'm not saying feminism and gender are the same thing, or that feminists are all women. Gender can exist without feminism, but feminism cannot exist without gender.
Last shot at resolving this ourselves... Do you want to change the heading and put a note that says that all the victims were women and that Lepine thought they were feminists?  I'd like to reach a compromise.  We both know that we'll get radicals on both sides if we put this out to the community.  That'll probably cause a serious edit war, and the article will end up as a ghost of its former self.  The choice is yours. 217.160.230.138 00:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I will deal with some of your points....
Point 1:  "there is a great deal of open debate, some of which is noted in the article, as to whether or not Lepine's actions were an attack on women or an attack on feminists".  I agree that there is a lot of debate about this issue, as which you mention.  But I am unaware of any reliable source that interprets it as an attack on feminists and feminism per se, clearly differentiating it from an attack on women and womanhood.  If you can find one it should be in the article and I will understand your viewpoint much better.  But a reference is needed first.
Point 2: "Beyond that, there is the issue of precendent". While there are few scenarios that are exact parallels to this one, I would support such clear headings about outcomes in any article where a group was targetted based on race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation etc.  The Lortie case does not fit into this category (and they were not parlementarians either, FYI).  If Laurie Dann's victims/targets had been actually been boys/men as the urban legend has it, then I would have supported that section heading "boys/men killed/poisoned". Urban legends of this sort seem to be common. because there is a reason that there is no list of men killed or heading "men killed" in the WP article on the TWA Flight 847: all but one of them were released unharmed. [1].  But if they had been killed ....
Point 3: The quote: actually it is you who are not quoting it correctly.   The original (from Chun, and quoted above), interestingly in response to Provost's denial that they were feminists,  was ""You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists." He then opened fire, killing six women--and closing the discussion. After leaving the classroom, Lepine stalked through the halls of the school saying, "I want the women.""  I realize that you don't want to discuss this further, but your argument against "women killed" seemed (at least in the past) to be predicated on the idea that we had to somehow pay attention to his motives.  Examining that, further reliable sources see "women" as his "enemy": The Coroner's report  "analyzed "various documents (letters) written by Lépine" (note: presumbably one was the suicide note).  It said "In two documents, Marc Lépine identified feminists, women, as the enemy, the bad thing to be destroyed. He regarded them as invested with negative characteristics, based on a projective mode of thinking: all the evil was on their side."   
Your response in the past to being questioned about the conflict between his motive (feminists) and his actions has been that he was psychotic and "unable to judge reality".  Let's assume you are right.   How far do you think WP has to go in reflecting the motives of someone who is mentally ill and "unable to judge reality" in determining the heading of such a list?  If someone entered a classroom (God forbid) and separated the adults from the children, and then killed the children claiming that they were the off-spring of the Ravenous Bug-blatter beast of Trall, would we have to pay attention to his motive in listing the children he had killed?  We should certainly mention his motivation in the text, but in the list?  I think not.  "Children killed" or "students killed" would be entirely appropriate in such a tragedy. 
Point 4: I will let Bobanny respond to most of the rest of your comments, some of which could have neen expressed a bit more civilly, I think. But I do feel that you are missing Bobanny's point about gender and feminism. You are quite correct that feminists can be of any gender.  His point is surely that it is that feminism is linked/related to gender and gender issues.
I will be awaiting a reliable source that interprets this as "an attack on feminists" or feminism and let's take it from there. I too would like to compromise. Slp1 03:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Point 1: Reference Nathanson & Young 2006, McGill-Queen's University Press:  Legalizing Misandry.  "Bear in mind that Lepine blamed feminists in particular, not women in general"; "Lepine's attitude toward women was of little or no importance, according to some people, even though all of his victims were women.  The mass murrder, they argued, could be explained best in terms of one individual's psychosis..."
This doesn't support your claim that it was an attack on feminists, not women. No one's denying that he blamed feminists in particular or that his murdered victims were women.
Response to Point 2: If, as your theory goes, the act of separating the men from the women constitutes a hate crime toward the specific group, then the TWA Flight 847 could be interpreted as such, no matter what death toll was.  People don't have to die for a hate crime to take place (although I don't personally believe this case was a hate crime directed at men).  Regardless, the point in question here is not whether or not they were women in this case (we know they were):  it's whether or not they were killed because they were women or because they were perceived to be feminists by a man who stated that his intent was to kill feminists.
Response to Point 3: I apologize for the misquote, but the spirit of what was said remains the same.  In terms of your quote from the Coroner's report (which was written in a very politically charged environment) doesn't conclusively identify specifically women as the target.  It merely makes mention both women and feminists in the same context.
What, was he changing the subject? This isn't a court of law, where establishing reasonable doubt wins the case. That's a novel interpretation that constitutes original research.
Response to untagged point: Your adult/children example is not the same as what we're dealing with here.  The example you give is more cut and dry than Lepine's murders, for starters.  Here we are debating whether or not the interpretation that they were killed because they were women, as opposed to being perceived as feminists, is true.  They could have been both or mistaken as one. In the example you gave, they were either children or adults.  Had they been a mix of say, Jewish and Christian children and adults, and Lepine had ordered out all of the adults and killed all the children including the Christian ones while proclaiming that he hated Jews, his stated motive would be to kill Jews and more analguous to the situation at hand. But you need that second element to make the comparison.  In the Lepine case, you acknowledge that "there is a lot of debate about this issue".  Since we agree that there is debate, it is only appropriate to maintain a neutral position until that debate concludes.
The second element is precisely the connection between feminism and gender that you're arguing against, and which is what was wrong with your earlier comparison of Jews and Quakers. (There's not much overlap there).
I look forward to your thoughts.  217.160.230.138 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I addressed some of your points specifically, 217.160.230.138, and italicized my comments. I still believe yours is the only POV that's being pushed here, and I question your sincerity in resolving this. Your arguments amount to a Chewbacca defense, inasmuch as you're obfuscating the issue apparently to show that there's a lot of debate and therefore your supposedly neutral wording should win the day. None of the controversy surrounding the event, at least what's published AFAIK, is about the event itself. "Women killed" is purely descriptive and is more than appropriate to this particular subject, in which the gender of the victims is central. There's nothing implied by those words thats supports a feminist or any other interpretation.  That said, I'll do my best to not let my assumption of bad faith disrupt this process, though I can't match Slp1's civility (they could probably use you at the UN, Slp1:). Bobanny 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Stick a fork in me.  I'm done.  Slp1:  I will appeal to you.  Do you agree with Bobanny?  If you do, I believe that we have pursued every reasonable avenue to resolve this ourselves.  I have proposed a compromise, which has not been accepted.  I'm open to hearing a compromise position from your end as well.  Failing that, we'll have to take it to the community -- something I would prefer not to do.  I think we can all agree that all of us are more moderate that what this article will attract under the hospices of debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.160.230.138 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
From what I've seen, requests for comment don't typically attract extremists - quite the opposite, though of course there's no guarantee. Bobanny 17:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Returning after much travel in the last few days...
As far as I am aware, the debate has raged between whether the event was:

1. An attack on feminists/women
2. The isolated act of a madman (various diagnoses and causes have been debated here, including :the possibility of a head injury as a result of childhood abuse)
3. The result of an abused childhood 
4. The result of social factors: societal changes that had led to increasing poverty, powerlessness and individual isolation
5.  The effect of violence in the media
6. The result of alienation caused by lack of acceptance of immigrants in Quebec society
(see the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre page for sources etc)
I would be open to an argument that "women killed" is POV if we could find a reliable source that interpreted this event as a "attack on feminists" per se (as 217.160.230.138 has claimed) rather than the sourced view of it being on "feminists/women" as a combo.  Then, I agree, stating "women killed" might be considered POV rather than purely a description of the outcome of the event.  :But I don't know of any notable and reliably sourced claim that this was actually an attack on feminists rather than feminists/women. The quotes you provided, 217.160.230.138, don't do the job.  They just confirm what many other sources have said: that his stated target was feminists and that some people think he was mentally ill and therefore downplay that those killed were women. For all the other interpretations, that he targetted women is an accepted fact or a non-issue, as your second quote (and its use of the word “women”) makes clear:  "Lepine's attitude toward women was of little or no importance, according to some people, even though all of his victims were women." Perhaps there is another reference that would better support your claim that some see this as an attack on feminists alone? 
I really think that this is the crux of the problem: a verifiable and reliable source is needed for this. Otherwise the notion is simply original research.
I think the other issues (motives, WP precedents), while interesting, are distractions from the main issue of attribution ( a coming new buzzword for WP?!!).  At the risk of getting sucked into issues I have just said are distractions (!), WP precedents we all seem to basically agree upon.  Regarding motives, while his stated motives are clear, his words (written and spoken) and actions muddy the waters regarding his definition of feminists/feminism and how far it extended, according to reliable sources.  There are many WP acceptable sources that have seen it as an attack on feminists and women in general, and the Coroner’s report is just one.   I disagree with 217.160.230.138's dismissal of the quote from the report "In two documents, Marc Lépine identified feminists, women, as the enemy, the bad thing to be destroyed." It is a reliable and notable source and clearly associates feminists and women-as-a-group as his targets. In any case the issue of his possible mental health issues (which 217.160.230.138 brought up as a certainty in the past) puts into question the relevance and reliability of his stated motives, which, incidentally, was my actual point in the Ravenous bug-blatter beast example.
I have spent too much time on this whole issue and would like to avoid spending more.  I am helping to write an encyclopaedia and want a clear heading that acts as a summary of an important feature in this event. I would be willing to compromise with a subheading of “Murder victims-women”, or “Women murder victims” if that would end this.  I would totally disagree with any additional note that Lepine "thought the women were feminists".  The fact that he claimed that they were feminists is clear in the text and therefore unnecessary. In addition, the sourced opinions are that he actually did not make a distinction between women and feminists as his targets, as his definition of feminism clearly included women in non-traditional roles. His own suicide note indicated this, when he labelled a volleyball team of female police officers (amongst others) as "radical feminists".  Adding information about what he "thought" would be totally unsourced (and likely POV to boot). --Slp1 19:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ditto everything, except for the willing to compromise bit. 217.160.230.138 brought his/her issues to the talk page for consensus, which is a good sign of constructive intentions. But it's an IP address singularly focused on these two articles, which is reason enough to question motives (though not in itself an indicator of bad faith). I don't see 217's effort to be anything more than POV-pushing. In any case, I'll make an effort this week sometime to begin a "debate section," and try and summarize the feminist and anti-feminist views, which could at least give future debates more of a reference point in the article, rather than having to debate over semantics. (Note all the above is over 2 words!). Bobanny 20:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, over 2 very short words too!!! But good can come of it too, I guess.  There is a "Search for a rationale" section on the Massacre page, and I wasn't sure whether it would be required here too, but I guess it is.  I would be grateful if you could add such a debate section here, (and edit the one on the Massacre page mercilessly too) since this sort of analysis is outside my usual skill set, though it has been lots of fun trying to figure it all out!  My next project for the Marc Lepine page was going to be a section on his character including info from the psych reports etc, family and friends etc. Does that sound good?  Slp1 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking to put the debate in the massacre article and a brief summary here. The search for a rationale section is great, but it's the ideological debate that's more about feminism and its critics than the details of the event I'd like to add. Your idea about adding more about Lepine specifically sounds great, and complementary to what I was thinking, and more directly tied to the subject of this article.  Bobanny 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent plan! I'll get to my part of it when I have a moment. Slp1 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Pursuant to the above discussion I would like to ask a question: how many of the people killed by Lépine were not women?--Cailil 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Some men were injured, but those killed were all women. Bobanny 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Therefore the section entitled "women killed" is 100% accurate.  As the killing was gender selective the title reflects this (IMO an external link to gendercide's case study, or perhaps crime library's report, might aid this article).  There has been an enormous amount of trolling by 'antifeminist' anon IPs in a wide range of articles recently I'm sorry to see that it reached here and wasted so much time for so many editors.  Considering some of these editors agree with Lépine motives for mass murder I would recommend a healthy not feeding trolls policy.  If the problem persists RfC again or use something stronger like Wikiquette Alerts or AN/I--Cailil 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to lump 217.160.230.138 in with Bob and his International Marc Lepine Day to celebrate the first counter attack against the feminist war on men (see archives!!!)  But point taken Slp1 19:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is a prime example of half-truth logic.  Yes 100% of the people killed were women, however I am certain that many if not all of the men who were shot could have died ?
Also to say that this incident was and is an act that makes victims of women, ignores totally the men, the fathers, the brothers of these women.  To those who manipulate this truth and polarize the issue they are reflecting the same black and white logic of Marc Lepine.

This article meets the criteria for Good Article status.  To improve the article, consider more images and graphics. Argos'Dad 03:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The letter appears to have been deleted from the French WikiSource with the reason "ne respecte pas les règles de Wikisource" ("doesn't comply with Wikisource policies"). Can someone more fluent in French than I speak to the admin who deleted it? --Wafulz 13:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the relevant log. --Wafulz 13:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
In this letter, the word "Théorie" should be translated by "string" or "huge amount". See this for details (in french); meaning 6 and 7. I'm not too good in english, so I let someone else modify the article. madlozoz
About the wikisource policies, it seems obvious to me. Lépine never claimed that this letter was public domain, so it's not (I think the french  wikisource follow the french law, so there are almost no exceptions)madlozoz
Thanks, for this.  Yes, the letter is not in the public domain for wikisource but according to the discussion there having it in the article on WP is okay.--Slp1 10:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 08:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly appears that the 'black and white' thinking of Marc Lepine was and is reflected by many of the 'feminists' or more specifically radical feminists who manipulate the incident ignoring the men, and that men were also victims of the shooting.
Using Marc Lepine's black and white thinking  to rationalize the incident should and will be a monument to not only Marc Lepine but also the 'radical feminists' who manipulate the incident and reflect the same 'black and white' thinking.
This section needs a more 'critical' reference point, beyond that of the 'politically correct' response from 'radical feminists'...if you can understand what I am referring to.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not be logical to the arguements presented, however, it should be noted that there were other 'victims" of the shooting that did not die...and they should be included as well....some of them male.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Some significant changes, including deletions and changes in the material have taken place recently, without much in the way of explanation. I have reverted most of them because I don't believe they are accurate reflections of the source material, and/or delete important information.  I know the literature from reliable sources (including off-line material) well, and since this is a good article I would prefer that we remain very close to the sources.  I'm not adverse to changes, but would ask that big changes get discussed here first.--Slp1 (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed and unverifiable changes by User:Marksdaman (now called User:Blades95) have continued. For example, according to the sources given:
his Junior High school was in Pointe-Claire not Pierrefonds
his father abused his sister too
his father lost contact with his children before moving abroad
the fact that it was a maternal uncle is not specified
I have reverted them.--Slp1 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

...I noted two errors in the translation and corrected them in the article:
Elles sont tellement opportunistes qu’elles ne négligent pas de profiter des connaissances accumuler par les hommes au cours de l’histoire.
--> They are so opportunistic they DON'T neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages.
(The word "don't" was missing, which really reverses the meaning of that sentence)
Comment expliquer cela alors que les femmes n’étaient pas autorisés à aller au front???
--> How can you explain that, since women were not authorized to go to the frontline???
Old version was "How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline???" which has a slightly different meaning and IMHO was not a correct translation.
--Heinrich23 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help. The problem is that this translation given (and cited) is the one that is verifiable from numerous reliable sources. See [2] [3] and here [4][5] etc. I'm sure that you can understand that if we permit everybody to "correct" translations then it could end up to be a bit of a free for all which would be contrary to our policy of verifiability; here's the specific subsection about this WP:RSUE.  I confess that I'm a bit troubled by this, mainly because of the first correction you made; I do agree a word seems to be missing from the translations given. I'm less convinced about your second correction, however.  I think the only solution is to look for other reliably sourced translations of the text.  If you can find one please post the link here and we can change the cited version.  I will look too.--Slp1 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have done an extensive trawl through the newspaper and other archives (including subscriber only etc), and they all seem to use the same translation, so I think we are stuck with this one. Are you a native French speaker, Heinrich?  I think we need one to check whether this is not one of these tricky faux amis type translation problems. --Slp1 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not a native French speaker, so I wouldn't rule out a mistake on my part (although in this case I'm quite sure it's indeed an error in the translation, or I wouldn't have made the change.) My theory is, at the time somebody translated it, and then everybody copied from one another, including errors... Anyway, maybe some French experts can comment on it, otherwise it will probably just stay as it is...Heinrich23 (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure you are correct that the translation has just been copied wholesale without review. And I'm also not a native French speaker, but I'm pretty fluent, and as I said above I also suspect that there is a negative missing too. We are in a difficult position, however, given the policies as written. However, I'm wondering if we can annotate the translation we give here, by adding any missing negative in square brackets with a note attached to explain it, with the original text provided..  What do you think? I think that this would be okay since we are really providing the translation as a service, and the original letter is the most reliable source of the two.  But the first thing is to get a native French-speaker to check that you/we are right.  I'll drop a note to somebody who I think fits the bill.  --Slp1 (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(undent)  The translation is indeed flawed in both places.  It's also a very poor translation to begin with— I'm surprised it was reused wholesale like this.  Both correction fix the meaning to that which is found in the original french.
Part of the problem probably stems from the fact that the original is very poorly written to begin with, I suppose.  — Coren (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It really is interesting how frequently this has been reprinted on blind faith, apparently.  So much for editorial oversight. I've made the changes in the article in the form I suggested above, with notes to explain what and why. I'm still a bit anxious about the can of worms we may have opened in terms of other "corrections", but it is true that these ones did fundamentally alter the meaning. Comments about whether this has been the right thing to do are welcomed.--Slp1 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that our editorial responsibility to not repeat something which we know is an error overrides WP:V (at least as far as the translation is concerned); but that transparency demands that any such correction we do be clearly indicated and explained.  I think the way you did it hits the mark pretty well and gives the correct deference to verifiability of the original.  — Coren (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Insofar the original French text is linked, WP:V is satisfied. I see no reason to leave this horrible, horrible translation up based on the sole reason that the only version available in English is botched beyond comprehension in many places. Mind you, I'm not merely talking about the "don't", the entire text needs a make-over, because c'est vraiment du grand n'importe quoi :) Seriously, we accept foreign language WP:RS for WP:V purpose without any issues, why would we leave an almost useless text up? MLauba (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It may not be the greatest translation, though perhaps, as Coren points out, its deficiencies in part reflect that ungrammaticality of the original!  My reasoning for leaving this translation as much as possible as it is are twofold.  Firstly, per the verifiability policy "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors". I support this, per the "Verifiability not Truth" Mantra, in part because I have followed this and the École Polytechnique massacre page for several years now, and you would not believe the number of POV-pushing original researchers have attempted to do their stuff on these articles. Most notable were Sue, who ended up with a user RFC, "Bob", who promoted "International Marc Lepine Day" to celebrate the first "Counterattack against feminism"[6], 217.xxxxxxx  (see above) and User:Caesarjbsquitti [7].  I am loath to embark on a "better, Wikipedia translation" that would open the door for any editor to suggest a "better" wording of the translation to suit their POV. In other words, I think there's a good reason why published translations (however imperfect) are preferred. I still think the solution is to find another, better, published translation. I've looked quite hard for one, but will keep looking. --Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue might be heading towards a shit storm, so lets sit down before then. 
The statement "A few men's rights activists seek to rehabilitate Lépine as hero of the anti-feminist cause", should be removed. Any statement that begins with "a few..." is probably bogus. I mean, a few of any group will say any manner of things. There are crazies everywhere. Unless significance of what they said can be shown, including them is undue weight.
Yes, there are citations, however I have inspected the online one and can find nothing relevant to the claim —my apologies if I was not sufficiently through—, and in a case that is political I would like to see the relevant portions from offline works before I take them as justification. I suspect that at most they note it happened or was a 'this is what they crazies say' kind of mention and fail to demonstrate the importance of a position which common sense dictates is absurd —the hero worship of a mass murderer and the advocacy of serial killing— and probably only held by the most radical crazy minority. extransit (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up on the talkpage, though to my mind it would have been good to have done this before deleting sourced information, if you hadn't yet checked all the references given.
There are few (yes, a very small, but vocal minority) men's rights activists who regard him as a hero, and for the longest time, no information about them was included in this article, because there were no reliable secondary sources about them. However over time, more and more material about them has been published in scholarly and other mainstream sources, including a whole chapter in a book about the men's rights movement in Quebec (one of the sources cited). It has got to the point where it would be undue weight not to mention this, though one short sentence is all it requires.
A La Presse article [8], used as a citation in the article. "Des disciples de Marc Lépine font fuir un réalisateur"- rough translation.  "Disciples of Marc Lepine chase off director" "The reasons are very simple: for several weeks men's rights blogs have been talking about my film.  That would be okay, if they hadn't also started to talk about armed militias. The authors are apparently making veiled threats about what could happen to me if I came [to Quebec]," he explained.  One of the blogs carries the name of Marc Lepine. It presents itself as a site for reflection, but certain entries glorify the Polytechnique killer. It states that December 6th is "St-Marc's" Day. "This day was established in memory of the first counter-attack against the feminazis in the war against men," writes the author of the blog.""
Sociology prof John Conway writes about Lepine in several pages in his book; you can see the start of it on page 163.  He ends his discussion about Lepine and the massacre with "Those who still believe that this was the isolated act of a madman should reflect on the subsequent comments of Tyler Benson, a prominent anti-choice and anti-feminist activist in Regina." There is then a long quote from Benson, including "The Quebec incident was just the beginning of the backlash against feminism. Very few, I am sure, will resort to such violent methods, but there will, from time to time, be someone unable to express their agony and hate in any other way. Many innocent people are going to get hurt in the process, but there is a war going on." Conway goes on warn about those who perhaps secretly applaud Lepine's rage, and who will find inspiration in Benson's message.
The Blais chapter is extensive and scholarly, and covers the issue in detail.  I'm not going to go back to the library to borrow the book again, though I am sure you can get it through your local library if you want to check it out yourself. Here, however, is a website in which the author writes on the same theme. In a section entitled "Heroizing a killer", she writes that "Intellectuals, professionals, the military and most of all men's rights activists, are participating in what can be called the process of heroizing a killer, Marc Lépine."  She goes on to write about Peter Zohrab a New Zealand men's rights activist, who amongst other things states that "Marc Lepine's solution could become the way of the future", and Donald Doyle who sent out threatening emails to women's groups saying that he was a reincarnation of Marc Lepine, and that he was going to finish what Lepine had started.  (Another online ref to this incident is here). She states that "It is clear that a group of fans has grown up around the person of the killer."
The mainstream media has also covered these activists at other times and in other ways. Individuals, such as Jean-Claude Rochefort and his Marc Lepine website got extensive coverage across Canada when he was charged with inciting violence on it. So did Donald Doyle, mentioned above, though you need Factiva or Lexis-Nexis to find many of those references. But there are also reliable sources about the more general phenomenon.
CTV News "The Crown alleges the self-described men's rights advocate posted hateful and menacing comments toward women on his blog.....Those opinions consider Marc Lepine, the gunman at Polytechnique, a folk hero who fought feminism." [9]
CTV News. Another article about Rochefort and his blog includes more details such as "In one text, Lepine is referred to as "Saint Marc." Another doctored photo shows the Polytechnique campus with the caption "Where it all happened." That picture is superimposed on a map of Montreal with a second caption that reads: "Where it could all happen again with the right people and the right equipment.'" [10]
Radio-Canada "Marc Lépine, un tueur transformé en héros" rough translation: Marc Lepine: a killer transformed into a hero... A men's rights activist who is an apologist for Marc Lepine on various men's rights sites on the Internet has raised concerns... A long article with multiple examples and interviews with others follows. [11]
A Toronto Star article [12] "Among the entries Leblond referred to were a recipe for a massacre and passages defending Lepine's actions as normal."
A Toronto Star newspaper online article [13] by a regular columnist criticising the "Marc as hero" movement, including pointing to the websites of two of the main leaders, Bob Allen [14] and John Gisogod (aka Rochefort) [15]. She ends her article with with "Yes, dear reader, there are men out there who consider the killer to be a hero."
A Toronto Sun article [16] "Organizer Melissa Blais said the hatred of feminists stills exists, pointing to a large number of misogynistic blogs on the Internet. "There are sites that are looking to turn Lepine into a hero, where he is described as a victim of feminists," she said."
A Grande Prairie Daily Herald Tribune article [17]  Blais herself has been the victim of threats on a blog bearing the name of Lepine. That blog was reported to police. "There are sites that are looking to turn Lepine into a hero, where he is described as a victim of feminists," said the University of Quebec at Montreal doctoral student.... According to Blais, Lepine's crimes "declared war" on feminists, which is why a minority of men have followed in his footsteps by talking about committing similar acts or inviting others to do so online.
I could go on, but that is sufficient to show that there are lots of secondary sources out there about this, including scholarly material. I am going to restore the information. Please discuss any problems with it here, first, per the WP:BRD cycle.  Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It's clear that none of the individuals mentioned in the above links have anything to do with promoting men's rights, but rather anti-feminism; they are not synonymous. The slant of the cited media articles must also be taken into consideration, as they sound more like hit-pieces and do not accurately reflect men's rights activists. The vague sentence "A few men's rights activists seek to rehabilitate Lépine as hero of the anti-feminist cause" is therefore slanderous against men's rights activists through association with violent anti-feminists like Lépine. The sentence also has no relevance to Lépine nor his actions, but appears to have been placed exclusively to imply that men's rights activists promote violent attacks against women. There is no reason for this sentence to appear on this page and must be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexhep32 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Rex, please note that the sentence very clearly says "a few" men's rights activists, and that it has multiple sources documenting people who self-identify as MRAs holding the opinion.  It's not "slander." Fyddlestix (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It is very clearly slander. The statement is the only mention of the MRA on the entire article.
Furthermore the "sources" provided are nothing more than gross misrepresentations of Men's Rights Activists by feminists pushing their ideological agenda. I challenge you to find one single example of an MRA clearly and explicitly stating that they view Marc Lepine in any sort of positive light at all. An article or blog written by someone else is not sufficient - it must come directly from a person claiming to be part of the MRA. And to be perfectly clear, it would be intellectually dishonest to equate all anti-feminists with the MRA which is likely what the feminist "sources" resorted to in order to demonize the MRA, which they frequently do. Woad Brah (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there really any evidence for that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.168.226 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 

Under "rationale," the author refers to me (Paul Nathanson) and my colleague (Katherine Young) in connection with our book, Legalizing Misandry, which includes a chapter on Lepine. But this reference to us is in the wrong category: "Many feminists and governmental officials," I read in this article, "view it as an illustration of misogynist violence committed against women.[60][61][62]" With that in mind, note 60 refers to our book.
But we disagree very strongly there with these "[ideological] feminists and governmental officials." We argue that Lepine was indeed a severely disturbed individual. When he lost control and vented his personal rage, however, he did so in the context of a fault line in Quebec society. This fault line was profound sexual polarization. (Other fault lines were profound linguistic and ethnic polarization.) Verbally and even legally, women and men were at war with each other. Most women either didn't notice or tried to excuse the behavior of ideological feminists. Most men were entirely unprepared to defend themselves in legitimate ways. Elite men, in particular, found ways of distancing themselves from the polarization (partly to avoid feeling out of control over their own lives, which would have meant abandoning any claim to identity as men, and partly to maintain some hope of finding wives or girlfriends). They pretended not to hear misandric comments in daily life, especially in popular culture, and some - the male feminists - even pretended not to notice the misandric biases of some legislative changes (which are the main topics of our book). Unable to do those things, Lepine accepted and absorbed the pervasive misandry - including the widespread belief, fostered by ideological (though not egalitarian) feminists, that men were innately violent - and reacted by saying, in effect, so be it. Lepine turned against a society that (rightly) denounced misogyny, we argue, but (wrongly) tolerated and even fostered misandry. Young and I argue against the pervasive and ideologically propagated notion that Lepine represented "everyman" (which is to say, that every man secretly hated women and wanted to murder them but held back out of fear). In short, we're less "individualistic" than some of the psychologists but also less collectivist than their adversaries. Our position is more moderate and subtle than most (though just as controversial). It surely deserves some mention in this article - but in a category of its own.
Signed: Paul Nathanson (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul, did you check what the cited pages of your book actually say?  The statement being cited is that "Many feminists and governmental officials view it as an illustration of misogynist violence committed against women."  The citation to your book is for pages 59-61, where you will find a discussion of how many feminists viewed Lepine's actions as motivated by misogyny and an example of misogynistic violence.  The citation is fine as-is. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The commentor above is trying to present Marc Lepine as some sort of victim of "misandry."  The reality is that Lepine's father was a violent man, who abused his wife an children. That is where Lepine's rage stems from.  He had a raging, violent, misogynist man as his early role model.  Nathanson's post is a mass-murderer apologist tract.  It should be removed. It is highly offensive to the memories of the women killed! 142.134.103.145 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
His father was never his rolemodel. It is written that he changed his name because of him. He did not like him. Lastly, his father was married, a real misorgynist would not get married. His father was just too strict and abusive. Like our many grandfathers, were female beaters but never misorgynist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.106.192 (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Marc Lépine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929132054/http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060913/CPACTUALITES/60913134/6087/CPACTUALITES to http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20060913/CPACTUALITES/60913134/6087/CPACTUALITES
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Marc Lépine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/dec6/macleans.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070603043530/http://www.cbc.ca:80/fifth/history/difficultfour.html to http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/history/difficultfour.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518044629/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/montreal/story/2007/05/16/qc-cemetary0515.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/05/16/qc-cemetary0515.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826010451/http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/12/the-fword.html to http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/12/the-fword.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529211509/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/montreal/story/2009/12/02/montreal-massacre-lepine-gunman-mother.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/12/02/montreal-massacre-lepine-gunman-mother.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113151051/http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/marc_lepine/index.html to http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/marc_lepine/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The ... terrorism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.109.141 (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC) 

See WP:FORUM - this is not the place to discuss the subject. All we should be doing on the TP is discussing Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article.  Your Original Research has no value, and is a TP violation (and removed.)

Antifeminism and misorginy are two different things. I know a Female feminist would never admit they are misadrist, even if they are. The article was written by a feminist thats done exactly that. Everyone thats antifeminism would be labelled "Misorginist". But Feminists are Misandrists - no one would say it, because feminism doesnt want to look bad, only antifeminists. 41.114.80.117 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or soapbox to espouse a particular worldview. Also see See WP:Civility; always assume good faith from other editors and don't assume "misandrist" intentions for editorial decisions you disagree with. R. J. Dockery (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Article states "and left the relationship after Monique returned to nursing to support her children"
Doesnt seem correct.  I presume that the relationship ending is why she returned to work (to support her children.)   NOT as stated above.

Hello, thanks very much. You are quite right.  I do not know when or why that was changed but I have corrected it to what it should say.  I have also moved your comment down here to the bottom of the page as that is traditionally where we put new messages.   I hope you find it! Slp1 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)