Talk:Marc Lépine

message: 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 Lépine was considered bright but withdrawn and having difficulties with peer and family relationships.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)
thread_title:  Uncredited Facts 

message: 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)
thread_title: Good Article

message: 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)
thread_title: GA review &mdash; kept

message: 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)
thread_title:  Black and white thinking. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Playing with the devil and half-truths. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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   and here  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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", 217.xxxxxxx  (see above) and User:Caesarjbsquitti .  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)
thread_title:  English Translation of Suicide Letter 

message: Is there really any evidence for that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.168.226 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Really motivated by "misogyny"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Marc Lépine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The UN might be wrong
Netherrakk (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't consider death as bad 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Motive"