Talk:École Polytechnique massacre/Archive 1

message: December 2, 2002
Hello..
“Bells’ 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’s shelter’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’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)
replies: text: 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. - Montréalais 08:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be dense, but what is the work?  The concrete path?  Tempshill 18:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: How's that? - Montréalais 05:01, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

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

text: It's part of the school's logo. -Rjo 11:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Memorial Plate 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lepine's suicide note? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Campus commemoration 

message: Okay, what freak thought it was a good idea to have this entire article cite only Mark Steyn as an external reference? Bearcat 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: 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:
*12 Engineering student
*1 Nursing Student
*1 Employee
And so the summary as been modifed from 'female students' to 'women'. Sepper 12:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers - contradict

message: "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)
thread_title: Affirmative Action

message: :'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)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: 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)
thread_title: Order

message: 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)
thread_title: Post-attack fatalities

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Proposed Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Misandrist Prejudicial POV 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I also suggest that everyone read Three revert rule.  Dina 01:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Suemcp  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: I HAVE ADDED A PIECE FROM Wendy Chun's article, as follows: According to Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, quoting reports by Victor Malarek and others, the original brief biography of Marc Lepine, released by the police the day after the killings, described Lepine as intelligent but troubled. The police investigation was soon to be aborted, in part due to the complexity of this unique and incomprehensible event.Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Unbearable Witness: towards a Politics of Listening (1999). Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 11 (1). 112-149. Suemcp 16:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reformatted the reference but left the content as is.Bobanny 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Marc Lepine's life and the Police report 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.
*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.
I'll keep looking. Dina 15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Bobanny has solved this one!  Thanks very much for this great quote. --Slp1 00:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Putting all the current editing bits and bobs together

message: I did a little copyedit and added in a citation on your sub-page, and it looks great so far. I wanted to add that I don't think there's a problem using the coroners report even though it's a primary source. If there are discrepencies in journalistic accounts (which is most of our other sources), it seems that this report should be taken as the most definitive. If we're only using it for describing uncontroversial facts, I can't imagine it would be seen as a problem. Coming out of the discipline of history, I see alhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Button_enter.png
Line breakl newspaper reports as primary sources (and I agree with Bob on this one, that news reports are not neutral). In lieu of something more definitive coming along (short of dragging my lazy ass to the library), it seems to be the best we have to work with, at least for the blow-by-blow account. As for the rest of the article, the Dawson and Columbine shootings have pretty huge articles, so I think comprehensive is the way to go, since notability is obvious. Judging from poking around on this recently, the major themes that need to be well represented seem to be the relationship with the gun-control legislation in 1995, the commemorating of the event, and how it's become a mainstay of the Canadian women's movement and the counter-argument to that (i.e., the Frumarian and "lone madman" arguments, and the antifeminist backlash). That's my 2 cents. Bobanny 03:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what I wrote above didn't make a lot of sense.  Of course we can use the coroner's report as a source, that's not a problem.  I guess what I meant was we couldn't C&P large chunks of it into the article, or use it to support or oppose some of the controversies about the events signifigance but since no one actually suggested doing those things...yeah, not sure what I meant.  I like your breakdown of the major themes. Cheers. Dina 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the edits, Bobanny, and clarification, Dina.  In any case I think there might be a fairly strong argument that the Coroner's report is secondary by WP's definition, in that the report is written as a synthesis of a bunch of (listed) primary sources. But them's just my thoughts. Bobanny and others, I wonder if you would make some comments on the relative merits of different sources with regard to the knotty problems of the number of wounded and profession of Barbara (as above).  I did get my (not terribly fat) ass to the library, and none (that I found) are very helpful with regard to specific details of the event.  Nevertheless, I'm inclined to prioritize the coroner's report and the books over journalism with regard to the numbers and professions issue.  What do you think?  And what about the crime library account Do you think this is reliable source for information?BTW, a woman survivor from Columbine was being interviewed on the radio this morning, talking about the longterm effects on her.  After my work yesterday on the aftermath, I listened way more attentively.  I am glad to be learning many things in this process. It's cool!--Slp1 14:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The coroner's report seems to be the most concerned with precision, though it's a tough call when all the other sources say there were only 13 injured. My guess is that initial newspaper reports are the main source for subsequent works, including the crime library report. The author of that one is a PhD, and there is a bibliography, but it's fairly sensationalistic in its tone. Apparently she's an expert on vampires as well as forensic psychology. Bobanny 20:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources