Talk:École Polytechnique massacre/Archive 2

Editing

What a nice new page! I have boldly made the changes regarding Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz's profession and number of injured. For the latter, the coroner's report actually repeats the number of injured as '14' in several different places in different ways, though you have to do the sums (which I hope doesn't count as original research!!!). I have also expanded the information about the actual event. Changes and improvements are welcomed. Happy New Year, all --Slp1 19:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Awesome work! I did some edits, just as a reader, please revert if they somehow affect facts or meaning. I'm confused by this: He asked the remaining women why they thought he was there, and when one student replied “no”, he answered: “I am fighting feminism.”. The question he asked was not a yes or no question (not that, in that situation, someone might not just say "no") but I'm curious to know if the question isn't "if the women knew why he was there". Of if the answerer (totally understandably) misunderstood the question. Happy new year! Dina 01:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements and corrections. I am very embarrassed by some of them! You are quite right about the question being wrong but it was me not them. There are different versions of what he said, and of course it was all in French, which adds to the versions, and I think I was trying to combine two versions appropriately. I've corrected it to what the Coroner's report, which makes a good deal more sense. Thanks for pointing it out! I'm thinking that it is too much text all in a block and subheadings are needed, so if anyone has any ideas, go ahead --Slp1 02:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, don't be embarassed! You have done a great service to this article -- you've made it more about what it's supposed to be about. And if you want me to be embarrassed in return, try asking me a question in french sometime ;). I agree we need to break it up, but carefully and I don't have any good ideas right now. Going to do a little celebrating, in spite of my cold (its much better now! I swear!) Dina 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year all! Health (to Dina, especially) and Peace to all. I hope you all had some fun last night, as I did. I have worked a bit on the Marc Lepine section. There is more to be done, but I do realize it needs to be kept short.
The Barbara Frum quote needs to be moved out to another section as it is more commentary, I think, but I am still a bit worried about sourcing it. I expect I am missing something but in the Frum quotes in the article cited [1] don't seem to refer to the child abuse theory at all. Bonne année à tous et toutes --Slp1 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right! that's the 'crime against humanity' source, not the child abuse one. I just wanted to get rid of the tag; I hate seeing those in articles, and believe in most cases it's better to remove something until a source can be provided than having a tags in an article, so I removed the sentence too. Bobanny 17:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE MADE a change in one area of the article, under MASSACRE.I have changed the wording slightly. It is now, once again: "social changes through which women were increasingly entering the workforce" rather than "social changes that facilitated the entry of greater numbers of women into the workforce." Using the word facilitated makes it a value judgement rather than a simply declaration of what the social changes did in society. The changes may have enabled many women to take their places in the world force alongside men, but they also made it a NECESSITY for many women to have to go out to work to help support the family, whether they wanted to or not. Not everyone was advantaged by social changes that were happening. I think, too, that the City News source is inappropriate, as I mentioned before. I would still like to have it changed to the 'comment'by John Scott that I mentioned before. this is the URL: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/files/Comments/CommentJohnScott.doc . I havw been in contact with Professor Scott and he is agreeable to having this link made to his article/comment. He did, in fact, write something to mention directly in the discussion here although he was not able to join in himself. This is what he sent: "I think it is important to highlight the social dimension to this question, rather than seeing it in purely personal terms - the motives and fates of the individuals involved are, of course, crucially important, but we have to understand what happened also as a socially and historically specific occurrence. This is the basis for distinguishing between our moral judgments of the events (our approval or disapproval) and our explanations of them and how they relate to larger social processes." Suemcp 12:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE MADE THESE CHANGES, adding these two paragraphs: 1st The Montreal Police began an official investigation, but on December 11, 1989, five days after the shootings, the chief coroner, Jean Grennier, told the press that he preferred not to hold a public inquiry.Malarek, Victor. More Massacre Details to be Released by Police, but an Inquiry Ruled Out (1989). Globe and Mail 12 Dec. 1989. 2nd The decision to cancel the official police investigation was in part to save the families from more pain, and also because of the sheer complexity of this unique and virtually incomprehensible event. While the authorities assumed that more anti-feminist attacks might follow, thus preferred to keep it low-key, apparently, it was women themselves who refused to have their feelings contained. Their testimony flooded the media. Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Unbearable Witness: towards a Politics of Listening (1999). Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 11 (1). 112-149. AND I HAVE taken out the bit on Dawson,. I think we should keep to this event - the Montreal Massacre. Suemcp 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

1)Use the edit summary field please. You also removed a paragraph referring to the Dawson shootings, which I restored. Any further edits without summaries will be reverted on sight.

2)The Professor Scott "comment": It is an unpublished quote, from your website about an essay you wrote. It is thoroughly unnacceptable as a source. Please read WP:RS, something you've been asked repeatedly to do. The City News Rewind article contains a transcript of the suicide letter. It should only be replaced with another source with a transcript of the suicide letter. Dina 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, AS I SAID, I REMOVED THE PARAGRAPH ABOUT THE DAWSON SCHOOL. IT IS IMPORTANT that this is not seen as simply another school killing. It is inappropriate to have a reference to it within the article itself. Suemcp 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a school shooting, period. The police response at Dawson is a direct consequence of the Polytechnique massacre - cause and effect - and it's important. Bobanny 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, YOU HAD NOT RIGHT to remove the pieces I included about the lack of police investigation. i will reinsert it. Suemcp 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, i DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULD SEE news articles as acceptable, and something by a university prof as not. You are way off base base, here. Suemcp 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO INSERT these changes, and you as admin, must see what I am trying to do. I do not hae the knowledge to always do it right. Surely you understand that. Just as you do not have the knowledge of the Montreal Massacre, I do not have the knowledge of the admin side of Wikipedia. Your comment, "use the dit summary field" is meaningless to me. I haven't studied it. I only know what I picj up along the way, just as you pick things up about the MM and get it wrong sometimes. I am trying to make a worthwhile change. Now why don't you do your job and help? Suemcp 18:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, I TOOK OUT THE REFERENCE TO THE DAWSON shooting. That is no place for it, in the body of the article! Suemcp 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the edit summary field . It appears every time you edit. Please fill it out with a summary of the edits you are making.

Please stop removing sourced content that no one except you wants removed. I have reverted all your changes. Dina 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA: THE TIMES I DID FILL OUT THE EDIT SUMMARY FIELD MY ADDITIONS WERE DELETED ANYWAY. I tell here on the discussion page what I do so people have a chnace to discuss them.It isn't as though I am being sneaky about them or who I am. Suemcp 19:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp

As I said yesterday I would do if Sue persisted in making unsupported edits and acting uncivil on the talk page, I have created a request for comment. Any editor is welcome to respond. Dina 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

AT 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I APPLIED TO START a Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007/01/01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre to deal with the problems. This was one hour before Dina opened u this comment. As yet I have not had a response from Wiipedia mediator. Suemcp 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some editing thoughts

• First, I love the new photo and the resizing/moving of the memorial photos (was that all you Bobanny?). I still kind of like the idea of having a photo of the actual building where it took place, somehow, though the available one is kind of blegh. A photo of one of the classrooms would be really evocative, I think. I have no plans to visit Montreal any time soon however...
• Secondly, I've been rereading the massacre section. Can we clarify "platform" in the classroom somehow? Is that the common word for this? I mean, I sort of know what it is, I think, except in my experience, platforms only exist in lecture halls, not classrooms. Is this perhaps not a universal thing? It's a quibble, and not terribly important.
• In terms of subheadings under the Massacre section, it seems to be there are three "acts" (in the theater sense) to the event (at least): 1)The prelude, before he began shooting, 2)the first classroom 3)the chaos that ensued, and his eventual suicide. Possibly 4, as the cafeteria seems distinct from his final acts. Perhaps (and I am not terribly attached to any of these subtitles) 1)Before the shooting began 2)The first six murders 3)The second floor corridor 4)The cafeteria 5)Lepine's suicide. (okay that's five.) Anyway, my thoughts are the best way to divide it up is either by location, or by time (if the exact times are known.)
• Do we have a number of how many students who where there that day committed suicide after, whether they mentioned the events in their suicide note or not?

Cheers. Dina 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks. I was thinking that the article needed some more visuals, and then it finally dawned on me that there's a memorial close to where I live. As for the platform, I think there was a different word used in the coroners report that I had never heard before. I'm not exactly sure what it refers to either, and even lecture halls usually have the students elevated like in a theatre instead of a platform. Also, I'm not sure that subheadings are the way to go, because to break it up logically would create pretty small subsections and it seems that there's a unity there now that shouldn't be disturbed, IMO. The last paragraph in there now should probably go in a different section, and maybe a photo in there might help break it up visually a little. Bobanny 01:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all,

• Yes, thanks for the photo, Bobanny, it is very evocative. I am a bit puzzled, however, because when I look at this page at home (on Firefox, if it makes a difference) the photo is on the right hand side and the first few women's names are all squished up on the left, while at work (with IE) it is nicely over the top of everything, and everything is much easier to see. Do you think there is anything that can be done or is it just something weird with my computer?
• I thought the photo of the Ecole P was fine, Dina, and it certainly helped me visualize it. If it is really blegh, I suppose I could go and take one (revealing where I live in the process!) but there's no guarantee it will be any better, given my non-existent photography skills. Let me know. I wondered about pictures of the women, or of Marc Lepine too, though copyright issues?
• Re the platform... the other word they use is "dais"... I think it means a slightly raised area (a low step up, but wide and deep) at the front of the class so that everybody can see the prof or whoever is presenting.
• I'm actually leaning towards deleting the post attack fatalities section. We can't easily source the second suicide story, for starters. I put a sourced sentence into the aftermath section which notes that at least 2 mentioned the event in their suicide notes and I'm wondering if that would be enough and we could delete the specifics.
• About the sections. The Coroner's report does have timings, if that helps. I guess we could try it a few ways and see! And I agree that the suicide note needs to be elsewhere, perhaps with a photo. There is actually a photo of the note in the original La Presse article (another nail in the coffin for conspiracy theories we have heard!), which would have been good, but it doesn't seem anywhere around on the net. --Slp1 03:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved the photo down a bit. I only have IE installed, and it doesn't make much difference there. Feel free to move it again to straighten it out. Apparently Firefox does sometimes show things differently, not sure how or why. Another photo of the school would be good. That one's really small, from the early days of digital cameras I believe. Something a little more close-up, or even an inside shot of the classroom or even the cafeteria would be good. Might spook current Polytechnique students who happen on this article.Bobanny 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your change didn't make any difference on FF, so I have tried centre, which works better but it still doesn't look as great as on IE. Bizarre. I will try and go and take Ecole P. photos in the next week or so, though can't guarantee I will feel comfortable going into the classrooms! --Slp1 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU CHANGED THE PART ABOUT LEPINE'S EDUCATION. I would lke to know where exactly it says that he had been accepted into the college - page #s. That's not what's been said about it elsewhere. Suemcp 10:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's in the coroner's report on p.11. Thanks for asking. BTW, it really is better not to use capital letters to mark a new speaker. I put a little colon or two at the start my comments and they indent it nicely. Or you could try an asterisk which gives a pleasing box. --Slp1 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AT 18:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I APPLIED TO START a Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007/01/01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre to deal with the problems. This was one hour before Dina opened up her official comment against me. As yet I have not had a response from Wiipedia mediator. Suemcp 10:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They have a really big backlog. I suggest you respond on the RfC. Which, incidentally is not "against you" but a request for comment "about you" and your behavior. There are other editors weighing in there, who have no history with this dispute. Dina 13:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sue, I agree that it would be a good idea to respond at the RFC. It would give people the chance to hear your opinions on things and have a fuller picture of the problem.--Slp1 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE PLACED THE EXTERNAL LINK BACK ON AGAIN TO THE MONTREAL MASSACRE WEBSITE. MAYBE dINA COULD ENSURE IT REMAINS. I am still waiting for a response from mediation at Wikipedia. Suemcp 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather the complete description of Lepine's education had been allowed to remain (with Malerek in Eglin and Hester as the source). The info you have included on this is inaccurate as it stands. In fact, it isn't even what the Coroner's report says about it. You are really distorting Lepine's life in this respect. Suemcp 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean about the current version being inaccurate, a distortion, or not really being what the coroner's report says. Maybe I am missing something but I feel it is quite an accurate summary. In full it says
"Marc Lépine had had a stable job for several years, until September 1988. In the fall of 1986, while he was employed in that job, he applied to the Faculté Polytechnique at the Université de Montréal. He was admitted on the condition that he complete two essential courses, including the course in solution chemistry. He subsequently drew unemployment insurance benefits for a period of time ending on November 10, 1988. During that time, from March 1, 1988, to September 22, 1988, he took courses at the Control Data Institute, and then abandoned them. Ultimately, in the winter of 1989, Lépine registered in and completed the solution chemistry course at the CEGEP du Vieux Montréal."

The Malarek article does include a few other details : where he went to High School, and the fact that he did fairly well in one course at CEGEP. I don't think these details are required in the article about the Massacre, where we are trying to keep the summary very short, especially since we have the "intelligent but troubled" in there. Incidentally, there has been general agreement by editors here that the Coroner's report is likely a more accurate source of information than the newspaper articles, which were written so soon after the event. BTW, I am glad that you are raising your concerns on the talk page in this way, Sue. --Slp1 14:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I ALWAYS HAVE RAISED MY CONCERNS ON THIS PAGE. IF THEY ARE MISSING FROM THE ARCHIVES IT WOULD ONLY BE BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS REMOVED THEM. Suemcp 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect you have not always raised your concerns on the talk pages. There are numerous examples of unexplained deletions and additions. Here are just three examples. [2],[3],[4].

But you have been a lot better at doing this recently, which is good. And you will be glad to know that none of your comments on talk pages have been removed, as can be established by looking at the histories of the talk pages. --Slp1 16:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I WOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO RELY ON THE ACCURACY OF THAT CORONER'S REPORT. OTHER REPORTS DO NOT SAY THAt Lepine had been conditionally accepted. It is so easy years down the road to change history, and this certainly could be too. There would be reasons to do so, no doubt. People in Montreal would want them - their city - their schools - their police - to be perceived as being fair. So in this situation, I would not accept that Lepine had been accepted at the Ecole on condition he complete two courses. It let's them off too easy. Where is the backup for this. And how do we know that it was written when it (the Coroners) claim it was, in 1991. Just because everyone there sees the report as more likely being an accurate report doesn't mena that it was. It was in Montreal - that was the city in which the killings occurred, in case you have forgotten. Suemcp 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some backup from Rathjen and Montpetit (1999) p.29 "Marc Lepine didn't drink or do drugs. He was two courses short of being admitted to the Poly." --Slp1 17:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE TAKEN OUT THE BIT SOMEONE (dINA?) PUT IN about education and inserted the piece I had there before: Peter Eglin and Stephen Hester also refer to a newspaper article (see p. 42) by Victor Malarek, "Killer fraternizes with men in army fatigues," Globe and Mail, Ottawa. Dec 9, 1989, which tells about Lépine's education - five years of secondary school followed by three years at community college, with an additional year to study electronics. Details are given about the particular schools, additional information provided by the police indicating that Lépine had also taken 'an update' night course in chemistry. Eglin, Peter and Hester, Stephen (2003) The Montreal Massacre.END OF QUOTE. I don't know why it doesn't enter well. Someone, maybe can fix it, if they know how. But tha'ts what should be there, not this garbage that suggests Lepine did not finish the admission requirements. Even the Cornoer's report disorts that information and should be examined more closely for its weaknesses, in content and language. Suemcp 11:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

the part about him not finishing admissions requirements is corroborated by Slp1 above. I don't think you've made a convincing case that the coroners report should not be taken as a reliable source over newspaper reports. Also, the above addition is bad style. Directing the reader to an outside source for more info is something for a "further reading" section, not the main text. Consistent formatting style is important in articles.Bobanny 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

THE SECTION ABOUT EDUCATION WAS THE PART i HAD DIFFICULTIES WITH BEFORE, WITH GETTING IT IN THERE. wILL DINA PLEASE FIX IT AND BY THAT I MEAN FIX IT AND NOT DELETE IT THANKS. Suemcp 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

you probably missed a bracket somewhere, or the "/" in the closing ref tag (</ref>) or something like that. I removed it because it was unreadable in that state, and didn't want to take the time to trudge through and find the source of the mistake when it's not clear what the improvement to the article is. That he took a chemistry course at some point? It's now preserved in the edit history, so it's not permaenently erased.Bobanny 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE ALSO PUT IN THE PIECE AGAIN ABOUT AN INVESTIGATION NOT BEING DONE. IF someone has a good reason for not keeping it in there, say so. Don't just delete it, again. Suemcp 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted rather than go through and make all the appropriate changes, and this was included in the revert. Also, the in text citation are inconsistent with the formatting style of the article, and it's not clear why that needs to be in there. Also, that line seems to confuse "police investigation" with "public inquiry." Bobanny 17:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

HOW DARE YOU JUST KEEP REVERTING WHAT I DO. IF THAT'S DINA, YOU ARE BEING IRRESPONSIBLE. Suemcp 17:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in the edit summary that I would explain on the talk page, and just hadn't finished that yet. Also, Dina's on to other things; this shouldn't be taken as a personal conflict. Bobanny 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Suemcp

You need to stop editing this article and its talk page and respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp. If you do not stop editing this article and respond, I will protect it from editing. This is not optional -- if you wish to continue working on Wikipedia, you must participate in the dispute resolution process. Thanks. Dina 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I AM STILL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE TO the request for mediation I put in, which I did BEFORE you put in your comment for me. It is pointless for me to respond to yours unless I have someone willling to look things over from another perspective. 81.76.91.141 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)The preceding is what I put in, this morning. Suemcp. Has someone removed my username id here ?Suemcp 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Cabal is a group of volunteers and they say clearly at the top of the page that they have a backlog of 8-14 days. Dina 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reinserted the piece about Lepine's education. I don't know what you have done with the site but it is impossible now to insert things properly. You know about the technical side, Dina? Well, it would help if you put your knowledge to good use instead of using it against me and to perpetuate the myth that the women who died at MONTREAL were the main victims.81.76.91.141 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) The preceding is what I put in, this morning. Suemcp. Has someone removed my username id here ?Suemcp 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE REINSERTED MY WEBSITE The Montreal Massacre as an external link. It is one that shows other sides to all this, not simply the side that feminists, male academics and many members of the media work to perpetuate.There is much much more that needs to be done if this article is going to be done fairly and reasonably accurately, to reflect what was going on in society at the time. At this point in time it seems to reflect simply what the younger generation of women demand for themselves. 81.76.91.141 The preceding is what I put in, this morning. Suemcp. Has someone removed my username id here ?Suemcp 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No one altered you comments Sue. If you click the history tab (which shows the history of this page) you will see that you were not logged in when you made your comments. As a default, Wikipedia then signs them with you IP address -- 81.76.91.141. Cheers. Dina 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An Appeal to Sue

Sue,
Judging by your writings and the life story that you have revealed on these pages and on your home page, you are a mature woman who has had many interesting and sometimes difficult life experiences. You can write and research well, and have novel and interesting ideas and reflections of life. You have training in academic research, and have written and presented papers at conferences. You therefore know the principles of how a researcher should investigate and seek to understand a subject. There are two that are very critical here:

• A good researcher is able to maintain an emotional detachment from the subject

• A good researcher allows the results/interpretation to follow from the facts and does not choose the facts to suit the interpretation.

From what you have written I believe that you have personal reasons for identifying with this incident and with Marc Lepine. Perhaps you feel that you were excluded from academia by feminists. I don't know. But I do ask you to reflect whether emotion is clouding your researcher's judgment.
Secondly, you admit in your essay on your website that you were hampered in your researches because you live in England. Sources were difficult to obtain for obvious geographical reasons and you did your best with what you had. You came up with your interpretation and wrote your essays, in which Marc Lepine is a bright, fairly average guy with no big problems, apart from difficulties finding his place in a world where gender barriers were being increasingly broken down.
What has happened on these pages is that editors have found other sources that you did not know existed, and that contain evidence that some of the "facts" you counted on are possibly or even probably untrue. This is understandably difficult for you after all the thinking and work you did.
But you must know that a good researcher does not ignore new information, find excuses not to believe it or (in this case) delete it. A good researcher swears softly and then calmly looks at and incorporates the new evidence and revises the theory accordingly.
Unfortunately, you have been systematically removing any information that does not agree with your interpretation of the event. You have deleted (and continue to delete) sourced information about childhood abuse and about lack of academic coursework, for example, because it doesn't fit in with your view of Lepine as being balanced, bright and thwarted.
You say that you are a researcher. I appeal to you to put your researcher's hat on. Then stand back and have a good long look at what has been happening here from that perspective. Show us all that you are a good researcher and that you can roll with the punches when contradictory information appears. Allow others to read all the information and come to their own decisions.
I am hoping that you have been able to read the above calmly and will take some time to think about it. After all it has taken me an hour to write! I wish you only well. --Slp1 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I would like to make a contribution to this discussion, which has been brought to my attention by Suemcp. I am not an expert in the particular topic of this entry, but would like to comment on one particular aspect of the editing. This concerns the referencing of websites in the External Links section. Suemcp has inserted a link to her website, which other users have deleted. I would like to question the general policy onthis. While it is, of course, true that the general text of the article should be supported by clear and reliable factual evidence, it does seem that the Extenal Links section is an area in which readers can very usefully be pointed to sources of comment and discussion that attempt to draw out the implications of the facts reported. In many other Wikipedia entries, the External Links include links to such sites and to sites where fact and commentary are mixed. These are often the most useful linlks given for those who want to pursue the topic. I would hope that, in this case, the administrator of the page would reinstate the website as an external link and protect it from removal by other contributors. The aim of Wikipedia should be to inform rational discussion and debate and it needs to have links to precisely those areas where that debate takes place. JS2007 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

THANKS FOR WRITING THIS. I have put the external link back in, though there is much more that could be done, as you know. Suemcp 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good point and I am not sure of either about whether it should be there or not. As a result I have never deleted the website link specifically myself except as part of larger revert of other inappropriate material. Looking at the history of this page, the website has mostly been deleted by anonymous IP addresses that have not explained their reasoning. However, it was deleted on one occasion by an administrator Atlant with an edit summary "Remove Sue's personal website as a violation of WP:EL" (which is the policy on external links). I suggest reading the policy and then asking Atlant on his talkpage if you are still confused. --Slp1 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

AT THIS MOMENT THE LINK IS STILL THERE. I would ask that it not be removed unless someone explains why first and gives me a chance to say something. I do not care to accept the authority of someone who deletes first and then asks questions. the Montreal Massacre webiste is not my personal website. Suemcp 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link again, and I've written an official "linkspam" warning to Suemcp regarding the link. WP:EL is very clear on this issue; an editor should not be posting links to a website that is under the editor's direct control, and it appears that the link Sue is posting is to a website where she is the webmaster. Let me be clear about this: Sue, if you continue to post the link, I will eventually block you for repeated violations of WP:EL.

Atlant 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Atlant, for this clarification of policy. --Slp1 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I can come back in and underline the key points that I tried to make above? First, I asked that the administrator should insert the External Link to the website in question. If this were the case, then any breach of guidelines and the question of 'linkspam' would not arise. Second, I argued that there are many similar sites included in entries across the Wikipedia system. The site seems to contain precisely the kind of wider debate and discussion that the Guidelines seek to encourage. There should be consistency in this: either reinstate the link to this site or delete the links to all such sites acrss the system. I would argue that the latter is neither possible nor desirable and that the website for this page should be reinstated. Perhaps Atlant, or whoever is the responsible administrator, could consider these points and replace the link. I have no vested interest in this, but would like to see fairness and consistency operating in the way that Wikipedia is edited. JS2007 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If, by "responsible administrator" you mean "the administrator(s) responsible for this article", then there's no such thing; no article is "owned" by anyone, whether editor or administrator; the whole kit-and-kaboodle is owned solely by the Wikimedia Foundation and all of us, admins and editors alike, edit on an even footing, by consensus and within the policies set out by the Foundation. If, by "responsible administrator", you mean the administrator who took action, then I suppose that's me, but at this point, it would take a very persuasive argument before I'd be convinced to allow Sue's website to stay. From my point of view, at this point, she's "poisoned the well" when it comes to that website. But I try to never close my mind to reasonable discussion so I still am open to persuausion.

Atlant 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, the email contact Sue lists for her Mediation Cabal Case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-01 EcolePolytechniqueMassacre is identical to the one listed as the contact on the main page of MontrealMassacre.net. Dina 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that the last part of Atlant's comment doesn't really sound like an open mind on the question of the website: to say that Sue has 'posioned the well' suggests that the deletion of her website link is related more to Atlant's view of her actions than it is to the content or relevance of the website. Surely editing decisions should be based on content and relevance rather than the personal characteristics of the editor? JS2007 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, I agree with Atlant's comments above. I agree wholeheartedly that Sue's website should not be included in this article. The external links section is for reputable sources which add something to the topic. No offense meant to Sue, but the site in question is little more than (for lack of a better term) the equivalent of a "fan site" placed on a celebrity's page. As a sidenote, please stop posting in caps. To distinguish between one post and the next, you can put an asterisk before your comment as I do (*).-- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Open mind or not, when Sue posts the link to Sue's website, that clearly violates WP:EL, and every time she does it, I will remove the link and warn her, eventually blocking her if it goes that far. It is my duty to enforce the rules of the encyclopedia and this aspect of the matter really isn't open to interpretation or personal bias. (82.23.42.142, I also notice that your comment above is your only contribution to the encyclopedia so far.)

Atlant 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment about decisions based on personal characteristics was not related to the decision to remove the link, but to the statement that an argument that you should include the link would have to be 'very persuasive' because she had 'poisoned the well'. Surely that argument should be about the merits of the link? JS2007 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to argue the merits of the link then. So far, your entire contribution to the encyclopedia are your three posts here, none of which actually defend the link but rather conduct a sort of "metadiscussion" about whether we are showing bias by excluding the link. Go ahead and make your case...

17:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Challenge for Sue

Here we go round and round again. Outside voices are sought, Sue claims they are biased. Requests for comment by outside voices are created, Sue claims that the other editors who weighed in are my personal "buddies" (for the record, they're not). Sue, my challenge to you is to find one admin or editor in good standing who supports your point of view. There are thousands of long-time Wikipedia editors. Find one -- not a friend who's never edited before, not yourself cloaked under an anon IP (might not have been you, though the IP is also from London). Find one. Or I will find one who is less gentle with the block button than Atlant or myself and this discussion will be over, because it gets nowhere. Here's a list of every registered username on Wikipedia [5]. Here's a list of all active admins Wikipedia:List of administrators. Cheers. Dina 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, WHEN OTHER ADMIN STAFF SEE THE POWER YOU HAVE I doubt that they would want to risk their positions there with you all at Wikipedia. You obviously have your heart set on getting your own way, at whatever cost to society and the truth. Why do you keep on seeking out my weaknesses and making 'rules' out of them. First, it was the 'no more than 3 x a change in one day'. Then it was to get all your buddies to make up stories about how I wasn't doing things right or whatever it was. And I have no one who can take the time to wade through all that dirt. I have sought meidation. I don't know what else I can do. I don't see that it should be me trying to find someone from Wikipedia who will take this up. Wikipedia should be able to take on such situations, and not leave it up to the person being unfairly treated, having many of their edits removed, and moreover being threatened with expulsion altogether, to have to resolve. I'm not going to try and find someone who has been there a long time. That's pointless, if they rely on goodwill with you to keep their job. Continuity is no guarantee of expertise anyway. And this is just another rule you have made up. Well, okay so I won't have anyplace to appeal. You have simply too much power for me. I hope you get what you deserve. Suemcp 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have any power at all. I think you misunderstand adminship. I mostly spend my time editing articles about museums. I'm sorry if somehow I've convinced you that I do have power, but quite honestly, I don't. The request for comment was supposed to bring in other, disinterested editors to comment on the situation and perhaps make you understand that this is not a conflict between you and me. It isn't personal, really. I have no prior investment in this incident. I was invited in to try and help solve it, as an administrator. I truly despair of ever making you understand this. Perhaps your confusion is my fault, perhaps it is not. I defer to anyone else who enters this situation. And, to a certain extent, throw up my hands. Dina 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sue, you will be glad to know that you have misjudged Dina's power. She is one of many, many administrators, and several of her equals have made appearances on this page, and have agreed with her. She and Atlant are not making up rules to thwart you. The rules are all there for inspection if you look at the community portal in the box on the left. I must say, however, that it really is very inappropriate of you to talk about buddies making up stories, making up rules etc. And sadly it has been these kinds of comments and lack of understanding about Wikipedia that have got us all to this point. I do understand how difficult this is for you. So I have two suggestions:

• take a break from editing and wait for a mediator to be ready to take the case. I think doing this would help a lot.
• contact Association of Member's Advocates as suggested by Dina a while ago on your talk page. You might find someone to help you a little more quickly, judging by their page.

--Slp1 23:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE APPLIED FOR MEDIATION. IN FACT, DID SO ON 1 JAN before Dina wrote her 'comment' on me. I think I should wait and see what happens with these people. Suemcp 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ADD THE PIECE ON LEPINE'S education. For some reason it did not come out. Perhaps Dina can start to do her job and do the editing, in a way that retains the fact that Lepine was intelligent, that he completed the course he was required to, but still was kept of the college. The way Dina has had it worded it sounds as though Lepine was not committed, or not intelligent enough. If Dina would only strick to the tech part of editing and leave the Montreal Massacre editing to people who know about it, it would help. Thanks! Suemcp 01:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IF THERE'S A WAY of doing the adding so it doesn't all fall down into the refence section that would be great. As I said before, I don't know a lot about how to do the editing, but I do believe that's something Dina could be helping with. You must be familiar with the piece I am trying to add, It is the piece that focuses on all the work he put in - all the college courses - the extra courses, including night school. We don't know why he gave up, Could it have been because the rukes kept changing, or because he was being hounded by the admin at the school, or was it feminists who were harassing him until he just couldn't handle it any more? One thing we do know. He saw that the world was changing, and not in ways that were good for many men and women. It would benefit the middle classes, but that's all. Without the right family, the money to back him, the right marriage, he didn't stand a chance. I don't see your article reflecting that, even though I have tried. Entries I have made that went in okay were still delted. I have no idea why this one, on this section, about Marc Lepine and his education, is resistant to getting entered properly. Maybe someone can help it get entered into the article: "Peter Eglin and Stephen Hester also refer to a newspaper article (see p. 42) by Victor Malarek, "Killer fraternizes with men in army fatigues," Globe and Mail, Ottawa. Dec 9, 1989, which tells about Lépine's education - five years of secondary school followed by three years at community college, with an additional year to study electronics. Details are given about the particular schools, additional information provided by the police indicating that Lépine had also taken 'an update' night course in chemistry. Eglin, Peter and Hester, Stephen (2003) The Montreal Massacre. Suemcp 01:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sue, you have once again showed complete disdain for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. At some point, you're going to have to realize that the whole world isn't out to get you, and that we aren't all violent feminists here. The vast, vast majority of editors who have visited this page have agreed that your edits are in violation of our neutral point of view rules and our rules about proving a point. Do you think perhaps there's something to be learned here? -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Sue, please stop. We work by consensus here. You may not be willing to face the possibility that he did not have the required coursework to get into the Poly or that he was abused as a child. But there are several reliable sources for these and the consensus here has been that these facts should be in the article. Please leave that information there until you can find some clear sources stating otherwise. While you are at it you should look at the following La Presse article containing an interview of his CEGEP director saying that he was a very good student but that he stopped attending his CEGEP classes one day and never returned to complete the program. [6]Be a good researcher. Seek the truth, not what you would like the truth to be. Please.--Slp1 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest addition

I HAVE ADDED THE FOLLOWING pieces to the Massacre section which I hope people will discuss here rather than simply delete. I added them previously but no consensus had ever nee reached. I would be happy if Dina or one of the expert Wikitechologists would fix the ending of it. I don't know how to make it so that what follows does not all go into the reference section. Thanks very much. Suemcp 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Montreal Police began an official investigation into the killings, but on December 11, 1989, five days after the shootings, the chief coroner, Jean Grennier, told the press that he preferred not to hold a public inquiry. <Malarek, Victor. More Massacre Details to be Released by Police, but an Inquiry Ruled Out (1989). Globe and Mail 12 Dec. 1989. Suemcp 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC) The decision to cancel the official police investigation was in part to save the families from more pain, and also because of the sheer complexity of this unique and virtually incomprehensible event. While the authorities assumed that more anti-feminist attacks might follow, thus preferred to keep it low-key, apparently. It was women themselves who refused to have their feelings contained. Their testimony flooded the media. Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Unbearable Witness: towards a Politics of Listening (1999). Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 11 (1). 112-149.(here is the word ref in. Suemcp 16:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sue. Yes, Let's discuss your additions, but BEFORE you add them to the article for the umpteenth time, rather than after.
You are dead right about there not being consensus for these sentences being in the article (in fact I think there was consensus that they shouldn't be there). Just sticking them back in the article is not likely to help­.
But to recap... I, another editor (Bobanny see above) and perhaps others agree that you are confusing police investigation with public inquiry. That there was no public inquiry is already in the article. The sentence you added is a non-sequitur.
Your next paragraph contains some information about the reasoning for not holding the public inquiry. This information is also already in the article. The later sentences are not grammatical, and are not written in an encyclopaedic tone. This is not surprising as they are very very similar to the exact words used in the Chun article (if not a direct copy, though I don't have the original with me), in which the author is trying to make a point in an essayish way that is not suitable for an encyclopaedia.
Let's try this another way....
Without changing the article, can you, Suemcp, please explain to us all (on this page) what ideas you want in the article?.. Not sentences. Ideas. For example, I can guess one, which is the "lack of a police investigation". Then let's discuss that. As a example, to convince me of the lack of a police investigation you will need to find another source besides the Chun article, which does not really say that there wasn't one. What other ideas do you want in the article? I will help you with the formatting once we can agree on what should go in.--Slp1 17:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to clear up a couple of misunderstandings for Sue

• I have not made all the changes that you object with. In fact, if you check the history (viewable by clicking the "history" tab at the top of the page, right next to "edit this page" I have made, comparably speaking, very few of them. Please check the history to see which editor has made changes before addressing them or accusing them. See WP:EDIT
• You seem to misunderstand what being an admin means. I am not an employee of wikipedia, nor do I weild any power within the organization. I am a volunteer editor, just like yourself. I was nominated to gain a few extra technical buttons (I can protect pages, delete them, view deleted page edits and block users) but I am as accountable for my use of them as any editor is accountable for their actions. See WP:ADMIN and the results of my request for adminship to understand more.
• Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of admins to do the "technical stuff" so that other editors can just write whatever they like. Yes, I have more experience with wikimarkup than you do, and yes, some of this experience is necessary for adminship. And I do use what I know to fix things for other users. But that's not my "job". Editing, formatting and adding refs and other tags is the responsibility and the right of all editors.
• The request for comment process is one that any editor can participate in. It is an oppurtunity for a formal, civil discussion about disagreements. Editors signify that they agree with a certain interpretation of events by signing under them. The editors who have signed off here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp are not my friends. I don't even know most of them. They are simply editors who evaluated the evidence presented. If you wish propose to a different point of view, the "response" area is there for you to do so. If your arguments are convincing, the same editors who check those pages regularly (without any involvement in this article) will sign their names in support under your account. They cannot do this if you do not write a response however.
• Merely mentioning that you have done something on the talk page is not the same as getting a consensus on the talk page and then making an edit.
• Lastly, Sue, please understand that you must read and absorb the following policies (that have been quoted to you several times before) WP:V, WP:RS WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and even more importantly, the two about editor behaviour WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Your repeated failure to abide by these policies and guidelines will ultimately result in your inability to edit Wikipedia -- even if I, personally, dissapeared today. Take my words seriously. Read the linked pages and evaluate your own editing based on them. They are not my creations and they are not up for debate. Dina 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, i HAVE ADDED THE PIECE BACK IN, and I am please, PLEASE, ASKING YOU to leave it there while it is being discussed. There is nothing wrong with the pice, though if you were to do your job as admin perhaps you could straighten out the referencing problem. I don't knoe how you achieve consensus, unless it is by using and abusing your authrority and power to simply keep cutting out what I write. So, leave the piece, be, and here, at the bottom of this page where readers are more likely to see this, we can talk about it. Suemcp 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE REMOVED THE VERY BRIEF COMMENT IN THE AFTERMATH SECTION stating that there was no investigation. In my view, it is a crucial part of this whoe mess, that a proper investigation was never carried out. It left the situation as it is, and as we can see it is simply a political matter, by which those with the most people on their side win. And in this case, it is feminists - or rather postfeminists - who know little about the circumstances of the time, and the changes that society was going through.So yes, we can talk about the longer piece that I write, and that is now in there, though it ends in a strange manner as I don't know how to close it off propoerly. Perhpas you, Dina, would be so kind as to correct that problem. But as I was saying, the authorities themselves didn't realize the implications of the killings. they thought it might lead to more, but instead, it was women themselves who drowned out the voices of others who had been victimized, including Lepine. And women continue to do so, mindless of how their actions are affecting society. Suemcp 19:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, that entry reads badly because it seems to confuse the police investigation with a public inquiry. It also seems to be an POV slag against the women who "couldn't contain themselves." Why would they try and contain themselves? Because it was decided not to hold a public inquiry? Were they trying to contain themselves but couldn't because they're overly emotional women? That's what you imply, but it's not at all clear what that adds to the article. Also, it's not up to other editors, including Dina, to format your entries properly, or try and make them clear. I've already pointed out that you're probably missing a "/" in the closing ref tag (</ref>). I'd also like to point out that Dina hasn't exercised any of her superpowers here, and that any of us could have done any of the things she's done through all this. I'm reverting your edit if someone else hasn't already, and will point out that you're approaching the 3-revert rule limit. Bobanny 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE REQUESTED THAT YOU NOT REVERT MY CHANGE until we have had a chance to talk about it. What's the matter. Are you afraid that people will seee it's a good edit to make? Suemcp 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the matter? See WP:DICK if you really want to know. Bobanny 19:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the edit in question

Sue, if you add it again you will be in violation of WP:3RR which is not, I must insist you understand a "rule I invented" but a policy of Wikipedia. Insert the edit again and you will be blocked. Consider this your WP:3RR warning. Dina 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

DINA, i HAVE ADDED THE PIECE BACK IN, and I am please, PLEASE, ASKING YOU to leave it there while it is being discussed. There is nothing wrong with the pice, though if you were to do your job as admin perhaps you could straighten out the referencing problem. I don't knoe how you achieve consensus, unless it is by using and abusing your authrority and power to simply keep cutting out what I write. So, leave the piece, be, and here, at the bottom of this page where readers are more likely to see this, we can talk about it. Suemcp 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

THESE ARE THE PIECES I WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO CONSIDER. The Montreal Police began an official investigation, but on December 11, 1989, five days after the shootings, the chief coroner, Jean Grennier, told the press that he preferred not to hold a public inquiry.Malarek, Victor. More Massacre Details to be Released by Police, but an Inquiry Ruled Out (1989). Globe and Mail 12 Dec. 1989.

The decision to cancel the official police investigation was in part to save the families from more pain, and also because of the sheer complexity of this unique and virtually incomprehensible event. While the authorities assumed that more anti-feminist attacks might follow, thus preferred to keep it low-key, apparently. It was women themselves who refused to have their feelings contained. Their testimony flooded the media. Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Unbearable Witness: towards a Politics of Listening (1999). Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 11 (1). 112-149. Suemcp 19:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

AND, BY THE WAY, AS SOMEONE ABOVE QUERIED TODAY, yes, this was about women's feelings. And yes, they refused to be contained. I don't see what's wrong with saying that. Yes, women used to have feelings. They were distraught, and they had a right to be angry. And I wrote about that in Perspectives on the Montreal Massacre,an quite long essay on my webiste. But it's 17 years later, and sometime or other one would think women would be able to start looking at it from other perspectives. A lot of people suffered, but their suffering was not acknowledged. A lot of men have had to step back and not take their place in society doing the careers they had expected, because middle class women took them, so they could stand alongside their middle class men. Suemcp 19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sue's edit appears to be completely legitamite; her edit has been sourced with accordance to Wikipedia:Cite your Sources. I would advise all users involved with these consistent edit wars to refrain from continuing - there is a place for all legitamite edits, but not for edit warring. Sue: I would advise if you have any further problems to contact the AMA who will assist you in advocating your rights as an editor of Wikipedia; remember, there are 6,829,147 at Wikipedia - why do the both of you pick the one where there is another edit you don't get along with...why not pick one that needs cleanup? Please - Wikipedia is not for Disputes: it is for writing an encyclopedia. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I HAVE PLACED THE PIECE BACK ON, about the lack of police investigation. If anyone has any questions about it please ask, but it is entirely relelvant and important to note. Suemcp 20:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything outright wrong with the edit. Perhaps it could be reworded a bit to reduce the bit of original research and commentary, however, as such:

The decision to cancel the official police investigation was in part to save the families from more pain and was also due to the complexity of the event. The authorities believed that more anti-feminist attacks might follow and wished to keep it low-key. Several women spoke out to the media about the event, however. Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Unbearable Witness: towards a Politics of Listening (1999). Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 11 (1). 112-149.

How does that sound? It removes a lot of the commentary. Cowman109^Talk 20:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes to see if it can deflate the situation (it is a Wiki, after all :) ). Does that sound better to those involved? Cowman109^Talk 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, most of the other editors (and myself) involved here have grown very frustrated with Sue. I sincerely hope that your efforts are more successful. I did report her to 3RR (which she just violated) before seeing your intervention. I won't do the block myself, because I'm involved, but I won't pretend that I don't hope someone else does. Perhaps your edits will suit her. I think I speak for everyone else involved in this little spat when I say that we're ready to try anything. Cheers Dina 20:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As an update, User:Suemcp was just blocked for 24 hours by User:CSTAR for 3RR [7] Dina 20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cowman, for your input. I really appreciate some outside voices and some help, and like Dina, I am willing to try almost anything!! And I do think trying to mediate with her is worth trying, maybe if she feels that she has someone unbiased involved it will help. So, I don't want to discourage you, but I am not sure your sentences are entirely accurate. The lack of a police investigation is a tenet of Suemcp's view of the event, but it seems entirely based on a quote from Chun, which I think is not that clear:

"The day after the massacre, the police released a brief biography that described Lepine as "an intelligent but deeply troubled young man with no known psychiatric history" and alluded to a suicide note, found on his person, which blamed feminists for his life's misery (Malarek and Aubin A1). The authorities, however, soon aborted their investigation. On 11 December 1989, the chief coroner, Jean Grennier, told the press that he preferred not to call for a public inquiry since an inquiry would rehash "some of the gruesome and sickening aspects of the tragedy for no good reason. It would mean more pain and suffering for the families." The coroner did say that he would call for a public inquiry if he felt the public was not being properly informed, but he argued that so far "the public is very well informed".... As the police psychologists would later explain, the authorities had closed down the investigation because they feared that continuing the discussion would unleash an unstoppable flow of antifeminist violence ("Police Won't Confirm" A16). " end of quote.

As you will note, it is not at all clear from this that the police investigation was "aborted". Rather it seems to be a public inquiry that was ruled out, and this is confirmed by many other sources. Nowhere else is there any mention that the police investigation was terminated and indeed the coroner's report mentions reports she received from the police. My other comment about your version is that "the complexity of the situation" is an entirely unsourced idea that none of the articles or books contain (so far as I know, and certainly Suemcp has not provided a source.) The two reasons given in sources are those above: pain to the families and fear of anti-feminist violence.
Thems my concerns about what the article contains now. Of course you may think it is extremely trivial really but nevertheless these details are important, I think. I will leave it as is at present, hoping you (or someone else) can address my concerns about how it is currently phrased.
But I really do want to thank you for coming to help out here. I am hopeful it will really helpful. By the way... I forgot to sign in when I reverted the main article a while ago. 132.216.108.30 is me. --Slp1 21:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How does that look? Cowman109^Talk 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally it looks very good, though I'm still dubious about the first sentence with the "but" which implies some sort of causal relationship. I would be happiest with "The Montreal Police began an official investigation. On December 11, 1989, five days after the shootings, the chief coroner, Jean Grennier, told the press that he preferred not to hold a public inquiry. The decision to not hold a public inquiry was in part to save the families from more pain and was also because authorities believed that more anti-feminist attacks could have followed.

I would rather omit the bit about the women speaking out because it was way more than several (as you can imagine) and not just women either (as you can imagine too, but I'll provide refs if necessary!)

The whole thing should go in the aftermath section, surely, where you will find a very similar phrase already along with two other references, which could be added too. What do you think? --Slp1 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding it to the aftermath section makes perfect sense to me. <<-armon->> 00:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Armon for moving it. Since there have been no objections about my edit suggestion of yesterday I will be bold and make the changes now. --Slp1 17:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing Criteria for this article and discussion

>>

Discussions on Wikipedia pages move on very fast – some of you must be editing almost full time! I made a small contribution to the discussion a couple of days ago and was asked by Atlant to try to make a case for the inclusion of an External Link to Suemcp’s site dedicated to the Montreal massacre. This is my case, put in the context of some general remarks on Wikipedia criteria. I am not a regular editor of articles but a relatively disinterested observer and reader of articles and I hope that this discussion might make a small contribution to improving the usefulness of Wikipedia entries.

A general point was made by Atlant that Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus. This is, of course, its distinctive characteristic as an Encyclopedia. It should be recognised, however, that there is an inevitable tension between the criterion of consensus and the criterion of truth. Consensus does not necessarily result in the truth. At one time, it was generally agreed that the world was flat, but that doesn’t mean that it actually is flat. The question of ‘truth’ is itself, of course, problematic, but is related to ideas of objectivity, evidence, and consistency with other established knowledge. Contributors to Wikipedia should, surely, be ensuring that their contributions achieve a consensus that conforms to those criteria?

Even if we put that issue to one side, however, a number of issues have come up in relation to the recent editing of this article and I want to make some points about this.

1. There has been some disagreement about particular words used in the text, and this has resulted in much editing and reverting of changes. It must be recognised that words are not neutral but carry moral, political, and theoretical implications. As such, the use of a substantive word in an article involves the author going beyond the purely factual evidence to make an interpretation of the facts and, therefore, a judgment about the appropriateness of a particular word. This is inescapable. One word that I notice was altered a number of times is ‘rampage’. This is clearly not a neutral word. Its dictionary definition refers to rushing wildly, raging, or storming. The word has those specific implications that impose a particular definition and interpretation on the events. Now, this may or may not be a correct interpretation (I make no judgment on that), but surely a decision about whether this is the best word to use must be cast in terms of the particular interpretations carried? The direct and available evidence can get us only so far in this and there comes a point at which discretionary (and, therefore, contestable judgments have to be made. In this respect, editors must recognise that they are inevitably going beyond the immediate evidence in the changes that they make.

2. There has been much discussion about the need to cite evidence on Lepine in relation to arguments offered. One of the things that Sue was trying to do was to recognise that a satisfactory explanation of the events cannot be cast in purely individual terms. There is, she argues, a social dimension to the events that has to be recognised. It is not, therefore, reasonable to ask for evidence relating exclusively to Lepine. Most of the material in the article is cast in individualistic terms and ignores any social context. This is not inevitable for a Wikipedia article. In fact, the Encyclopedia itself places the massacre in the context of other articles relating to ‘school killings’ (and there has been discussion about the appropriateness of this categorisation). The whole organization of the Encyclopedia, then, makes the judgment that this social concept is relevant to understanding the specific situation in Montreal – and I am not aware that any direct evidence was offered to justify the categorisation. Surely the same criteria should be applied to the content of the article: it should be legitimate to invoke social (or economic, political, etc.) factors and to offer evidence relevant to that wider argument (and which may not refer directly to Lepine or the Montreal situation).

3. The frequent making of contentious edits and reversals is confusing for any reader. As many points are contentious, surely it is preferable for any proposed edits to be discussed offline, in the Discussion pages, before they are made to the actual article. A consensus or working agreement ought to be arrived at in the open discussion pages and then only minimal editing of the actual page world be necessary. The discussion pages would then contain the proper rational discussion and debate of the kind that Wikipedia seeks to encourage and would ensure that significant editing changes carry some authority.

4. Finally (almost) I come to the question of the External Link to Sue’s pages on the Montreal Massacre. This has been removed by others on the grounds that it does not offer factual evidence in support of views, because it is a personal page, or because of perceptions of Sue’s actions in editing and on the discussion page. The latter criterion should not be relevant in Wikipedia. It should also be noted that this is not a personal website or blog as described in the Wikipedia list of exclusions. It is a site dedicated to the discussion of the events. As such, it is precisiely the kind of site that the Wikipedia guidelines say should be linked to. These guidelines say that it is legitimate to include links to ‘Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article’. The site in question is of precisely this type. It is one of the very few (perhaps the only) such site on this topic. If there were many such sites, there might be questions about which should figure as links, but there are not many. This seems to be a strong argument for including an External Link to a site that is dedicated to the issue and invites others to contribute their own comments for open discussion. Perhaps, also, those who wish to engage with the issues through Wikipedia should visit the site (http://www.montrealmassacre.net/) and leave their own comments on the material there.

5. My very last comment concerns the intemperate and impatient language and style used by many contributors. I find this distasteful and unhelpful. No matter how unpleasant any particular contribution may appear, this is no reason to respond as ‘like with like’. This simply leads to an escalation of heated argument and abuse. Much has been made of the use of capitals in replies, but this is a purely stylistic convention and should not be taken as grounds for criticism. I find twee smileys and similar typographical devices equally annoying, but I accept the right of people to use them if they like. More significant is the actual language used, and here there should be greater moderation. Numerous comments by Sue, to Sue, and about Sue have been aggressive in tone and have no place in any rational discussion. My own initial minor contribution received what I read as a rather condescending and slightly aggressive response from Atlant, which I thought might be attempting to intimidate me from contributing further. No doubt I was mistaken in this interpretation. It probably reflects simply the anonymity and brevity of rapid electronic responses. Perhaps it points, however, to the need for all contributors to think long and carefully before posting comments – to make reflective and well-argued comments rather than making immediate responses that simply encourage other rapid (and intemperate) responses

Those are the only points that I have to make. I have no direct knowledge of the Montreal Massacre other than what I have read on this and on Sue’s site, so I offer no comments on substantive points made. My arguments are simply intended to help ensure that all views on the subject are fairly heard and that the content of the article can be further improved by those who do have relevant knowledge and views on the events. My apologies for writing at such length.

JS2007 11:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you JS2007, for all your work on the above. It must have taken some time, and I certainly appreciate a calming voice. I will quickly respond to some of your comments and others may chime in with other points, later.
1. I agree about the need to be careful with wording and vocabulary. The problem goes in many directions. There is for example, the "rampage, massacre" issue, but there have also been editors who wished "women" to be changed to "feminists" everywhere, as well as wishing to have Marc Lepine as one of the "Murder Victims". But we have been so much trouble with the actual documented events of this event to be able to pay much attention to vocabulary as yet.
2. Your comments about evidence suggest that you might want to look at some of the core policy documents of Wikipedia, which include Verifiability, Neutral Point of View and No Original Research. A very brief and relevant summary comes from this quote "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Related is the policy that one cannot include one's own original research, including thoughts and interpretations (unless it has been published elsewhere, see the policy documents for more details.)
But as to the general idea, if you search back through the archives of this page (though it will take some doing!) you will see that we were all agreed that there needs to be section on the interpretation of the event. In general, the actual events seemed at the start to be an easier place to start, but the section is still on the to-do list, though frankly I can't even contemplate it till all this calms down!
3. Re getting consensus on the talk page rather than editing the article itself. I couldn't agree more, especially for edits that you think might be controversial. This is certainly a recommended Wikipedia guideline.
4. I agree that we need to consider Sue's website on its merits and not based on her behaviour here, and I personally have not decided either way. One potential issue that I have is that Sue has a propensity toward deleting sourced information that she disagrees with, as well as introducing unsourced, unsourceable and frankly erroneous information (ex. Letter translated by Pelletier into English).
Does this have implications for the level of scholarship of her essays? I need to think about it.
5. As far as the language and tone here, I accept the criticism and will try to do better. But I think that if you do wade your way through the archives and talk pages of this page and of Marc Lepine you will find that I (and most others) started off very well, and if my (our)tone is a bit off now, it might be because we have been severely tried in the last few weeks as we tried to explain the rules and policies of Wikipedia and what can and cannot be included.
Not using caps is an internet convention, since if you do it indicates shouting. It may be silly, but it is generally considered polite not to do so, especially if you have been asked several times!
--Slp1 12:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful initial response. There are just a few points that might be clarified further.

It is, as you know, impossible to sharply separate 'events' and 'interpretation'. This was the point of what I said about vocabulary: the very choice of word will imply an interpretation. While you may want to keep interpretation in the form of comment off the page, it is not possible to eradicate interpretation at the level of description. Sue made some very pertinent points about the vocabulary used, and these have been lost when her contributions have been deleted. I wanted to suggest that people seriously consider the implications of the language used when they propose a deletion or reversion.

The other area that I highlighted and that Sue sought to raise was the type of explanation that should appear on the page. One of Sue's points was that a social explanation of the events was needed in addition to the individual explanation given. Thus, interpretation comes in at the level of explanation, and the exclusion of a social explanation simply imposes one interpretation over others. It should not really be necessary to justify the inclusion of a social dimension - after all, no justification is given for the reliance on an individualistic explanation at present. So, my point was that Sue's use of social ideas in offering an explanation of events must be considered and taken as seriously as the existing explanation that is given.

Perhaps there is a way that this could be taken forward, though you must forgive my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia terminology and procedures. Could an administrator familiar with the topic and the archive (and that seems to be you) open a new discussion section to review the various proposed changes one paragraph at a time and propose a rewording that carries forward the present emphasis but seeks to incorporate the key points that Sue has tried to raise on vocabulary and explanation? Each proposal could be given a day or two for discussion and could then be included in the text. I appreciate that you may want to let things calm down, but perhaps one way of doing that is to begin a process of taking the substantive arguments seriously. A paragraph-by-paragraph approach would be slow, but might produce the best basis of agreement, allowing all the various views to be aired offline and more calmly.

This procedure might then allow you to begin the more interpretative suggestion that you want to include, as you will be building an agreed factual base for this. That could be the context in which you could consider Sue's important points about social explanations.

As to the External Link to the website, I would hope that this is something that you, as administrator, might feel able to propose very quickly. I am glad that you are willing to give thought to this. The question of the scholarship of the site is not directlty relevant, as it is a site dedicated to comment and discussion. I would say, however, that I have read a great deal of Sue's essay work. Speaking as an academic, I have always been impressed by the quality of the writing, the evidence base, and the sophistication of the argument. You have nothing to fear from a Link to this site as it currently stands. Indeed, creating such a link will ensure that much of the comment and debate that now appears in these Discussion pages takes place on the external website. This would keep your own discussions more focused on the content of the article and might also help to generate ideas that can feed into the continuing improvement of the Wikipedia article itself.

(By the way, I take the point about the convention on the use of capitals. However, as someone who can't switch out of capitals on my mobile phone, I know that old habits die hard. We shouldn't get too caught up in stylistic detail, given the important substantive matters at hand).

Thus, I think there should be a reinstatemet of the Website http://www.montrealmassacre.net/ as an External Link, to encourage comment and debate, and there should be a rolling review of the article that addresses the issues that Sue (and others) have raised over the last few weeks.

This ought to be my last contribution to the discussion. I am not an editor of Wikipedia articles so have no real right to pontificate. I came into this meta-discussion at a late stage but do feel that a lot of important issues have been lost sight of in the disuputes. The points raised by Sue are worthy of consideration and continuing discussion.

JS2007 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comments and suggestions. I should start by explaining that I am not an administrator but simply a lowly editor.
I'd like to respond to you. You've suggested that we work together to incorporate of Sue's thoughts about "social ideas in offering an explanation of events". As I understand it, Wikipedia has strict policies that prevent the inclusion of Original Research, which means that Sue's ideas cannot be added unless they have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, for example, which I don't believe they have. As I have stated before I think her ideas are interesting, but unfortunately this policy is not negotiable.
. To me, your suggestion of slow but steady editing is a good one, but its success will depend a lot on how Sue chooses to interact when/if she returns. I have noticed that Sue has not followed other policies and guidelines, including avoiding Point of View editing. As noted above, she has often deleted well-sourced information that do not support of her point of view (or narrative?) of the event. She has often added information that are her own commentaries of events, which are problematic as they are original research and not of neutral point of view. She has added unverifiable information that has sometimes proved to be incorrect. That we cannot include her original research/ideas is clear. But we can work together, if she chooses, on making sure that the vocabulary is neutral and that the whole story (verifiable, neutral point of view, no original research) is told. But we all have to agree to follow Wikipedia policies, including refraining from personal attacks and the policies referred to above. --Slp1 00:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

another reply to JS2007

I strongly disagree that Sue has been attempting to contribute a social interpretation to an otherwise individualistic explanation of events. The lack of content that you mentioned is the result of haggling over individual and factual details, like was Francine Pelletier a reporter or journalist, was the coroner biased, did the police conduct an investigation, etc. There are lots of published sources that either support or criticize how feminism has used this event, which should be reflected in the article. But how could we conceivably discuss those controversial issues and hash out how they should be treated if we can’t even agree on the basic words? I agree words are often not neutral, but this isn’t the place to overturn conventions. We could have an extended debate on whether a word like rampage is appropriate. But that’s not our job. There are objective criteria, however imperfect, for determining what those words are or at least for framing the discussion to get a consensus, not the preference of the editors. If, for example, a significant number of verifiable mainstream sources consistently call it a massacre, then we should be able to call it a massacre without an arcane debate on whether or not it actually was one. If it shouldn’t be called a massacre, this isn’t the place to overturn the conventional application of that word to this event.

Conventions are not the same as truths, as you pointed out, but they are necessary on a practical level for any sort of collaboration. The same principle applies to external links. Better arguments could be made for including many of the hundreds of others that treat this issue, including some that call it a femicide or gendercide. That Sue’s site is dedicated to this issue is irrelevant because many others not only have substantial content, but have, for good or bad, the level of notability that Sue’s site does not. The only thing distinguishing it from a blog is its format. The relevant point, however, is that there is already a guideline on external links that is the result of discussion and debate, like most Wikipedia conventions, which means we can treat it as resolved for our purposes. We should be able to instead focus on questions of content, not trying to re-invent the wheel. Would Sue be happy with an external link to Vancouver Rape Relief? Should we spend time debating it? There is a place for proposing guideline changes on Wikipedia, but this isn’t it.

What exactly is Sue’s social explanation? All I’ve seen is that creeping feminism is a bad thing. That’s not an explanation, that’s an assertion. Her analysis is circular: Marc Lepine hated feminists because of feminism. Is there something intrinsic to feminism that doesn’t exist with other social justice movements? Her argument seems to depend on the fact that there is, but it isn’t clear from her contributions what that may be. Points she’s raised for debate are things like his intelligence, how diligent he was as a student, the courses he’s completed, whether he was crazy. These may be necessary and relevant, but a social explanation they are not. How about race/ethnicity and class? His father’s religion and beliefs – certainly there’s citable stuff on that in the post 9/11 world, and I’m sure more than one reader has taken offense that his father being a Muslim is singled out without any justification given. How about the antifeminist backlash? The U of T prof that compared feminists to the KKK in commemorating the anniversary? I don’t see Sue attempting this kind of contextualization. I see her obstructing the discussion here with things more trivial, IMO, than the issue of uppercase comments and impeding the development of this article to the level of sophistication the subject deserves. And, she’s apparently blaming everyone else for its lack of social explanation and inadequate treatment of dissenting views.

How about the context of Lepine not being like other multiple killers? People should not be given the impression that he’s like other school shooters, or we are told. Why not? Were other shooters not intelligent? Were they not alienated by the changing world they inhabit? Did they not have legitimate reasons for feeling frustration, anger, and so forth, or were the others just crazy people? We get no social explanation there either. How about engaging with the literature on this subject? I don’t see that. On one hand, she implicitly rejects a psychohistorical explanation (i.e., with child abuse as a causal factor), but at the same time uses an approach that seems to owe a lot to Alice Miller.

Maybe I'm reading her contributions wrong, but the onus is not on me to clarify her argument so that I'll become convinced by it. In the meantime, I’ve come to believe that the point of view she's been aggressively pushing here hasn't been received well, not because we're all brainwashed feminists silencing dissent, but because it's just not a compelling analysis from the get go that instead results in confusing claims and fails to convince. Her conclusions far outstrip the evidence produced. But again, the relevant point is that it is a novel interpretation that she is trying to promote, which has no notability, and runs roughshod over one or more of the few non-negotiable Wikipedia pillars because it is original research. There are lots of dissenting and novel interpretations on this out there that may or may not be notable enough for inclusion, so why are we being sidetracked with one held by one of the editors?

Many of your suggestions require good faith on part of the contributors. I've assumed good faith in the past, and have tried to make constructive comments, I've copyedited and formatted additions made by Sue to the article, while sincerely attempting to not change the meaning of her words. She has yet to respond to any of the points I raise, even if to reject them, and instead makes pointed attacks in screaming uppercase. Slp1 especially has bent over backwards to try and work with Sue on this, not against her, apparently with little luck. Rarely are dissenting voices accommodated and listened to to the extent that has been tried here. The result? It's still either Sue's way or an edit war, and that's a situation entirely created by her not playing by the rules that most others have agreed to abide by for the sake of accomplishing a common goal. My intention here is to be direct, not harsh or rude, so I apologize if offense is taken by my tone; I don’t know Sue and have no beef with her personally and have tried to keep my comments civil and confined to her contributions here. I no longer assume good faith from her because what I’ve seen has consistently indicated the opposite. I will avoid directly engaging with her because of this, but it appears that there have been some creative interpretations of what has been happening with this article that are distortions and frankly quite insulting to other editors. Bobanny 02:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A very good reason (among others) for not including Sue's website

I suspect most of the articles on Sue's website are copyright violations. There is no mention on any of them that they are GDFL. Furthermore, Sue does not state that she uses these articles with permission. Her disclaimer at the end of each: "Please contact Sue McPherson, website editor, if you have any queries about the site or further information to add, broken links to report, or believe human rights are being violated through publication of this material." is certainly interesting but does not refer to copyright at all. These are not excerpts, they are the full text of these documents (which download when you click on them as word documents, something I was not prepared for and generally speaking, you shouldn't spring downloads on people when they're not expecting them.) Without any assertion of permission I can only conclude that most of the material on the website, not written by Sue herself, while properly credited, is in fact, a copyright violation. There are a lot of reasons for the not including the link. This is a particularly persuasive one to me. Dina 15:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Other reasons include no alexa rank 63 google hits, almost all of which are the website itself or related to Sue. It links to Sue's homestead homepage & blogspot blog. It is, as Bobanny points out, essentially an essay blog not using blogger. It is extremely poorly designed, both visually and in terms of navigation. The comments in the comment section are added by emailing Sue and then she chooses to post them. Therefore it's not surprising that the small handful of comments included all praise her work and agree with her. The hit counter is at 3461 since its creation in November 2005. The discussion surrounding this Wikipedia article can easily account for at least 100 of those. Furthermore, the articles and essays by Sue, while clearer and easier to read than some of her contributions here, suffer from some fuzzy thinking and misappropriation of intellectualisms, and do not, in mu opinion add much to the topic at hand. Cheers. Dina 15:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

the mother lode

Am feeling somewhat triumphant at having figured out a way of accessing online newspaper archives from the time of the massacre. They look to be very helpful for clearing up some of the questions that have been raised by myself amongst others.
Of initial and somewhat topical interest, given the cancelled (?) police investigation dispute above, is this quote from the Globe and Mail on December 15th 1989 (ie 3 days later than the article quoted above...) From an article called "Slain woman's connection to killer called just coincidence by police" by Patricia Poirier.
"Mr Duchesneau said police are still trying to piece together information about the 25 year old unemployed gunman. They are concentrating on reconstructing his last days, and more than 100 witnesses have been interviewed including his mohter, Monique Lepine and his sister Nadia.
They have also questioned the man with whom Mr. Lepine shared a second-story three bedroom flat just east of downtown Montreal.
About 30 investigators are working fulltime with psychologists, psychiatrists and forensic experts, Mr. Duchesneau said."
It doesn't sound like the police investigation was cancelled, does it really?!! More from the mother lode later! --Slp1 23:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm being naughty, but how about this from the Edmonton Journal, on Jan 12, 1990, by way of confirmation.

"Six veteran Montreal police officers are working full-time to assemble a cradle-to-grave profile of Marc Lepine, who killed 14 women at the University of Montreal on Dec. 6. Det.-Lt. Yvan Gauvreau of the police homicide squad said, "There's never been anything of this magnitude ever before in Canada. "We want to make sure we haven't overlooked anything." Gauvreau is overseeing the investigation along with homicide squad director Andre Tessier. .... The six investigators are trying to establish what made Lepine tick. "He was unknown to us," Gauvreau said. "We're trying to talk to anyone who ever had anything to do with him.""

I'm now thinking of adding a paragraph about the massive police investigation that was done, now that we have all this sourced information about it!!! --Slp1 04:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Do tell...where online did you find articles from back then? I think I tried the CBCA database through the library at some point, but didn't find much. I'm still not sure if it was a public inquiry or police investigation that Sue was referring to. A public inquiry would be the one that might spur more antifeminism and prolong the suffering of victims' families. Not doing a police investigation is something totally different. I can imagine though, from the above quote, that they set out to do a huge comprehensive investigation of everything, but later realized that maybe that might be unrealistic. A profile of Lepine, making sure he acted alone, revisit the emergency response question, and then what else could police accomplish? They're not exactly equipped to solve the big socio-political-economic questions that people have been struggling with since forever. That might be what Sue meant about it being too complex or incomprehensible. No police investigation would probably be criminal in itself. Bobanny 05:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Because I teach at bit at McGill I have access to their library, and that includes online newspaper archives through Pro something or other (I'll remember to look the next time I try it, but I MUST not do it now, or I will get hooked and I need to do some 'proper' work!!.

I think you have it right on the money... there was an extensive police investigation, but it was decided very early on that there would be no public inquiry (because of pain, backlash etc). As you say, lack of a police investigation would be more or less impossible, and there are lots of references to a press conference announcing that there would be no public inquiry, which would have been where larger questions could have been mulled over. I don't think there has been any dispute about Sue's view that some of the larger issues were not officially discussed. My problem has always been that Sue kept claiming that it was the police investigation that was halted, when this seemed both highly unlikely and unsubstantiated. I think Sue was somewhat understandably misled by the Chun article paragraph quoted to Cowman above, (in particular "The authorities, however, soon aborted their investigation") causing her to insist that the police investigation was cancelled, when in fact the reference was to the possible public inquiry. Interestingly, though, Chun goes on to claim that this attempt to silence the debate was largely unsuccessful because people/press/families wanted to talk! I think the "too complex" and "incomprehensible" are Sue editorializing again. These reasons aren't included anywhere in the Chun article, which is what she referenced.

During my searches in the archives yesterday I found a very long two-part article by Greg Weston and Jack Aubry, published in the Ottawa Citizen in Feb 1990. It looks very detailed and well-researched, and will probably be very helpful as a source of clarification for some of the details. I am looking forward to mining it (and other articles) this weekend sometime! --Slp1 14:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)