Talk:École Polytechnique massacre/Archive 3

So glad to see how far this article has come

I'm giving it a rather close read and jotting down a few questions/notes. I am confident that the primary contributors understand this as the compliment it's intended to be -- I'm so pleased with this article's progress, I can't quite keep my hands off, but I don't want to just jump in and start messing about. So here's my few questions:

• I assume that all the conversations quoted in the description of the massacre & the word "shit" written by Lepine on a student project all occurred in French? This may simply be my American predjudices-slash-ignorance here, but would it not be approprate to mention that? I think specifically in the case of his writing the word "shit" it seems more fitting to say he wrote merde (followed by its english definition). It feels more accurate to me for some reason, but I defer, of course, to those more familiar with the events.
• Other students dived under their desks, and Lépine moved towards women students, firing on and wounding three students and killing one. I might change this, but I don't want to alter meaning. "Lepine moved towards some female students? "Lepine moved towards the women?" Not sure, but I think it needs some tweaking.
• "The original French letter is available, as well as an English translation." I believe this should say "The text of the original French letter..." as the present sentence seems to imply that the letter itself is available.

I went ahead and made this change Dina 19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Women killed" heading. I know this one was debated previously and I have no desire to overthink it yet again. However the section heading does seem awkward to me, and not exactly how such things are generally expressed. My impulse is to suggest something like "Victims" but I know that that is somewhat problematic to some. If "Victims" doesn't work I might suggest something a bit more descriptive instead of "head-line like" just because the phrase "Women killed" can mean so many things (women did kill, women that were killed). Not that there's the danger of that misinterpretation here, but I do think it should bedifferent. Perhaps "Women killed during the massacre"? I know we don't want to say "Deaths as a result of these events" or something of the kind because that would neccessitate (well sort of) including Lepine in the list of the dead. "Female victims of Lepine" "Lepine's victims" ? I dunno.
• Having briefed reporters outside, Montreal Police director of public relations Pierre Leclair entered the building and found his daughter Maryse's stabbed body. Gah, what a terrible aspect of this affair. I suggest changing ot to "After briefing reporters" simply for style.
• The Québec government and the Montréal city government declared three days of mourning. I think a date of the declaration would be nice here ("the day after the attacks" etc.)
• Others developed a more social analysis, seeing Lépine's actions as the result of societal changes leading to increasing poverty, powerlessness and individual isolation I believe I understand some of the debates (here, on this article, and amongst some Canadians) that this sentence alludes to. Nonetheless, something about the sentence bugs me a bit. Perhaps "Others (would be nice to know who) developed an analysis based on societal influences..." Something like that.
• I really like the way the Jan Wong comment is mentioned and linked.
• In response to the killings a House of Commons Sub-Committee on the Status of Women was struck. I am assuming "struck" in this context is a Canadianism that means something akin to "formed" or "chartered"? If so, ignore me. Otherwise, if it is government jargon, could a more universal word be used instead?
• I'm under the impression that cause celebre should contain two accents. But I defer to the Francophones.

I went ahead and made this change as well, as the Wikipedia article cause célèbre support this. Dina 19:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the Controversy section is excellent. The issues it raise definitely should be noted, as obviously some have made these arguments and hold these views. But this description of the issues is by far the most balanced the article has seen in my intermittent close readings of it.

In short, really terrific work. As I said, I'm only being nit-picky because I'm so impressed with the progress, and as a result, it seems worth the effort to go over it with a fine toothed comb. Has anyone thought about putting it up for some kind of peer review? Cheers. Dina 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it just got a peer review. But yeah, it could probably at least be a GA by now and isn't too far from FA, IMO, mostly thanks to Slp1's diligence. A few responses to your points:

• • I changed Others developed a more social analysis" to "a broader analysis" because "societal" is mentioned later in the sentence and the point seems to be to distinguish from narrow individual or psychological interpretations.
  • I'm pretty sure yankees strike committees too. (Gawd knows I watch enough American TV). Maybe it just sounds wierd because it's past tense.
  • I'm not sure about saying "merde," only because all quotes from him were originally in French. Maybe somewhere before the first quote a clause could be added ",speaking in French..." that would imply all subsequent quotes are translations. bobanny 20:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

On second look, I agree with you here about the merde. It might be too precious, like having a French character enter the scene saying "Mon Dieu" and then continuing in English. But I do still somehow feel that since it's an English article, some mention should be made that these conversational details were in French. Because there are so many first person quotes (which add a great deal, I believe, to the article) I think a mention of the language in which they were spoken would add accuracy.

On the striking of committees, I did the intellectually rigorous thing ;) and asked my fiancee (who has a great deal of experience copy editing in academia, though I can't seem to get him to do more Wiki stuff) and he hasn't heard the expression either. While he is a source I generally rely on, I realize that's a bit ridiculous, so I'll look it up a bit more. Though since I'm not a complete idiot, and it sounds strange to me on first read, I still might suggest changing it. Basically it sounds like a "Britishism" (whether it is or not) to my American ears. As such, it should stay if it's common usage in Canada. But if it's just not a common usage in any vernacular English, perhaps another word would suffice. I don't feel strongly about it though, obviously.

Lastly, love your change. I think that really cleared up that issue. Cheers. Dina 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict

Yes, thanks again for the feedback and suggestions, which I will try and work through. A few comments though:

• Shit/Merde: I wondered the same thing, but intriguingly I think he actually used the word "shit" in English. The Ottawa Citizen articles use this word a something of a motif throughout the article, and never say he used "merde". Even more convincingly, the Cernea book, written in French by one of the professors there, mentions that the word "shit" was written twice on his student papers and reflects on the fact that it was his last word too. It is an interesting sideline on the whole thing, but I'm not sure if it needs to be explained or not.
  
• "Women killed" heading. Aaarrgh, you open a sensitive subject as Bobanny and I just had a heated week-long discussion with somebody about this on the Marc Lepine talkpage. Your arguments and reasoning are better than his, however, and I am open to a change but will let Bobanny chime in on this one.
  

I am glad that you started making changes, Dina, and hope that you continue.--Slp1 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

addendum. Re Striking a committee. It is weird that something that is so familiar appears to be so regional in usage. I did a bit of research too and it seems like it very much a Canadian English thing, and not even the British use it much, which is a surprise to me since I have lots of UK connections!! But from a purely information point of view I think Strike is related to the "strike a bargain" usage (per Webster) of "agree to and set terms of reference of" type . Slp1 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The shit/merde thing is certainly interesting trivia, but I agree that too much analysis might be original research and perhaps not much should be made of it. Sometimes I think that the most universal English words are its expletives (when I was in Russia, it seemed like the one word every Russian understood was fuck ;), in any context). If we don't have any real sources about whether/why his last "word" was an english swear word, it's probably best to simply mention it and move on.

I just read (full disclosure:skimmed a bit) the discussion on the Marc Lepine talk about the "Women killed" heading. Wow, lots of arguments about content there. My nitpick is more about style than content. I'm thinking somehing like "List of women that were killed" or "Women that were killed" might satisfy my personal quibble. A brief skim through other articles indicates that the word "victims" is generally used, but I don't disagree that a low-key emphasis of the gender of the victims is appropriate here. I just think that the heading "Women killed" has an awkwardness that doesn't exist in the rest of the article. Still, as I rethink it, it's such a sticky issue. "Female victims" seems clearly wrong to me. Perhaps the other editors issues could be addressed by something like "Female students killed."? Though that sounds a bit as if making a distinction (as though there is another list denoting "Male students killed"). Maybe another tack altogether: Names of women killed, List of fourteen women killed, Names of women killed in the massacre?

re:"Committee was struck": my googling seems to indicate that yes, it's some kind of regionalism. Part of the issue is there are so many usages for the word "strike" and its various forms! As I said, a Canadian idiom is not inappropriate in this article however. But if another word is also used in the same context in Canadian English, it might work better here. Cheers Dina 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, really "bad" French swear words in Québec are religious references, such as Hostie, Taberbak etc. Anglo-Saxon body functions and sex references are considered mild by comparison. I once had an experience with a francophone telemarketer who was having difficulty with an English script and used "fuck" as every second word. He was most surprised when I told him that fuck was very rude in English and that he should not use it with total strangers!
• Struck has been struck, (and become "created") but it is always interesting to learn something new!
  
• I don't blame you for skimming the "women killed" discussion; though it was pretty interesting at the time! --Slp1 00:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I concede on the "struck" thing. I googled it too, and then googled it on the UK google and only got 10 hits. It wouldn't surprise me if he said shit instead of merde. I used to say merde all the time when I lived in Montreal, and I'm unilingual. FAC, huh? I hope that means you're gonna stop claiming to be an outsider on this article, Dina. bobanny 01:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, merde if it goes badly, obviously I've had nothing to do with it! ;) Dina 01:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, --Slp1 02:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I was at a party just after Christmas and met a young vibrant woman who was studying engineering at the Ecole Polytechnique. I could not stop thinking of her peers that had been killed at just her age. And then just last week I gave a lecture at the University of Montreal standing on just such a "dais" that has been queried and discussed in the past. For me these brought the whole thing to life. This has been an encyclopaedia entry that I have worked hard on, but it is real life for others, and for me it has been a fulfilling journey to work on. Slp1 04:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure every female engineering student at that school is compelled to reflect on this event, whatever her world view may be. I was working in a cafe in the McGill ghetto when it happened. One of the regulars brought us news from the outside world as it unfolded (that's also how I first heard about the Oka Crisis and the San Francisco earthquake). He had heard it happened at McGill, just down the street, which was freaky. Anyway, it hit close enough to home that it was one of the pivotal events that first got me thinking about social issues outside of my own little bubble world. One thing I find intriguing about Wikipedia is that most articles seem to be written by editors with some kind of personal entry point to the topic, while at the same time there's a constant push to be clinically objective and pretend it's all impersonal to us. It's an interesting dynamic that shapes the final product. 'kay, I'll stop before this becomes a blog... bobanny 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So I went ahead and nominated it for featured status

Sometimes I feel like our featured articles are so "fluffy" and I feel like this topic is so not and the article has come so far, I just decided to take the plunge. I've never nommed an FAC before, so it's possible that all that will happen is a bunch of construction criticism. But the primary contributors to this article have been so diligent about responding to criticism well I believe that will only make the article better. So let's see what happens! If it goes badly, blame me...;) Dina 00:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Accents

What's the convention for accents on "Quebec" and "Montreal"? Or if there is no established convention, which is the least likely to get messed with: sans ou avec? Just to make it consistent. bobanny 16:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (vot egg sent - eez hugh who hass dee egg sent!)

Good question: This search seems to imply that Montreal is only accented when part of a French phrase, as in: "The Université de Montréal, University of Montreal in English,...". Though I expect it is consistency that matters most. Dina 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FAC feedback

One of the editors on the FAC suggested that the into paragraph needed expansion. Since a great deal of the article is about the aftermath, societal impact and interpretations of the event, perhaps another sentence or two about those issues would be appropriate? Dina 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bobanny is good at this sort of thing. --Slp1 18:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ah, Rlevse is on it, I've dealt with him before. He's a stickler for technical details and makes you work for FA (but in a positive, constructive way). I think maybe regarding his "listy" comment, that the sections need to flow more from one to the other, instead of discrete chunks. I don't have time right now, but will try and put some work into it soon. bobanny 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah. I was thinking after my initial response that perhaps he meant things like the Aftermath section, where there are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs each detailing a different event. I sort of like it though, as it gives a good sense of a variety of events happening in quick sucession. However good feedback can only be good for the article. Dina 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pop-cult references sections are despised by a lot of editors. In this case though, I don't see that stuff being integrated into the main text, nor does it merit a separate list, so I'm fine with it. bobanny 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is quite like old times! I rather agree that it was a bit choppy and have taken a pass at making things flow better, including putting some sentences together in short paragraphs. But the problem is that I know it all too well now, so other brains required. --Slp1 18:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If the pop culture list is an issue, it could probably be shortened considerably without a great loss. I think Anorak and the Tragically Hip song should stay, but perhaps some of the other music references could go. Dina 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Place du 6-Décembre-1989 (December 6, 1989 Square)

I support square, mostly because there already seems to have been one person confused into thinking that this was the "place" where the events took "place". Though place is prettier. Dina 19:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care, but the memorial is actually a very long thin strip of trees and grass at a rather complex intersection. In Montreal there are Carrés such as Carré St-Louis, and even Squares (with a french pronunciation) such as in Square-Victoria. These are more traditional type squares. So I would be included to stick to Place as being the better translation and more descriptive too. --Slp1 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care either and I'm not convinced that the French idiom "Place du..." is all that unfamiliar to the majority of English speakers. So unless there are other objections, Place should probably stay. Dina 19:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I just recently went through a Wiki-Ordeal over category names for "squares," and learned far more about the subject than I ever thought possible in the process. "Square" is English, "place" (and occasionally "carre") is French, "piazza" in Italian, and "plaza" in Spanish are all the same thing. That thing, however, changes dramatically in different historical and geographical contexts, and ranges from a small park (eg, Carre St. Louis and Tompkins Square Park, a big intersection like Times Square, the public space at the foot of a skyscraper (Place Ville Marie or Granville Square, etc., not to mention all the shopping malls that use these names. Plaza can now be considered English, but I don't think "place" can be with this meaning (although streets are often called "place" in English). That said, I haven't seen "Place" translated for a place name anywhere ("Place Ville-Marie" = "Mary Town Square" anyone? not likely). All this is just to say that I think either "square" or "place" is acceptable, and that it's probably the "du" that rings foreign to the Anglo ear rather than "Place" in this context. Square-Victoria is probably a Montrealism, given it's a mix of French and English (see Category:Squares in Paris for a comparison: mostly "Place" but the name is not translated in the articles). bobanny 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well place sounds a tiny bit odd in this context, but it's not like there's no precedent in English -- Melrose Place anyone? Granted, that's a building and not a plaze, but the usage is basically the same. Dina 13:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph mini-workshop

The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6 1989 at the École Polytechnique de Montréal in Montreal, Quebec. Twenty-five year-old Marc Lépine carried out a shooting rampage at the school, killing fourteen women and wounding four men and ten women before committing suicide. The incident led to more stringent gun control laws in Canada and has become a symbol of violence against women for the women's movement. The events and their consequences were revisited in Canada after the Dawson College shooting in Montreal in 2006, particularly when columnist Jan Wong compared the events in a column in the The Globe and Mail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dina (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC). Some of the debates surrounding the incident concerned the police response, Lepine's motivations, and its subsequent interpretation as a galvanizing moment in Canadian politics related to gun control and violence against women

(just trying some things out, please edit mercilessly, this incident has become, suddenly, even more timely in the US) Dina 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not just in the US. Horrible. They had an expert talking on the CBC talking about the reasons for these rampages, and it was all terribly familiar.
It is late so I won't do much here, though well done for starting. My only comment is that I'm not sure the Jan Wong thing needs such prominence. Maybe we need a bit more about Marc Lepine in the intro too. I will give it some thought tomorrow. --Slp1 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My power's out, so I'm a little out of the loop, probably til tomorrow. I just read the news coverage on the Virginia Tech massacre, and was rather impressed that the best coverage I've seen so far is the Wikipedia article. In light of that event, perhaps the emergency response stuff should be given more emphasis here. Not that we should make crass comparisons, but Virginia's undoubtedly bringing traffic to this article, and criticism of the response seems eerily similar, proportion-wise, in the coverage. bobanny 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor you, Bobanny. Wind??

Here is my effort...also edit mercilessly, please.

The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6 1989 at the École Polytechnique de Montréal in Montreal, Quebec. Twenty-five year-old Marc Lépine carried out a shooting rampage at the university, killing fourteen women and wounding four men and ten women before committing suicide. Feminists were Lepine's stated targets in his oral and written statements, and the massacre has become a symbol of violence against women for the women's movement, and led to a government report on violence against women. Other views have emphasized the abuse he suffered as a child, and possible psychiatric problems as well as societal changes including violence in the media and increasing poverty and isolation in society. The incident led to more stringent gun control laws in Canada and changes in police tactics in response to shootings, which were credited with minimizing casualties at the Dawson College shootings.

Needs plenty of work, I fear, but I am off to bed. --Slp1 03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not have the first paragraph about the actual event, his stuff about fighting feminism, his motives, etc. Then the second paragraph could talk about what came from it: that it was a symbol of violence against women, and some of the controversy surrounding this idea, as well as the controversial theory that violence is inherent in Quebec among perceived ethnic outsiders. This seems a logical way to organize it, and for a FA I guess you need at least two paragraphs for the lead anyhow. Nathanalex 04:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the two paragraph approach. How about (needs work & footnotes, but just as a sketch of the two paragraph lead idea.:

The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6 1989 at the École Polytechnique de Montréal in Montreal, Quebec. Twenty-five year-old Marc Lépine carried out a shooting rampage at the university, killing fourteen women and wounding four men and ten women before committing suicide. Lepine was the child of French-Canadian mother and an Algerian father who left the family as a child. He left a long suicide note describing his motives as an angry response to feminism and his perception that the female university students had prevented him from having more success in life. The note also included a list of prominent Canadian feminists.

The event led to more stringent gun control laws in Canada and changes in police tactics in response to shootings, which were credited with minimizing casualties at the Dawson College shootings. Many interpretations of the events, their significance, and Lepine's motives have been offered. Some Candadians argued that the event's interpretation as an act of violence against women was innacurate, while others focussed on Lepine's immigrant background as an obstacle to his integration into Canadian society. Some have suggested that Lepine was an abused child and that this was the cause of the shootings, while others simply interpret it as the isolated act of a madman.

Dina 17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, with the benefits of the two paragraph approach. Here comes my suggestion to Dina's version.

The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6 1989 at the École Polytechnique de Montréal in Montreal, Quebec. Twenty-five year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally-obtained semi-automatic rifle and a hunting knife, began his attack by entering a classroom and separating the men and women students from each other. Claiming that they were feminists, he shot the women, killing six and injuring the three others. Moving through corridors, the cafeteria, and another classroom he continued shooting, targetting women in particular. After stabbing an injured woman he turned the gun on himself. He had killed fourteen women and injured four men and ten women.

Lépine was the child of French-Canadian mother and an Algerian father, and was abused by his father when young. His suicide note claimed political motives and blamed feminists for ruining his life. The note include a list of nineteen Quebec women whom Lépine considered feminist and apparently wished to kill..

Many interpretations of the events, their significance, and Lépine's motives have been offered. The massacre is seen as an anti-feminist attack and a symbol of violence against women by the women's movement. Others have focussed on the child abuse he received or suggested that it was the isolated act of a madman. At a broader level, some have blamed violence in the media and increasing poverty, isolation and alienation in society, particularly for immigrant communities.

The incident led to more stringent gun control laws in Canada and changes in police tactics in response to shootings, which were credited with minimizing casualties at the Dawson College shootings. Slp1 03:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I like your version better than mine. Should be stick it in? Dina 12:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As a general note about our new 3 paragraph lead I think we're using the passive voice too much. I'm terrible at clearing that up (as my fiancee's red ink on my grad school papers will attest). I might go hunting for some Wikipedian that hates the passive and just ask for their help...Dina 20:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

An IP address added a "terrorist infobox" in the last few hours. I am not sure that such a "terrorist" box is really appropriate for this attack, though the summary of information was quite good. I have removed it temporarily while others given their opinions. Here is how it looked [1] Part of my reasoning was that the timings given were wrong according to the sources, and also the "motive" section is likely to be controversial and would need discussion first. --Slp1 11:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. While summaries of this kind can be useful, part of the whole issue with this incident is that things like "motives" are sometimes unclear after an event. I'm not sure such a simplistic summary adds much. Dina 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, someone removed the photo of the new Ecole building. While I am a bit sad to see it go, as it was a pretty good pic, I believe it is the case that this is not where the shootings took place, and so their rationale for removing it it fair. However does anyone think it's possible to replace it with a different caption (the interior of the ecole today?) or with a photograph (if findable) of the building at the time? Dina 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re photo, I was disappointed too. I looked hard for free photos and added what was available. But I am going to try and take some photos myself today, and we can see if they are of any use. --Slp1 17:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay so I have done my best with the pics. I have uploaded other pictures of the cafeteria [2] (but too many people in it?), and a corridor [3] and I have a few others not uploaded, (escalator, stairwell etc) but it is hard to know whether they would help or hinder. If anybody has some ideas of how to arrange and place them better (or add, substract or swap) I would be thrilled. Slp1 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the new photos! Dina 17:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ecole Polytechnique massacre

Ecole Polytechnique massacre does not exist as a redirect, can someone create it? 132.205.44.134 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Elliskev 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cause célèbre

While I still somewhat dispute that this expression can't be considered English, I went ahead and changed it to "galvanizing incident". On closer read of the various definitions of the phrase, they all seem to emphasis legal case, so using the strictest definition of the term, it does not quite make complete sense in that sentence anyway. I also took the liberty of changing "for the women's movement" to "for the Canadian women's movement" because I believe that is more accurate. I do not, for instance, believe that the incident was a cause celebre for the American women's movement and so I think the distinction is valuable. But please remove if you think its redundant with the rest of the text there. Cheers. Dina 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

C&P of lead without formatting

(I am hoping to convince my fiance to copyedit without the pressure of Wiki-formatting, and see what comes out of a pair of fresh eyes.) Dina 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) The École Polytechnique Massacre, also known as the Montreal Massacre, occurred on December 6, 1989, at the École Polytechnique de Montréal in Montreal, Quebec. Twenty-five year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained semi-automatic rifle and a hunting knife, killed or injured 28 people before killing himself. He began his attack by entering a classroom, where he separated the men and women students from each other. After claiming that he was "fighting feminism," he shot all nine women in the room, killing six. He then moved through corridors, the cafeteria, and another classroom, where he continued shooting and stabbing, targeting women in particular. He killed fourteen women and injured four men and ten women in just under 20 minutes before turning the gun on himself.

Lépine was the child of French-Canadian mother and an Algerian father, and had been physically abused by his father during his childhood. His suicide note claimed political motives and blamed feminists for ruining his life. The note include a list of nineteen Quebec women whom Lépine considered to be feminists and apparently wished to kill.[2]

Since the attack, Canadian society has debated various interpretations of the events, their significance, and Lépine's motives. The massacre is regarded as an anti-feminist attack and representative of wider societal violence against women by most feminist and many official perspectives; the anniversary of the massacre is commemorated as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada. Some interpretations emphasize Lepine's abuse as a child or suggest that the massacre was simply the isolated act of a madman, unrelated to larger social issues. However, some commentators have blamed violence in the media and increasing poverty, isolation, and alienation in society, particularly amongst immigrant communities. The incident led to more stringent gun control laws in Canada and changes in police tactics in response to shootings, which were later credited with minimizing casualties at the Dawson College shootings. Dina 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (signing so the bot can rest)

This is a good plan. I have made a few suggestions here and have sourced the article so that we can just transfer the refs when we move the improved version there. I agree that some extra help might be beneficial either from fiance (I was BTW most amused by the fiancee to fiance edit) or other expert! Slp1 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the changes ended up being under my account anyway, as he reviewed things on the desktop and I changed them on my laptop. Bastard still manages to have just two edits. One "voting" in my Rfa, the other correcting my French! ;) But I liked his changes and it was actually useful to have someone review the lead who has not read the whole article -- it forced me to try and explain why there's controversy, why it's important. Which should be summarized in the lead, somehow. So what do you think (I went and moved it into the article) -- specifically about the start of the third paragraph, which I see as the biggest change, and possibly needing some Canadian eyes. Dina 22:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiLove, isn't that sweet. You could probably get him to pony up more input if you referred to him as something besides bastard, but I'll stay out of it. I did some copyediting, and I think the intro is fine. bobanny 01:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. You're probably right. But as I'm a fantasy baseball widow as of this month, bastard it is ;). Your edits look awesome. I want to get to the point where I can bang a note on User:Rlevse's talk and ask him to take another look at the article. Almost there, I think. Dina 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Things are looking good, I think. I like the intro a lot, and will do some sourcing in the morning. Two things...

• I'm not sure about the stabbing part in the intro. He only got his knife out for the stabbing right at the end, and I feel that this is a bit unclear in this phraseology. I will try and think of something that would work but if anybody has any ideas I would be glad.
• I would like us to look at the Aftermath, Search for a Rationale, and Controversy sections. There seems a bit of overlap here that could be better organized (example, the reaction of the men and Nathalie Provost stuff, and the new Mark Steyn thing). Could they be collapsed into only 2 sections, maybe?

I will have another go at reducing the listy quality tomorrow as well. Slp1 03:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the stabbing -- yeah it's a bit weird. But he was carrying a knife and he used it, so it should perhaps be mentioned, but not perhaps overemphasized. Dina 13:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the way it is now(courtesy of Bobanny?) is fine. The knife gets mentioned but the details of its use can be left till later. --Slp1 14:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

reorganization

Following from Slp1's sentiment above, I also thought that the sections needed some re-jigging. I decided to be bold and did some shuffling. It began well, but alas, it's late now and I'm afraid I've lost my judgment/perspective on this for today. Some things are still separated that should maybe go together, and the subheadings might make it more disjointed-looking than before. I also did more copyediting, and resized the Vancouver memorial photo and made it right justified so that section takes up less space (I checked it on Mozilla and it looks okay). A couple things methinks need expansion: 1) the gun control policy stuff was more far-reaching than it comes across here. The on-going debate about the gun registry should probably get a mention, perhaps something from here. 2) A little something about what the recommendations were in the 1993 "Changing the Landscape" report also needs to be said, since it was raised. bobanny 11:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the gun politics is fascinating. My only real exposure to gun politics in Canada was from Bowling for Columbine, where the argument seemed to be that Canada had a lot of weapons, but much less crime. The gun registry debate -- are we talking simply about having all guns owners needing to be licensed and have a permit for their weapon? In other words, pretty much the way it is in the U.S. (as I'm sure all you Law and Order fans know) This was not the case in 1989, right? Looking at Gun politics in Canada then, it appears that the phrase "a legally-obtained" semi-automatic rifle (from the first paragraph) means simply that Lepine had to comply with Bill C-51 that required him to get an FAC to acquire the weapon & pass a basic criminal check. This is interesting stuff, but I'm not sure I understand the practical distinction between needing a license to acquire a weapon and needing one to possess one. Has there been any writings on whether or not, had these newer laws existed at the time, Lepine would still have been able to legally acquire his weapon? Dina 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you did a great job, Bobanny, and I like the sub-headings. The Vancouver pic looks fine on my Firefox too! I have moved a few other things around and CliffC has restored the Controversy heading. I also agree about expanding the gun control and women's stuff, and I will attempt the Changing the Landscape too, since I am a bit foggy about gun control. But FYI Dina, I think the thing with the gun registry is that all guns have to be registered, not the owners, so that any guns you might have inherited etc are now on a list and not just new purchases. --Slp1 14:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit, but I want to make sure I'm handling the opposition to gun control with the correct amount of weight, so please review. The article I (by a former minister of justice) specifically makes the claim that the legislation was inspired by this Massacre, so I think that makes it a relevant cite here, whether or not the language of the text is changed. Dina 17:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit more on the gun registry. I think it also provides a political link between this massacre and other school shootings. I also added a little more about the government panel on violence against women. I'm satisfied now that there aren't any more glaring omissions, and over-all think this article rawks out. I'll come back in a few days with fresh eyes and check for any technical errors, but I don't see anything to prevent this becoming featured. Good work, y'all. bobanny 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is looking very good. After the cause celebre of cause celebre, I am scared of asking what "rawks" means though! I noticed that we don't have ref for the criticism of the women's panel thing, and it would be good to add it, no? BTW I may find it difficult to get internet access this week, so leave things in your tender care! --Slp1 13:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The criticism is conveniently mentioned in the report itself, so it is ref'd. bobanny 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I should have looked, but it seemed so unlikely! Sorry.--Slp1 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Title for list of murdered

The title "Women murdered" suggest that there is a difference whether somebody kills a woman or man. You wouldn't write "Men murdered" if it had been only men or "Caucasian murdered" if if it had been only whites. This is sexist. --Abe Lincoln 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abe and thanks for you input on this matter. The issue of this heading has been debated by editors here at unbelievable length in the past. To answer your specific question, I think there is general agreement that yes, a heading of "Men murdered" would be appropriate if men had been specifically targetted in the way the women were here. You might like to take a look at the talkpage at the Marc Lepine for the details of all the most recent backwards and forwards on the issue. --Slp1 12:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to answer for myself the question: How do other articles deal with lists of the dead, from a formatting perspective? How do they deal with them when some aspect of the victims identity (gender, politics, enthnicity) was the reason for their murder? The answer I came up with, is well, there is no answer.

• a google search for the exact phrase "men killed" on the en.wiki I know that in English "men" is often used interchangably with "soldiers" but it seemed word noting.
• Going_Snake_Massacre#List_of_Cherokee_men_killed
• From 1929 Hebron massacre (there is no list of the victims): "In Hebron, 67 Jews were murdered."
• Bloody Sunday (1972) "The dead" (a bit Joycean)
• "CWP marchers" Greensboro massacre "Five CWP marchers were killed. They were: Sandy Smith, a nurse and civil rights activist; Dr. James Waller, president of a local textile workers union..."
• Charles_Whitman#Casualties (divided into killed & wounded)
• "passengers" Colin Ferguson:Ferguson was convicted on February 17, 1995 of murder for the death of the six passengers who died of their injuries: (followed by list)
• Dunblane_massacre#List_of_deceased
• Jonesboro_massacre#Victims_killed (in this case also all girls, but that seemed incidental to the cause of their deaths)
• List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre is divided by location of death
• Osaka school massacre (only one boy was killed, and that is mentioned by his name in the list)
• Amish_school_shooting#Victims I note this one because it is mentioned several times that all the victims were girls, but not in the subject heading
• Virginia_Tech_massacre#Victims for some reason this list has tiny flags indicating the nationality of the deceased, not sure why. I expect the result of a great deal of discussion.

Basically, it is an important part of the general Canadian understanding of this event that the victims were women. From what I've read, I suspect that if you asked most Canadians who was killed here they could all answer "14 women". The number 14 has significance, and the fact that they were all women, and were killed for being women has significance. The article bobanny linked here has a section about how the one woman killed in the Dawson College shooting (the rest of the victims were men) has been "added" to the memorial of this event. I'm suggesting that in most of the crimes I've listed above, it is the salient facts about the people that led to their murder that are mentioned. Not always as the subject heading of a list, as we have here, but always mentioned if they are important. By the way List of massacres is a fascinating, but grisly way to spend some time. However the Marc Lepine entry on that list needs editing, as he is described as "lovesick" something I haven't seen said anywhere else, or cited. Cheers Dina 14:43, 21 April 2007(UTC)

Done. And by the way did everybody see that Marc Lepine just got Good Article status? Well done all! --Slp1 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

With a user name like Abe Lincoln, let me ask you if you've ever seen a discussion on postbellum lynching that doesn't emphasize the race of the victims. Specifying gender is highly relevant in this context, as pointed out above, and that's not the same as sexism. bobanny 22:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this issue, as Slp claims. Slp1 and Bobanny seem to have made it their pet project to use gender specific language throughout these articles -- the very same language that Abe, myself, and many others have noted. See talk pages in this article and Marc Lepine. There was the long-lived heading "Murder Victims" in this article [[4]] which raised no eyebrows until someone tried to make the article Marc Lepine more gender neutral and less POV. Slp/Bobanny, in bad faith I might add, during the discussion about that change, quietly worked to make it appear as if both articles always used the heading "Women Murdered". Tsk tsk. Now, "Women Murdered" stands and Bobanny will defend it to the end -- there is no use in delving into this discussion with her/him. Bobanny doesn't seem open to entertaining diverse perspectives or allow gender neutrality even though he or she insists upon it elsewhere [[5]]. Bobanny will allow no other point-of-view to be put forth in these articles and appears to be willing to go to great length to silence people. Shame. It's ultimately to the detriment of Wikipedia and all others who wish to build an encyclopedia that is neutral and inclusive of diverse perspectives. Dingbat22 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you would check more carefully before making such comments, Dingbat. For example, I said there was "general agreement" that a "heading of "Men murdered" would be appropriate if men had been specifically targetted in the way the women were here", and never claimed any other kind of consensus. And the heading was not "Women murdered" until very recently (it was "women killed") and the change to "Murdered" was not made by either Bobanny or me. Given the history tab, it is unlikely that anyone could or would ever try to make it appear "as if both articles always used the heading "Women Murdered"" and given that this is an ever-changing article, it would be pointless to do so in any case. You are however correct that there have been several people who have objected to the specification of gender in the headings. None of them have been able to produce a reliable source to explain why or how this statement is not of neutral point of view: no reliable source denies that Lepine's targets were women or that they were killed/murdered. If you are able to produce an appropriate source, then please feel free. It is not silencing people to ask them questions and request sources. I would like to remind you again about assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks.Slp1 00:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Another thing to check, surely: Your quoted edit of Bobanny's [6] cannot possibly be described as insisting on gender neutrality since "gunwoman" becomes "woman with a gun"! Slp1 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop Dingbat22, you're hurting my feelings. If you really and truly believe you have a compelling case and want to save Wikipedia from us Wiki-fascists, by all means, make a request for comment and get a consensus for "gunperson," "deceased humanoids," or whatever. While you're at it, maybe get "Montreal" removed from the article to be fair to other cities. On your other points, I defer to comrade Slp1's comments and authority. Sincerely, your unscrupulous and wily oppressor, bobanny 02:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that the title be changed. I simply pointed out that the title *used to be* "Murder Victims" (before "Women Killed" and "Women Murdered") until it was changed in Marc Lepine. Until then, "Murder victims" was widely considered acceptable for this article. Then it was changed (feel free to check the history) during a discussion on this very topic in Marc Lepine. Assuming good faith, I'd suggest that was a coincidence, but I suspect it was not. The use of gender-specific terminology here (much as with the term "gunman") is a choice that you are making to emphasize gender and by extension POV. If it were not POV you wouldn't cling to it in the way that you do, since "murder victims" is equally accurate and more uniformly used in Wikipedia. The article does cite a number of sources that reflect the opinion that this was a political attack, but that doesn't mean that the wording in the article doesn't leave the reader with the impression that it was gender-based. You're using the semantic emphasis of gender as a tool to push your POV and I think that is wrong. Arguments have been made on both sides and to your credit some of these are included in this article. But the use of semantics that leave someone with the specific impression that it was a gender-based attack by emphasizing gender at every turn ("gunman", "women killed", etc) is not NPOV even though it's technically accurate. Dingbat22 13:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you've done that much digging into the history of these articles, surely you've noticed somewhere along the way that Slp1 and I have engaged extensively and openly with editors we have disagreed with. The sneaky cover-up you're alleging doesn't make sense for this and other reasons. Once again, if you think that there's a consensus out there waiting to happen, or which has been stifled by our devious tactics, then make an WP:RFC and solicit outside views. I personally would be very impressed if you actually made the effort and succeeded in building a consensus that this was not a gender-based attack. In the meantime, the thought makes me snicker. bobanny 15:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (how about "defunct mammals"? Or would that discriminate against non-mammalians?)

I'm not saying that it wasn't a gender-based attack. I'm saying that there is debate around whether it was around gender specifically or political ideology as noted by verifiable sources in the article itself and in Lepine's suicide letter. The gratuitous gender specficity of the article, particularly in headings, shows your bias. Your tendency to hold to that bias is clear from your persistent edit wars and discussions with other editors. The point, in short, is that you go out of your way to use gender-loaded language -- language that would not typically be used elsewhere. Nobody is suggesting that the gender of the victims be removed or the gender of the shooter be hidden, but the *excessive* emphasis of both within the article (which matches nothing else in Wikipedia) is POV. I said I would not edit this article before we began this discussion, and I'll keep to my word. I'll allow you to get the last word in the space below. Ready... Go!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingbat22 (talk • contribs) 16:21 18 May 2007

Thanks for the space and promise that this will be the last word. You've ignored every argument that's been made. You're making nonsensical claims that gender-specific terminology, such as "gunman," are unconventional; that "murder victims" is the norm (despite Dina's survey presented above); you make unequivocal yet convoluted assertions but refuse to explain what the hell you mean, instead resorting to ad hominem attacks. But I concede on one point. I do have a point of view, which is that I think you are ridiculous. bobanny 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Thanks for your response, Dingbat22, and for its focus on the issues. However, I disagree with your analysis. All the verifiable, reliable sources agree that this WAS a gender-based attack. No reliable source has ever been found that disputes this, though I would welcome any new information that you may have. The controversy related to this event has been related to how it has been used to advance a feminist agenda, and the importance of mental health issues etc, but none of these various interpretations dispute that he killed women and that he targeted women in particular, just argue about why he did it. As a result, I disagree that the heading title is POV. In fact, I would argue that those who have sought to change it are actually the ones who are trying to push their POV, since they are seeking to obscure gender in an event in which gender has been central and overwhelmingly accepted as such. Most (but not all) have been single-purpose accounts, often using Original Research to argue their case, and certainly none has produced a reliable source that supports their view, despite requests and even encouragement.
With regard to “gunman” issue, for me this is a completely separate issue, since the reasoning is very different. You have shown clear undertanding on another article [7] that other people’s quotes cannot be changed and I am at a loss to understand why you cannot accept this here, especially as your intervention succeeded in altering the one instance of gunman that could be changed. --Slp1 16:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PS You mention that "Arguments have been made on both sides and to your credit some of these are included in this article". Thanks for the (partial!) compliment, but can you clarify which arguments are not included in the article? I would like the article to be complete if you could provide reliable, verifiable sources for ones that are missing. Thanks Slp1 16:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NB If reading this, please note time stamps on these last posts! <<-- there was an edit conflict and I didn't know how Wikipedia resolves it. I'm not a Wikiguru like the two of you, apparently, but hadn't read your post and unless invited will keep to my word to call it a day. Dingbat22 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am going to take the bait of the last word, and since I have edit-conflicted with Bobanny (again!) I actually may have it. You have made some serious claims in your posts here, Dingbat22. Neither your statements (as an example "language that would not typically be used elsewhere") nor your accusations about other editors (as an example "persistent edit wars") are borne out by the facts, as a reading of the article/talk pages at Marc Lepine and Ecole Polytechnique Massacre would make clear to anybody who is interested. --Slp1 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

So an infobox reappeared a few days ago and I still don't like it, though maybe there are ways and means to live with it. My big problems are:
the picture of the plaque is now so small that one can't read the names which kinda ruins the point of the photo.
We've lost "motive" but have "target(s)" instead, which now says the Ecole Polytechnique as the target, which is a bit debatable, as I would say it is the location, really. Thoughts? --Slp1 13:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it either. It doesn't really add anything, and even detracts from the article, as you point out. It's also weird to categorize this as a terrorist attack (it's a terrorism infobox). Sure it was an act of terror and yes it was politically motivated. But Lepine wasn't part of an organized movement and even the wing-nuts haven't claimed it was part of a larger political strategy (the first, but also apparently the last, counterattack against feminism). bobanny 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to get rid of it then. I checked other massacre articles of this genre and most of them don't have it, so let's wait till someone creates one that suits the event. --Slp1 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Gunman vs. Shooter

My change of "gunman" to "shooter" was to use appropriate non-gendered language, much as we would use it with "actor" (when describing a female actor or "chair/chairperson" instead of "chairman"). The change was reverted. The comments indicated that the change hid the gender of the shooter. I suggest that his gender is clear to anyone reading the article and that shooter is the appropriate term. Comments...? Dingbat22 19:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree gender-neutral language is usually the way to go, but it isn't necessarily sexist language to specify gender, which is clearly relevant to this article. Probably though, the better argument for using 'gunman' instead of 'shooter' is just that that is what's still conventionally used, especially when preceded by "lone." A google of the Wikipedia site turns up 93 hits for "lone gunman" compared to none for "lone shooter." Being an encyclopedia, it's not Wikpedia's job to be a pioneer in the gender-neutralization of the language. Also, I believe what makes "actress" and similar examples considered sexist by some is that it lends itself to a sort of "separate but equal" type distinction that I don't think applies in this case. bobanny 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no shortage of the mass media's use of the word "shooter". It's a well known term, often used in western media, and particularly in Quebec. While "gunman" is also often used (just as "actress" is often used for a female actor), gender-neutral terminology is always more appropriate. Thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingbat22 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 4 May 2007

I'm all for gender neutrality unless the result looks contrived or silly. As pointed out in my edit summary, using "shooter" introduces a clumsy and close-to-ugly phrase into the article, "lone shooter". Google for "lone gunman" (324,000 ) vs "lone shooter" (<1,000 ). There's a reason for the disparity. "Lone shooter" is a clinker. It just doesn't flow. Wikipedia has enough clumsy phrases sprinkled around without us introducing new ones. That's all I have to say on the subject, as I have no interest in engaging in what's sure to become a PC debate. You may revert my revert if you wish. --CliffC 20:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not when preceded by "lone." A google of cbc.ca turns up similar results (73 to 0), and canada.com has 186 for "lone gunman" and about 3 for "lone shooter" (22 in total, but most are repeats). All of the changes you made were of the "lone..." variety, one of which was a direct quote, which can't be changed no matter how politically incorrect. bobanny 20:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for changina direct quote. I didn't mean to. I assumed they were scare quotes since they weren't reference. I have put in a proposed compromise. Thoughts? Dingbat22 20:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I too am all for gender-neutral, but agree with CliffC and Bobanny that can make the text very clunky and unnatural sounding. As far as your proposal as concerned, I'm afraid I disagree that the Dawson college and Ecole Polytechnique were "similar circumstances" in any meaningful way, and I think the other "lone gunman" quotes should be left how they were. I have just noticed that Bobanny has reverted, and I agree with this. Slp1 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. And of course the last one can't be changed, because it is another quote from Steyn. --Slp1 21:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(d'oh! second edit conflict with you today, Slp1)

I reverted again. I'm being extra-protective of this article because it's a featured article candidate. As for specifics: one of your changes again was a direct quote, another could be seen as a scare quote, but in fact quotes the title of the newspaper article it cites (everything's properly cited). The third one, where you changed it to "killed in similar circumstances" is arguable (in some ways this massacre is unique). Part of why "lone gunman" has more resonance is that it has a historical connotation that shouldn't be lost here. It can be seen as an allusion to the lone gunman theory, which is the counter to the JFK conspiracy theories. Why that's relevant here is because there's a similar debate: was Lepine a "lone gunman" or representative of something larger? The something larger in the JFK assassination is a political conspiracy, and here it's violence against women. I ask that you don't make the change again without getting a consensus here first. (If it's that important to you, try a request for comment and I will abide by any consensus that emerges). I don't mind discussing it further, but I believe I made some solid arguments above that you haven't addressed yet. cheers, bobanny 21:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that "killer in similar circumstances" is arguable. I'll leave that alone, since it is debateable. But referring to a theory with a dated nomenclature is much like ascribing the dated term "GRIDS" to "AIDS" (or for that matter, "actor" vs. "actress"). Language is an ever-changing thing. We need to be moving forward. In Quebec, where this happened, the word "shooter" is most prevalent, and it is used in many mainstream media outlets (notwithstanding CBC) interachangeably [[8]]; even the term you so staunchly object to, "lone shooter" is used in the mainstream [[9]]. To your point of "violence against women" and "historical context" -- yes, I agree that it's something that is debated, which is why it is of utmost importance that we don't ascribe POV by using terminology like the gendered term "gunman". There must be a compromise here where we can (a) remove the gendered term gunman, and (b) ensure that the wording is not awkward by your standards. Suggestions? Dingbat22 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty and clear response, Dingbat, which gets to the core of the problem, which is your dislike of the POV-ness of the language. Firstly, I am not sure that WP is the place to try and change language and common usage, though I do agree that it can play its part. Secondly, I don't agree with you about the shooter thing being most prevalent in Quebec (I live in Montreal), and in any case your example was from an AP article published in an Ontario newspaper, and used "lone gunman" in the headline. In any case the point remains that "lone shooter" is a very unusual phrase, even if the occasional paper uses it. To speak to your main point, (and we have been through similar discussions here before, see the talkpages here and on Marc Lepine) nobody has ever come up with a source that disputes that women were specifically targetted here. It is not POV because there is no reliable source that say it was not a gender-based attack. Other things are debated, but not this. Gender is critical to this event, unlike the other shootings where you have made the gunman -> shooter change.
Having said that, the reason I am sticking to the lone gunman idea is because they are quotes. In this article, the word "gunman" appears 3 times. Two are quotes and cannot be changed. The third is related to the Dawson college shooting and could be changed to "a shooter" or "Kimveer Gill", I think. Would that work for Dingbat and others? Slp1 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra: The Montreal Gazette had 500 hits for the word "gunman" in the last 30 days and 168 for "shooter", so I don't think it is the most prevalent, really. Slp1 22:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your suggestion. bobanny 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as concerned about the POV as I am with gender neutrality. You are clearly not a proponent of gender neutrality, and I think that's a pity. Where I was showing that "lone gunman" and "lone shooter" are both used in mainstream media in the same article to show their interchangability (perhaps I should have been more explicit), you only see the word gunman. In terms of the quote, you *chose* "lone gunman". I could just as easily choose a quote from a newspaper that shows Lepine as a "shooter" or one that notes his religion or any other item that you have already determined to be unsavoury. I suggest that the next time you consider changing something in Wikipedia for the sake of gender-neutrality (or race- or religious-neutrality) that you consider the arguments that you made here. Those same arguments could be used for any other bigoted choice of language in any other article and any other politic. Dingbat22 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made the case that specifying gender is inherently bigoted. You seem to be asserting that "reverse sexism" automatically flows out of feminist critiques of sexist language, but it doesn't and can't. Gender is central to this subject, and you're either disingenuous about not being concerned with POV, or else you're trivializing sexism by reducing it to semantics. Try going over to the History of slavery in the United States article and removing race-specific references claiming they're racist, and see what kind of response you get. bobanny 17:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This time it was my turn for the edit conflict! arrrrgh

• I don't in any way disagree that shooter and gunman are used interchangeably in many articles, and you will note that this in fact is what I have suggested.
• I myself would welcome additions to the article in terms of new references, including ones that call him a "shooter" and a "lone shooter". I have no objection to the term. The point (that you must surely understand) is that we cannot change other people's words. The quotes that are there make very important points, and I think it is unlikely that you would easily find ones that could replace them and make the points they make, but do go ahead and try.
• I'm not clear about your point about religion and unsavouriness. Lepine was baptised into the Catholic church as a baby. (The making of a massacre: The Marc Lepine story Greg Weston and Jack Aubry. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Feb 7, 1990) I don't consider this unsavoury, just not very relevant.
• BTW since your concern is about "bigoted choice of language" and working for gender-neutral language, I hope that you are going to be equally diligent in trying to change other examples in Wikipedia. For example, there are 1421 instances of Fireman, and 3857 instances of Policeman, though I am sure that there too, you will find quotes, and names of programs/shows etc that cannot be changed, so the task may not be as difficult as it looks! --Slp1 18:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobanny, the fact that you consider it "reverse" sexism as opposed to sexism (as if women are incapable of being sexist toward men or men sexist toward other men) illustrates your closed-mindedness, in my opinion. Sexism can happen both ways. There's no such thing as "reverse" sexism, just sexism. Slp, I agree that instances of "fireman" should be changed to "firefighter". If this article had a passage that said "policemen" chased after Lepine, I would have absolutely, definitely would have changed it to police officer without missing a beat. I suspect you would not have reverted that change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dingbat22 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

My point was simply that feminists have argued rigorously and extensively that sexism towards women is and has been a major social problem. It's only because of that effort that calls for gender-neutral language were taken seriously. If you just assume that the reverse is true for sexism directed at men without bothering to make an argument, I really don't understand why you're surprised your position seems purely semantic and trivial to others. Sexism directed at men by women is and has been comparatively inconsequential, and therefore socially insignificant. Marc Lepine was a man who wielded a gun, ergo, "gunman." The article on Valerie Solanas doesn't use the term because, well, she's not a man. What's the issue? Where's the injustice? Are we worried about hurting someone's feelings? That's all. bobanny 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is not to debate feminism. As a feminist, I'm proud of the many successes the movement has enjoyed. I am only trying to apply here what was fought so hard for by so many. While I thoroughly enjoy your historical deconstruction of sexism, it is not for me to agree or disagree. Nor is it the point. I have made my opinion clear. You call my edits trivial and are unwilling to discuss compromises that change the one word you so treasure. I am not going spend days in an edit war with you or trying to convince you that you're being hypocritical. All I will do is point out the hypocrisy of your statements, and repeat that I hope that you will use the same standard when editing other articles in Wikipedia in the future. I find it almost ironic, that the article that you pointed to on Valerie Solanas does not call her a gunwoman or a shooter or use any gendered semantics. I am quite confident that if it used a gendered term, say, "attempted murderess" or "actress" , that you would be one of the first to change it to "attempted murderer" and "actor." I would agree with that change and support you. And yet, here, you're afraid of changing the word "gunman" and I'm at a loss as to why. It doesn't mattter. You've won. I'm not editing the article anymore and in your memory, while I will reserve the right make other gender-neutrality changes, I will promise to never change "policeman/police woman" to "police officer" anywhere in Wikipedia. Dingbat22 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't noticed, but I have discussed compromises and agreed to one (see above) and I haven't edit-warred on the issue (one revert accompanied with discussion here is hardly edit-warring). You've asserted your position very forcefully, but I couldn't agree that you've made your opinion clear, since you've refused to indicate why you believe "gunman" is sexist in this context. Finally, I never claimed that I'm not a hypocrite, but if my comments here contain inconsistencies, I'm sure you wouldn't point them out to me when you can just call me names. But I do promise to change "gunwoman" everywhere I come across it on Wikipedia[10]. bobanny 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Gunman" is sexist for the same reason "murderess" would be. Does that clarify? Dingbat22 01:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that's an analogy, not a reason. "Murderess" is offensive to me because it's bad diction, not because it's sexist. bobanny 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What about a compromise for the one instance where 'gunman' is not used in a quote: We could put 'single shooter'? To me, it seems to fit well in that sentence ("Subsequent changes to emergency response protocols led to praise of emergency responders' handling of the Dawson College shooting in 2006 in which one woman was killed by a lone gunman (single shooter?)."), and sounds less clunky than 'lone shooter', and is still 'gender-neutral'. Thoughts? Nathanalex 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Slp1 made the same proposal about a foot above. bobanny 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended because I know (most of) the parties here are trying their best to acheive some sort of consensus, but I must say I'm not impressed by a process by which people trying to build a reference work, this encyclopedia, can take two crisp, clean, totally unambiguous words like "lone" and "gunman", that when combined make up an equally crisp, clean and unambiguous phrase, and substitute for them two "safe" words, one of which has a half-dozen different meanings and the other at least a dozen, creating a phrase that sounds like it came out of a committee meeting (which I guess it did). "Single shooter" it is, then, and let's all get back to doing something useful. --CliffC 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Make mine a double. bobanny 05:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I think "a shooter" would get the point across nicely, and would sound less committee-meeting-esque, and I am boldly venturing over to the article to do the deed. As you say, CliffC, onto something more useful!--Slp1 11:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)