Talk:Marc Lépine/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 picture of Lépine's tomb=
- 2 Background Information
- 3 Tragically Hip song
- 4 Islam
- 5 name-use schemes
- 6 Ruger Mini-14 a "hunting rifle"
- 7 ReqImage
- 8 Removal
- 9 Drop the Feminist Hate Dogma
- 10 I have put in a request for Semi-protection
- 11 recent changes
- 12 Reflective comments
- 13 Disputed sentence about the name
- 14 Starting sources
picture of Lépine's tomb=
Would it be useful to have a picture of his tomb? (It is even legal to take pictures of tombs?) - Sepper 15:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is tragic that Marc Lepine's actions have been reduced to being seen simply as those typical of a mass murderer, when he had so much he wanted to explain to the world - about what it was like to prepare for a career and then be pushed out, what it must have been like to try and have a relationship with a girl when what girls wanted was a man with a future and money. Lepine keeps getting put in with mass murderers when he should be being looked at as a symbol of what is wrong with society. It is conveneient for academics, male and female, to keep Lepine in the same category as mass murderers. Thanks to Elliott Leyton who started it, and feminists who jumped o to this easy solution - the scapegoating of Marc Lepine. 20 Dec 2006 Suemcp 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to include more information upon his background? I read a extremely in depth account of this mass murderer in a TIME Life book entitled "Mass Murderers." I don't know if it would be in violation of copyright infringement to quote or paraphrase some of that account, therefore I will not do it. However, next time I am at the library, I will borrow it for a couple seconds to include it in the Further Reading section. Crisco 1492 20:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I would be very wary of accounts of Lepine's life that included him among mass murderers. There are many different varieties of mass murderers. Lepine wasn't someone who went after women because of sex, or because he hated prostitutes, for instance. He went after them because there probably was no other way for him to deal with this in his life. He saw it as a social issue which was not being recognized in society, that feminists were taking jobs traditionally held for men. What is a man to do, when the career he expected isn't forthcoming? Obviously he didn't know how to handle it. He was expected to take a dead-end job and go to church and be happy. suemcp 19:18 1 Dec 2006.
Tragically Hip song
Is there a reason why it's rarely performed, and only a snippit appears on the album? Don't know if it would be worthwhile explaining here or elsewhere, or no. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be relevant to note in the article (this, or the one for the massacre) that he and his father are/were Muslims?
- Please sign your entries User:18.104.22.168. I don't think it relevant to add that info. An entry like that for the reason you cite will be challenged, by Muslins and others that that have views different from yours. I am adding this same note to Talk:École Polytechnique massacre Regards, Cafe Nervosa | talk17:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Islam has nothing to do with this act anymore than Protestant Chrisitanity did have to do with the Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact that Marc Lépine's father was an alcoholic, and the Gamil renounced his Algerian hertiage and took a French name proves that religion played no role here, Islam or otherwise. -- KB 03:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- What you're told as a young person can affect your world-view. Muslims are told that women should take on only certain positions, and it obvious that he shared that view. We don't know for sure that it is causation, so we shouldn't say that, but for completeness (as this article isn't about the massacre), his religion should be mentioned.
Who has established Islam to be anti-woman? How does a religion get classified as such? The author of the comment speaks as though it is a matter of fact. This is not a neutral point of view.
- How is Islam relavent to this, as a matter of fact, since he rejected his father's name, he did not want anything to do with Islam. I suggest removing the Muslim Canadian tag from this page.Nokhodi 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- obviously it should be included in the article that he/his father were muslims (this areticle is about him and that was part of him) though it must be careful to avoid anything tying his religion with the murders. unless you come up with hard evidencesay1988 04:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- The religion of a person or that in which he/she was raised is a relevant biographical detail but unless it is known whether this particular individual was an adherent of Islam it is difficult to use such info in a biography. Apple Rancher 04:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Marc's life was claimed as the action of a name-use call-demand business scheme that focused upon/targeted surnames which alluded to culinary arts. Intent has been demonstrated among such participants to initiate and 'order' a product-development pool and mass market a 'minceur-type' knife for the benefit of refugees displaced from the Kinzua Valley by the Kinzua Dam Hydroelectric Project at the New York/Pennsylvania state border.
The call-demand network methodological operation uses the telephone as a strategy to demand action, including demands to have "reports" from 'chosen' individuals. Beadtot 23:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC) 12/20/2005 beadtot NOTE: the strategy was operational before the Kinzue Dam was built and the Kinzua Valley population was displaced.
Ruger Mini-14 a "hunting rifle"
The wikipedia article about the Mini-14 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-14 ) calls it "technically an assault rifle". So, is there a reason why it's called a "hunting rifle" here? (22.214.171.124 01:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
- Just because it is and assault rifle, doe not mean it is not a hunting rifle. If you wanted you could use a M-16 as a hunting rifle. The terms do not rule each other out. And for this discussions Mini-14s were used for hunting. say1988 04:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The article on the Ruger Mini-14 stating that it is an assault rifle is wrong (and will soon be changed!): the Mini-14 is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is defined as “a military rifle that fires an undersized rifle round and is capable of selective fire.” Selective fire meaning that it is capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire. The Mini-14 only meets one of these criteria in that it fires an undersized round, the .223/5.56 mm cartridge. While the Mini-14 has been used by various police/paramilitary forces, the Mini-14 was originally designed as a “varmint” gun to be used for hunting small animals such as foxes, coyotes, and such.
L.J. Brooks 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps his mug shot?
- Umm, he killed himself. They generally don't take mugshots of dead criminals. Theducks 03:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
While I may agree with the sentiment of the person who wrote: "We should never offer a burial to this misogynist animal bastard!!" It is a personal opinion which does not add any information to the page. I suspect that the purpose of the page to provide information about Marc Lépine, not to discuss the eligibility of mass murderers for burial rights. Apple Rancher 04:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi all - I have altered references to "International Marc Lepine" day to resotre NPOV (by changing the construction that indicated as fact that there was "a feminist war on men" and that its opponents celebrated International Marc Lepine Day. While there may be antifeminists who do "celebrate" the mass murder, I could find no indication of it. I note that the person who made those entries has a history of vandalism.--Crazybrave 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You have removed content that was added to provide neutral point of view. Your insult to other editors is also noted. I have added a NPOV flag to the page because your very biased editing offends people who don't share your bigotry. Bob. December 23, 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 December 2006
Drop the Feminist Hate Dogma
Who is trying to use Wikipedia to promote feminist midandry? Isn't it bad enough that Canadian femnist groups use Marc Lepine as a whipping boy for anti-men hate? Let's try to make this page POV neutral and drop the very strong anti-men bias. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs).
Note: Many of this page's comments have been altered to change their tone and content. Trying to revert back to a clean version is difficult without removing things, so I have not, so please take into account that any comment here may have been vandalized. If confused, check the history of this page. Dina 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, AFAIK the only times that comments were modified by someone other than their authors were here and here. I've looked through the history of this talk page for the last year, and those are the only ones I could find. --Saforrest 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I got my attention drawn to this page, was confused, and then realized comments had been vandalized. I'd just requested sprotection for it, so I wanted anyone checking here to realize that something fishy was going on...You did a more thorough job than me. Cheers Dina 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Your continually reverting and changing content to espouse a feminist misandrist advocacy does not comply with neutral POV policy. Deleting content that provides differing views and editing or reverting attempts at neutral editing is perhaps the worst form of prejudicial advocacy. Bob: (And, no, the WP sign in software doesn't work with Hughesnet users.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 December 2006
I have put in a request for Semi-protection
The nonsense on this page really needs to stop. Whether it's misandry or misogyny (and I honestly am not sure, though I suspect the latter). Cheers Dina 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You, Diana, reverted to all the misandrist prejudicial language first. No POV neutrality there. Pathetic bigot. Ghost violated the 3 revert in one day by his own admission 5 reverts. He has refused to discuss proposed changes here on the discussion page. All we see are the continual revert to a previous inaccurate and misandrist prejudical version. That is classic vandalism. It is the ghost that should be blocked.
Note: The WP softward does not distinguish between HughesNet editors. Those of us with accounts still show up as some URL string, probably becasue HughesNet switches us between their net servers frequently and WP software can't cope with the changes. I can sign in 4 times and still end up with simply a URL number shown. Stop calling me "anonymous." That is also offensive.
- You are "anonymous" as log as you edit without a logged-in account; this is not an insult but simply fact. In any case, if you are responsible for this ([]) then I can't really be persuaded of your good faith. --Saforrest 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
WRONG!! Hughesnet uses floating URL tags which confuses the WP system. Bob has a logged in WP account, but the WP system ignores it every time Hughsnet shifts URL numbers, which happens every time the screen is refreshed. The problems of the WP software should not be blamed on rural users who use satelite direct Internet. Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 December 2006
I have just reverted the December 17th changes to this article. The additions are, in my opinion, a personal commentary and impression, which adds inappropriate POV to the article. I don't believe that unsourced speculation about motives/impact should be included. --Slp1 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Those changes were made by me. And what you consider to be "personal" are actually reflcetive comments by someone who also was pushed out - by feminists and by other middle class privileged, thoughtless greedy individuals. I am really sick and tired of being jusged, and seeing Marc Lepine judged by people who don't know the politics, and the social circumstances. If you want to talk about what I write, do so. But don't just wipe out all my efforts. When you do that, you are doing exactly what those feminists did - to me, and to Marc Lepine. Yes, you are privileged. But that doesn't mean you know more. It must means you get your own way without having to explain or discuss. Suemcp 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I appreciate your feelings, and how, given what you have experienced, you must relate to Marc Lepine and his predicament. And how it must feel to have your own reflective comments removed. But nevertheless the article pages need to be verifiable and have a neutral point of view. The talk pages are better places for your reflective comments and noone will delete them there.
BTW, if you don't like being judged then you will appreciate that I don't like it either! --Slp1 00:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
But I'm not wiping out all your work, which is what is happening to me, and from what I see, by someone who has not researched this topic or reflected on it but is simply quoting all the same old feminist perspectives that have always been allowed to stand, simply because feminists have far too much power. To make a move of 'reverting' to an original state is a major one to make, and should not be made lightly. Furthermoer, you have to understand that much of what happened is not verifiable (except that the murders happened which is what feminists and most middle class male academics would want us to remember). The rest is up to interpretation, to knowledge of social context, etc. And I have studied sociology, then, finally, being pushed out of a PhD programme. Luckily for most academics, their wives, children and mistresses, most people without education will take that to mean I did something wrong or was not intelligent enough. Such is the world - geared towards the interests of those with the most power. Suemcp 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There is also the matter of the title of the event, which always was the Montreal Massacre, and only now is being called the Polytechnique Massacre, which associates the killings with school killings rather than with the wider context of Montreal itself, or of society. It is a mistake to think of it in those terms, although I don't like the phrase Montreal Massacre either. Taking out the word massacre and calling it killings would be more realistic. These were not innocent seals Lepine was killing. They were powerful women, regardless of whether they saw themselves as such. They were takin the places of working class men who had aspirations for a better future. So rather than word the first line of the article so it makes it appear as though it w always was called the Ecole Polytechnique, it would be better to acknowledge the original name and go on from there. For the last 17 years it has been known as the Montreal Massacre. Suemcp 19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Suemcp, for post above and in particular for explaining your reasoning about the title. I understand what you mean by "originally" now, so I thank you.
I also understand your comments about the title of the event. I don't like "Montreal Massacre" either. But the fact is that my likes and dislikes about the title are irrelevant here on Wikipedia, because all the changes we make here have to be verifiable from a reliable source and not be original research. The Wikipedia verifiability policy even says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." I think you might find it useful to read these policy documents, if you haven't already, as they are the foundation blocks for what can and cannot go in an article:
Wikipedia is not like a homepage or writing an essay where one has total freedom to say what one wants. It is not the place to try to develop an argument for something or to try to change people's attitudes. It is really a very boring place where material that has been published elsewhere are collected together!!
So, while I can understand that you think that "Ecole Polytechnique killings" would be a better name for this tragedy, you need to find a reliable source(s) that this is what the event is now called by the world at large. My researches suggest that it is very rarely called this at present. I did a google news search for "Montreal Massacre" which got 151 hits, "Ecole Polytechnique Massacre" which got 51 hits  and "Ecole Polytechnique killings" which got 0 hits.  I don't think the change of the name to "Ecole Polytechnique killings" is verifiable, and am therefore going to change it back to "Ecole Polytechnique massacre" for now. But if you can find some reliable sources for "Ecole Polytechnique killings" then that would be great and we can look at it again.
Please don't take this personally. I had some of my early edits challenged when I first started here, and I got frustrated too. But since then I have realized that it was just that I didn't understand the policies and guidelines well enough at the time. And as a gesture of good faith I am going to copy the reflective comments that you originally put in the article to this talk page so that you don't feel that your work was "wiped out". --Slp1 15:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The use of "massacre" is pejorative and negates a neutral POV. Its only one of the many misandrist language and editing abuses on the page. Bob (from whatever URL Hughesnet is using at the moment.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 24 December 2006, 21:34 (UTC).
Slp1, YOU TALK AS THOUGH YOU ARE NEW TO THIS TOPIC. I question the value of your input as you seem to simply be reiterating what the media and feminists have been putting across all these years and claiming that is the one and only truth. Decribing feminist political rants and media hype as credible sources, as you did, above, is one of the challenges seekers of the truth have to contend with. I shouldn't be having to explain the basics of our society - of our system, to you, who claims to know the truth or have access to it, as though the truth is there, obvious to anyone who looks at newspaper reports. I am just getting so frustrated at all of this. My frustration is different than yours. We are not the same. When you started making changes here, no doubt they were simply reflecting the commonly understqood view of the Montreal Massacre. I have been trying to make chnes to that and have succeed in many small ways but each one met with reistance, and probably from you, or people like you, still immerssed in the prevailing view. So don't talk like you've been making significant changes. Your mentality doesn't suggest you are capable, not if you;re still seeing the original meida and feminist/male academic response as the Truth.
Maybe what I wrote on the Lepine page wasn't all that acceptable for that page, when I tried to explain the thought behind the killings, but I am having great difficulty in getting my points across. But wiping them all out without addressing them was not the answer.
According to your logic, above, the name of this event should be Montreal Massacre, as that is what most people are using. The world is not using the phrase, Ecole Polytechnique Massacres more than the phrase Montreal Massacre, so why change it to that, except for feminist political purposes, attempting to trivialize and reduce the significance of the killing. And besides that, it wasn't a massacre, as Bob also says, above. He was one man. He wasn't an army going in and destroying helpless women. He was one man, taking it upon himself to act in self defence and for the good of the country. That wasn't a massacre. It should even be called that. I have once again edited the first sentence so that it reads "Marc Lépine was a 25 year old man from the Province of Quebec, Canada, who killed 14 women in what has been called for the last 17 years "the Montreal Massacre," , more recently renamed "the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre". Suemcp 10:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, let me thank you for the changes you made to the first sentence. I think it is clearer now. I also appreciate your difficulties in expressing your ideas clearly, and that you understand now that the initial reflective comments were perhaps not so acceptable for article page, but that you would like something of the sort included in the article, however.
- But I do wish that you would avoid resorting to personal attacks when responding. It really is not necessary and does not help your cause at all. The link above might be useful to read, perhaps.
- I am not going to respond to your comments in detail, though I suggest that you (or anybody else who is interested!!) reread what I have said and the changes that I have made or proposed to the article/talk pages at Marc Lepine and Ecole Polytechnique Massacre. I have never claimed "feminist political rants" as credible sources or "to know the truth". I have been trying to make sure that the articles are verifiable and of neutral point of view, and as a result have even proposed changes that were sympathetic to your position (e.g. few -> some for number of men injured). And I actually agree that changing the title to Montreal Massacre should be considered based on the Google hits evidence, though there may be other factors involved.
- But I am concerned that as "seeker of the truth" (self-described) you may have misunderstood Wikipedia. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is the first sentence from Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please find some reliable sources for your points and you will likely find the editing road much less arduous. I actually think your ideas are very interesting and would like to see them included too, but we need sources for them as well as many of the other things in these articles. I intend to slowly work through all of them in the next little while. --Slp1 16:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Several of you misandrist feminist advocates could use a re-read of the WP policy on neutral POV. This piece is solely a partisan political speech with no redeeming neutrality or even acknowledgement of opposing political views. It is one of the most partisan political hate pieces on WP. Stonewalling opposing views and refusing to compromise with more neutral content does not make a bigoted hate article into a neutral article. This thing reads like it was written by a "women's commission" rather than a neutral body. For the moment I have given up editing the page because there are too many bigots who immediately revert to their prejudicial hate speech. Bob 22.214.171.124 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The following comments are copied here from the article where they were added by --Suemcp on December 17th 2006
It is unknown whether Lépine intended to kill the listed women. It is unlikely he intended to, though he may have felt like it. Feminists being what they are, supporting only middle class women and using sex to get ahead in life, he must have felt pretty riled up at times, particularly if he had anything to do with them at all. But the women on the list were probably spread out to such an extent he would never have had the opportunity. It's just another way of getting at Lépine, and making him appear a nasty person. Maybe they were the names of women he had written to, to express his concern, but who never wrote back. Lépine's suicide letter was never officially made public, but was conveniently leaked to Francine Pelletier, who apparently translated it herself into English and had it published in the newspaper La Presse. In his suicide letter, Lépine expressed admiration for Denis Lortie, who mounted a political attack on the Quebec National Assembly in 1984, killing three Quebec government employees. It is also suggested,in an odd twist of language, that Lépine said he did not kill for economic reasons. What he meant was that he had enough money to last until he had carried out his last battle against feminism. It did not mean that he was happy working in a dead-end job.
It is entirely inappropriate to connect Marc Lépine with the social cuase of violence against women. Most violence against women is committed by men the women are in relationships with. Marc Lépine killed women because they were taking jobs that had tradtionally been held for men. There was no way for Lépine to resolve this matter in his life. There was no help. No one was there to listen. It is highly doubtful feminists would. One would think that committing such a act of violence would draw attention to the significance of his actions, but it had (with the help of feminists, male academics, and the media) the opposite effect. No one listened. Feminists expected that ordinary people would take this violent episdoe and link it in their minds to the social problem of 'violence' against women. And it has worked! Congartulations, feminists. The only problem is it doesn't even make sense. It wasn't about relationships with women. It was about work. Note: These were some of the comments I made that were removed from the main page on Lepine recently and someone has placed here on the discussion page. Feel free to comment. End. Suemcp 13:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be very appropriate to include some discussion of the war on men that Mr. Lepine fought against in order to allow an understanding of Mr. Lepine and his counter assault against the feminists at the university. Understanding of Mr. Lepine is furthered by including references to his views. Understanding of Mr. Lepine is harmed by inappropriate use of WP to promote the feminist political agenda he fought against. 126.96.36.199 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Disputed sentence about the name
I took a turn at it, trying to satisfy both points of view (there was also an extra comma in the most recent edit by Suemcp. I think the rewrite toes the line between saying that the events are only called École Polytechnique massacre and allows for Suemcp's assertion that that is the current name. Cheers. Dina 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
IF you insist on using the term "massacre" in the title there should be an explanation that the title is a partisan political lable used to push a feminist anti-men agenda, and include discussion of how the politization of Mr. Lepine has been conducted by politival advocates. Using biased political speech as "the proper name" makes "neutral POV" into a travesty. Bob 188.8.131.52 03:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the indiscriminate murder of 14 unarmed people and the further wounding of another 13 other people easily qualifies as a "massacre" under any definition of the word. --Wafulz 07:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have started sourcing and expanding this article too. Hopefully the changes are self explanatory given the references!! --Slp1 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I have done another batch, up to him leaving CEGEP Saint Laurent. It would have been quite difficult to do this on the talk page first, so I have been bold and gone ahead. As above with the changes, I would welcome improvements of any sort and also any questions since I guess access to the Ottawa Citizen article is difficult for most. Also any suggestions or comments. Is it too detailed? Not detailed enough? Should it be divided into sections (childhood, adolescence, etc) --Slp1 23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)