Jump to content

Talk:École Polytechnique massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleÉcole Polytechnique massacre is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 31, 2007, and will appear again on December 6, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 5, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 6, 2004, December 6, 2005, December 6, 2006, December 6, 2007, December 6, 2008, December 6, 2009, December 6, 2011, December 6, 2014, and December 6, 2019.


Removal of information

[edit]

@Harizotoh9: removed a couple of paragraphs stating,


As per this diff. Just making a note in case anybody wanted to review the information. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've restored it. This is a FA, and the appropriateness of that material that has been extensively peer-reviewed. Consensus needs for the claims that these are somehow now "Undue" needs to be achieved here before deletion. --Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Vista in the See also section

[edit]

There is a link to Isla Vista in the See Also section. Not disputing that it is relevent (It def. is). It had read "a killing spree in the United States in which the assailant was also motivated by a hatred of women"

This is a huge NPOV issue, hatred of women wasn't the only, nor the major motive of the killer. I can't seem to come up with something that works for me right now. I've deleted any mention of motive so it now just reads 2014 Isla Vista killings a killing spree in the United States"

I'd welcome others' input on wording for that. I'm going to leave it as above, please comment or bold.

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Location of victims within the article

[edit]

The name of the shooter should not be the first name appearing in the article. The names of the victims should take prominence over the man who killed them. His section is number two while the victims are number six. This is not how the article should be presented. His name should also not be in bold font. Putting his name ahead of the victims demeans their death and glorifies him his hate crime. Please rearrange the order of the sections, it makes me sick knowing they take a backseat to him and his "story". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.68.99 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In these enlightened times, isn't there a Wikipedia policy about this? I searched the web for "École Polytechnique Massacre" today, on the anniversary, and was disappointed to see the murderer's name visible in the search result blurb for this page. Why is his name committed to historical memory and not those of his victims? Obviously, I realize that it's easier to remember one person's name than 14 people's names, but we cannot pretend that there is no editorial choice here. To Xasma (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, while I have sympathy for your position, the changes made do not improve the article in terms of readibility and flow. And for sure there is no policy against this. Though there are rules for using Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTADVOCACY which both of you seem to be wanting to do. I am reverting for now. Maybe tomorrow we can work together to figure out a solution when this page is not being viewed so much. --Slp1 (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further to these comments, I have made a few changes to the lead to reflect these concerns that the victims should be given priority over the perpetrator. Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That response is unacceptable. Prioritizing your subjective readability (not "readibility") and flow over the dignity of the murdered is indefensible. 2601:600:8500:6A40:9456:9FBA:3FAF:B036 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this. 2601:600:8500:6A40:9456:9FBA:3FAF:B036 (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content re: Opinions by Charles Rackoff

[edit]

"For example, Charles Rackoff, a University of Toronto computer science professor, compared those organizing vigils marking the event to the Ku Klux Klan. "The point is to use the death of these people as an excuse to promote the feminist/extreme left-wing agenda", he wrote, adding that it is "no more justified" than the KKK using the "murder of a white person by a black person as an excuse to promote their agenda."[67]"

Why do we care about the radical opinion of a computer science prof on the subject of cultural misogyny - who compares the M.O. of women's rights advocates to the unscrupulousness of the KKK - a violent radical racist hate group -? I've been told his perspective is "notable", but I cannot figure out for myself why. Is it for its anti-feminism because that's just intrinsically valuable or something? Is it because he's a professor (of something, anything apparently will do)? Certainly not for its expert relevance...so then what does its inclusion function as exactly? All I can see is an unexpected platform for article-referenced anti-feminists and "meninists" to espouse their egregiously academically, encyclopedically baseless view of feminism as though it actually is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.122.51 (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this here. To answer your first question, the article appears to use Rackoff's radical opinion as a representative example of anti-feminist criticism. For myself, I am wondering if there actually is "periodic criticism" from anti-feminists or if this is just a one-off opininon that may not merit inclusion. I'll ask for input at WP:CANADA. Resolute 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not framed as representative of an anti-feminist viewpoint, as Rackoff is at no point identified as an anti-feminist, but a mere critic of feminisms conduct in this instance (this and the fact that he is professor create a sense that he is being consulted as an authority - not the dramatically radical polemicist he clearly is) Anti-feminists aren't mentioned until later in the paragraph on a totally separate note, at least modestly suggesting a distinction between Rackoff and anti-feminists. As an aside, comparing Feminism to the KKK, I can already assure you, is not a "one-off" viewpoint on the part of anti-feminists - it's a deliberate and popular viewpoint having nothing to do with the polytech massacre - - feminists are also compared to mussolini, hitler and nazis in general regularly. But no matter a person's position on feminism's treatment of the massacre, these are nothing more than petulant and vicious insults masquerading and astonishingly being treated as a serious and valid criticism of feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.122.51 (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more precise. Rackoff seems to be used as an example of the preceding statement: "The feminist movement is periodically criticized for appropriating the massacre as a symbol of male violence against women." My own concern is that this statement itself is unreferenced, and as you note, Rackoff isn't necessarily either an expert on the topic or notable for his opinion, aside from getting some press in a CBC article 15 years ago. So I am not really disagreeing with you at this point, but I do want to see what others think, should they choose to weigh in, before we take action on the article. This statement has existed for at least 8 years, it can stand a few more days. Resolute 22:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on École Polytechnique massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This act of mental illness is being treated as a political statement

[edit]

It's clear to everyone Marc Lepine was a sick man, motivated more by rage cultivated from a lifetime of misery and abuse then any real political motivation. However what we're seeing here is a close encounter of the third kind...of feminist. There is a long and documented history of feminists editing wikipedia in bad faith to spread their political rhetoric. This isn't a secret, they openly admit and flout this kind of reprehensible strategy, you can find it by googling "Storming wikipedia" and reading any of the resultant articles. All of said articles are about how great it's going to be for the feminist movement, or how messed up it is. 99.246.103.31 (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No original research. It's not our role to express our own editorial opinions. If reliable sources do discuss the topic in the context of violence against women, which they do, then it's not our job to independently reanalyze whether they're right or wrong about that — our job on here is to summarize what reliable sources say about a topic, not to second-guess or fact-check or dispute the sources or to express our own alternative opinions about why they're wrong. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Ruger Mini-14

[edit]

There is an RFC about whether to include this incident in the Ruger Mini-14 article. See Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Rfc: Add major incidents to article?. Felsic2 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016 arrest

[edit]

This just broke on the news stations, obviously too minor for its own article but I'm wondering if we should include a note about it on the bottom in some respect about copycatting:

"Teen threatened attack at school on anniversary of Montreal Massacre: police". CityNews. 7 December 2016. A 17-year-old male suspect was identified and a search warrant was executed at his home early Tuesday. Police say they seized a machete, a hatchet, two swords, four knives and arrows.

Is this the first instance or does anyone know if there have been other anniversarial threats noted in the news from 1990 to 2015 or is this the first? I'm not sure I understand the significance of 27 years.

It mentions something about a blog post being the tip off but since the teen's identity is protected that's probably not accessible information. All it said was it was a Toronto District School Board student but not whether they were a student of Oakwood Collegiate Institute or not. Ranze (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly the first time I've heard of something like this, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the first time it's happened. I think you're right that it might merit a brief mention here as a "copycat" threat — though I'll eat my hat if there isn't a little bit of "emboldened by the bullshit talk around Donald Trump and the alt-right" going on here too — but you're also right that it likely wouldn't warrant its own separate standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on École Polytechnique massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on École Polytechnique massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on École Polytechnique massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of victims

[edit]

I was dismayed to see that the names of the four male victims are nowhere to be seen in the article. Yes it was a tragic event, but every death is tragic regardless of sex of the victim. If someone has these names, it would add to the completeness of the article in my view.

As a side note, I was on my way to École Polythechnique when I heard of a 'situation' on the radio.

160.62.14.13 (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists the dead. The four men were among the injured. I dream of Maple (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC) - <--- —I dream of Maple blocked sock-puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


We dont list the 13 people were wounded — nine women and four men as per WP:AVOIDVICTIM and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names.--Moxy 🍁 06:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating information

[edit]

In the spring lots of media outlets were indicating that the Nova Scotia massacre had become Canada's deadliest shooting. However the situation was unclear because some victims might have been killed in fires, and as a result a note was added to the article. Since then, the situation has become clearer. Nine of the victims died in fires and 13 were shot [1][2]. Media organizations are no longer calling it Canada's deadliest shooting, because it wasn't. As a result, there is no need of the note, and I deleted it with an edit summary explaining why. It is too bad that an editor is reverting this deletion because they "watched the original press conference; they did not confirm anyone died in fires".... As noted above, things have changed since then, as you might expect. I hope they will revert their own edit. Otherwise I will do it tomorrow. --Slp1 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I watched a press conference while this event was unfolding live. They said reports of victims dying from fires were inaccurate. We should wait until autopsies for the victims are released, which I assume will happen when the public inquiry is released in 2022. Love of Corey (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you would prefer to pay attention to a press conference that happened while the attacks were going on, rather the comments of police 10 days later? Wouldn't you think that the later police statements might be more accurate... once they had figure out what had happened? This is a most extraordinary argument that you are making, and, what is worse, you are edit warring to include it.
Please revert your edit. If you don't, I will go further in terms of getting a third opinion or request for comment. I helped bring this article to Featured Article status, and I am not willing for such nonsense to be included just because you want to force it in. Slp1 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know a reporter specifically asked a question about the nine dead from fires and the police chief debunked it. I'm going to have to look through the press conferences again, though; it's been a while and my mind may have melded details together. Love of Corey (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have waited a more than a month and you have not provided any more information. Are you planning to? Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020 review

[edit]

Hi talk page watchers: I am reviewing this article for WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review and improve featured articles promoted before 2016. Upon a quick glance, I think this article is in great shape and I think with some fix-ups it can be brought back to FA standards. Some concerns are outlined below:

  • The "Gun control" section does not include information after 2015. Did this event influence any further gun control laws, particularly advocacy from the victims of his massacre? I believe there was discussion of this event after the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks and in the 2021 Canadian election as gun control was an issue.
  • Book sources in the "References" section are inconsistent: some are listed in the Bibliography, while others are formated in the footnote. These should be consistent. Also, "O'Donovan, Theresa M. (2007)" is not used as a citation in the article: since this is printed by a university press, it is very likely to be of high-quality and should probably be footnoted in the article.

Those are my initial thoughts. Is anyone willing to help fix this up? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence on later gun control measures and sorted the reference formatting. Don't agree with you on O'Donovan - it's a very specialist source for an article like this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding Nikkimaria. I see that you removed O'Donovan from the Further Reading and I trust your judgment (a lot). Are you interested in doing a copyedit and review of the article? If so, I'll review after you and if not I'll do a more thorough read when I can. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of a trio of editors who brought this article to FA over a decade ago. I have kept a bit of an eye on it, and it is substantially the same article as the one that was promoted. In some ways it has improved and in other ways slipped a bit. Because of the latter, I welcome the review but can you give me a couple of days to go through it first? It might save some time and effort for you.Slp1 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Slp1: There is no rush: I am not going to nominate this to FAR and I want the article to be the best condition it can be, rather than rush to meet an arbitrary deadline. When you think this article has returned to FA standards, please ping me and I will review. Thanks so much for coming back to fix this article up. Z1720 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and found MOS:OVERLINKing, copyedit needs, and incomplete citations; more work needed here, but certainly within reach of the "Satisfactory" mark at URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive

[edit]

It's deeply offensive to characterize this as an "an antifeminist mass shooting", as if such a concept should be dignified by labeling it as such. This was a sick person murdering innocent people. The sick person was incidentally a man. That didn't cause his sickness. The murdered innocent people were incidentally women. That didn't make them legitimate targets for anything. Spinning this event in a context of anything but mental illness (spinning it in a political context) is unconscionable. This needs to be fixed immediately. 2601:600:8500:6A40:9456:9FBA:3FAF:B036 (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sick or not, the mass shooting was an anti-feminist attack and it's clear from the notes of the perpetrator, Remove that relevant information that helps to understand the shooting and the motivation behind it, Just because the perpetrator was obviously mentally ill just like all the other mass murderers Sounds like a way to victimize the perpetrator and make him seem more human, sounds like you want people to think that Lepine was out of control of his actions due to severe mental illness Kelsykelsykarter2 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First half of the controversy section unnecessary?

[edit]

Why should space be dedicated for the views of some obscure journalist's fallacious arguments? Should every mass shooting against a minority group have a disclaimer controversy section where someone argues that the actions of the lone wolf exist completely separate from the rest of the group? JKBrenner (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:École_Polytechnique_massacre&oldid=1254556339"