Having discovered the joys of Google books, I note some discussion in more recent books about the Massacre as a hate crime. E.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Is this an omission that should be rectified? Figuring I am likely to be opening a massive can of worms I thought I would discuss first ;-) Slp1 (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-01-21T19:58:00.000Z","author":"Slp1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Slp1-2008-01-21T19:58:00.000Z-Hate_Crime","replies":["c-128.214.133.2-2008-01-24T11:44:00.000Z-Slp1-2008-01-21T19:58:00.000Z","c-65.96.171.106-2011-11-23T23:13:00.000Z-Slp1-2008-01-21T19:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
This is a very sad event. Even the best documentation could never be appropriate to the situation. However, I am genuinely amazed that, despite the strong emotions and differing personal convictions editors may have had regarding wider issues, this article shows relentless sourcing and uncompromising neutrality of tone.
To Slp1, who I have only recently come to appreciate, I would recommend not openning that can of worms you realise yourself adding material might trigger.
As one of the commentators opinions would lead us to appreciate, there are many women and men who feel angry about things, but do not choose this way of expressing their anger. Most people feel justified about their anger, most people know that even justified anger does not justify unilateral, indiscriminate retribution.
Perhaps one lesson to learn is that while most people raise themselves to resisting urges to retaliate, none of us should use this to justify actions we know might provoke others. Wars are cycles of provocation, if they cease, this means casualties surrendering any intentions to "equal up the score".
What a debt we owe to millions of mature people throughout history who have chosen to relinquish their anguished desire to retaliate, humbling themselves to place peace for all above their own internal equilibrium. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-04-28T06:52:00.000Z","author":"Alastair Haines","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alastair_Haines-2008-04-28T06:52:00.000Z-Impressed","replies":[]}}-->
The third paragraph of the article mentions some of the interpretations placed on this tragedy, the main one being that it was an ‘antifeminist attack’ and that it was ‘representative of wider societal violence against women.’ The problem is that these killings, done by one man against women he did not know, were not representative of most violence against women, and certainly should never have been made to ‘represent’ them. Most violence against women is committed within a personal relationship, one partner against the other. Other reasons – interpretations – are given in the article, but the real reason, that Marc Lépine killed because he was not permitted to do the engineering program he felt entitled to, because places were being taken up by women, neglected to be mentioned in this paragraph, or anywhere in the article. I have written more about this Wikipedia article and placed it on my website, Montreal Massacre: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/files/ArticlesandEssays/ResponsetoWikipediaArticleEcolePolytechniqeMassacre.doc. Suemcp001 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-11T05:13:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-11T05:13:00.000Z-Marc_Lepine's_actions_not_representative_of_all_violence_against_women","replies":["c-Bearcat-2008-05-11T05:39:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-11T05:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
Just as women eons ago were not considered worthy of working alongside men, so, apparently, if those whose pens now hold the (al)mighty truth are permitted to have their way, Marc Lepine’s actions may justly be considered ‘representative’ of wider societal violence against women simply because THEY say so. And black people, who were once widely reported as being inferior, would still be sitting at the back of the bus if the whole world thought that way. Wikipedia may well be simply reporting what 'most people' want to be seen as the truth, and in that respect, Wikipedia, and its majority of editors who have silenced me, are acting politically, not in an objective and unbiased manner. The perspective of articles and comments on my website add different dimensions to this tragedy, yet they have been ignored. Suemcp001 (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-12T20:40:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-12T20:40:00.000Z-Marc_Lepine's_actions_not_representative_of_all_violence_against_women","replies":["c-Wafulz-2008-05-12T20:45:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-12T20:40:00.000Z","c-Bearcat-2008-05-13T16:39:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-12T20:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
What’s the matter. Are you afraid to deal with the issues? Are feminists rewarding you for being compliant? The articles and comments in my website have a lot to offer, certainly things that would bring a sense of neutrality to the Wikipedia article. Yet all you can do is try to act as though I am the problem. The problem is the article, and no matter how many times we have been over it (me and any number of persons at Wikipedia) only minor changes are made, and nothing significant which would alter the tone of the article, which at this point is biased in the direction of the feminist perspective, the one that tries to say that the violence of Marc Lepine is representative of all violence against women, when what he wanted was to try and make people understand how feminism had affected society, and in particular, his own life. Suemcp001 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-13T13:28:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-13T13:28:00.000Z-Marc_Lepine's_actions_not_representative_of_all_violence_against_women","replies":["c-Bearcat-2008-05-13T21:21:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-13T13:28:00.000Z"]}}-->
I have made a correction to the sentence Bearcat quotes a couple of paragraphs above: "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women," adding onto it "although this view has also been strongly denounced." And it is #4 reference (re Lone Gunman) that denounces it. The next reference, #5, is the book Montreal Massacre by Eglin and Hester. If wik editors want to quote this as a source it would be nice if they gave the page numbers. I have read this book thoroughly, and in fact my book review on it has been published in an academic journal, and although like everyone else they say those words, about the massacre being an antifeminist attack, Eglin and Hester are not saying them in agreement with the idea, they are saying what some people believe. The Wiki article inadvertently suggests that these sources "characterize" the massacre in this way, but actually, only one of them does, ref # 6, the public offical one, which is also probably feminist. If anyone has any questions about this change, please mention it to me before deleting what I have added. Suemcp001 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-13T16:29:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-13T16:29:00.000Z-Marc_Lepine's_actions_not_representative_of_all_violence_against_women","replies":["c-Wafulz-2008-05-13T16:43:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-13T16:29:00.000Z"]}}-->
I see you have reverted back to how the third paragraph (not the lead) was before I made the change. I can add more sources, but would it be permissable to suggest that some people hold strong views against the massacre being viewed as ‘representative’ of violence against women? If the article is to appear unbiased and objective, it should surely have both views in it, that "All feminist groups and many public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women” and "although this view has also been strongly denounced." Some public officials are feminists, and my change in the wording of the first part of the sentence above now reflects this. Suemcp001 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-13T21:10:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-13T21:10:00.000Z-Marc_Lepine's_actions_not_representative_of_all_violence_against_women","replies":["c-Wafulz-2008-05-15T13:08:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-13T21:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
How are you doing, Sue and Bearcat? Living down in North Carolina at the moment, I had heard nothing about this tragedy (or so little that I do not remember it.) Sue included mention of it in a message sent sent one of my personal groups.
I think a great mistake of the majority of people is to allow a rare and isolated tragedy to rule their lives. There are evil people out there, and they have the potential to do horrible things. But we must not let these terrible tragedies control us; if we do, they win.
As Sue says, violence against women is common, and it is tragic. But it is nearly always committed by a significant other. Marc Lepine's actions were very different, and in a totally different class. His action is more typical of the mass violence that modern technology makes available for those evil people with a political agenda. The terrorist who destroyed the Twin Towers in New York had a political message to deliver, and they did not care about their own lives, or the lives of others. They succeeded in their aim to bring about war between the US and Arab states.
We allowed the terrorist to win by our reaction. Lepine will win if a group of feminists are able to make his action some icon against which feminist focus and energy can be wasted. Abirchler16 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-15T11:54:00.000Z","author":"Abirchler16","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Abirchler16-2008-05-15T11:54:00.000Z-Good_Morning","replies":["c-Wafulz-2008-05-15T12:59:00.000Z-Abirchler16-2008-05-15T11:54:00.000Z"]}}-->
The writers of this article, École Polytechnique Massacre, have supposedly summarized what has been reported, but as I mentioned before, one of the sentences in the article is very oddly written. In "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women" (3rd paragraph into the article), there are three references provided, but only one of them supports the claim that the attack is “representative of wider societal violence against women.” It’s a poorly written sentence, and it should be rephrased. If the word ‘anti-feminist’ is left out, the fact there was an ‘attack’ remains clear and foremost. ‘Attack’ would be the referent. The part following the referent is what describes it - “representative of wider societal violence against women,” and it is this claim that has caused controversy among Canadians. Of the three provided, the one source that actually supports this claim is the one by Meagan Fitzpatrick (National Day of Remembrance, 2006). The article by Barbara Kay (Lone Gunman, 2006) actually opposes the claim made by the Wikipedia writers/editors of the article. The other source mentioned, the book Montreal Massacre (2003) by Peter Eglin and Stephen Hester, addresses the issue objectively, simply reporting what is now common knowledge about the Montreal Massacre, that it has come to symbolize ‘violence against women.’ My suggestion would be to omit the word anti-feminist as it is unnecessary, and rework the paragraph to include the idea that there is opposition to viewing the tragedy as ‘representative’ of violence against women. The way the article is worded suggests that it is an accepted truth that Marc Lépine and the Montreal Massacre (École Polytechnique Massacre) represent the wider social problem of violence against women. For some it is true, but not for everyone. Suemcp001 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-16T00:49:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-16T00:49:00.000Z-Good_Morning","replies":["c-Slp1-2008-05-16T13:29:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-16T00:49:00.000Z"]}}-->
You are taking half-truths and passing them off as the truth. But part of the truth is missing. The sentence in question is a misleading one, implying that all three references support the notion that the Montreal Massacre is an accurate representation of violence against women. The sentence itself needs to be changed.
As I said before, the Barbara Kay article is opposing the claim made in the poorly worded sentence, and that sentence needs to be rephrased. The way it appears, though I have now brought this to your attention, it is a political strategy to maintain this notion or the ‘representation’ while not allowing readers of the article to see other perspectives.
Furthermore, the aim of the book Montreal Massacre, by Eglin and Hester, was not what you said but was to explore the Montreal Massacre as a ‘members’ phenomenon’, from many different perspectives (p. 4). Your suggestion, again, is half a truth. In Eglin and Hester’s statement "We were then, not mere onlookers, nor just analysts, because we too were appalled by the event and to the wider range of violence against women to which it belonged" (p. 126), the Massacre is talked about as part of the wider range of violence against women, which correctly implies that there are other kinds of violence against women besides the kind that took place that day in Montreal. That is the far different than the idea that the Montreal Massacre represents violence against women.
If the writers of the article want to quote sources that support the notion of the MM ‘representing’ violence against women, that would be an improvement. And if it were also stated that not everyone agrees with that, it would be a further improvement. There are those who have gone against this symbolism, of Marc Lepine and the Massacre representing violence against women. Gilbert McInnis’s play is one of them – from my website – the Introduction - http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/ArticlesandEssays/McInnisPrefacetoTheDieisCast.doc. Suemcp001 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-16T19:24:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-16T19:24:00.000Z-Good_Morning","replies":["c-Bobanny-2008-05-17T19:22:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-16T19:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
I regret you see my comments that way. I am only trying to help Wikipedia portray the Montreal Massacre as it actually happened, bringing in other perspectives without making just one perspective (the feminist perspective) the main one. I have spoken to someone about the proper use of sources, and I'd like to repeat what he said, as it may shed some light on the situation regarding the sentence "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women" (see 3rd paragraph of the article). Following is the quote from an expert on sources, about the sentence in question from the article Ecole Polytechnique Massacre:
"This sort of thing is unfortunately common--the writer makes a claim, supposedly summarizing others, and then adds several references to support the claim, when in fact those sources do no such thing. . . . The citation of a source implies only that the author got the information, idea, or opinion from the source and is giving credit. The claim made by the writer is important, too. If the author of this article had stated, 'Opinions vary about the meaning of the massacre (4,5,6),' then you'd have no issue because that's a fair characterization of the three sources cited" (personal communication 15 May 2008, Robert Harris, author of Using Sources Effectively, 2nd ed., 2005). Suemcp001 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-19T02:17:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-19T02:17:00.000Z-Good_Morning","replies":["c-Wafulz-2008-05-19T14:47:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-19T02:17:00.000Z"]}}-->
You’re getting off track, Slp. We were trying to deal with the sentence in the third paragraph and the references 4, 5, and 6 which have been used inappropriately as sources: "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women" (see 3rd paragraph of the article). You can use red print and tricks of language to try and convince people reading the Discussion page that I am in the wrong, but if they have any sense at all they will be able to figure it out for themselves.
There is another way of looking at it, if I may bring this up: The words ‘anti-feminist attack,’ in the last part of the sentence, are used to describe the first part of the sentence. Thus, the massacre is described as an ‘attack.’ One can reasonably certain that there was an attack that day in Montreal. I think we can safely state that it is a social fact that there was an attack (though whether only anti-feminist or also against humanity is another issue). The second descriptive phrase is “that is representative of wider societal violence against women", and it is this description we have been trying to deal with here, to have changed. This descriptive phrase, describing the attack, is not a social fact. Rather (and if there are any Sociology students here they may recognize this), this descriptive phrase is an example of ‘social construction.’ It is a bit of ideology that feminists have created; nonetheless, the references provided should support and agree with the idea that the attack was representative of violence against women. But two of them don’t. Barbara Kay’s ‘Lone Gunman’ article, and Eglin and Hester’s book The Montreal Massacre, take different perspectives on the significance of the attack. And those are two good reasons why that sentence needs to be changed, and the entire paragraph redone. Suemcp001 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-19T23:45:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-19T23:45:00.000Z-Good_Morning","replies":["c-Slp1-2008-05-20T01:44:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-19T23:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
To be sure, Barbara Kay acknowledges in her article that the attack happened, and also acknowledges that many other people, but not her, view the attack as representing all violence against women. The sentence is a complex one, but Wikipedia has bunched the two parts together, making the meaning of it confused and inaccurate. As far as other taking the time to give their views on this, I would suggest that that aren’t too many out there willing to stand up to feminists and Wikipedia’s ‘editors’ on these. And if this is comparable to what Marc Lepine experienced, in his efforts to deal with injustice by feminists and their friends, it could possibly be a reason for his rage. I doubt that Lepine was angry at women because they women (ie, because they had female bodies and reproductive capacities). No doubt it would be closer to the truth to say he was angry at them because they were taking places that had been reserved for men, and probably also because when he tried to discuss it with them, they wouldn’t do so in a rational manner. Most people are too busy with their jobs to spend time trying to convince people who have no intention of trying to see other sides of the story. I presume you get paid for this, or rewarded in other ways. I doubt that this has much significance to you, personally, except that it is the feminist diatribe to make a scapegoat out of someone who doesn’t have the power to fight back. The sentence as it stands is unsuitable and needs to be changed. I don’t like to think of young men and women reading it as it stands and coming away with the wrong impression. They might grow up to be like you. Suemcp001 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-20T20:12:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-20T20:12:00.000Z-Good_Morning","replies":["c-Bobanny-2008-05-21T03:51:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-20T20:12:00.000Z"]}}-->
It looks like you haven’t been paying attention, bobanny (end of section, Good Morning). The sentence explicitly gives one side of the argument, claiming that the massacre is seen as representing ‘violence against women.’ The other side of the argument is that it is not seen that way, and there are many people who would agree it doe not represent violence against women, although it appears that some of them are afraid to speak out, possibly afraid of losing their jobs, or maybe of being cut off sex. But people have spoken out, and I have given examples, such as Barbara Kay in her article Lone Gunman, and Gilbert McInnis who wrote a play about Marc Lepine and the Massacre. And there are others, such as Stephen Roney, whose article ‘Spare us the White Ribbon’ is on my website: http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/ArticlesandEssays/Roney_SpareUsTheWhiteRibbon.doc . His perspective is that the White Ribbon campaign, which uses the symbol of Marc Lepine as its focal point, actually serves to make “all men guilty of Lepine's crime.”
Since you, bobanny, have commented on my article, The Hidden Narratives, which is on the website I have mentioned here, the Montreal Massacre, I wonder if you would mind repeating them for my website Comments page. You are welcome to email me privately, providing your name and the comment you would like posted. It seems to me it’s fairly easy for people such as yourself to make off-hand comments on something they may or may not have even read, relying on your anonymity to prevent backlash or having to take responsibility for what you say. I regret my contributions to this Discussion don’t make sense to you. I don’t know what education you have or how much you know about the subject. I do realize it can be as hard for some women as it is for some men (like Marc Lepine) to make it in the world. Speaking the truth about the Montreal Massacre in Canada can be as detrimental to one’s life and career as speaking up in third world countries about injustice towards women in their marriages. The problem is, once a group gains power – such as ‘women’ or black people – they are often reluctant to relinquish perceived sources of their power, such as the example in Canada of Marc Lepine and his horrific attack against those he felt were responsible. It is a power based on a lie, that Marc Lepine’s attack was the equivalent of ‘violence against women,’, but in reality the attacks happened because there was no way out for Lepine. There was no way for him to deal with it and have anyone listen and do something to help, not him personally nor for what he was doing to try and make our society a better place. Suemcp001 (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-22T16:56:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-22T16:56:00.000Z-Good_Afternoon","replies":["c-Bobanny-2008-05-25T08:23:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-22T16:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi. Uninvolved admin here. I've been watching this back-and-forth for a while now, and I must say that this discussion seems to have drifted out of constructive bounds and into the area of soapboxing. I'd like to offer some thoughts on the way things are going.
I hope people will read what I have written and not simply dismiss it because of comments made by Tony. My first paragraph under Good Afternoon discusses what is missing from the sentence from the third paragraph.
Tony, even though you may be part of Wikipedia Admin, that doesn’t mean you are able to be objective. In fact, the thoughts you express suggest that you are not. The problem with the sentence we have been discussing (in third paragraph of the article) is not about "many feminist groups and public officials,’ but about the construction of the entire sentence. Please read the exchange on this page starting ‘Marc Lepine's actions not representative of all violence against women.’ I’m not sure that Informal Mediation would accomplish anything. It depends on who’s doing the mediating. John Scott was involved in this discussion last year, and he was outside to all of it, and was objective in many ways as to some of the issues that came up. He also is intelligent enough to be able to analyze it. How do I know, if someone from Wikipedia or someone anonymous gets to mediate this, that they actually have the ability. I would prefer to have an actual response to the issues I raised in my previous post. If the discussion goes round and round it’s because that’s not happening. Suemcp001 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-23T03:42:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-23T03:42:00.000Z-Outside_view","replies":["c-Tony_Fox-2008-05-23T21:42:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-23T03:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
Tony, your earlier response suggests you don’t really understand what we have been talking about here - the sentence in the third paragraph. The article is not balanced nor is it neutral! The fact that Wikipedia ‘editors’ are refuting what I say is not proof they are right. It may well be the case that “it's bluntly obvious that consensus here is that the article is neutral and balanced as is,” but that still doesn’t mean that you’re right and I’m wrong. I’d like to quote to you something John Scott wrote about consensus, from the archives on 10 Jan 2007:
“Discussions on Wikipedia pages move on very fast – some of you must be editing almost full time! I made a small contribution to the discussion a couple of days ago and was asked by Atlant to try to make a case for the inclusion of an External Link to Suemcp’s site dedicated to the Montreal massacre. This is my case, put in the context of some general remarks on Wikipedia criteria. I am not a regular editor of articles but a relatively disinterested observer and reader of articles and I hope that this discussion might make a small contribution to improving the usefulness of Wikipedia entries. A general point was made by Atlant that Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus. This is, of course, its distinctive characteristic as an Encyclopedia. It should be recognised, however, that there is an inevitable tension between the criterion of consensus and the criterion of truth. Consensus does not necessarily result in the truth. At one time, it was generally agreed that the world was flat, but that doesn’t mean that it actually is flat. The question of ‘truth’ is itself, of course, problematic, but is related to ideas of objectivity, evidence, and consistency with other established knowledge. Contributors to Wikipedia should, surely, be ensuring that their contributions achieve a consensus that conforms to those criteria?” end of quote from John Scott.
It is my view, and others’, that the Montreal Massacre is not representative of violence against women. Furthermore, an expert on using sources, Robert Harris, has said that they have been used incorrectly in the third paragraph, in this sentence "Many feminist groups and public officials have characterized the massacre as an anti-feminist attack that is representative of wider societal violence against women" references 4, 5, and 6. I do not want any more editors who have a poor understanding of all this to be the ones to make a decision on this matter, especially if they remain anonymous. Suemcp001 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-23T22:08:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-23T22:08:00.000Z-Outside_view","replies":["c-Wafulz-2008-05-25T14:40:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-23T22:08:00.000Z"]}}-->
The central thought of the third paragraph is that the ‘violence against women’ campaign, supposedly represented by Marc Lepine’s actions that day, is the main outcome of the Montreal Massacre. The references that support that thought are not used properly, according to the expert Robert Harris. Furthermore, that paragraph is the place where the other side of that thought should be expressed, not later in the article (if, indeed, it is there at all). There are people and groups that have opposed that ‘representation,’ and with good reason. Marc Lepine killed women because he and many other men got pushed out of education and career roles that had traditionally been for men, not because of any ‘relationship problem.’ The fact that he was so very angry is an indication that he must have felt very powerless, up against feminists and their middle class male colleagues who benefitted from the female presence on campus, and had probably tried to deal with them many times over the social injustice he had experienced. No doubt he tried to have someone in power help him present his point of view, and failed. Not a drinker, not an advocate of loose behaviour by women, he might not have been the type of person to be able to get that help, in his endeavor to get into the college of engineering. If anyone at Wikipedia plans to mediate this difference of opinion, then I would prefer that they do so while declaring their identity. It makes rather easy for people to be lacksadaisical with the truth if their identity remains anonymous. Suemcp001 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-26T22:20:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-26T22:20:00.000Z-Outside_view","replies":["c-Tony_Fox-2008-05-26T22:41:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-26T22:20:00.000Z"]}}-->
Tony, any articles that have dealt directly with the Montreal Massacre get to be on my website, if I come across them and if the author agrees. The best I can do, in response to your request for more evidence, is to quote from someone who has written about women, anger, and powerlessness. I say ‘women’ and not men because feminists have written mostly about women’s anger, not men’s, and mostly in relation to women’s powerlessness. A quick search on google on ‘women anger powerlessness’ revealed this book advertisement to me: ‘Anger across the gender divide’ by MELISSA DITTMANN, http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar03/angeracross.html . When you read it, however, remember there are women now with a great deal of power, and men with far less than they used to have. Marc Lepine was angry, as angry as women used to be at being excluded from certain educational programs and careers, as angry as women used to be at men’s sometimes atrocious attitude towards them. It is plain to see that that, perhaps combined with men’s traditionally lesser ability to deal with anger within themselves, Marc Lepine’s response was almost a forgone conclusion. Do you know why women were at one time reluctant to express anger? It was because they feared retaliation and/or because they felt so powerless. Do you know why men now are reluctant to speak out when they see this poorly written article on the Montreal Massacre? It is, in part, because they fear retaliation – loss of job/career, no sex for a year, etc. They can sometimes feel powerless, working alongside feminists and dependent on their goodwill so they can keep their job. The evidence is in Marc Lepine’s behaviour. The answers are in how that behaviour is interpreted. Returning once more to John Scott’s piece on ‘Consensus,’ what we have to remember is that it is not how many sheep are following their leader, but on what constitutes the truth in this case. Is it the feminist interpretation, which feminists want to keep up front in the article, which holds more truth, or the opposite interpretation, that Marc Lepine’s actions were NOT representative of ‘violence against women.’ The problem is, of course, that feminists are still acting as though they are hard done by. They don’t seem to realize, or are unwilling to admit, that there just aren’t enough great careers for all the men and women capable of doing them. Feminism has changed the world, and not for the better. Suemcp001 (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-27T01:33:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-27T01:33:00.000Z-Men_Women_Anger_and_Powerlessness","replies":["c-Wafulz-2008-05-27T01:51:00.000Z-Suemcp001-2008-05-27T01:33:00.000Z"]}}-->
Slp, The way the Wikipedia article is written, it is an original piece of research itself, and a poorly-done piece at that, quoting sources inappropriately, in order to promote a particular agenda – in this case, the feminist one, that the tragic events at Montreal in 1989 represent ‘violence against women.’ And that’s just for starters. Obviously, the Dittmann article is not meant to discuss the Montreal Massacre. But it’s difficult for me to try and explain to you, if you unable to comprehend my reason for mentioning it here. I am not doing original research on the Talk pages. And neither is Dittman, but generally, throughout life, men and women, and boys and girls, reflect on what they read and apply it to new situations. I was asking you to do that but perhaps you are not ready for reflection. Perhaps you are still being too politically-minded for that, like the original feminists who responded to the tragedy of the killings and decided to dismiss any other perspective but ‘women’s’. And isn’t that how the Wikipedia article came to be written the way it was? When I tried to discuss matters and make changes last year I was met with a ferocious hostiltity, even to the point of being blamed for the hostility. Even this year, when I have tried to make small changes for for the Wikipedia ‘editors’ ro read and discuss, no discussion has taken place. My edit to the article was simply reversed, and at least once no acknowledgment that it had been reversed was made. I find it next to impossible to deal rationally and sympathetically in this kind of situation, though one thing it has done is make me increasingly aware of the frustration Marc Lepine must have felt, trying to deal with feminists about the situation he found himself in life. Consensus, even for the Wikipedia admin, doesn’t simply mean ‘majority rule.’ It means different perspectives need to be listened to and thought about, and any changes that are made need to be also. I’m not finding it on this list. What I’m finding is a bunch of small-minded feminists and the men who benefit from their association with them, perpetuating a false notion of what the Montreal Massacre was all about. Suemcp001 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-05-28T01:38:00.000Z","author":"Suemcp001","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Suemcp001-2008-05-28T01:38:00.000Z-Men_Women_Anger_and_Powerlessness","replies":[]}}-->
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-07-30T12:59:00.000Z","author":"Tony1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tony1-2008-07-30T12:59:00.000Z-Proposal_to_remove_date-autoformatting","replies":["c-Bobanny-2008-07-31T05:45:00.000Z-Tony1-2008-07-30T12:59:00.000Z","c-Dl2000-2008-08-11T23:00:00.000Z-Tony1-2008-07-30T12:59:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Tony"}}-->
The above section was remeoved, and should be discussed for possible inclusion.
While this does pertain to the topic of violence against women in general as 'bearcat' as he calls himself suggests, it also applies to this incident, and to what is included in some of this section.
The original 'cause' of this was that 'feminists' had 'ruined his life'...well there is much to verify this, including the response to the tragic act. This was not only a crime against women, but a crime against humanity...
Violence against women is one of those classic half-truths, that has and is being used to attack not only men, but also divide the sexes...
Comments ?
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-05T21:07:00.000Z","author":"Caesarjbsquitti","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T21:07:00.000Z-Anti-heterosexual_agenda_by_feminists_proven_correct_?","replies":["c-Bearcat-2008-12-05T21:45:00.000Z-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T21:07:00.000Z","c-Wafulz-2008-12-05T22:13:00.000Z-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T21:07:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti"}}-->
Seems obvious, that some are manipulating the incident away from the real issues, abuse, violence and injustice.
This 'women only' 'lesbian perspective is sometimes supported by others who are anti heterosexual, especially radical feminists and radical lesbian feminists, (not all lesbians).
The use of the label 'violence against women' when in fact some men were shot and could have been killed as well as all other fathers, boyfriends, brothers who lost daughters, wives, girlfriends is TOTALLY MISSING. Why ?
So you can't have your cake and eat it to. If the incident provokes inappropriate comments about 'violence against women' instead of injustice, abuse, violence against a community, then there is something wrong. The incident involving the late Nicole Simpson adds to the discussion and criticism of the topic.
The topic is being manipulated, and not in fairness to all the victims.
We have the manipulation by 'radical feminists' (male and female) corrupting the Childrens Aid Society, and Women's groups...
Has anyone attempted to see how 'feminists' had ruined his life ?
The article needs expansion.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-05T22:34:00.000Z","author":"Caesarjbsquitti","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T22:34:00.000Z-Anti-heterosexual_agenda_by_feminists_proven_correct_?","replies":["c-Kelapstick-2008-12-05T22:58:00.000Z-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T22:34:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti"}}-->
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-05T23:02:00.000Z","author":"Caesarjbsquitti","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T23:02:00.000Z-Anti-heterosexual_agenda_by_feminists_proven_correct_?","replies":["c-Bearcat-2008-12-05T23:23:00.000Z-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T23:02:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti"}}-->
The evidence is clearly noted historically.
Some, perhaps most heterosexual feminists, are concerned about their partners, men, their sons, men,...
Radical feminists, (that might include some radical lesbians) are not concerned about the opposite sex. The inclusion of some lesbians makes logical sense, and in some cases they are obviously discrimininating against men.
The fairness of this article is in question. There appears a visible and notable attempt to generale and attack all men. Little to substantiate the 'anti-feminist' remarks made by Mr. Lepine.
Sadly he was partly correct.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-05T23:55:00.000Z","author":"Caesarjbsquitti","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T23:55:00.000Z-Anti-heterosexual_agenda_by_feminists_proven_correct_?","replies":["c-DoubleBlue-2008-12-06T00:28:00.000Z-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-05T23:55:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti"}}-->
Attacked feminists not women ?
I ponder the validiity of the 'media sources' or others that try to equate the attack on "feminism" as an attack on women...
There are examples of blatant 'feminist abuses'....like this OR, that you should be aware of (true story)
Manager: "We are in accordance with all the regulations dealing with employment equity !............all our employees are women."
It is obvious that some have manipulated this situation for political gains.
Suggest a third party critical evaluation of the manipulation.
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-12-06T16:15:00.000Z","author":"Caesarjbsquitti","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-06T16:15:00.000Z-Attacked_feminists_not_women_?","replies":["c-Slp1-2008-12-06T16:42:00.000Z-Caesarjbsquitti-2008-12-06T16:15:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti"}}-->
The Polytechnique massacre occured just a few months after the Canadian Supreme Court removed all restrictions to abortion in Tremblay v. Daigle. I'm not sure there is any link to this, but it would be interesting of the article could determine whether Lépine had expressed any specific opposition to the pro-choice crowd of feminists, the ones that had previously hailed the Supreme Court ruling as a major victory for the feminist movement in Canada. If so, it would be a major precedent for the phenomenon of anti-abortion violence in the country. ADM (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-08-21T07:57:00.000Z","author":"ADM","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ADM-2009-08-21T07:57:00.000Z-Tremblay_v._Daigle","replies":["c-Slp1-2009-08-21T08:39:00.000Z-ADM-2009-08-21T07:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
Recent edits [19][20][21]have sought to emphasize the fact that Lepine's father (who actually didn't even bring him up) was a Muslim. Of equal importance, surely, is in the fact that he was baptised a Catholic and brought up by a former nun, who became a Protestant during his adolescence. Emphasizing the Islam connection at the expense of the Christian is a clear example of the kind of point of view pushing that occurs at various other website and blogs, but cannot occur here per neutral point of view.--Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-10-07T22:11:00.000Z","author":"Slp1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Slp1-2009-10-07T22:11:00.000Z-Religion","replies":["c-Slp1-2009-10-08T00:04:00.000Z-Slp1-2009-10-07T22:11:00.000Z"]}}-->
Does the ethnicity of his parents matter, that it should be mentioned in the lead? I have a fear that some users would make the connection, even subconcious, that the killer's father is Algerian is somehow connected to his abuse. Do you get what I mean? ValenShephard (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-09-09T23:09:00.000Z","author":"ValenShephard","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ValenShephard-2010-09-09T23:09:00.000Z-Ethnicity_of_parents","replies":[]}}-->
This event seems to be universally known in Canada as the "Montreal Massacre," so why does the title of the article not reflect this common appellation? fishhead64 (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-12-07T15:56:00.000Z","author":"Fishhead64","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fishhead64-2010-12-07T15:56:00.000Z-Article_name","replies":["c-Slp1-2010-12-08T01:29:00.000Z-Fishhead64-2010-12-07T15:56:00.000Z"]}}-->
Following up on the above discussion, I'd like to formally suggest that we move the article to Montreal Massacre. Per common name we are supposed to use the most used term and that does seem to be Montreal Massacre. For example, googlenews searches of usage from 2007-12 found:
When we last held a discussion it was thought that because of the Dawson College shooting the term "Montreal massacre" might be going out of use. But that doesn't seem to have been the case. Does this move seem to be a good idea to others? --Slp1 (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-03-17T20:45:00.000Z","author":"Slp1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Slp1-2012-03-17T20:45:00.000Z-Moving_article_to_Montreal_Massacre","replies":["c-ACanadianToker-2014-05-28T19:27:00.000Z-Slp1-2012-03-17T20:45:00.000Z"]}}-->
The link for Reference 86 (regarding the book written by Marc Lépine's mother Monique) leads to nowhere. I'm fairly new to this, so could someone with more experience figure this out? Should the link be replaced with a cached version, or an alternate article?--Ibsavage (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2013-10-22T20:03:00.000Z","author":"Ibsavage","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ibsavage-2013-10-22T20:03:00.000Z-Broken\/Missing_Reference","replies":["c-Resolute-2013-10-22T21:53:00.000Z-Ibsavage-2013-10-22T20:03:00.000Z"]}}-->
Jeffries Point redirects here. For the headland in the South Sandwich Islands, see Cook Island, South Sandwich Islands. This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines. Please help by editing the article to make improvements to the overall structure. (August 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this tem…
京阪電気鉄道のダイヤ改正(けいはんでんきてつどうのダイヤかいせい)では、京阪電気鉄道(京阪)の鉄道線において実施された歴代のダイヤ改正について京阪線系統と大津線系統とに分けて述べる。京阪特急の記事も参照。なお、本記事において2000年以降は、ダイヤ改正の表記(改正・改定・変更・新ダイヤ等)はプレスリリースの表記に合わせる。 京阪線系統のダ…
Dana Información personalNombre de nacimiento Rosemary BrownNombre en inglés Dana Rosemary Scallon Otros nombres DanaNacimiento 30 de agosto de 1951 (72 años) Islington, Londres, Reino UnidoLondres (Reino Unido) Residencia Baile Chláir Nacionalidad irlandesa estadounidenseLengua materna Inglés FamiliaHijos 4 EducaciónEducada en Thornhill College Información profesionalOcupación Cantante, PolíticaAños activa 1967–presenteCargos ocupados Eurodiputado por Connacht–Ulster…
1969 studio album by Sunny MurraySunshineStudio album by Sunny MurrayReleased1969RecordedAugust 15, 1969StudioStudio Saravah, ParisGenreFree jazzLabelBYG Actuel529.348Sunny Murray chronology Sunny Murray(1966) Sunshine(1969) Big Chief(1969) Sunshine is an album by American free jazz drummer Sunny Murray, his third as a leader. It was recorded in Paris in August 1969, and released on the BYG Actuel label later that year.[1] On the album, Murray is joined by Arthur Jones and Roscoe…
Konkyan (município)GeografiaPaís MyanmarSelf-administered zone of Burma Cocangue (zona autoadministrada)Altitude 1 593 mCoordenadas 23° 49′ N, 98° 32′ LFuncionamentoEstatuto município de Myanmareditar - editar código-fonte - editar Wikidata Konkyan é uma cidade e município do estado de Xã, no Mianmar (Birmânia).[1] Referências ↑ «Unidade Administrativa da Informação de Myanmar: Mapa do estado de Shan» (PDF). Themimu.info. Consultado em 29 de novembro de 2012. Arqu…
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Yepes. Narciso YepesNarciso Yepes en 1939, à 12 ans.BiographieNaissance 14 novembre 1927LorcaDécès 3 mai 1997 (à 69 ans)MurcieNom de naissance Narciso García YepesPseudonyme Narciso YepesNationalité espagnoleFormation Conservatoire royal supérieur de musique de MadridActivités Guitariste, guitariste classique, luthiste, compositeur, compositeur de musique de filmPériode d'activité à partir de 1940Autres informationsMembre de Académie royale des …
2006 Danish filmWe Shall OvercomeFilm release posterDrømmenDirected byNiels Arden OplevScreenplay by Niels Arden Oplev Steen Bille Produced bySisse Graum JørgensenStarring Bent Mejding Janus Dissing Rathke Anders W. Berthelsen Jens Jørn Spottag CinematographyLars VestergaardEdited bySøren B. EbbeMusic byJacob GrothProductioncompanyZentropa Entertainments11Distributed byNordisk Film BiografdistributionRelease date 24 March 2006 (2006-03-24) (Denmark) Running time109 minutes…
The WindowSutradara Nurman Hakim Produser Nurman Hakim Nan Achnas Muhamad Rochadi Ditulis oleh Nurman Hakim Nan Achnas PemeranTiti Rajo BintangYoga PratamaEka Nusa PertiwiLandung SimatupangKarlina InawatiPenata musikDjaduk FeriantoPerusahaanproduksiTriximagesDash PicturesTanggal rilisDurasi122 menitNegara Indonesia Bahasa Indonesia The Window adalah film drama Indonesia yang dirilis pada 12 Mei 2016. Film ini dibintangi oleh Titi Rajo Bintang Eka Nusa Pertiwi dan Yoga Pratama. Sinopsis Dew…
جزء من سلسلة مقالات حولعلم الاجتماع تاريخ فهرس المواضيع الرئيسية مجتمع عولمة سلوك الإنسان تأثير الإنسان على البيئة هوية الثورات الصناعية 3 / 4 / 5 تعقيد اجتماعي بنائية اجتماعية الثقافة البيئية مساواة اجتماعية إنصاف اجتماعي نفوذ اجتماعي تدرج اجتماعي بنية اجتماعية وجهات نظر ن
Опис файлу Опис постер серіалу Джерело https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22467674/mediaviewer/rm4113630465/ Час створення 2022 Автор зображення Авторські права належать дистриб'ютору, видавцю фільму або художнику цього постера. Ліцензія див. нижче Обґрунтування добропорядного використання для статті …
Portrait de Monsieur Levett et Mademoiselle Glavany Assis Sur un Divan en Costume Turc by Jean-Etienne Liotard (Louvre) Dipan adalah sebuah bangku panjang yang rendah, yang mirip dengan sofa, untuk duduk-duduk atau berbaring.[1] Kata dipan diserap dari bahasa Belanda, divan, yang berasal dari bahasa Parsi, devan.[2][3] Dipan mendapatkan namanya karena dipan biasa ditemukan di ruang kerja para dewan, yang berasal dari bahasa Parsi, diwan atau divan.[4] Bentuk dipan…
У Вікіпедії є статті про інші значення цього терміна: Інфекція (значення). Інфекція, яку спричинює герпесвірус людини 8-го типу Поширена саркома Капоші — одна з хвороб, яку спричинює герпесвірус людини 8-го типуПоширена саркома Капоші — одна з хвороб, яку спричинює герпесві…
Esta página ou seção está redigida sob uma perspectiva principalmente brasileira e pode não representar uma visão mundial do assunto. Por favor aperfeiçoe este artigo ou discuta este caso na página de discussão. Esse artigo refere-se diretamente a forma de direito prevista pelo Código Penal brasileiro ligado a bens de propriedade privada. Para outras formas de confisco de bens que não sejam propriedade privada, que seja previsto em outro código penal brasileiro, ou sob diferente circ…
Cet article est une ébauche concernant une station de métro et la Grèce. Vous pouvez partager vos connaissances en l’améliorant (comment ?) selon les recommandations des projets correspondants. Evangelismós Une rame à l’approche. Localisation Pays Grèce Ville Athènes Adresse Avenue Vasilíssis Sofías Coordonnéesgéographiques 37° 58′ 35″ nord, 23° 44′ 49″ est Géolocalisation sur la carte : Athènes Caractéristiques Position parrap…
Japanese web TV series The BenzaGenreSitcomCreated by Christopher McCombs Directed by Raito Nishizaka Michael Williams Starring Christopher McCombs Kyle Card Haku Inko Michiko Noguchi Masahito Kawahata Janni Olsson Lee Min Kuk Alexander Hunter Hannah Grace Kaori Ikeda Maxwell Powers Theme music composerTakahiro NomiyaOpening themeThe Benza Theme by Takahiro NomiyaCountry of originJapanOriginal languageJapaneseNo. of seasons2No. of episodes13ProductionExecutive producerJeff CisnerosProducers Chri…
هذه مقالة غير مراجعة. ينبغي أن يزال هذا القالب بعد أن يراجعها محرر مغاير للذي أنشأها؛ إذا لزم الأمر فيجب أن توسم المقالة بقوالب الصيانة المناسبة. يمكن أيضاً تقديم طلب لمراجعة المقالة في الصفحة المخصصة لذلك. (يناير 2022) يعد نظاما واسع الانتشار لتسجيل النقاط في مباريات التنس (كر…
1990 novel by David Drake This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: Northworld – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) First edition (publ. Ace Books)Cover art by Tony Roberts Northworld is a 1990 militaristic science fiction novel …
Book-length essay by Virginia Woolf Three Guineas First editionAuthorVirginia WoolfCover artistVanessa BellCountryUnited KingdomLanguageEnglishPublisherHogarth PressPublication date1938Pages285 pp.OCLC1304213 Three Guineas is a book-length essay by Virginia Woolf, published in June 1938. Background Although Three Guineas is a work of non-fiction, it was initially conceived as a novel–essay which would tie up the loose ends left in her earlier work, A Room of One's Own.[1] The book…
Postseason college football bowl game College football game2022 Lockheed Martin Armed Forces Bowl20th Armed Forces Bowl Baylor Bears Air Force Falcons (6–6) (9–3) Big 12 MWC 15 30 Head coach: Dave Aranda Head coach: Troy Calhoun 1234 Total Baylor 0708 15 Air Force 90147 30 DateDecember 22, 2022Season2022StadiumAmon G. Carter StadiumLocationFort Worth, TexasMVPHaaziq Daniels (QB, Air Force) & Dillon Doyle (LB, Baylor)[1]FavoriteBaylor by 3.5RefereeJeremy Valent…
Một người mẹ và con của mình thể hiện tác động cảm xúc. Tác động, trong lĩnh vực tâm lý học, ám chỉ đến trải nghiệm cơ bản về cảm xúc, tình cảm, sự gắn bó, hoặc tâm trạng.[1] Lịch sử Khái niệm về tác động phát triển vào thế kỷ 19 với Wilhelm Wundt.[2] Từ này bắt nguồn từ tiếng Đức Gefühl, có nghĩa là cảm giác.[3] Nghiên cứu về sở thích tác động xã hội…
Lokasi Pengunjung: 3.129.194.67