Talk:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not the "proposed deletion" forum[edit]

We've been reminded that if you want to discuss the pros and cons of deleting the article, then visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and make your arguments there. This discussion/talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the article. Thank you.Que-Can 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do not know where else to put this: if this article is not going to be deleted, might want to consider including info on her apparent sacrifice for her students as the last classroom and the hardest hit, with the fewest survivors: see The Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204866 wiki-stikler 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

This is an obituary, not an article. Delete. AnonHat 15:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we permit some time for appreciating the life and works of victims that die in a very public way before the jackals of dishonor descend?

To be fair, she could have died at home of natural causes and no one would have noticed or made an article about her. Wikipedia is not a memorial.MSJapan 21:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't all articles of victims of the Va. Tech shooting under deletion? What makes this article less significant? NorthernThunder 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at the biography articles for victims in Category:Virginia Tech massacre, every single one has been proposed for deletion or merging into Virginia Tech massacre. Several others, especially for student victims, have already closed and been merged. Of the bio articles, only Talk:Liviu Librescu and Talk:Kevin Granata indicate that the deletion discussion has closed in favor of keeping the article. There was consensus on those two articles that the subjects met Wikipedia's notability guidelines at WP:PROF (a subset of WP:BIO) and would have merited an article when alive, entirely separate of their status as shooting victims. Current discussion on the remaining victims, including Mrs. Couture-Nowak, is more splintered, with some arguing that status as a shooting victim is not notable and others arguing that it is. You are welcome to join any and all of the ongoing discussions. - BanyanTree 23:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really ought to be deleted, as touchy a subject as it is... though i dont think all ought to be deleted...

It seems someone has been a bit over zealous in their eagerness to create a new article related to VT, I'd say a strong argument of notability needs to be made or this article should be deleted. If anything it is unfair to other victims not to write full articles on them because they were "merely" students. Again, a very touchy subject, probably reason enough to er on the side of caution.76.23.215.101 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny (strange) to be eager to delete articles that are receiving so much attention and reader interest. It is not difficult to find other Wikipedia articles of other victims of other horrible incidents or accidents. Furthermore, as more news from this shooting becomes public, it may turn out that a number of the victims were heroic, and therefore perhaps "notable." I wouldn't be too hasty to delete any articles at this time. Later...maybe.Que-Can 01:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't create articles simply because something is receiving a lot of attention at the current time. If there is some relevant info that is important, we can include it in the general article. And btw, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not create articles simply because someone may become notable in the future. If the people are already notable by merits of the carrier then all contributors have to do is to show this and these articles should stay. This has already occured for two of the professors. In absence of that, this article should be deleted until and unless these people become notable by merits of their actions. Conservapedia for example is a prime example of how these things should work. An article was created prematurely when conservapedia was clearly not notable. Over time, it grew more notable and the article was recreated. (Ideally articles should not be created if something is not noteable, but if it does occur, it should be deleted and it doesn't preclude an article being re-created in the future.) Also, if we do have articles for people who are only notable for being victims and didn't become abnormally notable as a victim for whatever reason, then you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. The existance of other crap doesn't mean we should keep crap we come across WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Nil Einne 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why people hate the deletion-freaks of Wikipedia. Get over yourselves. I contribute to Wiki often, but it's certainly not the most trusted source of information online, or off. Why do the deletion-freaks deem they are the sole purveyor of "notable-ness?" Most of them, myself included are just web junkies who have way too much time on their hands. Back off vultures and let people have their moments. Oshaberi 01:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that wikipedia is not one of the trusted sources of information doesn't mean it isn't something we aspire to or that we should continue to allow crap on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not intended as a memorial service and never has been. Nor has it been a place for people to 'have their moment'. If contributors can't accept this, they should choose somewhere else. At a guess, I would say Conservapedia would love to have memorial articles on Americans so you could try there. Also, there are several guidelines for help in determing notability but it's amazing how often the people complaining about deletions haven't actually read them. Nil Einne 11:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's just an awful argument to be made for leaving in an "article." It doesn't even read like one, it reads very much like an obituary. In its current state, this article should be deleted or vastly restructured because, presently, this shouldn't be an encyclopedia entry anywhere. Rewrite or delete, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a repository for obituaries.J 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, why would you need to delete it? There are millions of articles on this site that make little to no sense, talking about bullshit that doesn't matter. If you're gonna delete this, why not delete the killer in this massacre too? He has a meaty page with lots of contributers, and there's no talking about his deletion. Leave it on here.Stonesour025 10:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A man who killed 32 people is, frankly, far more worthy of an encyclopedia entry than one of his victims, whose only notable feat is dying at a murderer's hands. He is also of a greater importance to this issue than any of the individual victims can claim, and from an encyclopedic standpoint, that is all that matters. 147.72.97.69 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

leave it in[edit]

I think an article like this should be left in. I think dying in an extraordinary event like the VT Massacre is enough to warrant a bio. Aren't there bios for people who died on United 93?

The event at VT is still very, very new. The effect on the culture as a whole is still playing out. The folks who were killed played a part in a story that is still being told. As the days and weeks follow, there may be more to say about each victims part.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.27.63 (talk • contribs)

Regarding your question, no, there are no biographies on Wikipedia of the people who died on United Airlines Flight 93 or any other 9-11 victims whose sole claim to notability is being killed in the attacks. In Memoriam Sept 11th wiki was the first sister project to Wikipedia, but its relationship with the Wikimedia Foundation was discontinued after the goals of the two, in part on the policy of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, couldn't be reconciled. In any case, the decision on what to do with this article won't be made here but in the deletion discussion, so weigh in there if you want to be heard.- BanyanTree 01:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To correct the above statement, there are in fact several Wikipedia articles on people who died on United 93. Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, and Tom Burnett just to name a few. --Oakshade 07:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Vote for Deletion[edit]

To everyone dealing with this page who voted for or against its deletion the first time: please note that there is a new, second vote for deletion; the first discussion was completely tossed out. So if you voted on the first one, but haven't let your voice be heard on this one, and feel you need to, please do so. Titanium Dragon 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigtime expansion needed[edit]

Since I guess this is being kept because of her involvement with Canadian schools, those who know more about her should really put more into the article, like was done with Prof. Librescu. As is, the death section takes up an altogether too large proportion of the article. I'd add, but I've not a clue about her except what I read on here. Nyttend 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Couture-Nowak's involvement with Canadian schools basically boils down to teaching at one and being among the three parents who pursued setting up another one - that is, except for attending some schools. Anyway, all that is covered more than sufficiently. I am sorry to disappoint you, but the article is more than exhaustive in its coverege of the subject... PrinceGloria 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO editors should never be discouraged from improving and expanding an article. If an editors feels there's nothing that can be expanded, then that's just an opinion and others are likely to dissagree. --Oakshade 00:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you find anything worth adding, please do. I wouldn't like Nyttend to remain under the false impression that the article is unfinished, when it is actually comprehensive and complete. PrinceGloria 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion and your concern for another editor. --Oakshade 00:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fear the remaining noteworthy details to be unfolded by historians regarding this biography are few; still as such, if anyone can find anything, more power to them. If not, despite weeks of work, in some time, probably within months, someone will put this back on AfD, whereupon, voted away, it will sink gently into the great oblivious vast expanse of ignominy, wherein it very likely belongeth. Pablosecca 05:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sound bitter that there wasn't a consensus to delete this article. Notability is permanent, but thanks for the POV. --Oakshade 06:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the admin made a very weak decision ruling "no consensus" without providing any further explanation. The debate of this article is hardly over. If the justification for this article still is, "whoa, she is Canadian", "she participated in building a (non-notable) school" and "she got shot", then I'm ready to vote delete in any AfD. 194.239.195.65 08:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a very good decision as there cleary was no concensus. The justification for keep was passing our strict notabilty guidelines and not "whoa, she is Canadian" or whatever other straw man arguement you may want to create. And many are ready to vote keep in any AfD. --Oakshade 15:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Oakshade, maybe you should look up the history of the "Gay Nigger Association of America" page (what was it, 18 nominations for deletion before it was finally deleted?). Notability is generally permanent. Rockstar (T/C) 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very familiar with the history of the GNAA article and also recall someone tried to cite that as a precedent when nominating Cleveland Steamer for AfD for the 7th time. Some editors dismissed that AfD as AfD process abuse or WP:POINT. --Oakshade 17:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think the gist of "no consensus" is ipso facto not permanent -- the admin -- questionably or not -- decided that there was no sufficient agreement; that means that the article exists as a sort of default. And I'm sure we'd all appreciate you not changing the names of pages that you're citing, because the word "generally" makes all the difference. As for this article, I think we will meet again on the field of onions. Pablosecca 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK now, I took a fresh look at the article today and basically it consist of:

  1. A host of biographical trivia one would expect to find in an article devoted to an otherwise famous person, and I'd say that even articles on really famous people rarely do contain that much of it...
  2. An expanded bit on the Ecole acadienne, which would normally rather fit in the article on the school itself, but then the school does not have an article itself, and it shouldn't, as its only claim to notability is that a person who was shot by a madman had been actively advocating for its foundation, while the person's claim to notability is, allegedly, having founded the very school...
  3. Three paragraphs on the shooting, which is well covered in its own article, so this is essentially a redundant repetition.
  4. A summary of "recognition" given to Ms Couture-Nowak after her death.
  5. A poorly conocted article which tries to prove a point basing on one, only remotely relevant (and not quite more logically coherent) column by Anne Applebaum.

It all looks like a collection of all the measly info that could be found on the subject + repeated assertions of her notability, as if there was a standing AfD going on on the article's face page. One day somebody will come here and see it this way and wonder why is it even here... PrinceGloria 03:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sham consensus[edit]

There was a discussion here about the process of discussing deletions. As above, this discussion page is about the merits (or not) of the article's content. As it was off-topic and took up space, I deleted it. If you wish to read it, please see the history. Canuckle 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Canuckle, I'll thank you not to play Information Ministry with this page -- if you disagree, say so but don't censor. Below is the discussion restored.Pablosecca 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sham consensus

It's no secret I don't like the existence of this article. But I've have time to chew it over in a dispassionate way, and here are some remarks --

  • What really happened here is a misunderstanding of "consensus" as applied by the ruling admins. This article exists not by virtue of it's strengths, but by a lack of decision, which was the "no consensus" ruling in the AfD.
    Consensus, as defined, really means the ability of a community to abide by an articulated position -- not that everyone agrees with the decision. For discussions on WIkipedia are not votes, but rather intelligent discussions of policy -- but many admins are too weak-willed to make clear decisions, choosing instead to cop out by claiming "no consensus" when droves of people show up and "disagree." These admins forget the fact that disagreement is only recognizable when it is articulate, otherwise we've got a simple decision based on numbers, something either vague (as in what percent is a "consensus") or arbitrary (eg, if we make 50% plus a majority, no less), untenable in either case. In other words, a sham "no consensus."
    Users like Oakshade, above, proudly claim success in keeping the article, but such pride is misplaced because, again, the article exists as a default due to admin spinelessness. The ruling admin in the AfDs and reviews above could never have decided "keep", because there exists no rationale for such a decision, not even the "locally important" rationale. But instead, with the fake idea of "consensus" , sheer numbers of users showing up and voting "keep" without articulate rationales entirely torpedoes the discussion and we've got a bad article on our hands (you read this article and say to yourself, why is this here?).
    The solution: we can still keep consensus, of course -- it can act as a sort of barometer to keep admins from making wild decisions. But half of every decision is the strength of character (and of mind) of the decider, and half what that decider takes from the discussion -- both halves we were missing here. The analogy at hand is that of lawyers and the courts -- judges seek consensus in past law and decisions from higher courts -- but at the same time, lawyers must know the law, and can't simply show up and disagree based on whatever rationale they please. Pablosecca 06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate."
I would say if you feel the AfD was closed improperly, you can bring it up for Deletion Review, but you already tried that and the Deletion Review was speedily closed. There were in fact very valid reasons to keep cited (clearly passing WP:NOTABILITY for one) and that is why, with about equal number of keep and delete votes, the AfD was closed as "no consensus." If you'd like to change Wikipedia's deletion policy, you can make your case at Wikipedia:Deletion policy.
As for your offending comment "Users like Oakshade, above, proudly claim success in keeping the article...", that is a completely false personal attack and unless you can provide any evidence I "proudly claim success in keeping the article" I request you strike the false statement. Thank you. --Oakshade 08:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My contention is that admins should be stronger in their decisions, arriving at a decision of "keep" or "delete" -- because as I say, a true ruling of "no consensus" must be very, very rare. My reasoning is extensive, but the gist is that ruling of "no consensus" tend to stifle debate.
As for the "personal attack", let me disagree. That was not an attack on my part, but a characterization, which I drew from your comment up the page somewhat, in which you wrote "You sound bitter that there wasn't a consensus to delete this article. Notability is permanent, but thanks for the POV." To me, that is claiming success, proudly. Pablosecca 08:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not anything near "claiming success, proudly." Where anywhere in Wikipedia have i said anything like "I am proud for keeping this article"?... which, by the way, would be a totally false statement in itself as I did not in fact keep any article, the consensus and administrators did. --Oakshade 08:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use your head, Oakshade: obviously I didn't mean you specifically, uniquely had the power to keep the article. As for my "false statement", it's not true or false, it's an opinion, which I am honestly tendering. It's the message I got from your "notability is permanent" comment, not what you said literally. Anyway, let's stop the with the truculence and churlishness and get back to the issues at hand. Pablosecca 09:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pablosecca, please practice what you preach and "use your head" by not falsely representing what other editors said. If you made such a claim about a person in an article without any sourcing or proof, per WP:BLP that would be imediatly deleted. You would make a better case for your POV to the topic at hand if you don't make false statements about other editors.--Oakshade 09:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, is this getting nasty... Seems like the sole purpose of existence of this article is to generate reasons to violate WP:NPA. That said, Oakshade is right - it's the WP policies/guidelines that are at fault. Applied according to their letter, they provide for outcomes unfavorable for WP and even contrary to Wikipedias basic principles. This means we not only should employ WP:UCS and more generally WP:IAR to make up for their deficiencies, but also actively work on improving them for them not to work against Wikipedia... I wish I had more time to put my typing where my typing is :D , but basically, that's the conclusion... PrinceGloria 09:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. I think the policies are the policies, and they are mostly rational. Let us not rely on institutional aegis in determining actions, but instead place more responsibility on individual admins in making decisions. The blame in this case lies with the weak-minded admins who refused to make articulate decisions. "No consensus" is a worthless decision, and only stifles the debate. Pablosecca 19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

I hate to start any sort of argument, but the content of this page seems to be missing, perhaps my ability to traverse wikipedia history is terrible but i don't seem to be able to find any record of this page containing content other than that of the fact she died. Also for some crazy reason not one of the references refers to anything but the Virginia Tech massacre. I have obviously overlooked something but could someone tell me exactly why she is notable beyond the fact someone killed her? -- Jimmi Hugh 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Life and carreer" section, which has about the same amount of content as the "Death" section, is not about the fact she died. She became notable due to the massacre. After 2 AfDs and 2 DLRs, that was a very contentious issue. --Oakshade 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Virginia Tech notability[edit]

  • I think that her Life section really boils down to:
  1. born in Montreal
  2. post-secondary education
  3. founding École acadienne de Truro. Although the school sounds possibly notable, the article simply says she was "instrumental" in its creation. Can further detail on her role (with sources) be provided?
  • The remaining content in this section could easily be pruned. Any comments prior to my making changes?

Canuckle 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regarding her role in the school, in a gov't news release, a Minister certainly seems to make the case that a) the school is notable and b) her role in its founding was notable within the region's francophone community. I think that's sufficient although more detail would be helpful. And if some think that her role remains "unclear", I think that wording could be accomodated. Canuckle 18:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Chris d'Entremont, Minister of Acadian Affairs. "She has made a great contribution to the francophone community, particularly with the development of École acadienne in Truro, and she will be sadly missed."

I'll encourage you to please exercise caution in pruning content. While I respect your desire to improve the article, please be aware that some content that may not be of interest to you may be of interest to other readers. BRMo 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I hope this Talk page will help guide the change and I'm completely open to hearing others thoughts.
While the rule is taht articles should be breif and only cover relivant points, My understadning of this individual is that they have had a broad effect, and so the article should reflect that. Otherwise we we be getting folks questioning the notability of this individual again. Has anyone found the info needed to recreate the Thuro school article taht was seen as a troll during the deletion debate.cmacd 13:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is a risk of that. I think if we can remove the extraneous content (or clarify its notability) then the discussion could become more specific and hopefully more civil. I'm not sure you'll ever get away from people questioning the notability. But boiling it down to the essentials does usually help focus discussion. Canuckle 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability because of Virginia Tech[edit]

  • I've often heard that dying in a notable event is not sufficient to cause notability. Can anyone point me to this policy or guideline? Canuckle 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO lists six general criteria for notability of people: (1) subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject; (2) subject of a credible independent biography; (3) received recognized awards or honors; (4) demonstrable wide name recognition; (5) widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field; and (6) commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products. Dying is not one of them, so dying in a notable event does not, by itself, make a person notable. On the other hand, a person's death in a notable event could lead to the person being the subject of published secondary sources, a credible independent biography, or to having wide name recognition. So dying in a notable event does not preclude a person from being considered notable if they meet any of the six general criteria (or any of the criteria for specific fields). The case for the notability of Ms. Couture-Nowak is based on criterion (1). BRMo 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I would have considered her - and similar cases - under #4: demonstrable wide name recognition. There's ample evidence of her name being published due to Virginia Tech. How wide? Canada-wide recognition would suffice for notability. Nova Scotia-wide or French-Canadian-wide should also suffice as regional notability, however, these cases do seem to be more debated. What do you think? Canuckle 09:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Virginia Tech notability[edit]

  • It's not been long since the event occurred. Does anyone know what her husband has been up to? Has he engaged in any activites of notability himself (writing a book about her, public speaking about it?) Perhaps that's asking too much but, aside from the immediate aftermath of the event, have any sources talked about her in a notable way?

Canuckle 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a stand-alone article apart from Virginia Tech?[edit]

  • I think this question is a valid one but will be more easily answered once the above questions are answered. So let's re-visit this in due course. Canuckle 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a debated thing, but there it is all the same. I stand by what I said before, that this article will be re-nominated eventually, but not for a good long while. At least a month, maybe more. In ref to an above question of yours, there was an article regarding the school she founded, but that article was deleted without much controversy as being non-notable. I am not a denizen of the delete forums enough to know how to search for the archived debate on that and link it for you, sorry.Pablosecca 08:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: the essential question is what constitutes notability in the face of press coverage. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I fear the reasons she is defended as she is are a) sympathies for her victimhood, understandable b) regional interest in her heritage -- these essentially. She has obviously gotten a few articles, but I think we have to not read the notability guidelines with such a stiff attitude -- and indeed the rules allude to "incidental" coverage as being insufficient. In other words, she is notable only in connection to the VTech event and therefore should be a redirect at best.

The other interesting argument I've seen advanced is that she is notable in certain regions of the world, like French Canada -- and that since Wikipedia is an international entity, notability is valid even if regional -- that's true and fine generally, but I think that such a loophole threatens to make in cases like these a fairly flabby rule, in that in any major news story with groups of victims, local press naturally wish to do "local focus" stories on any victims from such a region. But no notability exists in the subject -- in this instance, this lady was "made" notable by the press simply by virtue of her background.

The real problem is admins refusing to make decisions. Only when policy genuinely seems to disagree with itself should we adjudicate "no consensus", because otherwise it greatly suppresses the the dialog. One consoles oneself by totally forgetting the existence of this article, as I did before it came up again for review, and doing work elsewhere. Pablosecca 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your thoughts. In my view, sheer volume of press coverage can indeed make a person notable (See Paris Hilton or others for the less august examples). What you say is very true that Wikipedia is having trouble measuring how press coverage determines notability and how to gauge Canadian content. Some people are like stars and planets and are easily notable due to their permanence. Some others are comets who flash by just one time and briefly but are still memorable. Canuckle 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, the Canadian section of Media coverage of the Virginia Tech massacre is pretty poor. If there was overlapping content there or elsewhere, you might find support for a merge or two. For instance, one problem I have with redirect to the list of victims is that it's mostly about where they died. There's no room for reaction (eg Harper's comments) and long-term response (bursaries, memorial gardens, etc.) Canuckle 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Translation[edit]

I'm not sure whether or not you should delete it, but I think that if you keep it, it should be translated into French as well, due to her being a native of Montréal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.73.182 (talk • contribs) 11:34, July 30, 2007

You're welcome to start an article in fr.wikipedia.org. --ElKevbo 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up[edit]

As we're keeping this article after all, I've cleaned it up a fair bit to make it read more like a proper biography and less like a memorial. In particular, I believe I have successfully shifted the emphasis of the article from her death to her life. I've also cut down the details of the shooting to those facts that directly concern Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. The Virginia Tech massacre article is the place to put more generalised information about the shooting. Comments please? —gorgan_almighty 09:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to be careful about the language about her role in the founding of the school. "Instrumental" was a word used by media. "Co-founding" is tricky as she's not the school's founder. The current wording, "with 2 others"..."established" is likely the best. Canuckle 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the American magazine's observation of her coverage in Polish news in its entirety as "trivia." I thought it demonstration that her notability is beyond just Nova Scotia. Perhaps the block quote isn't the best way to show that. But I'd prefer to hear discussion of how to best represent that rather than just losing the info. Canuckle 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a stab at some updating. However, you may want to raise potential edits on the Talk page first. I engaged in some pruning a while ago and found that what seemed like small edits to me were held to be quite important to others. Canuckle 17:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still violating NPOV. If we're going to have this article, it must be about the subject and not the event. If this article is just going to be a reiteration of information already available in other articles, there is absolutely no need for this article. Either fix it or delete it, but keeping it as is is unacceptable. It should also be mentioned that efforts to fix such a problem have been reverted. This is not good. Rockstar (T/C) 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockstar, you attempted to remove the following
The gunman then committed suicide by shooting himself in the forehead in the same classroom (ed. note, this being Couture-Nowak's classroom as indicated in the previous paragraph).[1] Seven registered students survived the massacre [2], with six of them injured. Four students were not present at the time, including one who never appeared for class [1]. Clay Violand, one of the seven known survivors, stated that he was the only individual in the room to not receive gunshot wounds [2]; Cho shot Couture-Nowak and students during the first round, left the room, and later returned to shoot the occupants numerous times before committing suicide [2].
As this article is specifically about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, it has EVERYTHING to do with this article. If the content was about Cho's rampage in other classrooms, you'd have a point, but it's about what happened to Couture-Nowak and HER classroom. Removing the sourced relevant facts is the real violation of WP:NPOV. --Oakshade 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So then write an article called Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's classroom. This is a biography. We should keep the info about her being murdered; the info about who was shot in her classroom is extraneous and unnecessary. It's like adding information about her hometown and its census records. Sure, it's tangential information, but not directly related to the biography. I'm seriously worried about your ownership issues. Rockstar (T/C) 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If such an article were created it likely would be merged into this one. That's the point. I had very little to do with the writing of this article's content. When somebody repeatedly tries to erase relevant referenced content written by other editors, that is in fact a case of attempted ownership. --Oakshade 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, because I wasn't the first to remove the content. WP:OWN begins to take place when one editor reverts against consensus, which is what is happening here. Rockstar (T/C) 23:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some details regarding the manner of her death should be here. As a teacher responsible for the safety of her students, information on the deaths of others can be here as well. But I don't know if all the present info needs to be here. Certainly, it reads quite choppy. Canuckle 00:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockstar, you seem to not understand WP:CONSENSUS. The material has been there for at least 3 months (almost since the article's creation) and not deleted by anyone until the last 24 hours. As overwhelming consensus has kept it there, there needs to be a strong consensus to remove it which you have failed to generate, but are ignoring that and still attempting to change it anyway. THAT is owning an article. --Oakshade 01:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Except that those arguments fall greatly under WP:AADD. Oh well, I don't care. The superfluous information will get deleted over time (actually, more likely, the entire article will get deleted). We're writing this encyclopedia to include notable people who will be notable 50 years for now. This article hardly falls in that category. But if you want to vehemently own this article for the time being, go ahead, be my guest. In time, it will be deleted, though, as all articles with many many AfDs about borderline-notable subjects eventually do. I'll just watch from the sidelines. Rockstar (T/C) 01:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bizarre response since we weren't discussing article deletion. But we appreciate your admission that you weren't really interested in "improving" this article as you believe the topic is not worthy of article inclusion. I suppose any "improvement" you make here is simply to decrease quality of it so as to further your POV agenda. --Oakshade 03:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Arbitrary reset of indent)

Oakshade, I don't want to edit war with you, so I'm not going to directly undo your reverts. However I think I made my reasons very clear at the top of this section in the Talk page. Note that I am interested in improving this article.

  1. Firstly, please Assume good faith. We are all here to try and improve the article. No one is trying to "decrease quality of it so as to further your [their] POV agenda".
  2. Secondly, I removed the comment about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak's death from the first paragraph as I was trying to shift the emphasis of the article from her death to her life. In my view, that single omission from the first paragraph goes a long way in achieving that goal. No information is lost, as the section about her death remains. This makes it read less like a memorial and more like a biography.
  3. Thirdly, I removed the paragraph about the shooter killing himself, as this relates to the event, not to Jocelyne Couture-Nowak herself. The fact that he killed himself in her classroom is trivial and therefore does not warrant the paragraph's inclusion. Again, no information is lost as it still exists in the main article about the shooting, as well as the article about the shooter. As Rockstar quite rightly says, it's tangential information not directly related to the biography (as it doesn't affect the way she died). So it doesn't belong in this article.
  4. Fourthly, the paragraph I removed as trivia seemed like trivia to me (non-notable information about a notable subject), but I'm not going to argue that point because there may be a valid reason to keep it.
  5. Fifthly, Rockstar's understanding of WP:CONSENSUS is perfectly correct. The amount of time a piece of information has remained in an article does not affect consensus. Rockstar, Canuckle and I seem to share the same opinions as to how this article should be transformed for it's own good. That is the basis of a consensus forming.
  6. Sixthly, I am VERY concerned about your assertion that removing anything referenced from the article constitutes attempted ownership. Not everything that's referenced and loosely related to the article deserves inclusion. This is a biography of a person's life and death, it's not a collection of any and all information related to the person.
  7. Finally, I am going to assume good faith and not accuse you of attempted ownership of the article, for your reversions. But I would ask you to reconsider your views on inclusion based on the points I have made above. Further, if consensus seems to point towards my edits as being the way to go, then I will restore them.

—gorgan_almighty 11:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gorgan, for jumping in here. I concur with everything you said. I too am willing to improve the article so long as I (or anyone else for that matter) am not called a vandal, POV pusher or anything else that has to do with hurting the integrity of the project whenever I make an edit. That said, looking at the article's history and this talk page, it looks like consensus is siding with what you wrote above so maybe it's time to start improving the article and making it more than just a coatrack. Rockstar (T/C) 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
gorgan_almighty, most of your changes I don't have an issue with except for the deletion of details of her death and the deaths that took place in her classroom as this is an article about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. As for your claim that the ammount of time content has remained in an article does not affect consensus, here is a quote from the first paragraph of the policy of WP:CONSENSUS.
Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it.
Jumping in and trying to change something that's has remained there almost since the article was created and there are objections to the change and STILL insisting on the change is much more an example of attempted WP:OWNERSHIP. --Oakshade 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade: this is a Wiki. Wikies change with time. Such is the nature of a Wiki -- it is not paper, nothing not solid, content is organic. It is actually quite frightening that you think that just because some text has been on an article's page for a while means that it shouldn't be changed. Consensus changes. Feel free to ask Jimbo -- he reiterates what I just said all the time. Rockstar (T/C) 16:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I just noticed this. Rockstar, you're frightened? I think you need a Wikibreak. --Oakshade 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being a dick. Now. Rockstar (T/C) 07:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You used the word "frightening", not me. If you're going to get that worked up over the editing of an article, you need to take a rest. This response solidifies the fact you need to take a Wikibreak. --Oakshade 15:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One last time: stop now. You're really bordering on violating WP:CIV. Rockstar (T/C) 17:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rockstar, you're in no position to "order" anyone. If you want to make a complaint, go ahead. You're the one who found my edits "frightening" and I find that bizarre. Take a rest. I actually will stop this thread; not because of your "order," but because this discussion now has nothing to do with the improvement of this article. --Oakshade 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daughters. Rockstar deleted their ages as not possible to verify in the future. That's not the concern. The info was there not to be an obituary but because it had previously been stated that she helped establish the school because of her daughters. Now, obviously they are older with one given a bursary in memory of her mother. You could name them in the bit about the start-up of the school or just put them into the Infobox as children of. But if you leave them hanging out by themselves it looks like we're trying to write an obituary here (which we're not). Canuckle 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, pretty much. An obit always ends with "X was survived by daughter Y and husband Z," and thus this article reads like an obit as it stands. Rockstar (T/C) 07:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Gunman committed suicide in Canadian prof's class". CTV News. Retrieved 2007-04-20.
  2. ^ a b ""Goddard Recalls"".

WP:BLP1E, WP:N, and Jocelyne Couture-Nowak[edit]

Jocelyne Couture-Nowak has been the main subject of many news articles in a variety of languages. Her name specifically has been put in the title of more than twenty news articles a variety of languages, some of which I added to the article. These news articles not only cover her in the context of the shooting, but cover all aspects of her life. All of this information is fair game for her Wikipedia biography. As specifically stated at the top of Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". She has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and thus has independent notability. There is more than enought reliable source information to write a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. Please stop twisting Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BLP1E to be something they are not. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a news source, hype machine, tabloid or memorial for borderline notable people. Many people, admins and non-admins, seem to be forgetting that these days with all the BLP issues we're seeing. But this issue stems further than BLP. I (and others) am arguing for the spirit of Wikipedia, what it was meant to be. We're quickly losing sight of what an encyclopedia is. But there is still some hope -- there are a few admins who are acting in the same vein and in the interest of the integrity of the encyclopedia. They're doing the right thing. And you know what? They're getting no end of crap for it. But in the end, who does ArbCom side with? Let's just say that Violetriga was the only admin admonished at the BDJ case. That in itself should say something. Rockstar (T/C) 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E is about privacy, literally and in spirit. As it states, it applies to "essentially low profile" persons. You fail to notice that WP:BLP1E is a sub-clause of the Presumption in favor of privacy section. This person is in no way "essentially low profile" nor a private person. Jreferee has is correct. --Oakshade 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rockstar915. I think you are correct that a main AfD debate is whether sufficient reliable sources are enough to make something Wikipedia encyclopedic or whether the topic additionally should meet a minimum level of subjective importance so that Wikipedia maintains a certain level of integrity. Consensus on this very issue for a given article can change overtime, so there probably is no right answer. I think people generally use a minimum three-month rule of thumb between AfDs and RfA as a period over which consensus can change on any one topic/issue. Jimbo added WP:NOT#NEWS to address harm caused by our work. However, it also mentions long-term historical notability of a person. If you were to AfD this article in November 2007, a focus of the discussion might be whether the long-term historical importance of Couture-Nowak does or will meet WP:NOT#NEWS. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the AfDs were too close together, and I appreciate your response. I simply think that people often forget that Wikipedia is written for long-term notability. And by long-term I mean 50 years. 100 years. Or more.
An article that has multiple reliable sources, when taken literally, would appear to have sufficient cause for inclusion. But that's when you interpret the guideline literally. The burden is on us, however, to inspect each article separately. And what we're seeing is that often (as seen in many BLPs), articles with numerous reliable sources are deleted outright. Many are saying exactly what is being said here: "But they fulfill WP:N and WP:RS!" Unfortunately, they don't. Sure, they do if following the letter of the guideline, but not in the spirit. I think the question to be asked was always meant to be "Will X be notable in 50 years?" but is quickly moving away from that to "What was in the newspaper today?" That's not a good thing. In fact, it's unacceptable. That's why Jimbo added WP:NOT#NEWS. And that's how we should be examining this article. Just because Couture-Nowak has been the subject of reliable sources is not enough. We need to be looking deeper. Rockstar (T/C) 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that BLP doesn't really apply to the subject of this article as she isn't living. I reserve comment on notability issues. --ElKevbo 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, BLP applies both to the living and recently deceased. Rockstar (T/C) 04:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find that in the current policy... --ElKevbo 04:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not part of current WP:BLP policy and that's why you won't find it there. WP:ARBCOM decided to apply BLP to one case but that didn't change WP:BLP itself. There have been proposals to include "recently" deceased people but they have all been shot down. --Oakshade 05:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just needs to be, like everything else in this encyclopedia, taken on a case-by-case basis. Overarching policies don't work on a Wiki. They're good for backbone, but that's pretty much it. Product > policy. Rockstar (T/C) 05:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jreferee, I'm afraid I don't see the point of created this thread on the Talk page. This isn't an AfD, and you haven't brought any new arguments that haven't already been claimed time and again. In short, this thread is accomplishing nothing. —gorgan_almighty 11:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading section[edit]

This section is way too big. WP:EL indicates that external links should be kept to a minimum. In fact, most of these links do not contain any additional relevant information, as they are all just more obituaries. I suggest we remove the entire section. Rooot (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This tool identifies several problems. Rooot (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unilateral deletion of an entire section is considered vandalism (I see on Rooot's talk page, this isn't the first time this has been pointed out to them). Those few "issues" are simply linking issues and in no manor invalidate the valid sources; print sources are always valid. Removing sources that editors can reference to establish notability during an AfD can be seen as a bad faith effort, especially if that AfD nominator is the user that removes them. --Oakshade (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks make not a good editor. The bold edit was suggested to me on the AfD page. Instead of attacking me, try fixing the article. Rooot (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rooot, according to the edit history of the current AfD, you're the user who suggested the removal of the entire section [3] and nobody "suggested it" to you. After your own suggestion another editor responded. Resorting to misrepresenting your own and other editors posts is a true form of personal attacking. --Oakshade (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try the truth. In response to my suggestion to discuss removal of the section: "Feel free to, but that isn't a relevant matter for this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)" I suggested that we discuss it, and he suggested that I go ahead and do it. Nothing has been misrepresented by anyone but you. Throughout the entire discussion on this article you have resorted to: 1. Exaggerating the time since the last AfD, 2. Misrepresenting what was said in cited sources, 3. Misconstruing definitions from Wikipedia policy pages, 4. Rewording what I said to fit your argument. Rooot (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The truth: First post that "suggested" removing the entire section... "I suggest we remove the entire section. Rooot (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)" [4]. According to most peoples understanding of chronilogical order, 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC) (your post) is before 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC) (JoshuaZ's post). Please stop lying about other people's posts. Per WP:VANDAL, I'm considering removing your response regarding JoshuaZ. --Oakshade (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that English is not your primary language, so I will try to keep this as simple as possible. I said "I suggest we remove the entire section [....]" In response to that post, "Feel free to, but that isn't a relevant matter for this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)" In response to that post, I removed the section.
Now, I know this is hard for you, but a native English speaker would understand that this conversation flows as such: 1. Suggestion for discussion of future action with proposal for future action. 2. Support for future action proposed. 3. Action taken. Rooot (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you've felt the need to resort to childish personal attacks to illustrate your self-contradictory point, please now put your energies to improving the article instead of attacking editors who are doing so. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you would say that considering that you continue to replace a useless citation for the purpose of establishing notability for this article. There are plenty of other valid sources here. You have yet to even attempt to fix the citation. It is clearly useless, but you just have to win this at all costs, no matter how ridiculous the measures taken are. That citation would warrant an expulsion from any reputable academic institution. Rooot (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make two points: (1) A "Further reading" section is not the same as an "External links" section (see WP:LAYOUT). Consequently, the guidance that external links "should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article" is not strictly applicable to this section. The "Further reading" section should consist of "any books, articles, web pages, et cetera that you recommend as further reading, useful background, or sources of further information to readers." (2) I think it may be worthwhile to go through this section with an aim to dropping some references that add little additional information to what is contained in the article. However, I would support such an effort only if it were conducted in a collaborative manner, using criteria that are agreed upon by editors with an active interest in this article. IMO, a wholesale deletion of the section, as Rooot has suggested would be entirely inappropriate. BRMo (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine by me, somewhere I encountered a wikipedia article that used the terms "Further Reading" and "External Links" synonymously. Rooot (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

From WP:VERIFIABILITY: "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." A citation that lacks a page number, or even a section is useless and does not belong on Wikipedia. The current citation would be like citing "The Bible." Rooot (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears you are referring to this citation: "Virginia Tech graduation: Tears mix with joy as victims are honored" Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 13, 2007 (Updated with title - --Oakshade (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)), the name of a specific newspaper and edition is easily found in that edition, unlike quoting "The Bible." Removal of reliable sources is considered vandalism. --Oakshade (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious which citation I am referring to as you keep replacing it without even bothering to check it. If you think this citation is CLEAR AND PRECISE enough to enable readers to find the text, that is one thing. But I doubt any reasonable person would agree with you on that point. How many pages were in that issue? How many sections? Was the text on page 1 or page 51? Do you even know the name of the article? Without this information, the cite is not precise and not clear, thus should not be left in. Rooot (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that specific date, the Richmond Times-Dispatch likely has only a few stories, if more than one, regarding the VT shootings. Also likely this story would be either the primary front section or the Metro/Virginia section, both of which have about 15 pages and much of those pages are primarily advertising. A reader can easily and quickly scan through those two sections to find the article entitled "Virginia Tech graduation: Tears mix with joy as victims are honored." --Oakshade (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which, of course, was not included in the citation that I removed. All it had was a date and a newspaper. No author. No page. No title. It is ok now, but you need to understand that the information included in the previous citation was UNACCEPTABLE. Me thinks you have waaaayy to much personal stake in this article since you couldn't see that the citation was completely inappropriate from an objective standpoint. Nevertheless, I am done here. Rooot (talk) 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It included the date. Even without the title, the article could've been easily found with only the source name and date. Correcting vandalism and WP:POINT AfD nominations, both of which you have committed to this article, is what's important. --Oakshade (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference: wp:citations: "Provide full citations

All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used.

Full citations for books typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, the date of publication, and page numbers. The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional. For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers. Citations for newspaper articles typically include the title of the article in quotes, the byline (author's name), the name of the newspaper in italics, date of publication, page number(s), and the date you retrieved it if it is online.

Provide page numbers

When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers should be included whenever possible in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. The edition of the book should be included in the reference section, or included in the footnote, because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view." Rooot (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Citations is a useful guideline (not policy). Those specific guidelines are ideal, but does not mandate the removal of less specific citations, ie without a specific page number of a newspaper reference. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be Notable or Not To Be[edit]

Happy that we can finally ascertain that being Notable may be more apparent over time than was previously assumed. Also, my sister Jocelyne Couture-Nowak was outspoken in her quest for a non-violent society, her worst fear, ironically, was to die from gun shot wounds. Thanks, Wikipedia and all, for keeping her notables alive. - just (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not undo latest modifications dated January 31, 2012 (14:51) - see: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737 Subject: "Brother of article subject - deletion of sourced content." just (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That ANI was not a conclusive decider of content in this article. It was about someone who is related to an article subject making edits to that article. --Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether someone is related or not to anyone covered by Wikipedia subject matter is irrelevant. ANI, following your written request for review, exposed the obviousness of the situation which it seems you do not want to accept. The following conclusion has been drawn and remains unchallenged:
"While a source was given for the deleted phrase, it is not clear that the content as presented was adequately covered by the source. The deleted phrase presented it as a fact that Violand told Couture-Nowak to barricade the door, while all we learn from the source is that he recounted telling her to "put that desk in front of the door" – and while we have no reason to think he made this up, personal memories of such events are notoriously unreliable. --Lambiam 13:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Of same importance, which also seems to have escaped your scrutiny, is the following:
If contents of Wikipedia is to derive from relevant objective facts which are pertinent to a subject in question, then for the sake of brevity, relevancy, and coherency among other things, content which conflicts with the relevancy of the topic should never be allowed, especially where it provokes a conflicting issue regarding the underlying rationale behind the usage of the deleted contents. Where there is a conflict of relevancy the impugned details should never be published, regardless if those details derive from "reputable" sources. --just (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Any unbiased, reasonable and well-informed individual can readily ascertain that if "notoriously unreliable" and irrelevant information subsists in Wikipedia since the last four years (according to this issue), then other "notoriously unreliable" and irrelevant Wikipedia contributions may subsist. In light of the mockery you seem to project upon reliable Wikipedia editors and the ANI (where you have initially sought advice), you give me no other choice but to take the appropriate steps in having amended and protected the Jocelyne Couture-Nowak page following a decision from a "conclusive decider" (Total contents of above including related archives to be submitted for Wikipedia administerial review). just (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While Lambiam's opinion is nice, that's just one opinion and in no manner a consensus or a "conclusive decider." As a matter of fact, another editor, a reliable editor, reverted you edit and restored the sourced content you removed.[5] And what's with this "mockery" you claim I created? There is no "mockery." If you feel something like that occurred, you need to report this. --Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears, according to the latest revision history and as of this writing, that latest edits were done by you, mentioning as summary edit that "That ANI is not a consensus in any mannor." (16:14, 31 January 2012‎). I consider Lambiam's opinion to be reliable. I don't consider someone boasting to be reliable, reliable.
Let me simply summarize the issue by making you aware of what is at stake here, courtesy of WP:NOR Policy:
"Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; - In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic."
Other WP Policies come into play regarding the above. just (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually User:Edward321, who's opinion is also reliable, that also reverted your change.[[6]] You're outside of WP:CONSENSUS on this one. Citing the Washington Post is not WP:NOR. Claiming the Washington Post is engaging in original research as you are doing is ironically original research. We don't do that in WP. --Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears your claims are not only unfounded, but your interpretation of WP Policy is incorrect. I will have other editors and admins decide this issue. just (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment of Death contents.[edit]

1- I noticed that the Death section contains a text passage pointing to a source which conflicts with another. I've also noticed the usage of unreliable interpretations. The Death section in debate in this Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak (Hereafter "JCN") page contains the following text passage:

After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door 8, Couture-Nowak had her students barricade the classroom door with a desk and then ushered her students to the back of the class for their safety while 911 was called. The attempt at barricading the door proved unsuccessful. 9 Couture-Nowak and 11 of the 22 registered students 10 died. Couture-Nowak died in front of the door 10 and next to the teacher's desk. 10.

2- First of all, after thoroughly reading the Washington Post source referred to in [8], anyone can readily observe that it's contents is not about the topic of this JCN page, but rather a recount from students and witnesses of what happened in different classes and area at VT on April 16, 2007 (see copy: http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/7811).

3- Secondly, after reading the source articles referred to in [9] and in [10], anyone can ascertain a match of context simply because the articles relate prominently to the deceased Teacher, her students, what happened in that class, and the deceased Teacher's contributions, etc.

4- Thirdly, upon closer inspection of all sourced articles, anyone can observe that there are conflicting versions regarding recounts of Clay Violand's testimonials. The debated JCN text passage where it reads "After Clay Violand, one of Couture-Nowak's students, told her to place a desk in front of the door [8]," obviously refers to "Violand, feeling panicky, pointed at her and said, "Put that desk in front of the door, now!" She did, and then someone called 911." provided by the Washington Post. However, the sources contained in the JCN passage "Couture-Nowak and 11 of the 22 registered students [10] died. Couture-Nowak died in front of the door[10] and next to the teacher's desk.[10]", refer to a Los Angeles Times article which also happens to contain the following text: ""Put the desks in front of the door!" cried Clay Violand from the back of the room, as students scattered onto the floor, lying behind desks. The professor pushed several lightweight desks made of metal and plastic in front of the door. She backed up against a wall."

5- There is a discrepancy here regarding what has been articled in the sources relative to the interpreted recount of Clay Violand's testimonials. The final interpretation used in this JCN page is controversal and notoriously unreliable. Shouldn't it be the Wikipedia editor's utmost duty to make absolutely certain that source content be cited/referenced/interpreted adequately and within context, be used wisely and appropriately, and never conflict with other source material invoked in the same Wikipedia page? What WP Policy allows this? What WP Policy disallows this?

6- I advise amending the Death section in a manner consistant with editorial scrutiny and WP Policy. Since other Wikipedia subject-matter already informs, in an objective manner, on the details pertaining to the VT massacre, and in keeping within the proper context of this page, I advise to amend the Death section accordingly:

Couture-Nowak was teaching an Intermediate French class in Room 211 at Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, 2007 when she was killed by Seung-Hui Cho during the Virginia Tech massacre. Couture-Nowak, whom adoring students called "Madame" 9, was 49 years old when she died 10.

Bingo! Simple, straight to the point, relevant, coherent, reliable, no controversy, and everything in context and in accordance to the sources used. Complete details of the massacre are easily in reach via the internal Wikipedia links provided. This edit also reduces duplication and inconsistency between Wikipedia pages offering the same type of content.

A consensus on this request for amendment? Please justify your position.

Do not edit or add comments above. Comment below this text (you may want to refer to the numbered paragraph if need be in your comments). just (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • After reading contents of source articles and arguments advising amendment, does the challenged JCN text passage exposed in paragraph 4 contravene WP Verifiable Policy? Does that passage warrant WP:REDFLAG? just (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • After reading contents of source articles and arguments advising amendment, does the challenged JCN text passage exposed in paragraph 4 contravene WP No Original Research Policy WP:SYNTHESIS? just (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • After reading contents of source articles, and according to relevant WP Core Policies and Guidelines, does the JCN text passage, exposed in paragraph 1, rely on the testimony and chronology of events reported in source articles? just (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • For "2" The Washington Post article most certainly supports the content in this article. The source states "Violand, feeling panicky, pointed at her and said, "Put that desk in front of the door, now!" She did, and then someone called 911. The desk could not hold back the push from outside. The first thing Violand saw was a gun, then the gunman. "I quickly dove under a desk," he recalled. "That was the desk I chose to die under."
    Your "anyone can readily observe that it's contents is not about the topic of this JCN page, but rather a recount from students and witnesses of what happened in different classes and area at VT on April 16, 2007" comment has nothing to do with anything. There is absolutely no requirement in WP:RELIABLESOURCES that the entire body of work of the sources must be fully or even partially about the Wikipia article topic to support any of its content.
    For "3", that's a big "so what?".
    For "4", if there's a slight conflict of what is reported by two sources, then edit the article taking into account the discrepancy.
    , For "5", which is basically an extention of "4", just simply type out the diferences, if there are any, between the two. You've not convinced anyone that the Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times are "notoriously unreliable."
    For "6" your version simply erases the sourced information about her killing. You've provided no valid reason for removing it. If you keep on removing it, it will keep on being reverted by other editors as it has been. I suggest you start a request for comment if you don't agree with the other editors. --Oakshade (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 08:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jocelyne_Couture-Nowak&oldid=1206810676"