Talk:Murder of Nick Corwin

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Clomipramine

reference 12 says, in part: "Clomipramine is undergoing federally required testing to meet Food and Drug Administration requirements before the company can sell the drug in the U.S. Dr. John Greist, the Madison psychiatrist, was authorized to dispense Anafrail, but did not prescribe it for Dann, police said."

The article says that Dann was prescribed the drug by a shrink, but then later refers to it as "an unlicensed drug." Some clarification would be nice. 184.0.94.83 (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this article may be the vulnerable to point of view editing suggesting that Dann's actions were gender-based (directed against men). I have just sourced this article and in doing so have removed evidence which (erroneously) suggests that only men and boys were targetted. As well as information about a 'note' that was misquoted and ascribed to the wrong attempted poisoning in an apparent attempt to strengthen the claim to gender-based violence. Since I can't find any reliable source that views this as an example of gender-based violence, it seems like a case WP:SYNT so let's be careful about this article and be sure to source any information we add! --Slp1 01:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to girls or women being attacked by Dann. Can you provide references? As far as I can tell, all of her victims were male, and only men appeared to be targeted. There has been public discussion about this being gender-based (most notably Warren Farrell's book) indicating that it was a sex based attack. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.99 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 15 February 2007

No problem. The place to start would be the contemporaneous newspaper articles cited in the article. Just follow the links. They make clear that two girls (named) were shot (one very seriously). Dann also sent poisoned drinks to 6 families (hard to be gender-specific there!) and a girl was poisoned as a result. She also set fire to a house where she babysat in which a mother and her two kids were in the house.

Her victims were certainly not all male. And I gather from reading the Amazon reviews of Farrell's book that others have criticized him on Dann saying that he was "sloppy with the facts" and that "he makes wild charges and yet doesn't get close to the facts". See for yourself at [1]. I gotta say that having gone back to the extensive newspaper reports of the time I agree with the criticism! Slp1 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

from your little sisters

I re-added a cite from Chicago Tribune that included the note to the ATOs. The note is similar to the note reported on by a Toronto paper about juice boxes left for families, but it doesn't make as much sense. I think the CT is more likely to get it right, and they report two notes - the one I added and another one similar to the Toronto paper but left at the Psi Upsilon house, not at some family homes. Below is a portion quoted from the Tribune:

During her rounds of the affluent northern surburbs, Dann left packages on porches or stuffed them in mailboxes, Timm said. They contained cereal treats, popcorn and pouches of orange drink.

Greg McCullough, a member of Alpha Tau Omega fraternity, ate a cereal treat from a paper plate left on the fraternity's porch early Friday, fraternity members said.

"To the ATOs, from your little sisters," said a note attached to the package. On Saturday, McCullough was called away from a Big Ten track meet to get emergency tests, said Bruce Madej, the university's sports information director.

At the Psi Upsilon house, a similar package was left with the note "Enjoy, from your little sisters," fraternity members there said.

Next to the snacks was a plastic chemical bottle that said 'arsenic.' When they found the packages Friday morning, "We thought it was a joke," said Chuck Friedman, a member there.

cite: Ray Gibson and Linnet Myers Wes Smith, SCHOOL KILLER LEFT A TRAIL OF POISON FRATERNITIES, HOMES RECEIVE TAINTED FOOD Chicago Tribune May 22, 1988. pg. 1.

--csloat 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

It would be good to have some more photos for this article, but I can't find suitable public domain examples. If anybody in the area was able to take some pictures of places mentioned that would be great. I was thinking about the exterior Hubbard Woods and Ravinia Elementary in Highland Park as well as Nick Corwin Park, but maybe there are other ideas? Slp1 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Small change relating to ex bf and husband

As you read through the article, it refers to Laurie's husband (eventual ex-husband) and then to an unnamed ex-boyfriend and his wife. It is not till the bottom of the page that it states these are two separate people, and the wording is a bit unclear. I'm changing the first instance of the ex boyfriend to "An ex-boyfriend" instead of "her ex-boyfriend" to differentiate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maladroitmortal (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Maladroitmortal! It's always helpful to have fresh eyes read articles and clarify the things that aren't clear. --Slp1 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Warren Farrell

Large quotes repeating Farrell's mistake and commentary are not appropriate as well as being a copyright violation. It is unknown why Farrell did not accurately reflect the sources he quotes in his book, (which I have read) but his error in this matter has been widely noted, including by reliable sources such as the Globe and Mail. The short version about why Dann's actions did not provoke concerns about violence against men was that she did not target men, but rather (apparently) people who disappointed her, which included both genders. A quick read of this article, cited to the two full length books written about the murders should make this clear. There's absolutely no reason why we would repeat Farrell's mistakes and claims at length. --Slp1 (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested

The following sentence makes claims that are hard to verify because of the way the inline citations were placed:

• "[Men's rights]] activists, academics, and the media have repeated Farrell's errors and conclusion."

When a series of claims are made, the inline citations need to be placed following the commas of each element of the series, to make clear which citation supports which of the series of claims. I set out to determine which of the citations supports the notion that academics have repeated the errant conclusions. I have no been able to do so, and will not be able until the citations are properly assigned to the claims. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The citation of the Barbara Kay article was removed because I reviewed the article thoroughly, and source Kay makes no mention of Farrell. As it is inappropriate to use a source for a statement regarding a subject, where that subject or his ideas ideas are never mentioned, this citation was removed as WP:OR.

Then, I removed the Globe and Mail (G&M) citation from this sentence AS UNVERIFIABLE as it appeared. I searched the terms Raeside, Farrell, Globe and Mail, 1993, liberationist, etc. in various combinations, and the searches only returned the Wikipedia article citation, and nothing from G&M or otherwise, regarding a Raeside article with the referenced title. (Hence, prima facie, a trained researcher cannot locate the source to verify it, so is unverifiable.)

Next, John Fekete is an academic, and his book "Moral Panic: Biopolitics Rising," is cited; however, no page numbers are given, and no citation is given to a secondary source indicating that Fekete does what the earlier sentence claims (restate errant information). Hence, this is also WP:OR, though it was left in as a potentially valid source, with the and tags in place.

Finally, the remaining citation for this sentence is a report to a Canadian governmental agency, about a specific topic, so the sentence was edited into two, in a way that the sources now accurately support the text content. (One sentence now appears on the government testimony that does indeed cite Farrell, and one toned down sentence appears about the possible discussion of the matter by academics, citing the current imperfect Fekete source.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes, as I am afraid several mistakes in understanding of WP policy have been made. Farrell has admitted that he erred in his conclusion and facts about Laurie Dann [2] He states in his admission that he relied on an article in the Winnetka Talk newspaper, but I have checked the article, and there is nothing similar to the claims he made in his book, such as the allegation that Dann "justified her murder of an 8-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist". In the years after the Farrell book, several people from various backgrounds repeated these incorrect claims about the Laurie Dann case, some using almost identical wording Farrell. For example:

“a Chicago woman [who] shot five elementary school boys, poisoned food at two fraternities, burned down the Young Men's Jewish Council, burned two other boys in their basement, shot her own son, and justified her murder of an 8-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist” Farrell 1993

“One year earlier, in contrast, Laurie Dann, a Chicago woman, shot five elementary-school boys, poisoned food at two fraternities, burned down the Young Men’s Jewish Council, burned two boys in their basement, shot her own son and justified her murder of an 8-year old boy by claiming he was a rapist.”Fekete 1997 p 31 - who cites Farrell p. 339

“A year before the Montreal massacre, this equally psychotic Chicago woman shot five elementary-school boys, poisoned two fraternity kitchens, torched the Young Men's Jewish council, burned two boys in their homes, shot her own son, and murdered an eight-year old boy, claiming he had raped her.” Barbara Kaye 2007.

The only possible original source for this incorrect information is Farrell (though based on this, Kaye was quoting Fekete who was quoting Farrell) and given that he has admitted his error there is no problem stating this as such.

Per WP:V and in particular WP:WP:SOURCEACCESS articles do not have to be verifiable online. A trip to the library may be required, and in this case is for the Globe and Mail article for many people. In restoring the material, I will add the page numbers for the Fekete book.--Slp1 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Jammed" revolver?

How does that work? It's almost impossible for a revolver to jam, unless it's broken or incorrectly assembled. AnnaGoFast (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laurie Dann. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908061435/http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1993/ii931211.html to http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1993/ii931211.html

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) 05:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

History of School Shootings in the United States

I deleted an incited claim that school shootings have occurred in the US "since pre-independence", due to lack of a citation. Attempts to verify only found one instance of a mass killing at a school during this period, namely one of the events of the Pontiac War, where a teacher and multiple pupils were clubbed and scalped resulting in death. One website (https://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states) describes this as a school shooting, however a more detailed description of the event (Enoch Brown School Massacre) does not mention firearms, and does mention clubbing and scalping. OriEri (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

There have been recent edits removing from the list of errors that Farrell made " and alleged that she killed an eight-year old rapist.". The edit summary was "Farrell's claim is that she "justified her murder of an eight-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist." This is different than saying that she "killed an eight-year old rapist" for reasons that I hope are obvious. As such, he did not allege that she "killed an eight-year old rapist". More importantly, Farrell is correct. She claimed she killed a rapist rather than Corwin (an attempt to justify her act).

It is not obvious to me at all what the problem is.

• Farrell, in Myth of Male Power did indeed say "[she] justified her murder of an 8-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist." This is false. Farrell is not correct, as Dann never attempted to justify her murder of an 8 year old boy. According to sources (Egglington 1990 p.146-7 and Kaplan, Papajohn and Zorn p. 245 1991) she told the Andrew family that she had been raped by man in the car, and so she had shot him. The IP editor seems to acknowledge this. Farrell made an error by simply mentioning the 8 year old and rapist in the same breath, as Dann never did.
• I really cannot see much difference between "alleged that she killed an eight-year old rapist" and "justified her murder of an eight-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist". But in the interest of compromise I will make the text closer to what Farrell actually wrote. Slp1 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I still think the statement should be removed. I'll hold off on removing it for now, so you can respond to my argument.

I think the wording of Farrell's statement ("justified her murder of an eight-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist") is crucial, partly because it can be interpreted in different ways. Your interpretation seems to be that Farrell is stating that she claimed Corwin raped her as a means of justifying the murder. My interpretation is that Farrell is stating that she justified the murder by claiming that her victim was a rapist (an adult) rather than Corwin. Your reading of Farrell is something to the effect of "justified her murder of an eight-year-old boy by claiming he [the eight-year-old boy] was a rapist"; my reading is more "justified her murder of an eight-year-old boy by claiming [she had actually killed] a rapist". Your reading would mean that Farrell is incorrect; my reading would mean that Farrell is correct.

I think that both of our interpretations are reasonable given that Farrell's wording is somewhat ambiguous. There really isn't any way of knowing which interpretation is correct (at least without asking Farrell directly). This means that the statement is arguably correct AND arguably incorrect.

(I am also completely baffled by how you "cannot see much difference between "alleged that she killed an eight-year old rapist" and "justified her murder of an eight-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist"" as these are two fundamentally different claims. However, this is not the important point of contention)

The bottom line is this:

An ambiguous statement that is arguably correct should not be listed as an erroneous claim.

Therefore, the statement should be removed 70.24.100.88 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning more fully and for not reverting. I believe I understand your argument but I cannot agree the meaning of the sentence is unclear.

The full text from Farrell is " A man entered a classroom at the University of Montreal and killed female students. The incident made headlines throughout the world as an example of woman-hating. The Canadian government spent millions reeducating men in their attitudes toward women. At about the same time, a Chicago woman (Laurie Dann) shot five elementary school boys, poisoned food at two fraternities, burned down the Young Men’s Jewish Council, burned two other boys in their basement, shot her own son, and justified her murder of an 8-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist. Not a single headline or article summary in the index to the Chicago Tribune pointed out that every person killed or wounded by the Chicago woman was a boy. No government spent millions reeducating women on their attitudes toward men."

There are three key points.

• The meaning of 'justified" is to "show something to be reasonable/just/necessary/warranted".[3][4] It does not mean clarified/cleared up an accusation, as is required by your interpretation. The subject is Dann, and the object of "justified" is "her murder of an 8 year old boy". So, Dann is seeking to show that her murder of a boy was necessary by claiming ...
• ...he was a rapist. Who is this "he"? This is key. Per this article "The assumption is typically that a speaker is permitted to use a pronoun to refer to the single most prominent referent precisely because a comprehender will interpret that pronoun to refer to the single most prominent referent." In this case there is only one possible referent, and that is the 8 year old boy. It cannot possibly refer to an adult rapist because no adult has been previously mentioned.

The phrase is not ambiguous. Your interpretation is not possible in terms of semantics and grammar. Incidentally, one of the authors that copied Farrell's errors understood the sentence in exactly the way I do. Barbara Kaye paraphrased it as "and murdered an eight-year old boy, claiming he had raped her." [5].

• One final point, Purpose. Farrell is making a list of Dann's alleged anti-men and boy actions. All very clear and outrageous attacks (even if they are for the most part incorrect). By contrast, clarifying that you had not killed a child but instead had protected yourself by killing a rapist is hardly unreasonable. Why would Farrell end his list with a statement that undermines his whole point?. In addition, and for what it is worth, the Kaplan and Egglington books report that Dann said that she had shot at the fictitious rapist. Not that she had killed him. She was not even sure if he was hurt. So Farrell is incorrect on this point no matter what.

If you are not convinced and want to take this further, the best thing to do would be to consult this page on dispute resolution WP:DR. In particular, you could ask for a third opinion, per this process WP:3O. Slp1 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced and have consulted the page on dispute resolution. Since this discussion has not reached a stalemate yet, I will continue this discussion. I think that I can meet all of your objections.

First, your definition of "justified" is correct, but your understanding of what is required by my interpretation is not. By my interpretation, she claims she killed someone but claims her victim was a rapist, rather than an eight-year-old boy. This is not clarifying or clearing up; it is an attempt to justify shooting someone by saying he was someone else (who deserved it).

Second, I don't think you understand my point about a different person being mentioned. If Farrell had stated that she “justified her murder of an eight-year-old boy by claiming he had raped her,” then my interpretation would be invalid, as no other person is mentioned. However, this case is different. My argument is that “he” refers to Corwin, but “a rapist” is refering to a different person (presumably an adult). My interpretation does not require an adult rapist to be previously mentioned, because mentioning a rapist is mentioning another person. This interpretation is grammatically/syntactically valid. Consider the following phrase “... of an eight-year old boy by claiming he was a woman.” In this example, "he" refers to Corwin, but “a woman” necessarily refers to a different person (even though no woman is previously mentioned). The mention of “a woman” in the phrase is the mention of another person; in the same way, by my interpretation, the mention of “a rapist” is the mention of another person. Your point about my interpretation being grammatically impossible is thus incorrect (Farrell's statement is fundamentally different to the examples in the article you provided). The phrase is therefore ambiguous.

Mentioning how Kaye interpreted the phrase does not mean my interpretation is invalid; it only means that yours is valid (which I've never disputed). My point is that both of our interpretations are grammatically/syntactically valid, which makes Farrell’s statement arguably correct and therefore not erroneous. I stand by this point.

To your point about purpose, Farrell's statement (by my interpretation) would not undermine his point. Farrell would be claiming that she, after killing a child, claimed she killed a rapist to (temporarily) get away with the murder of Corwin. For Farrell's point, Dann would not have to be irrational. The (inaccurate) image that Farrell is attempting to conjure is that of a blatant misandrist who knew she could garner sympathy if she falsely claimed that she was raped (false accusations are a HUGE point for MRAs). As such, my interpretation would not undermine Farrell's point at all, it would reinforce it in the same way that yours would.

Your final point is that the books say that she claimed she “shot at” the ficticious rapist, rather than killing him. I seem to recall one of the newspaper sources claiming that she claimed she had killed him, though I do not recall which source (and my memory could be inaccurate). I will continue looking for this source, but until I find it, I won’t remove the statement again. I would note, that because of Farrell’s ambiguous wording, we should not try to mess with his wording in the article. I would suggest that we simply quote Farrell directly, and clarify slightly as follows:

“He claimed, erroneously, that all of Dann's victims were male, that she had burned down a Young Men's Jewish Council, had burned two boys in a basement, had shot her own son and had “justified the murder of an eight-year-old boy by claiming he was a rapist” (implying that Dann claimed she had killed the ficticious rapist in the car).”

This should be to the satisfaction of all parties, at least for the time being. Let me know if that works for you 76.66.131.211 (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)