Talk:List of events named massacres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criteria for including events in this list

The criteria for the inclusion of events in this list have been developed after lengthy discussions on the list's talk page. They should not be altered unless further discussion establishes a consensus for any change. Inclusion Criteria Inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names* for that event. A reliable source which merely describes the event as being a massacre does not qualify the event for inclusion in this list. The word massacre must appear in the source as part of an accepted name* for the event. Where there is dispute over this, discussion should be centralised. If it is discussed on the talkpage of the article concerned, a link should be posted on the talk page of this list; if the discussion is on the talk page of this list, a link should be posted at the article's talk page. Notes Any name for the event which is established by use of reliable sources as being one of the accepted names* would usually also be included in the article on that event. Inclusion in this list does not of itself justify inclusion in the article, and nor does use of the name in an article justify inclusion in this list, because wikipedia is not a reliable source. Both uses must be based directly on explicit references to the sources, which should be cited in footnotes. However, it is hard to envisage any situation where a name including "massacre" could be included in this list but not mentioned in an article on the event (or vice versa); if that situation should arise, both the uses should be carefully examined. Examples These fictitious examples illustrate how the test of an "accepted name" is applied to the text used in reliable sources Text in the source Include? Explanation "The village's mayor called the bombing 'a brutal massacre'". No The term "massacre" is used here as a description, not a name "The Smalltown Massacre was the latest in a series of atrocities in the north of the country" Maybe The text calls the event a massacre, but does not assert that "Smalltown Massacre" is an accepted name for the event. However, multiple references such as this may be used as evidence that the name is sufficiently widely used in reliable sources to be regarded as "an accepted name". The number of such references required will depend on the nature of the sources, with more weight being attached to widely-read sources "The killing of the students was described by local media as the 'High School massacre'" Yes The text asserts that 'High School massacre' is an accepted name for the event "When the army's operation was debated in the National Assembly, the Prime Minister angrily attacked the widespread anti-government protests for calling Operation Clearout 'the Newtown massacre'" Yes The text asserts that while official sources call the event "Operation Clearout", the name 'Newtown massacre' is an accepted name amongst opponents

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2008. The result of the discussion was rename to List of events named massacres.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 Archive using move procedure

Contents 1 Ugly Little Suggestion 2 Why was this not included in the list 3 Page move 4 1996 Eldorado de Carajás massacre, Brazil 5 Someone put this thing on AfD - please. 6 Arbitrary break - rename proposal to List of named massacres 7 Zong massacre 8 Deir Yassin massacre 9 Removal of items 9.1 Sources for Enniskillen 10 The terms of inclusion of this list are clear 11 Manila massacre 12 We ARE getting more accurate - even if it's a meaningless list. 13 Lod Massacre on the Wiki main page 14 El Mozote? 15 "Massacres" that do not involved death

[edit] Ugly Little Suggestion

Just to round this out and avoid controversy by covering the bases, why doesn't some enthusiast start a page: List of Events Named Massacre that Weren't"?Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it why don't you make the "List of Massacres No One Wants to Name as Such."PelleSmith (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This could get interesting. How about "List of Massacres Everyone Has Forgotten About"?Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think very carefully about it, such a list would always have to be empty. At the moment in which an event was added to the list, it would no longer be forgotten about by everyone, and would therefore have to be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. That comment was meant to be ironic. Readers were supposed to catch the logical inconsistency. It is SO difficult to communicate irony in the printed word.Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're talking to the editor that created List of events called massacres that don't have a double letter in the name, it's time to stop feeding the troll I think. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that gem, but thanks for the warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It does sound a bit ugly, but comprehensive navigational aids are desirable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... "List of Events That Some People Think are Massacres, But Other People Don't Think are Massacres"? or perhaps "List of Massacres Nobody Cares About"? or even "List of Events that weren't Massacres"? We could double the size of Wikipeida in a week if we get creative. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The challenge of usefully indexing the world’s greatest encyclopedia won’t be easy. I was thinking more of lists of other mass crimes (theft, swindling, pillage). List of Disputed Massacres. Lists of other types of murder (heinous, political, religiously motivatived). For balance, and to maintain your own mental health, consider: Lists of acts of altruism, charity, bravery. It will all be on the edge of violating NPOV and NOR, but if it improves accessibility, it is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this not included in the list

I was searching around on the internet for a research paper and was wondering why this article, which i will attach the link for, was not included in the list.

It claims to be bigger than the Virginia Tech Massacre last year.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/bath/index_1.html

Can someone tell me why this is not there

146.171.254.66 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably because the source does not actually name it with the term "Massacre" (in fact the word massacre does not appear at all in the source, even as a discription for the event)... to be listed here a reliable source would have to name it something like "the Bath Massacre". Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If i exchanged the word 'massacre' for 'incident' how then would you define this situation -- does it even matter? the point IS that more children -people perished during this incident. Purportedly the VA Tech 'incident' is being reported by and large as the worst school based 'incident' in US history or at least in our conscience. What do you say to that????

146.171.254.66 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say... read the inclusion criteria for listing events in this list. If the incident you are talking about meets these criteria then please list it. If not, then you can not list it. Simple. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to know why the two atomic bombings of the Japanese by the United States at the end of the 2nd world war was not included in the list of massacres...or is that not considered as a massacre due to the fact that it brought about the end of japanese involvement in the war. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed without any warning and to date no one has been called to account for these massacres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.68.22 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

IF you knew anything about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would know that both cities, among numerous others, were warned via leaflets. [[1]] Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you know of sources that fit our inclusion criteria, feel free to add the events. Blueboar (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

The article was recently moved (without any discussion or consensus) to "List of events called massacres"... which would return it to the POV nightmare it was when it was titled simply "list of massacres". The entire point of the current name ("List of events named Massacre") is that the word must be used as part of the NAME for the event. This was the title agreed to at AfD... it should remain. I have moved it back. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

First I don't really see why this page isn't called 'List of massacres'. The only reason I din't move it there was the AfD result.

Second, named by whom? The criteria for the list state specifically that the name does not need to be universally used, only frequent used by some group. This is exactly what 'called massacres' means, whereas 'named massacres' suggest that the name must be somehow official. Since there's no authority that decides what most of these events should be called, 'named massacres' is grammatically wrong. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving it from "List of massacres" put a stop to endless edit wars between those who wanted some sort of inclusion criteria and those who wanted to add whatever they thought was a massacre based on their opinion. Plus I don't really see the grammatical problem here; "named" does not imply named by some unique authority. In fact, if "named" does imply some sort of authority not implied by "called", I do prefer "named", since we want to emphasize reliable sources as authorities here. - Merzbow (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Named by whom" you ask? ... multiple reliable sources that's whom. Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the box at the top of this page. The sources are not naming it, but reporting on other people's use of the name. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 Eldorado de Carajás massacre, Brazil

Nineteen landless farmers demonstrating for the disappropriation of an unproductive ranch were shot and killed by state police in 1996.

On April 17, 1996, 19 landless farmers of the MST movement ("Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra") were shot by police at the "S" curve of highway PA-150 at Eldorado dos Carajás, in Pará state. These people were part of a demonstration calling for the federal disappropriation of an unproductive ranch where the MST had mounted a camp called "Macaxeira" with almost 3000 families.

Would someone be so kind as to add this entry? We should not allow ourselves to ever forget it.

--Wloveral (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See the inclusion criteria above... can you provide multiple reliable sources that name the event with "massacre" in the name? - Merzbow (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The Portuguese word "massacre" has been used repeatedly and consistently in the Brazilian press to describe the shooting deaths of these farmers. I will check with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to see how they categorize the deaths, and I will report back to you here. --Wloveral (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As you search, just be aware that we make a distinction between sources that mearly discribe something as being a massacre, and sources that use the word as a NAME for the event. The first type would not meet our inclusion criteria. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There are well over 100 Brazilian news internet sites the use the exact phrase "massacre de Eldorado de Carajás" to designate these killings. Use Google search to find them. The President of the Brazilian Federal House of Representatives, Arlindo Chinaglia, gave a speech to remember the horror of the "Massacre de Eldorado de Carajás" in Brasilia on 17 April, 2008, to mark the 12th year after the massacre. See: "Chinaglia afirma que Massacre de Eldorado dos Carajás é o maior contra trabalhadores brasileiros". --Wloveral (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for inclusion to me. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please make the addition. I do not have the courage to edit an extensive table.Wloveral (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone put this thing on AfD - please.

I tried to put this "mistake" up for AfD, but messed up. Rather than bug the community w another mistake, someone who knows how please do it.

This article is a bad mistake. The best counter example I can give is a hypothetical page called "List of tools named tools". Dremel tool, monkey tool, set tool, will be listed. Hammer, saw, screwdriver won't be listed.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We have List of weapons, and well done too, so why not List of tools? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he is objecting to the "Named" part of the title... however that is the single most important word in the title, as it limits the scope of the list... eliminating events that people mearly discribe as being a 'massacre'. An analogous list would be "List of people named John". Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right - and wrong. The "named" part eliminated a lot of controversy, but it did it in a manner that completely destroys any significance. It is a travesty of the idea of Wikipedia. Even this is not without controversy. I am personally aware of many events that are not "named" massacre, but would be considered such by any 20th century human. I am also aware of events "named" massacres that just plain aren't (there was {30 years ago} an event on the California coast where a sailing club managed to destroy 24 Hobie Cats in 30 minutes due to really bad timing on beaching through heavy surf. That event was called on T shirts, club bulletines, conversation a "summer massacre". Somehow I don't think it belongs on this list even though it meets your criteria.

Bluntly, I maintain the page started out as a politically correct statement, got worse, and the "fix" is pathetic.

I still request AfD.Aaaronsmith (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See the instructions at WP:AFD. However, note that this article has recently been the subject of an AFD debate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that, and I still think this article is terrible. When I tried to put it up for AfD (again) I tried to follow the directions. Somehow my first sentence ended up as subject and generally messed up. I think I will wait for someone who has done it successfully before to do it rather than annoy the communit w my learning experiences.

By the way, I think the example I gave above of "List of Tools Named Tools" is about the simplest argument I can come up w of why this page is so bad. Semantically the two titles seem to be identical, but it's obvious "list of tools named tools" is just plain stupid.Aaaronsmith (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a false comparison: any List of X named X is likely to be daft, and serves no purpose, because I dont see any dispute that an electric drill or a bradawl is just as much a tool as a Dremel tool.

The point of this list is to track the labelling as "massacre" of controversial events, where the applicability of the term "massacre" may be hotly disputed. You may think it's a bad idea, and you aren't alone in that, but it appears that you haven't quite grasped what this list is trying to do. I suggest that you read the previous AFD debates and the long discussions in the archives of this talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess you've got me on the details. So, let me try to give an even better example: I went to the thesaurus and got another word for "tool". Let's try this one "List of implements named tool".

I've read all the arguments (I've been around this page for a few years) and I still think it's a mistake and I still think the (new) counter example I have given above is valid. Thank you.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are entited to your opinion. My opinion is that, while not perfect, this is the best we can do. Others may think this is ideal. To each his or her own. Blueboar (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Aaaronsmith, you are entitled to your opinion. Also if you take this to an AfD, you will not be penalized for doing so. However, it is my opinion that this article is really not that bad as it is right. Leaving as is would be the least time consuming thing to do. Got too much time, you say? Why not created requested articles or expand stubs?Bless sins (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article should be simply called List of massacres. This would conform to our standards for article-naming which are that the name should be the commonplace one which readers will expect. The issue of what goes into the list is a separate one and there's no reason that the current convention could not still apply. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There was a clear consensus at the AfD debate in February that a "list of massacres" would be irredeemably POV, as evidenced by the long-running disputes there had been on this talk page about the inclusion of events which some editors deemed were massacres, but others disagreed ... because there is no generally accepted NPOV definition of a massacre. The AFD consensus was that a list which only tracked names was mislabelled if called a "list of massacres".
    Consensus can change, and if you want to propose a renaming, you are free to do so, but I can't see the idea getting much support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I fully agree. List of massacres is the only sensible name. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It is not a sensible name for the contents of the current article, which is a list of events named massacre. Ty 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest anyone concerned about what this list does not cover, writes an article called "Massacres", where they can cover all the ramifications which a list format does not allow. Ty 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it should be called massacre, which is currently the disambiguation page. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Massacres redirects there. Ty 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that the list has been in its current form for some time perhaps a move to List of named massacres is in order. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Except there is nothing in that wording that suggests the word "massacre" has to be in the name itself, only that the event must be named something. In other words that title suggests that these are massacres (despite of any naming conventions), and that they are also named. Once you start down that slope you'll end up in the very pit that the current form of the entry has managed to drag itself out of. Of course my opinion is that the current entry is pretty pointless because of this but that's a whole other matter.PelleSmith (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pelle... the current title ("List of events named massacres") clearly states what this list covers... events with the word "Massacre" in their names. We do not care whether the event actually was a massacre or not. Nor are we interested in events that are considered to be, or are discribed as being massacres - but which are named something else (the Battle of Little Bighorn comes to mind as a perfect example of this). All we care about are events that reliable sources entitle "the X Massacre" or "the Massacre of X" or some variant thereof. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a circular argument because as we know the word massacre has no precise definition, so "list of named massacres" (what ever they are) is an an accurate description for this list. How do we know they were a massacre simply because some reliable sources have called them that. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your logic, but that aside the problem we face here is not simply a logical argument of some sort. We have plenty of historical data here to analyze in the archives of the talk page. This data predicts rather emphatically that making the change you desire will lead back into the pit this article was in.PelleSmith (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that when you read the archives you did not notice my user ID in any of them! I do not why it should. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you're one of the longest lasting editors here. You should know better than most the types of arguments that come about surrounding this entry when there is any wiggle room. What the current wording does is not allow such wiggle room, and that's what makes for peace here, unfortunately. If you ask me it should just be a list of massacres, and we as rational people should come up with a criteria for inclusion as best we can that is not determined by naming conventions, but we both know that will never happen, and that this idea, as well as others that allow for interpretation of some sort or another have been viciously fought over here. I see nothing in these archives that gives hope for a better outcome in the future. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I just realized: Shouldn't the correct name for this be "List of Events Named Massacre, in English"?Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically yes; but I think that is probably taken as a given on EN:Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all... for example this French Canadian source would be acceptable (and not becuase it includes an English translation... it would be acceptable purely in French). Yes, we would probably translate the name to English for the list ... but the source does not need to be in English. Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Otherwise we would not allow words like Giri and Gimu on the english wiki.Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The original source doesn't have to be in English, but we do need a reliable translation that uses the word "massacre" per the inclusion criteria... and that translation obviously can't come from one of us. - Merzbow (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So, Stalin's propogandists describe it as a "great and noble victory", Hitler's propogandists describe it as a "wonderfully executed withdrawal maneuver", and SOMEONE "translates" that into english as "massacre". Are we SURE we know what we're doing here?Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break - rename proposal to List of named massacres

PBS; List of named massacres is effectively restoring the situation of six months ago. That title clearly states that events listed here are massacres when all we have agreed on is that the are called massacres by a selected sub-set of the global commentariat. Worst idea you have had in months - thank God I'm still watching! I'd still support a total deletion of this pointless article as there is a constant tendency for it to drift back to its original format of Shrine to Western Mainstream POV. Kill it before is shapeshifts again. Let's put a stake through its rotten undead heart. Buffy777 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The name is utterly, completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the inclusion criteria at the top of the page that have been agreed to. That is what is keeping the peace, not the name. - Merzbow (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And one of the issues at AFD was the name of the list needs to describe its contents. List of named massacres doesn't describe what this list contains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If the name reasonably implies or suggests something different then the inclusion criteria will seem entirely arbitrary and will be endlessly debated. In fact I recall in the past personally debating inclusion criteria with amongst others, Merzbow, when the name was "List of massacres." Many of the people who participated in this debate left the discussion and/or decided that it was not worth debating after the name change, since this name change made the subject matter of the entry explicit. So, in other words, I'm not sure what Merzbow is talking about because the opposite is quite true.PelleSmith (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the name be changed, it should most accurately reflect the content of the article, which the current name does. I'm just saying the most important thing to preserve, by far, is the inclusion criteria, and we should not lose sight of that. - Merzbow (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest an example of an addition to the list that would occur if the list was named List of named massacres instead of List of events named massacres? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone already left you one above, Battle of Little Big Horn and I'm sure you remember the fierce debate over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "Names" exist here quite clearly, and there are those who will argue that these events were massacres, hence they are named massacres, that simply don't have "massacre" as part of that name for various reasons.PelleSmith (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by those examples, because I think you are confusing "list of massacres" with "list of named massacres" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Under your proposed title, the argument could be made that any event that has a name should be included. The Battle of Little Bighorn would be included, as it has a name: the "Battle of Little Bighorn". The same would be true for the "Bombing of Heroshima" (among a host of other names for that event)... in fact, almost any event could be included as most events are given some sort of name. The problem is that these are not names that include the word "Massacre". The key to the compromise that was worked out at the AfD was that the name for the event had to include the word "Massacre". The current title makes that clear. If reliable sources name the event as "the X Massacre", or "the Massacre of X" or some variant thereof, we include it... if not we don't. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't get it more wrong than Merzbow I guess! Of course the current name implies that the events might not actually be massacres and that real massacres may well not qualify for the list. That is the beauty of it. It makes 'explicit what many of us have long recognised - that the criteria for verifiability and inclusion reduced this to a list based on Anglo-American POV. Thus any attempt to restore a name implying the list is in any way NPOV will be rejected. I need only refer to a previous contributor's bizarre suggestion that Nagasaki wasn't a massacre to prove my point beyond further argument. We are getting into Holocaust denial territory here! Sarah777 (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And a joy to edit with you again, Sarah. :/ - Merzbow (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zong massacre

This is on Wikipedia as the Zong Affair, but it was and is termed a massacre. On 29 November 1781, 113 live slaves were thrown overboard from the HMS Zong in the mid South Atlantic Ocean, en route to Jamaica. --Wloveral (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources (see the inclusion criteria at the top of this page)... please add it to the list. Blueboar (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again I would ask your help. --Wloveral (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't do your research for you... please see the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. - Merzbow (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you do any research? That wasn't a very helpful remark.Traditional unionist (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deir Yassin massacre

An anonymous editor appears keen to add the Deir Yassin massacre, but is having technical issues, so I have reverted. If that meets the ever changing criteria for inclusion at the present time, could a regular do the honors for our friend? Rockpocket 05:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the target article is named "massacre", so if those editors did their job correctly there should be a bunch of reliable sources calling it that. So it shouldn't be a big deal to add this entry properly. - Merzbow (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It also has a big giant POV sign, so I wouldn't bet on it. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's that article on the term: "Of the many eyewitness accounts, only the core IZL narrative differs from the Arab and the remaining Israeli narratives. Morris attributes this in part to "unstated semantic differences over what constitutes a 'massacre'". He summarizes, drawing on work of Milstein and Khalidi, but also on the investigation of the Bir Zeit University and on the Israeli documentation, that: "Combatants and noncombatants were gunned down in the course of the house-to-house fighting, and, subsequently, after the battle, groups of prisoners and noncombatants were killed in separate, sporadic acts of frenzy and revenge in different parts of the village and outside of Deir Yassin. The remaining villagers were then expelled. But this was no Srebrenica.'" Frankly, I'd avoid adding it given Morris' view. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, another I/P mess. I'm not going to touch this with a ten-foot pole. - Merzbow (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's an Israeli-Palestinian hot potato, and the politicians and historians will be arguing about it for decades. But so far as this list's inclusion criteria are concerned, what matters is that "Deir Yassin massacre" has been a widely-used term for decades, and there are squillions of sources to confirm that, for example 19,000 hits on Google, 133 hits on Google news, 96 hits on Google scholar. The British High Commissioner, Sir Alan Cunningham, called it "the Deir Yassin massacre" on 17 April 1948 (Morris, Birth of the Palestnian refugee problem, p114), only a week after the events ... and the term has been widely used since then by critics of Israel. Yes, of course that name is not used by Israelis, but our inclusion criteria don't require universal acceptance of name

Relata refero's comments on the analysis of the events are irrelevant to this list. So far as this list is concerned, it matters not whether one person was killed or 10,000, nor how they were killed, because this is not a "list of massacres". It's a list of events named massacres, and what matters here is whether "Deir Yassin massacre" is an accepted name for the events, which it is. How many references do we need to add to support that usage? We could add hundreds of references if necessary, so how many is enough? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of items

It would be much more helpful, civil and polite to do a quick google search for sources yourself, rather than blindly removing information. That is how newbies get disheartened.Traditional unionist (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

TU, you have been editing for long enough that you ought to know that Wikipedia:Verifiablity is one is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and that Wikipedia:Verifiablity#Burden_of_evidence says clearly "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

This list has been very contentious in the past, and many additions continue to be contentious, which is which verifiability is strictly enforced here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing my point. Blindly removing information may well be within policy, but it is not within common decency. It is not beyond any editor to enter "enniskillen massacre" into google and get the three sources I did within 3 mins, and then point to the verifiability rule on this page.

It's just rude, and it's how newbies get put off.Traditional unionist (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, you know as well as I do that the burden of proof policy is used across wikipedia by biased editors to remove information they know to be true that they don't wish to be true.Traditional unionist (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

TU, you have a bias too.

As to the sources you found, I see none which use the term "Poppy Day Massacre" (the name added to the list), and two which use the term "Enniskillen Massacre". One of those refs is http://goireland.about.com/od/irelandalivealiveoh/qt/remembrance_day.htm, which doesn't look to me like a reliable source, The other ref is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/northern_ireland/history/68824.stm, where the term is used once ... and this does not add up to evidence "in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event", per this list's inclusion criteria (see Talk:List of events named massacres/Inclusion criteria). See the point in those criteria where it is clearly stated that evidence is needed not just that the event has been called the "x massacre", but that this is an accepted name for the event.

I will now revert your addition. If you have more references which may establish that this event meets this list's strict inclusion criteria, please discuss them here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is I don't wikilawyer myself into removing information I don't like. Which was the point, but thanks for picking up on the bit you wanted to. Source Source Source Source Source Source Source Source. Not all reliable, but a healthy number of them are.Traditional unionist (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in Uni, so access to IPS is a nightmare, but all is sourced hereTraditional unionist (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

TU, there is no wikilawyering in saying that additions to a controversial list with precise inclusion criteria must be properly sourced ... and you really should assume good faith rather than presuming that anyone who removes unreferenced content does so because they don't like its implication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity that you simply splatted on a few more refs rather than discussing whether they meet the criteria. I have reverted your latest addition, so that discussion can continue to assess the sources (they may indeed be sufficient, but please discuss them rather than edit-warring). Please also remember WP:3RR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you go ahead and discuss and then revert your own undo when you discover the references to be reliable.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... a number of the sources in the google search TU provides do seem reliable at face value (various scholarly articles and papers that use the name) ... unfortunately there is a slight problem with verification. Most of the hits in the google search link to abstracts of various articles and papers, and not the articles or papers themselves... and those abstracts don't include the name. So... we either need to check the actual articles and papers (which may take some digging, but should be possible) or find more accessible sources. My initial take on this is that the "Enniskillen Massacre" should be on this list, but some additional research is needed before we can actually add it. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. I think it probably will check out, but should be verified first. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no debate to be had here. The event is not commonly referred to as the Enniskillen Massacre, therefore does not belong on the list. End of. Ledenierhomme (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure it is a "no debate" situation... and certainly not "no debate" on the side of exclusion. Based upon the multiple sources TU has provided (which, if we can get verification, do seem to show that the name is used) it seems common enough to pass our inclusion criteria. Does it have a name that is significantly more common? Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm.... yes...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_Bombing Ledenierhomme (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the article... I note that the article lists 'Rememberance Day massacre' as an accepted alternate name (which indicates to me that the event should be on the list... we just need to figure out how to list it). It sounds like this is an event with multiple names... some of which include the word "massacre", some of which do not.

Ledenierhomme may be correct that the most common name is "Remembrance Day Bombing"... but the question remains: are any of the alternate names (names that do include the word "massacre") common enough to warrent the event being included in this list?

This actually is an important question for the future of this list. What do we mean when we require that editors demonstrate that names are "commonly used" by citing multiple sources? Do we mean that this list is restricted to the most commonly used name, or do we mean something slightly broader? I think the intent behind the criteria was fairly broad... to demonstrate that the name is "a" commonly used name ... that the name is used by more than just a few fringe POV sources. I don't think it was indented to limit us to "the most" commonly used name.

If consensus agrees with me, perhaps we need to slightly rewrite the criteria to make that clearer? Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The current criteria technically allow it, I don't see what should be changed/rewritten. - Merzbow (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that I was the person who drafted the version of the inclusion criteria which was finally adopted, and it was my clear understanding of the discussion at the time that it was accepted that many events would be know by difft names (often dependent on POV), and that our aim was to accommodate widely-used names rather than just the most common. Maybe I misinterpreted things, or maybe folks feel that it needs clarification or changing; that's just my understanding of the intent at the time. The current text says "name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names* for that event" and then "Any name for the event which is established by use of reliable sources as being one of the accepted names* would usually also be included in the article on that event". Maybe it would be best to clarify the first point to emphasise that these events may well be known by more than one name? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Persoanlly, I find the most common name for it is the Poppy Day massacre. However this research demonstrates that in academis and elsewhere on the internet the Enniskillen Massacre is most common followed by Remembrance Day Bombing/massacre. I think the article itself needs a discussion on renaming.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of "Remembrance Day Massacre" in the lead is currently disputed, and would have been removed from the article except for the page is protected.--Domer48 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. "Remembrance Day Massacre" has been in the article lead since at least this edit over a year ago, and the first evidence I see of any dispute about its inclusion is Domer's comment on the talk page 30 minutes before his post here (and over an hour after TU's post). Given that there had been no replies to his comment, it's impossible to know whether there would have been a consensus to remove it from the article lead. I think that what Domer may mean is that he would now remove it if the page was unprotected, which is a rather difft matter.

This fits a sadly a familiar pattern of escalation on Troubles-related articles. A question of sourcing about inclusion in this list is unneccesarily escalated into a proposal to rename the article, and the response is a prompt counter-attacking play to remove the proposed new name from the lead. C'mon folks, please drop it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I mentioned renaming as it seemed to me that the article was names wrongly given the evidence unearthed researching for this article. I don't see that as an unnecessary comment myself.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Events such as these are frequently known by more than one name, depending on POV. You have provided evidence that another name was used, but to justify a rename, we'd need evidence that an alternative name was more common. In any case, any such discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why i said "I think the article itself needs a discussion on renaming"Traditional unionist (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in a case like this I don't think we need evidence as to which name is more common... where there are multiple common names for the event (as long as one of them fits our criteria) I would include all of them (each with multiple citations). So the entry in question might be listed as: "Remembrance Day bombing, AKA: Enniskiling Massacre/Remebrance Day Massacre". Blueboar (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm censing concensus for inclusion here.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree... in concept. However, to get back to where we were when we started on this thread, the sourcing does need improvement before we actually do include it. 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Are there not adequate sources?Traditional unionist (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Enniskillen

OKay, TU, let assess the sources you listed:

• U2 entry on songfacts.com - not a reliable source, so discard that one
• brief review in Timeout magazine of U2 song, using the term "Enniskillen massacre"
• except from an article in Hotpress magazine on the U" song, naming it "Enniskillen massacre"
• Bowyer Bell's the Secret Army, calling it "Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre" (good reliable source)
• Guardian article refers to "20 victims of the Enniskillen bomb massacre in 1987". Reliable source, but it's yet another variation of the possible names
• Daily Telegraph article calling it the "Enniskillen Remembrance Day massacre"

So we have two entries in music publications calling it "Enniskillen massacre", and two other entries calling it different names which include the word massacre. I'm not sure that this was a situation envisaged when drawing up the guidelines, where we would have evidence of a several variations a theme, without any particularly strong evidence for any one of them.

Does anyone have any suggestions in how to handle this? I am inclined to say "maybe", but more evidence needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I am inclined to accept any or all of them, if we can locate a few more reliable sources for each. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You see here I am inclined to say that this is evidence that the criteria are flawed. There are plenty of RS to say that the Dromore by election in Feb was the Valentine's Day Massacre, and that the 2008 English & Welsh local elections was a massacre, why not include them? Leaving rhetorical questions aside, there are plenty of RS describing the bomb as a massacre, the, in places slight, variations are really neither here nor there. Leavings it as Enniskillen massacre and leaving out the embellishments is a safe way forward.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TU, just re-read the criteria, which being "X was a massacre" and "the X massacre". Then if you want to find more refs, we can discuss them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TU... you say: "there are plenty of RS describing the bomb as a massacre" - the key word being: "discribing". If this were a list of events discribed as massacres, we would have no problem... but it isn't. It's a list of events named massacres. The inclusion criteria make this distinction clear. You have given us two sources that name the event the "Enniskillen Massacre"... unfortunately they are both from the music industry (and both discuss the same U2 song), so I think that we need at least one other source that is not from the music industry, to show a slightly wider usage of the name. We could also add any of the other variants, if we could come up with one or two more sources for those names. Just do a bit more digging and I am sure you will find such sources. Then this event can be added. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The terms of inclusion of this list are clear

The terms of inclusion on this list are clear; that reliable sources have referred to it as "The so-and-so massacre". It's rather astonishing, then, that people would include on the list none of whose citations actually use the word "massacre". It's even more astonishing that when such item is quite rightly removed,[2] it would be almost immediately reverted back in, with the original sources (neither of which even use the word "massacre"), and with the addition of a third source which still doesn't refer to "The so-and-so massacre".[3] Very poorly done; I sincerely hope that this kind of editing doesn't happen again. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Tom, the name of the Wikipedia article is 1996 shelling of Qana. Please restore the proper name. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read the sources more closely. I use ctrl+F. The BBC regularly describes the event as a massacre. I too would have undone your edit; I was involved with cleaning up the dreadful mess this article had become a few months ago. As of then, every single item on the list had reliably sourced citations. --John (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was forgetting that the criteria for inclusion had changed since I did my big cleanup. I still think the event qualifies for inclusion on the basis of the references we have though. --John (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It may qualify for inclusion now, after the addition of new sources. It certainly didn't qualify until a couple of hours ago, though, not based on the sources used, none of which described it as the "Qana massacre". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg to some extent. If there is an article on the event, the first name listed should be the one used in that article. However, we also need to include a name that includes the word "Massacre" - to show why it is on this list. Therefor, I have added "AKA: Qana Massacre" (and some sources to show the name being used). There are certainly multiple sources for "Qana Massacre", so the event should be included. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still getting the hang of this place, but it seems to me that blind removal/reversion of things for which there are excellent sources available shows an astounding lack of good faith and willingness to work with, rather than against, other editors. This is especially true when those reversions appear to further a particular point of view. To paraphrase another comment here, very poorly done, and I sincerely hope that this kind of reverting doesn't happen again. -- Tom Ketchum 16:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you're new here, you should go back and look at the very, very troubled history of this page. That is why the inclusion criteria are strictly enforced. I'm sorry if you felt slighted, but the editors here are generally very fair, and we won't remove entries that are properly sourced, but will remove them until they are. - Merzbow (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I apologize for speaking sharply. It seems almost an insurmountable obstacle to review all of the old discuss from these pages, but you are correct that it's hard to discern the patterns without doing so. -- Tom Ketchum 17:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Which reminds me that we have to continue the project of trying to find sources for some of the older stuff that isn't properly sourced. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manila massacre

I have just reverted the addition to this list of the Manila massacre. The only reference included was this entry in a list on a personal homepage, which is not a reliable source. In any case the list entry does not include the term "Manila massacre". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We ARE getting more accurate - even if it's a meaningless list.

Just did the math. We are now overcounting the sins of the "West" by only 2 to 1. That is one heck of an improvement over the 20 to 1 we originally had.Aaaronsmith (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lod Massacre on the Wiki main page

This massacre is listed on the wiki main page. It is not included here.

I think this page is setting some kind of record for - - well, something.67.161.176.247 (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So fix it. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to fix it. Another years and we can really have fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.68.128 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Then don't complain. Blueboar (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added it, with multiple reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] El Mozote?

Why has this been removed? LamontCranston (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if it was removed... looking quickly though the history, it seems as if it was never added in the first place. At least I can not find it listed since we changed the name and scope of the list. In any case, assuming it meets our inclusion criteria (ie multiple sources demonstrate that it is named the "El Mozote massacre"), please feel free to add it. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Massacres" that do not involved death

Well, I figured this would happen eventually... Recently added: Saturday Night Massacre - U.S. President Richard Nixon's executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus during the Watergate scandal.

This event does fit our current inclusion criteria (I am sure that multiple sources can be found to support that the event is named the "Saturday Night Massacre")... but I am not sure if it really fits with the intent of the list. I have no problem keeping it in the list if that is consensus (I don't think allowing this event will set a huge precident... while many non-death related events are discribed as massacres - sport results come to mind - few are actually named with "massacre") but I do think we do need to determine what the consensus on this issue actually is.

So... Do we want to limit this article to death related events, or does any event named with "massacre" qualify? If we want to limit ourselves to events actually involving death, then I think we need to clarify our inclusion criteria. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Support amending the criteria to clarify that we are talking about the primary rather than the metaphoric meaning of the word in this article. --John (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the article is the problem. "List of events named massacres". The word "events" clearly refers to more than the literal meaning of massacre. On the topic of changing the criteria, I Abstain (I simply don't care), but I do insist if the criteria are changed then the article title needs to be changed. --Pascal666 (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. We have the "Texas Chain Saw Massacres", "Zombie Island Massacres", the "Smurf Massacres" (and I don't even want to know what that is), National Geographic has entire articles devoted to "elephant massacres". Common sense says the name of this article is a real potential for amusing (and time wasting) discussion. Most of it of incredible levels of sophism.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I just discovered the "Barbie Massacre". The name definitely fits and while it was truly a small event, it was definitely an (art) event. I will stop now. We don't need more examples of stupidity.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Before we get overly dramatic here, remember that the title implies that there has to have been an actual event. I don't think things like the "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" or the "Smurf Massacres" qualify as an actual event (at best they would be fictitious events). But I think we are in agreement that we want a more litteral meaning of Massacre here. Any suggestions on rewording the inclusion criteria? Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

All we need to is add a requirement that deaths be involved in any event called a "massacre" that is in the list. - Merzbow (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. --John (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK... it sounds like we have a consensus. Since the inclusion criteria subpage is protected, we need an admin to pop over and unlock it for us... and, since she was the admin who created it, I have asked User:BrownHairedGirl to pop over and work with us on making the changes. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This thing is starting to sound like the convoluted sentences I used to write when I was 10. I would get more complex in order to become more clear after my father pointed out the 3 (or more) possible meanings of my first sentence. This is about the 20th time someone has said "now we've got the solution". Please, let's THINK before we put number 21 into concrete.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in popping in here (I'm on wiki v rarely over the summer). It seems to me that there is a general consensus that the criteria should specify clearly that this the "massacre" should not be metaphorical, but concerns that it could lead to convoluted wording.

I think that there may be an easy solution: rather than add an extra phrase to one of the existing sentences, add a whole new sentence. It occurs to me that it might also be helpful to clarify that it does not include fictional events, and it refers only to the killing of humans, so I suggest adding a whole new opening sentence to the inclusion criteria, to read as follows:

This a list of non-fictional events named "massacre" which involve the killing of people.

How does that sound? Would it also be appropriate to add some similar text to the list itself?

Please note that while I am happy to help, I will be offline for a few weeks starting this weekend. If there is consensus on a change before I go away, I'll be happy to implement it, but it would be quite inappropriate for my travel plans to form any sort of deadline for discussions here ... so if I'm not around you can just use just use {{editprotected}} to note the change sought, and another admin will be along shortly to implement it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - Merzbow (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me too. Blueboar (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that no one seems to object to BHG's simple solution... and the clear consensus here on the talk page that we do mean "non-fictional events named "massacre" which involve the killing of people", I am going to remove the Saturday night massacre. I suppose we should remove the The Great Cat Massacre as well, since it does not involve the killing of people... I kind of hate to see that one go (I love having that "sackloads" under the death total), but I also feel that if we are going to clarify the criteria, it should go. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On that basis, I have gone ahead and implemented the change to the inclusion criteria. I will now be away for a while, so if I have jumped the gun, or there is consensus to change to something else, just use {{editprotected}} to summon another admin to implement whatever other solution is agreed.

I have not placed the revised wording in the list itself, and I'll leave it to others to do that if they want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposition to change the basis of the article has been extant for less than a week and I have only just got wind of it. I oppose this change because it has not been demonstrated that any problem arises from inclusion of notable massacres of animals, say. Moving the goalposts every time someone adds an entry to which someone objects is, however, clearly problematic because it starts a fresh round of discussion like this which is disruptive. Please restore the status quo ante and refrain from further disruption unless and until a clear problem arises. I further note that the title of the article does not seem to have been changed and that this was a clear requirement of some of the editors above. We do not have a problem requiring change, adequate discussion of this change nor consensus for the form of any change. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there is opposition to the change, I will now revert it, and leave it for further discussion.

However, it is unnecessarily antagonistic for Colonel Warden to label a good faith clarification as "disruptive". I hope that further discussion can proceed more calmly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am sure that everyone involved means well. My point is more a procedural one than an attack on any particular editor. The talk archives above tell us that debating the basis of the list is a laborious business. We should therefore hesitate to reopen such discussion for the sake of one or two entries if those entries are, in themselves, harmless (e.g. The Great Cat Massacre). It seems better to let the list accumulate on the current basis over a period of time. If the list then seems to becoming unwieldy or wandering off topic then it would be sensible to start a fresh housekeeping discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Colonel, would you agree to something like: This a list of non-fictional events named "massacre" which involve multiple deaths? This would omit events where the term is used figuratively, metaphorically or allegorically (political usage such as the Saturday night massacre, sports references, etc.)... but would keep other forms of actual massacres such as The Great Cat Massacre. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have at least three different issues:

• fictional vs historical vs semi-fictional
• humans vs animals vs other things that might be massacred
• literal usage vs figurative usage

Since the permutations of these are quite complex, my position is that we should just let the matter ride for some time and see what transpires. For example, on the fictional point, I find that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is highly notable and has some basis in fact - see Ed Gein. I didn't know this until I browsed the sources just now and feel that I have learnt something noteworthy. Our list is primarily navigational and I don't think that we should make assumptions about what the readership is looking for when it uses it. If we start to accumulate such diferent types of massacre then I would prefer that we structure the list with appropriate sections. If these sections work out and grow to significant size then they might be spun off as separate lists. If they remain stubby then they might be merged into a more general section. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly object to fictional massacres being added to this list. It has been clear since the beginning that this was intended to list actual events. Even when it was the contentious "List of Massacres" no one was adding fictional events. If someone wants to start a seperate List of fictional massacres that would be fine, but we should keep this list to non-fiction.

I am ambivalent as to the human vs animals vs other things issue... I doubt there will be many events involving non-humans that would fit the inclusion criteria (animals tend to get "slaughtered" as opposed to "massacred").

I think the real question we are dealing with here is the "literal usage vs. figurative usage" issue. Why address it now? Well, this was the first time someone added something figurative. With the addition of Saturday night massacre, we were (for the first time) faced with the question: does this fit what we intended when we created this list? Now is a good time to answer that question. It isn't "moving the goal posts"... its answering a question that no one has previously thought to ask. It is clear that, until now, everyone assumed that this list dealt with literal usage ... That has changed, so we have to decide: should we clarify the criteria?

So far, we have seen a number of good arguments for not allowing figurative usage. Are there good arguments for allowing them? Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dare we have a poll? There is no way I'd ever agree that fictional massacres should be in this list; otherwise every Wikipedia list of the form "List of members of Al-Qaeda" or whatever could be polluted with fictional characters. That's not what readers want. - Merzbow (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need a poll. Consensus does not imply unanimity. --John (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A poll is really only needed as a guage to assessing consensus... and at the moment the only person who is even remotely suggesting allowing fictional events is Colonel Warden... Is there any one who agrees with him? Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Think hard! The "Barbie Massacre" was an actual event (performance art) and has one and only one name and that includes "massacre". Rhetorical question: Has anyone besides me noticed how far this page has drifted from any possible original intent for Wikipedia over the last 5 (that's right - five) years?Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaaronsmith... Are you saying that you think events like the "Barbie Massacre" should be listed? Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It meets the criteria. If you are saying it shouldn't be listed, please explain your reasoning.Aaaronsmith (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning is that the obvious intent of this page has, up to now, been to list actual historical events that dealt with real deaths ... a literal meaning of the word "massacre" and not a figurative or artistic meaning. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We define the criteria, and can change them at any time, with consensus. So do you support modifying the criteria to exclude stuff like this? Is the reader going to expect to find the "Barbie Massacre" next to some event where hundreds of people were killed? Heck no. We are here for the readers' benefit, not to prove a linguistic point. - Merzbow (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. The "obvious intent" of this article (at its creation 5 years ago)was to list events involving the deaths of multiple human beings in acts of violence. Five years of "proving linguistic points" and arguing over everything EXCEPT the original intent, we now have a page that has been eviscerated of all meaning except to prove if you define something tightly enough (something all SOPHOmore get good at) you can simultaneously terminate all controversy requiring any original thought while you terminate the usefulness of the result. Frankly, I'm beginning to agree w Korzybski: If you can't define it it in words or at least pointed to referents (that's not a typo) YOU do not understand it. We have achieved effective deletion of this article while maintaining the politically correct front that we have done something useful. Who CARES about a list of events NAMED massacre? How about a list of aquatic dwellers named fish? Lung fish, flying fish, hatchet fish, bottom fish (which includes a lot of things that aren't fish),etc. But trout, carp, blennies, barracuda, groupers, etc. are OUT.

PLEASE! Explain the usefulness of either list.Aaaronsmith (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "obvious intent" of this article (at its creation 5 years ago)was to list events involving the deaths of multiple human beings in acts of violence... so you do agree that this list should be limited to events involving deaths? (as to your other issues, we know you don't like the current title and scope... that is irrelevant to the current debate... the "NAMED" issue isn't the question in this thread). Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Possibly nutty proposal. Could be divide this article in two sections: one where we talk about humans dying, and then a section called "other"?Bless sins (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone is going to kill me for this suggestion [Thank god the web is anonymous].

Why don't we go back to the original title "List of Massacres". Exactly the same as we had it before the change to a "list of things named" w ONE change. We add another column to the grid and add a check mark (or other indicator) if the word "massacre" is used in the title. NOW you have the best (yeah, right) of both worlds. A list of massacres AND (by a simple sort) a list of events NAMED massacre.71.197.83.129 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Support limiting it to only those events that involve actual human death. Failing that, I would support separate sections for human, animal and figurative massacres. Once these other sections become large enough, they could be split off into their own articles. However, I don't support going back to the "original" criteria because that invited requests-for-deletion. Nevertheless, if someone can find reliable sources for setting some independent criteria for this article, then I will reconsider this point. — Val42 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar: Only if we go back to a title that implies the death of humans. The current title doesn't.Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaaronsmith, there is strong consensus in favor of the current title. You know this, so please stop being pointy and focus on the question at hand. The question is whether we clarify the inclusion criteria to reflect the intent of the list ... not whether we change the title. Do you support clarifying the criteria, or do you oppose clarifying the criteria? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, if you study the history here, you will see that there has been continual argument about this and this cannot be fairly described as consensus. I agree that we should should return to the original title for the article: List of massacres. The current title is a poor one and, as we now find that editors such as Blueboar do not accept its literal wording, the name change seems pointless. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If this article were to return to the old title, I can guarentee that the list would be deleted. The current title and scope was a compromise worked out at the last AfD... and was essentially the only thing that kept BrownHairedGirl from deleting. Changing it back isn't going to happen.

So I ask you again... do you support the amendation to the criteria or not? Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, for the sake of simple courtesy, I think I will sit this one out.

You deserve an explaination: Since I consider the article as it currently exists to be a major conceptual mistake, I also believe "tuning" the criteria is just plain a waste of time. We have much more important questions. Bluntly I feel like we're removing warts when the patient has appendicitis.

I will get back into the fray when I feel I can make a contribution a little more reasoned than arguing about inclusion criteria that will not match the literal title. Thank you.Aaaronsmith (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)