ebooksgratis.com

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:List of massacres/Archive 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:List of massacres/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Citations

Before adding an entry to this list please read Wikipedia:Citing sources particularly the section How to cite sources

If you are citing web sources. please include a minimum of

  • Author (use "Staff" if you can not find the author,
  • The name of the article
  • The name of the website (which if there is no article on the owner of the website (eg Cambridge University) then link to their about page.
  • Date of publication. If there is no date on the article then please add when the site was accessed.

eg:

or


Very often the citation will be needed not just for the text but also for the number of dead. One can use a ref tag more than one by naming it.

Eg on first use:

  • <ref name=observer-2000-12-03> Jason Burke, Dig uncovers Boudicca's brutal streak, The Observer, December 3, 2000</ref>

then on second use:

  • <ref name=observer-2000-12-03/>

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip, you are chasing a rainbow here!! - Sarah777 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed 18 January for further discussion

Sarah777 you or others marked (***) these entries as a problem on the article page. Please could people add an entry under each one describing what problem with them is and lets discuss and reach a consensus for each one before it is put back into the list. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1771***, July 17 Kugluktuk, Nunavut Bloody Falls Massacre 20[1] Just after midnight on July 17, the Chipewyan warriors set upon the Inuit camp and killed approximately 20 men, women and children.[2][3][4]


Date Location Name Deaths Description
1778***, July 3 Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania American Revolutionary War 360[5] Loyalist and Iroquois raiders killed American settlers in the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania.[6][7]
Only a single reference and that is from an encyclopedia; if we can't use Wiki as a ref why use unreferenced material in another encyclopedia?Sarah777 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1838*** South Africa Massacre of Voortrekkers c.600[8] Zulu warriors killed 600 Boer men, women and children escaping northwards from British rule, many at a spot near where the town of Weenen now stands.[9]
Only a single reference; though it appears as if it were two separate refs. Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1862*** Minnesota, USA Minnesota Massacre c.800[10] White settlers, mostly German and Scandinavian immigrants, were killed throughout Minnesota as part of the Sioux Uprising.[11][12][13][unreliable source?][verification needed]

Only a single reliable source describes the events as a massacre. Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1876*** Ottoman Empire Batak massacre c.15,000[14] Ottoman army irregulars killed Bulgarian men, women and children as reprisal for the April Uprising.[15]
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1941*** Soviet Union NKVD prisoner massacres c.100,000[16] The Soviet NKVD massacres tens of thousands of political prisoners at the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.[17]
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1941***, September 29-30 Ukraine Babi Yar more than 30,000[18] Jewish population of Kiev was marched in small groups to a pit at Babi Yar and machine-gunned.[18]
Here are some more citations calling the Babi Yar massacre a massacre. There are dozens more. Please reinstate this entry with as many of these as you wish.
  • Victoria Khiterer (2004). "Babi Yar: The tragedy of Kiev's Jews". Brandeis Graduate Journal 2: 1-16. 
  • A survivor of the Babi Yar massacre. Heritage:Civilization and the Jews. Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Retrieved on 2008-01-20.
  • Wolfram Wette (2006). The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality, 112. “The massacre at Babi Yar, near Kiev, which claimed the lives of more than thirty thousand Jewish victims on September 29 and 30, 1941, was the largest single mass killing for which the German army was responsible during its campaign against the Soviet Union.”  - there are several other references to this massacre as such in this book
  • Jill Dougherty and Jim Bittermann. "Pope visits Jewish massacre site", CNN, 2001-06-25. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. 
Agree; Babi Yar now has sufficient reliable references and nobody seems to dispute the "massacre" tag. Sarah777 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1946*** Jerusalem King David Hotel bombing 92[19] July 22 bombing conducted by the Zionist paramilitary Irgun in agreement with the Jewish Agency and its head, David Ben-Gurion, resulted in the deaths of 92 Britons, Arabs and Jews. [20]

Only one of the referenced articles uses the term "massacre". Sarah777 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Date Location Name Deaths Description
2001***, June 1 Tel Aviv, Israel Dolphinarium massacre 22[21] Suicide bombing carried out by a Hamas member in a discotheque in which 22 Israelis, mostly teenagers with backgrounds from the former Soviet Union, were killed and more than 100 were injured.[22]
Date Location Name Deaths Description
2001***, August 9 Jerusalem, Israel Sbarro restaurant massacre 15[23] Hamas suicide bomber attacked the Sbarro pizzeria in downtown Jerusalem at lunchtime. 15 people (including 8 children) were killed, and 130 wounded. Both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad initially claimed responsibility.[24]

In relation to the two Hamas attacks should we not give the counter view that there are no innocent civilians in occupied land (which they seem to say is all of Israel, more or less)? After the style of the justifications some editors are trying to insert for Fallujah massacre (by the US) and Qana (by Israel). In all three instances the perpetrators (and probably a majority in the societies they spring from) don't regard the mass deaths as massacres, merely acts carried out in a defensive war. Let's be consistent here. Sarah777 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

<snip>

See more comments to this under Talk:List of massacres/Archive 4

Protection

I have re-protected this again until the principle editors can come to an agreement on this page 'without revert-warring. This is not an endorsement of the page as is. If agreement is not forthcomint, then I suggest going down the dispute mediation path. Please do not change the protection status of this page if you intend to then add or remove disputed content, as that may be seen as a misuse of admin tools. If consensus is reached, please feel free to ask myself or another uninvolved admin to unprotect. Thanks. Rockpocket 20:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I'm gone two weeks and already you have the page protected again.67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You weren't really the problem! Sarah777 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

White History

see Talk:List of massacres/Archive 4#White History

Why are these not massacres

1. Jallianwala Bagh massacre

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Retaliation_.E2.80.94_.22The_Devil.27s_Wind.22

This is hijacking history.

Refer to my comments above. Surely it is obvious why Amritsar isn't a massacre? Sarah777 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Some sources:

All of them are "western" sources, the ones that are purportedly the only ones considered here. What are you gonna do now?

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/empire/episodes/episode_83.shtml

Churchill Speech: http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/churchill/am-text.htm

Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9007273/Massacre-of-Amritsar

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritsar_massacre (Go ahead, delete the article. That's probably the only thing that's gonna happen here)

76.180.168.16 (talk) 128.205.63.165 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia Antagonist

Greysteel

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1993, 30 October Greysteel, County Londonderry, Northern Ireland Greysteel massacre 8 Ulster Freedom Fighters open fire in a crowded bar using an AK-47 and automatic pistol[25][26][27][28] [29][30][31]

Can I possibly get a consensus for addition? More refs available if needed, I didn't want to go overboard. One Night In Hackney303 01:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes ONIH; agree. Clear case. Article is protected because we cannot agree on a consistent set of criteria for verifiability or for reliable sources. So you'll have to wait I guess. Who removed Greysteel and why, btw? Sarah777 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Book sources too. One Night In Hackney303 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New posters questioning additions

Please, this article has problems under discussion which have nothing to do with missed massacres. We have at least four major points which must be settled before the article will really be available for normal editing. The problems have proven to be surprising untractable and even subtle. If you wish to join in and help solve the problems, please ask for a summary (or just take the time ((a lot)) to read the discussion history) and I'll supply one. Otherwise, please wait for the article to be unprotected after a consensus is reached on the problems and then you will be able to add any missing items yourselves.67.161.166.20 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm going to to insist on {{totallydisputed}} being added to the article. And by the way, I'm not a "new poster", I'm objecting to the removal of an incident which is almost universally recognised as a massacre, while ones that aren't remain. I couldn't care less about Fallujah or similar, I want Greysteel back on the list and I don't have time to wait for unrelated arguments to be settled. One Night In Hackney303 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As someone who probably shares your views on Greysteel I DO care about Fallujah and the problem is that every time the article is unprotected first thing on the agenda is to delete Fallujah. This is a bigger issue than any single massacre; see the Anon comments about Amritsar which was perpetrated by the same state force as that which facilitated Greysteel. Sarah777 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The first thing on the list is to get a compromise over Fallujah and for that to happen it would be better if disinterested editors like User:One Night In Hackney became involved in the discussion as the more editors involved the more likely a consensus can be found. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagree totally. The first thing on the list is to get a consistent set of rules that will be applied to all massacres with complete evenhandedness. I have said this a dozen times Philip., it seems you are simply not listening. Sarah777 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I couldn't give a flying fuck about Fallujah. This is a totally seperate issue to what's at stake here. Have I provided ample evidence that Greysteel should be back on the list? If no, let me know and I'll provide you some more. All I need is a general agreement, and I'll be happy to request a protected edit request and get it added. The fact that virtually every editor of this article has failed to reply to the section is quite telling, I'm not getting dragged into any of other people's disputes in order to get this entry added, why should I? Is it not possible for any other thing to be discussed until Fallujah is dealt with? One Night In Hackney303 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It is fairly obvious that you are concerned only with your own parochial issues ONIH and I have already replied to you. But as I said, this issue isn't about any individual incident; it is about the need for a transparent set of consistent requirements for inclusion (if we must have this bizarre article). This problem is highlighted by the comment below by Knulk that there is something "exceptional" about the claim that there was a massacre in Fallujah!! I don't agree on the "bottom-up" approach precisely because it doesn't in any way address this bias. If I simply claim that Graysteel is controversial then it probably doesn't have enough English MSM references to support inclusion as per Philip el al. For the sake of civility (and my temper) I'd ask Rockpocket to issue some little chastisement to Knulk for that aggressive personal attack below. Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey I know, this isn't my first time on this article. However this isn't a controversial addition, and so I shouldn't need to get dragged into any pre-existing problems in order to get it added. One Night In Hackney303 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets not miss seeing the wood for the trees. If a global, top-down strategy can't be agreed on, then perhaps a bottom-up one would move things forward. ONiH appears to have proposed an entry which, on the face of it, looks an appropriate addition. If there can be agreement on this then perhaps that could be common ground on which to move forward on another disputed addition. Rockpocket 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Fallujah 4

See also:

Original entry

Date Location Name Deaths Description
2004 November Fallujah, Iraq Fallujah massacre 600–3,000[citation needed] Massacre of civilians in Fallujah by the US Marine Corps during an attack on the city.[32].

[33][unreliable source?] [34] [35][unreliable source?] [36][unreliable source?] [37] [38]


Compromise entry (instead of removal)

Date Location Name Deaths Description
2004 November Fallujah, Iraq Second Battle of Fallujah 600–3,000[citation needed] In Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta allege that in the Fallujah Offensive of November 2004 the disproportionate use of force including the use of white phosphorus, caused the death of many civilians.[39][40] Others have also called the alleged indiscriminate use of force a massacre,[41][42] however Peter Pace, the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while not denying that the United States military used white phosphorous (as the United States military consider it to be a legitimate military munition), did deny that the U.S. military used indiscriminate force stating "No armed force in the world goes to greater effort than your armed force to protect civilians and to be very precise in the way we apply our power"[43]

Suggested alternatives

RfC Discussion

I wish to state that I am totally opposed to this RfC as it avoids the real issue of how to maintain WP:NPOV in the article as a whole. Despite having repeatedly made this point for several months Philip is trying by every means possible to get an exceptionalist set of rules to govern Fallujah. This will not solve anything but will lead to endless war over any article that someone feels strongly should/should not be included. This is not about Fallujah. Fallajuh is merely an example of the problem and one of the problems is that for 2 years a dedicated core of editors have sought and succeeded in keeping certain types of massacre off the list. First we need a clear set of rules posted in plain English clearly stating what is the number and type of references needed in all cases; and the exact rules governing reliable source - it seems to me that Philip isn't prepared to simply accept the standard Wiki-definitions in relation to some incidents but will accept them in relation to others. Philip says "let the facts speak for themselves" and then in the case of some articles defines acceptable "fact" as being basically whatever Philip and others decide to agree are facts in the absence of any transparent rules for establishing "fact". Sarah777 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't believe it. Sarah wants to break every rule and guideline to push her anti-war agenda; wp:sources, WP:SOAP, WP:POINT, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and wp:bias just off the top of my head. She alone has fought bitterly with every editor in reach, accusing them of agenda pushing, snap reversions and pro-Western bias. Philip alone has remained to work with her despite her trollish behavior. The page has been under constant lockdown for two months.
Wikipedia could not be clearer on its Verifiability official policy: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" seems to be a concept that this editor refuses to appreciate. --Knulclunk (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2008 (U[[TC)
I will overlook your breaches of WP:AGF and WP:NPA for now and merely point out that there is no exceptional claim being made here. And I'm not sure what you mean by an "anti-war agenda". Do you enjoy wars or something? Sarah777 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I have checked "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (yet again) and the only one of the four categories that are relevant here is "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known". To make such a claim about Fallujah pushes the envelope for inclusion so wide as to cover almost any claim. Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarah it seems that you think I am editing in bad faith. I am not. The "rules to govern" the Fallujah entry should be the same as for every other entry in this article. Citing Verifiable sources that claim an incident is a massacre and if there are Verifiable sources that refute that the incident was a massacre or refute that the incident took place, then under the Wikipedia policy of a Neutral Point of View we should also include that refutation citing the sources that make the claim. This example of Fallujah is just one of what I hope will be many entries. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No Philip, I don't claim you are editing in bad faith. I fear you are unable to see/overcome your pov. When you say "let the facts speak" in my OPINION you fail to see have you have virtually manufactured the facts! It was Knulk I was referring to with my comments above - if we all start those sort of accusations this will degenerate into a slagging-match. Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The compromise proposal sucks, frankly. "No armed force in the world goes to greater effort ... to protect civilians...." is not an answer to the charge of there having been a massacre, and it's unabashed blatantly false (Switzerland's armed forces) propaganda. MilesAgain (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
↑ Actually these three are about the Blackwater - burnend - hung from bridge incident.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, and I have removed those three. MilesAgain (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The independent article is about an entirely different event. The ipsnews article does no more than assert a battle is going on and civilians have been killed. No implication of massacre.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The independent article is dated 4 May 2003. The ipsnews article is dated Apr 20 2004. So to which massacre are you referring? Are you saying that all the reports should be rolled into one or should independent massacres be reported? If you have not already done so I suggest that you read the previous sections on this issue as it has already been discussed. Two other points (the first of which has already been discussed): The Independent article only mentions the word massacre in the headline, not in the body of the report. Newspaper's editors often add salacious headlines to an article (it helps to sell newspapers). If th Independent article were one of several reports about the behaviour of the 82nd Airborne Division claiming that a massacre took place, then it would be useful, but I do no think one can claim in a Wikipedia article that that incident was a massacre based on one word in one headline. The ipsnews does not claim that a massacre took place do you have any sources that claim that the First Battle of Fallujah was a massacre?. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you find it hard to believe that a year after the massacre, there were still bodies yet to be buried? MilesAgain (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Also MilesAgain please could you place you thoughts on the talk page on the need (or lack of need) for WP:NPOV over this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to NPOV, as you can see much from the fact that I had to delete the three sources that all call only four American deaths a "massacre". What is 4 to 10,000? (Figure based on the admitted undercount of the Iraq Body Count ratio to Lancet estimates.) Surely countering systemic bias concerns apply to how the Western media calls the killing of four westerners a massacre, but not thousands of Iraqis. There is this from Italy corroborating that the First Battle of Fallujah was a massacre. There is no doubt that white phosphorous was used extensively on civilian targets. The sources here are sufficient for calling what meets the dictionary definition a WP:SPADE. MilesAgain (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the source you are saying is for the First Battle of Fallujah was for the Second Battle of Fallujah (see the dates). This is what the compromise version above alleges. It does not matter if you and I think any of these actions were a massacre. What matters is finding verifiable reliable sources that state that an incident were a massacre and if there is a substantial point of view that disagrees with the analysis presenting that as well (WP:NPOV), which is why I put together the compromise version above. Please look at the two versions above and decide which of the two is closer to meeting Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Request for edit: Babi Yar massacre

{{editprotected}}

Resolved.

The Babi Yar massacre has more than enough citations to be included - as has been agreed above - and it should be re-added to the article now. I don't think it is reasonable to wait until consensus on other matters is reached, as we may not all live that long. For your convenience, I'll reproduce the entry here, with all of the citations in place - it belongs chronologically under "Katyn" and above "Lidice". Since <references /> is already in use on this page, I can't figure out how to display the references just for this one entry below it- but they are all there in the source. Please leave a note on my talk page if there are questions as I might miss them here. Thank you. Tvoz |talk 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1941, September 29-30 Ukraine Babi Yar more than 30,000[1] Jewish population of Kiev was marched in small groups to a pit at Babi Yar and machine-gunned.[1][2][3][4] [5]
If there is no objection to this (i.e. it is not something that is likely to be edit-warred over) in a day or so, then I will add this. Rockpocket 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't hijack my request about Babi Yar with the ongoing arguments about this article. It was a request for one edit. However, ONIH's request about Greysteel seems to me to be analogous to Babi Yar in that he has listed multiple reliable sources for the designation, similar to those already in place in the article, so it's ok with me to add it in as well. Rockpocket asked if there were objections to Babi Yar and Greysteel and I don't have any to either. Any items below, now in their own section, have nothing to do with this request of mine. Tvoz |talk 21:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Greysteel

Add Greysteel at the same time please :) One Night In Hackney303 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if no-one voices an objection, then I will add that also. Rockpocket 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the sources cited for Greysteel appear to me to be reliable and verifiable (although it would be nice to have the actual article for the first rather than just the teaser), so I have no objection to Greysteel being reinstated as well. If there are any journals or books making the reference to Greysteel as a massacre, that would be even better to add to a couple of newspapers, in my opinion, as I did for Babi Yar. But these newspaper refs look fine to me. Tvoz |talk 20:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Got plenty of books that can reference it, I'll have a browse later. One Night In Hackney303 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Great. Tvoz |talk 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, these look to be uncontested. Its late here, but this will be my first port of call tomorrow and I'll add these in for you. Rockpocket 09:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

making changes to the page

I think it is a mistake to add content to this page while it is protected. It only encourages people not to get involved in the debate about the other entries on the page. If changes are to be made to the page to add uncontentious entries contentious entries should be removed at the same time to encourage compromise and a consensus for those entries (as is happening on the other entries I moved to the talk page because of concerns about their citations). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. What we seem to have going on here is holding some entries ransom for others. "If I can't have X, you can't have Y". Thats not constructive. Each entry should be considered on its own merits. In that way the issues of contention can be considered one by one. If no-one is protesting the merits of this content itself, then there is no reason it should not be added. If you believe something should be removed and it is undisputed, then simply ask. It can be removed also. Alternatively, if you believe there is a problem with the content of the two entries described above, speak up now and I will not add them. Rockpocket 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that people ought not to be encouraged to help resolve the current stalemate? There is no hurry on the adding of any particular information to this page, what is a problem is having content on the page that is disputed because while the content remains on the page the party that supports that view has no particular reason to find a consensus over that content. Further there is the usual maintenance that takes place on a page, new citations, changes of wording etc, are you suggesting that you are willing to take every suggestion that is not contentious and edit them in whether you agree with them or not? If not then you are saying that content to the page will only be added if you agree with it, and that you say yes then you are probably looking at a lot of work. Far better that we all work to solve the Fallujah problem and have the page unprotected so that the usual development of a page can take place. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
How long has the Fallujah problem lasted so far? Is there even any chance of a resolution any time soon? Fallujah is one incident on the page (rightly or wrongly), should the rest of the article and additions to it be completely abandoned until the problem is settled? How long will that take? Days? Weeks? Months? I don't have the time or energy to get involved in a dispute about an incident that I really couldn't care less either way about, except that the dispute should not cause all other editing to the article to stop dead. One Night In Hackney303 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Far better that we could unprotect the page and then people could add non-contentious issues themselves, and discuss the Fallujah problem here civilly without edit-warring, don't you think? That is what people should do, but as soon as it is unprotected the edit-warring begins anew. So, if it means long term protection, and each issue is dealt with on its own merits, then that is what will have to be done. People ought to be encouraged to help resolve the stalemate, but not by holding appropriate content to ransom.
My perspective is simple. Forget all the this for that, tit-for-tat bargaining and ask yourselves a set of very simply questions. Should Babi Yar be in this article on its own merits? If there is no major objections to that alone, then we add it. Next, should Greysteel be in this article on its own merits. Yes or no. If we carry on like that for each of the disputed examples then we can solve this, or at the very least narrow down the problem. Horse-trading does not solve the basic issues.
Once we have gone though all the disputed and non-disputed content to be added back, we can begin to go through the disputed and non-disputed content to be removed, this takes away any advantage from the status quo. Rockpocket 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Can't agree with that approach at all. What we need is clear, transparent, consistent rules for inclusion that will be applied to all articles irrespective of whether they are massacres allegedly perpetrated by the West or anyone else. The 'case by case' approach is a recipe for WP:BIAS and contrary to achieving WP:NPOV given the numerical preponderance of British and American editors and their inevitably skewed perspective. (And while I'm here may as well mention that I disagree with your comments on the British Isles issue; "New England" is no analogy!) To ONIH I'd ask - why the hurry to get an entry into an article that really shouldn't exist at all? Sarah777 (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as the other approach has led us to protection, and no-one is protesting that these are appropriate additions contentwise, I have added them. My strong suggestion is that either that you ask an uninvolved experienced editor to review the Falluja RfC and come to some proposal based on the arguments offered, or else start a new RfC on the wider issues of, as Sarah puts it, consistent rules. Rockpocket 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree that the two instances you added passed all tests and there is no debating the intention to slaughter. But now what about Omagh; if intention is critical then there is no evidence and little credible suggestion that the intention was to kill civilians. Murderously careless no doubt; but not what was intended. It thus fails a key test. So in line with the two additions you've made should you not remove this as I have suggested below? I'd have similar reservations about the King David Hotel; that was an act of war; surely a clear case of collateral damage? Sarah777 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is no objections I would remove it, but Philip appears to have differing opinion. Moreover, Philip has proposed that Falluja be removed while the discussions are ongoing. Would you object to that (I'm guessing, yes). Rockpocket 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Good guess. Fallujah is well referenced and the sources claim deliberate intent. Omagh seems to fail that test. Kind David is somewhere in between. Mind you. If killing civilians is an inevitable consquence of the bombing; (it was not in Omagh, it certainly was in US bombing of civilian areas and I'd need to read up on King David). I'd say dropping a 1,000lb bomb at high speed from the air is de facto intent to kill civilians; ground bombs, be they car bombs or suicide bombs may or may not be. Sarah777 (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 you have not addressed any of the critisisms levelled against you entry that:
  • some of the sources you gave are not reliable sources (as defined by WP:V)
  • that you are using WP:SYN to claim that several incidents were all one massacre when those sources are describing different incidents and non of them roll all the incidents into one massacre.
  • That you are not willing to have a counter point included to balance the accusations of massacre in line with WP:NPOV
For that reason I think any entry for Fallujah should moved to the talk page until agreement can be reached on a compromise version that has a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed all the points you have made Philip. It is rather bizarre that you suggest removing Fallujah (multiple references) while leaving Omagh. POV or what! I will address your points again tonight when I have time if you insist; but repetition gets tiresome - either reading or writing it. Simply put Philip; you refuse to state a clear, consistent transparent single set of rules that will apply to all articles. And a clear rule is not one that includes a variety of sub-rules that you cannot/will not clearly define. Sarah777 (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah you still have not addressed the three specific bullet points. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I did Philip. Over and over. You will not dictate the format or agenda here. You give me a yes/no answer (below) and I'll give a refutation (again) to your points above in the format you demand. Deal? Sarah777 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And please read my comments re time; no more replies till tonight - now don't breach the page protection in the meantime. Sarah777 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You state that you have answered these questions please provide three links to the sections on the talk page or archives where you have done this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I propose the removal of any questionable or debatable entries while they are under discussion, allowing the page to be unlocked. I think it is appropriate for this list to always err on the side of conservative and deletionist. Before the recent spat of edit warring, we would have debatable or questionable events at the bottom of the page in a "see also" list. That way we could work on the main product without being stymied over one entry.--Knulclunk (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And your definition of "questionable" is, what, exactly? Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
PS: Least you think I am nit-picking; these is exactly the kind of methodology that the "Western" or anti-Fallujah editors have used for years on this article. Check the record. The only alternative is clear, unambiguous rules consistently applied to all massacres. (OK IP 67.161.166.20 (below) - that's twice more so far today; must be getting near the 50th time by now). Sarah777 (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, this seems like an interesting proposal. The protection is due to expire in a few days, and I'm mulling over whether to extend it. How about the principal contributors draw up a list below of what they consider to be questionable that is currently in it and what they believe should be in it, but isn't (perhaps with a very brief, one line explanation why). We could then cross-reference those and remove all questionable and debatable entries and add all unquestionable entries. This would give a template in which to build and permit the page to be unprotected, since there would be no advantage to anyone of having the page protected with their favored version. Then I would expect there to be zero edit-warring, since everything under dispute would be on the talk page, and everyone would need to discuss and compromise. Thoughts? Rockpocket 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We are completely missing the problem here. We HAD a page w over 400 entries. The vast majority of those were not challenged for any reason. The question was almost always "definition" and "sourcing". Protecting the page has accomplished nothing. Unprotecting the page will make things more interesting, but not provide a solution.67.161.166.20 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
They were not challenged because people were not interested enough. It was only when you looked to include certain types of massacre the problems became evident; you were blocked. Applying the Fallujah principles to the 400 I'm sure we can ditch at least 300. Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Starting with Omagh Sarah777 (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Which just makes my point. Two posts, clever lines, no proposed solution.67.161.166.20 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
How often do I have to restate my proposed solutions? 10 times? 20? More? Sarah777 (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
67.161.166.20 many of the "400 entries" were entered using OR and did not have verifiable reliable third party sources claiming that the event was a massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 I disagree with you statement "But now what about Omagh; if intention is critical then there is no evidence and little credible suggestion that the intention was to kill civilians. Murderously careless no doubt; but not what was intended. It thus fails a key test" To repeat what I wrote in another section: I do not think it is up to us to make such an editorial decision providing the claim is made in a verifiable reliable source and is not giving undue weight to a fringe accusation (and if only one notable source has made the assertion then I think we should probably name the person in the source who made the claim -- not a policy point but it does help with NPOV issues). What is up to us is to present the counter argument if anyone has made such an argument in a verifiable reliable source (WP:NPOV) again without giving undue weight to a fringe refutation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This makes my point for me Philip! When attacking the Fallujah entry the deletionists repeatedly claimed it didn't fit the massacre category because (in their opinion) there was no intent. Do I now take it that you are saying intent is not a consideration; only what a journalist in the English MSM had called it? Really - this question only requires a "yes" or "no" reply from you. For once Philip, yes or no! (Leave it to me to spell out the implications either way). Sarah777 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 we should stick to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular the three content policies WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and if you think that they create bias articles, this is not the forum to debate that instead take it to the talk page of the policy pages and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. So to repeat what I have already written ,I think only claims of a massacre in verifiable reliable source without giving undue weight to a fringe accusations should be included in this article. It is not up to us to judge if verifiable reliable source is True (see WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". If the claim is controversial then the person making the claim should be attributed in the text of the article (Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements). And Sarah777 I would appreciate if you would comment on my comment above in this section that starts "Sarah777 you have not addressed any of the criticisms levelled against you entry". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There is discretion around how they can be interpreted and that is what is causing the bias. Given the impossible title of this article greater clarity is called for than the rules provide; you have made this point yourself. Except your "deviations" are somewhat skewed in a manner to make the inherent in the Wiki-rules worse, rather than to alleviate it. And as for the Fallujah specifics, RAI is not a "fringe source". OK? Sarah777 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The compromise version I put together includes the following sources:
I also included two more references
They are not all of the same quality, but please notice all the references are referring to the same incident as a massacre, not to several separate incidents spread out over more than two years. As one of the sources is RAI and the text of the compromise version includes "In Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta allege that in the Fallujah Offensive of November 2004 the disproportionate use of force including the use of white phosphorus, caused the death of many civilians.". Why do you keep implying that I object to its inclusion as a fringe source? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to imply/state that Fallujah needs a virtual litany of excuses/mitigations which are not present in other massacres on the list on the basis that the Fallujah references somehow are more questionable that dozens of other on the list. I want consistency. Sarah777 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The wording I put together as a compromise is exactly that. Some editors of this page do not think that any massacre was carried out by US forces. I have attempted to put together the type of wording that no one may be totally happy with but it does allow for both POV to be expressed, with an attempt at a neutral point of view. If editors object to any entry being biased, providing that reliable sources that do not give undue weight to fringe views those other points of view should be included as specified by the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. BTW I am sill waiting for you to address my three questions in the previous section --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
And I'm still waiting for a yes or no. The "compromise" is required because some editors object? So if I object to any massacre on this list on the basis of "intent" can I write a paragraph of counterpoint in each case? (Again, a yes or no will do me fine). Btw, having confirmed that you don't regard RAI as a "fringe source" I love the way you keep repeating "sources that do not give undue weight to fringe views" over and over. I think that 'Fallujah not a massacre' is a fringe American view. Can you provide non-American MSM English language references (at least two) that says it wasn't a massacre? Using those exact words? I wouldn't want you doing any WP:OS, needless to say. Sarah777 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
if I object to any massacre on this list on the basis of "intent" can I write a paragraph of counterpoint in each case? No. A paragraph to a sentence would likely breach the WP:NPOV policy. But I would encourage you to write a sentence or two (about the same as the allegation) providing the counterpoint back it up with verifiable sources that do not give undue weight to a fringe opinions. In my opinion the opinions of a member state of the Untied Nations is never a fringe view. A one word answer was given as requested, and I am sill waiting for you to address my three questions in the previous section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

other requests

If we are opening up the article I'd like to have this one deleted:

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1998 Omagh, Northern Ireland Omagh bombing 29[6] Car bomb attack carried out by Irish republicans opposed to the Northern Ireland Peace Process.[7][8]

According to Philip etc there must be a "deliberate intent to massacre civilians" for an article to qualify. There is no evidence that the Omagh bombers intended to indiscriminately slaughter a mixture of Catholic and Protestant (or any) civilians - therefore it doesn't meet the criteria. Sarah777 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I presume that the Philip you are referring to is me. In which case I don't think I have said any such thing. I do not think it isup to us to make such an editorial decision providing the claim is made in a verifiable reliable source and is not giving undue weight to a fringe accusation (and if only one notable source has made the assertion then I think we should probably name the person in the source who made the claim -- not a policy point but it does help with NPOV issues). What is up to us is to present the counter argument if anyone has made such an argument in a verifiable reliable source (WP:NPOV) again without giving undue weight to a fringe refutation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Well Philip, you define "fringe" as just about anything you fancy. Amongst the attacks on the references I supplied (back in the archives) were claims that neither the Guardian nor (English) Independent nor (Italian) RAI were "reliable"; all had an agenda. But apparently to your mind the US Army spokesman does not! I respectfully suggest that what might be a "fringe view" in the United States regarding the activity of their Armed Forces might not be a fringe view elsewhere. Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 I would never claim that the Guardian or the Independent were fringe, although I did not think that the particular Independent article was in itself enough to justify an entry because the journalist did not use the word massacre in the text of the article. However the major reason I did not cite it in the compromise version I put together was it was not covering the same incident as the RAI documentary. In the compromise version I put together I included Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre with three sources
I also included two more references
Kay, Joseph. US massacres civilians in Fallujah World Socialist Web Site 10 November 2004.
They are not all of the same quality, but pease notice all the references are referring to the same incident as a massacre, not to several separate incidents spread out over more than two years. Collating all the sources over the whole of the US occupation without a source that claims that they all represent one massacre and saying that it is one massacre is a breach of WP:SYN. Also yes, I did include a view (with citation) from the US Army to comply with WP:NPOV. -Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My Lai

Resolved.

This is really funny. The page has a photo of My Lai Massacre but the entry itself is missing. Guess the white people who are controlling things here like to "see" Orientals and others lying dead or starving but don't like to acknowledge their role in it.

I am beginning to think that History Channel is less biased than Wikipedia. P.S: I guess the "honorable" thing to do here is to delete both the picture and the entry.

I just want to see when and who!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.63.165 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Lai is missing because the page is in lockdown after being gutted a few weeks weeks ago and it is in the midst of an edit war. Your presumption of racism is quaint, tho. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Right!. Look at the list in the current state. How many "white" massacres are there? More interesting is what is missing. Forget about the barbarism of the British and the French in their so called colonies, the horrors during conflicts in Vietnam or Afghanistan by the Americans, you people are denying the Holocaust here. Not a single freaking mention. All in the facade of consensus bureaucracy, fixing arbitrary rules which suit only, dare I say, White People. By the way, the people who committed these (am i allowed to say) massacres are long dead so will you all be in some time. I hope someone pisses on your graves too just as you are doing to countless hapless souls.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.35.24 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 January 2008
I am not sure how you reckon anyone of the involved parties on any side here are denying the Holocaust. Have not been involved with that one but as it clearly passes every imaginable test, maybe Rockpocket could put it in? Sarah777 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Beslan School Massacre

Why isn't the Beslan school massacre in the list. Over 350 mostly children and teachers died there. Jmcnamera (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


St. valentine's day massacre

what about this one? is this list even necessary anyway?

76.182.229.209 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the list not necessary, it is ridiculous. Because it incorporates a POV term which must be uttered precisely by the MSM western English language media to validate an entry. This is so ludicrous that only a Wiki-Admin could believe such a list would not produce the most extreme bias. As it did. Sarah777 (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Sarah, but the admin that closed the AfD didn't decide to keep it, he simply adjudged consensus. Admins can't just delete articles at will. If you feel that strongly, try another AfD. I know how I would !vote. Rockpocket 07:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A Real Solution

I've been watching the exchanges on this page for over a year. I've been having so much fun I'm starting to feel guilty. SOooo, I've decided to make an actual suggestion how to fix this.

Despite some editors claiming they have been making suggestions, I personally cannot remember a single comment that was more than an announcement that WE NEED A SOLUTION. OK, here's a solution.

Splitting the problem into two parts: A definition and acceptable sourcing, I am going to suggest a definition (and yes, you can change it) to get things started. I'm going to ignore sourcing until after we get a definition (my reasoning: I think the definition is the easier part of the matter and if we can't solve that one first, even discussing "sources" is a waste of time).

1) Leave the existing disclaimer on the article intact. Maybe it could be written better, but it is necessary and right now it is acceptable.

2) The deliberate killing (by any means - this gets Stalin's starvation policies onto the list) of 1,000,000 or more human beings. (the number is adjustable. I suggest we start w a high number and drop it as we successfully fill in the list).

Just found out: Since 9/11, Muslims have committed over 10,000 acts of violence worldwide resulting in multiple deaths. Including a minimum number is absolutely ESSENTIAL.67.161.166.20 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3) The victims must be civilians or unarmed soldiers who have surrendered (this leaves out successful ambushes that kill hundreds and lose not one man and also leaves out when the WWII resistances turned on their armed Jewish members and killed them at the end of the war).

4) The perpetrators must be civilians acting in violation of the common civil law of the place and time or soldiers and/or paramilitary acting in violation of the current conventions of warfare at the place and time. (this is debateable, but a lot simpler than any other defintion I could come up w).

5) It does not qualify as a massacre for the purposes of this list if either victims or perpetrators are not signatory (literal or de facto) to a convention making the specific action "illegal".

6) The size or methodology (however horrific) is not a criteria for inclusion if the other constraints are not met.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have a problem with points 4 and 5. Also point 2, maybe. If Stalin's induced famine was a massacre so obviously was Queen Victoria's Great Irish Famine, I could live with that. "the current conventions of warfare at the place and time" may eliminate every single massacre before the Geneva Convention; again, I'm OK with that so long as we are consistent. And, btw, I have offered solutions. Over and over. Sarah777 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Stalin's famine was induced. The Irish Famine was not. The Irish famine was poorly handled, especially to our modern ideas of intervention (though intervention in Darfur keeps getting blocked over oil), however Queen Victoria did not start nor encourage the famine. Stalin did. 70.14.52.194 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have problems with 2,3,4 because it involves original research and that is why the list became such a mess in the first place. For example may reliable sources, down to publications in the 21st Century allege that mass killings end of the 1649 siege of Drogheda was a massacre. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that it was not. But if other source explain that most of those killed were killed within the laws of war as they were at that time, then we should also put in that POV to balance the entry. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and if we get non-American MSM (in English) to state precisely in those words that Fallujah wasn't a massacre we could consider setting it against the reliable sources that state that it was. I feel you are starting to understand the concept of "consistency". Progress in baby-steps is progress nonetheless. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777, an American MSM would be fine as well. Non-american sources can often be far more biased than american ones. 70.14.52.194 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
*Cough* Fox News *cough*. That is an extremely parochial perspective, anon. America per se has no WP:RS advantage over any other country. Rockpocket 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it was not a parochial statement - it was pointing out that Sarah777's was a parachial view. Thre are plenty of London rags that are far more biased than Fox. There are also US outlets that are worse as well. 70.14.52.194 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside my personal view that much of the US media is more equivalent to the British "Beano" than the "Guardian" that is actually not the reason I seek non-US sources in this case. America was the perpetrator of the massacre - so it isn't a neutral source for the incident. And as for UN states being "reliable sources" as per Philip; in Turkey it is a criminal offence to call the Armenian Massacres "genocide" (or a massacre). In France it is a criminal offence to deny that the killings were genocide. So one of them sure ain't reliable! Sarah777 (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777, you seem to have a problem with US media while you're ok with using Indymedia as a source? US media sources, even Fox, are fine for citations. The US media is independent of the US goverment and did not perpertrate any massacre and is a fine source on the subject. I don't believe Fallujah should be listed here since the US military tried to avoid casualties. A massacre is a deliberate effort to kill civilians. Can we add civilian deaths from the WWII London bombings, Berlin bombings, Japan bombings, etc to the list of massacres? The term massacre is being used in the recent media as a way to inflame opinions (and sell papers). That doesn't mean its a correct usage of the term. Mohummy (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ever since the St Bartholomew massacre (The gist of which was "Horrible evil Catholics massacring Godly Protestants") it has been used in the way you describe as "the recent media as a way to inflame opinions (and sell papers)". To paraphrase the entry for "Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter" found in Wikipedia:Words to avoid: Massacre is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of massacre implies a moral judgement; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a incident, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint. I.E. someone might write a "It was an unjustified massacre" but very few would write "It was a justified massacre". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

The protection on the article is due to expire in a few hours. I am going to let it do so, but keep a close eye on proceedings. I strongly suggest no-one starts editing the article in a controversial manner unless they are expressly abiding by WP:BRD (that means we should be seeing no more than 1RR from anyone). I also strongly suggest the major contributors put their bickering aside embrace of of the suggestions put forward in the last few days. Take a leap of faith and trust the others will too, and lets see if a fresh perspective can move this forward. If I see revert-warring starting up again then I shall, quite frankly, be pissed off. So don't do it. Rockpocket 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I promise I won't be the first to edit war. Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it, but its worth remembering no-one can edit war by themselves. Like sex, it takes at least two participants. Rockpocket 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh.....!!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well..... I'm not going to touch that line. I have an edit I plan to make to Greysteel - replacing the citations with written-out citations in the "Cite web" etc format, and replacing one link with a better one, to the same article. No substantive changes, just format and that one better link. I trust no one will object to that - it's merely cosmetic so the footnotes will be readable. As for edit warring - didn't do it before, won't do it now. Hopefully yours, Tvoz |talk 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Of course if I bothered to check the article first I would have seen it was already done... Tvoz |talk 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody check this web site out?

Is this a reliable source - [6]? I removed it for now. Thanks you. --nyc171 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

InformationClearingHouse is not a reliable source. Give them credit for up front honesty, they openly admit they are a one man operation that republishes material from other sources and does not vet that material before publishing. For something you find on InformationClearingHouse to be acceptable, you would have to go to the original source and vet that and the authors for reliability.67.161.166.20 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is another one I removed - Massacre in Fallujah. --nyc171 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fallujah removed....controversial I know!

Without any view on the reliability (or lack of) of the sources, it's currently unsourced in the article and can't stay. One Night In Hackney303 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Real Strong Hint: Fallujah is the ONLY entry we have or have ever had where the selection of weapon is/was used to qualify the entry for inclusion67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are confused, in the older version before I zapped it, there were several entries:
  • 71 BCE, Third Servile War --Surrendering slaves are crucified along the Via Appia
  • 1623, Pamunkey Peace Talks -- The English poison the wine at a peace conference with Powhatan leaders, killing ca. 200 in retaliation for the Jamestown Massacre.
  • 1982 Hama massacre -- Government troops attack the rebel town of Hama, poison gas is used in some areas.
  • 1988 Halabja poison gas attack--Gas attack on the Kurdish town by Saddam Hussein.
  • 2002, Godhra Train Burning --A Muslim mob burns alive Hindu men, women, and children traveling in the S-6 compartment of a Sabarmati Express train.
  • 2004, Gatumba massacre -- Congolese Tutsis are shot, hacked and burned to death during an attack on a refugee camp by Hutu extremists.
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I must be slow. I just realized: The Second Battle of Fallujah lasted for over a month. A mechanized marine division (15,000 men) w all support artillery and air force takes 1 1/2 months to defeat 3,000 insurgents, and the only references we can find are Italian paparazzi complaining of EXCESSIVE FORCE? Please, someone explain that to me.67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of other claims that the Americans were OTT, the ones I included were ones that specifically use the word massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
67.161.166.20 you might find these articles interesting: Patrick Cockburn Return to Fallujah, and Patrick Cockburn 'If there is no change in three months, there will be war again' both in The Independent, on Monday, 28 January 2008 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
WHHHHYYYYYY would you think I would be interested in a couple of articles having nothing to do w the Second Battle of Fallujah, massacres, or conventions of war and published by a London tabloid w a proven track record of flat out being wrong when they make accusations? I may be slow. I ain't that slow.67.161.166.20 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
ONIH, what do you mean by "Without any view on the reliability (or lack of) of the sources"? That is complete nonsense. To all: please stop reverting this. RAI have stated it was a massacre; please cite an English-language (non-American) source that states, precisely in those words that it isn't a massacre. Then we can at least consider that the claim may be "controversial" Sarah777 (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you even look at what you're reverting to? How is this a "last good version"? If you'd bothered to look before blindly reverting you'd see exactly why that version is unacceptable and why I removed it in the first place. One Night In Hackney303 06:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops! my bad - but it was an easy error to make; speed is at a premium at this article. Note also the criteria for reliability being applied by some of the editors here, basically I Don't Like It! The Indo is a tabloid!!! How true. Sarah777 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
OK - self-banned from here for 24 hours for self-defeating carelessness. Sarah777 (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Independent must be an awsome source of truth. The article "Rage Grows after Fallujah Massacre" was published a year before it happened.67.161.166.20 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is of course an article about a different incident involving the 82nd Airborne. (Phil Reeves. Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre, The Independent, 4 May 2003). If you read other sections on this talk page, you will see that I have already pointed out that the sources in the version that Sarah777 has been reverting to are referring to more than on event. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

From the history of the article "14:00, 2 February 2008 68.25.197.111 (How can indymedia and democracynow be used as reliable cites?)." Even if you do not think that they are reliable sources given that there were sill other sources cited that you do not claim are unreliable why did you delete the entry and not just the citations you object to? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just looking at that myself. They reverted from your better version that didn't use those sources or other outdated sources to the version that did. Does anyone actually look at what they are reverting to any more? Anyone reverting to a version that's sourced by this, this or this should be troutslapped from now on. One Night In Hackney303 16:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


From the history of the article:

19:44, 3 February 2008 70.13.9.0 (Talk | block) (46,880 bytes) (→List of known massacres - not a massacre) (undo)

70.13.9.0 please explain the reasons you deleted the Fallujah entry in more detail. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Anyone Even Read?

The source provided for Fallujah "US Uses Incendiary Arms" BBC, isn't even a BBC article. It is a reprint of a RAInews article and the BBC didn't even have the nerve to provide a byline. It is signed "staff" (translation: Anonymous). The original article has nothing to do with a massacre, but rather the claimed use of a particular weapon which the US has already admitted to using in a legal manner.

I'm going to get chewed out over this by someone, but it would be nice if a few of the editors would remember the basics of library research (Don't know about you, but I got mine in eighth grade and we had to go to a real library and actually document our research).

1) The source must actually address the question. 2) Pen names and "anonymous" are only acceptable in fiction. 3) "Staff" is only acceptable in commentary (no attack). 4) You must go to the original source.

Let the howling and gnashing of teeth begin.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Why are you objecting now when I put this compromise version on this page over weeks ago for discussion? (Before the last archiving on 23 January [7]).
The Aunty seemed like a good source to me to confirm what a foreign language documentary had to say. But would you also like to add some more? Here are some others:
I think that staff is quite acceptable for a reliable source. Most editorial are not written by a named source not are articles in magazines like the Economist. Wikipedia policies state that reliable sources must be used but public corporations such as the BBC are reliable sources. There is no more need to name the person who composed the article than there is to name the civil servant in a government department who writes a press release. Your point three is of you own making it is not Wikipedia policy, besides in this case the BBC are commenting on a documentary they are not stating it is correct so how is it an attack on anyone? And finally I think you point four ("You must go to the original source") is wrong please read the primary source section of WP:PSTS. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha, while looking for a Guardian report to add to my list, I have found a BBC source that criticises the RAI documentary (Heated debate over white phosphorus BBC NewsWatch 17 November 2005). I think we need to work a one liner into the piece based on this source. "Crucially, their statement that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary was not an admission that a chemical or otherwise illegal weapon had been deployed. Still less was it evidence that a massacre of civilians had taken place in Falluja." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We sure can't fault you for honesty. Thank you.67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but can we describe British State Television as reliable when Britain were involved in supporting the Fallujah massacre? The BBC is notoriously sensitive to the feelings of its paymasters. Sarah777 (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reverting, please read

This page has now been unprotected for about three days and we have already seen a return indiscriminate and problematic reverting. Words literally fail me in attempting to justify some of the reverts in the last few days. A few examples:

  • 68.25.197.111 reverts with the edit summary How can indymedia and democracynow be used as reliable cites?.... to a version using indymedia and democracynow a sources.
  • 70.14.52.194 reverts with the edit summary Massacre is alleged. A better case can be made that terrorists used residents of Fallujah as human shields. Clearly not appreciating that "massacre" is a subjective description and thus such an opinion will always be an allegation, what matters is the reliability and scope of the allegation.
  • 70.14.52.194 reverts with the edit summary emoving clearly POV websites - these are far more biased than Fox which the author decried on Talk page which is odd, because I am the only one that mentioned Fox and am also the only one not to have authored anything on this page.
  • Sarah777 reverts with the edit summary revert edit-warring to last good version. Not only in doing so was she continuing the edit warring that she claims to be reverting, but the version was about the worse of any that is in the history.

I'm not making these examples to single people out (I appreciate some of these were simple mistakes) but to illustrate how the revert button is a tool that is used far too quickly and without due consideration and discussion. Clearly full protection does not work on this article, since it is not in a state that the protection can be permanent. I am therefore left looking at semi-protection, which is far from ideal, or starting to sanction specific editors for reverting inappropriately. This is not exactly standard procedure, but I have warned/pleaded/begged enough times to cut this out that I think it is beginning to fall under the disruptive editing banner.

So this is the last time I am going to ask, please stop reverting and discuss your concerns. If I continue to see similar reverts to those above, rather than discussion on this page, I will look to put the editor under a mandatory WP:1RR sanction and if it continues that I will move for a topic band. If you consider that unfair, then I suggest you take it to ANI, because everyone has had enough chances to edit this page responsibly and many have failed. That opportunity is rapidly running out. Rockpocket 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

One mistake! Did you never make one?! Anyway, as I pointed out I wasn't the first to revert anything when the block was lifted; what I saw was warring and re-insertion of POV with no indication of any Admin watching events. Not sure who you mean re responsible editing but I will continue to insist on consistency across inclusions and will continue to absolutely refuse to be drawn into looking at individual inclusions (such as Fallujah) in isolation from all other inclusions. Sarah777 (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to tackle the problems any way you chose on this talk page. However, if that involves persistent reverting to a problematic version without discussion and good justification — whether you are the first or last person to do so — then we are going to have a problem. Rockpocket 02:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There may well be a problem - I try not to let such considerations prevent me from striving to achieve WP:NPV. But I'll watch to see how Philip is handled as the twice previously that the protection lapsed he was the first into the breach to remove Fallujah and I note your total silence on him and also that you appeared absent until I became involved again. Which is worrying. And other than the rare mistake I never revert without justification and I resent the implication that I do. Sarah777 (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you have a good justification, but unless you explain exactly what it is we are left guessing. I'm asking people make their justification in advance on the talk page, that way we can avoid such mistakes. In addition, I had already left messages for the reverting IP before you became involved. This isn't about you, Sarah, and I don't consider anyone better or worse than anyone else. Rockpocket 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, oh please, oh plllease

I realize I am revealing a truly charming and infantile level of almost subhuman naivety here, but would anyone please look at the above suggestion for the criteria (definition) for a massacre to be listed in this article and if there's something you don't like COME UP WITH YOUR OWN VERSION, PUT IT ON THE PAGE, AND TAKE A CHANCE ON BEING CRITICIZED BY YOUR INTELLECTUAL . . . . and yes, I was shouting.67.161.166.20 (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But is isn't clear who you are shouting at. Sarah777 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion of a Massacre

I never turn down a challange, so here goes:

  • One mainstream media source must be found to call it a massacre (precise words).
  • At least two people must have been killed.
  • To justify a counter-view in the article one mainstream media source must be found that states it wasn't a massacre (precise words).

There is my solution. Simple, clear, unambiguous. Sarah777 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


No. Inclusion should be:
  • Called a massacre in one mainstream source.
  • At least one additional two mainstream source using similar language: ("murdered", "unarmed civilians", "women and children", "bound prisoners", etc)
  • Sources must be a news story or historical account. NOT an editorial.
  • A matching wikipedia article or paragraph within an article that is also well-sourced.
  • Additional sources should be so common as to be unavoidable. Babi Yar, Srebrenica, My Lai
  • Six or more killed
  • ALL controversial additions should be moved to the talk page for discussion.
--Knulclunk (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


No. Inclusion should be:
  • Called a massacre in one mainstream source. OK
  • At least one additional mainstream source using similar language: ("murdered", "unarmed civilians", "women and children", "bound prisoners", etc) OK
  • Sources must be a news story or historical account. NOT an editorial. Need to define difference
  • A matching wikipedia article or paragraph within an article that is also well-sourced. No - absolutely no!
  • Additional sources should be so common as to be unavoidable. Babi Yar, Srebrenica, My Lai No - not if additional means MSM
  • Six or more killed OK (Why six?)
  • ALL controversial additions should be moved to the talk page for discussion. Need clear definition of controversial.
Sarah777 (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
controversial: One or more editors feel can coherently explain why an entry should not be included.
"MSM"?
--Knulclunk (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why six indeed Knulclunk - how about four? Or is this "six" directed at any specific massacre? Tvoz |talk 08:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that any of us could muster another editor to echo our view if we find a problem with an entry. MSM = mainstream media; often cited as a requirement on Wiki for a reliable surce. Sarah777 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the desire for some to remove entries if the precise word is not used, I will remove that obligation. I alway felt it rather arbitrary. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If a massacre is to be so called, and not something else, there should be a reliable source that calls it a massacre otherwise it is a breach of WP:OR. The use of "mainstream media source" is not part of Wikipedia policies, what is needed are verifiable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kronstadt and Romanov

Kronstadt in all historiography is recognized as a battle between the Red Army of the RSFSR and mutinous soldiers and sailors at the naval base in Kronstadt island. One such scholarly source writes: They were involved in putting down the Kronstadt Rebellion and in the execution of the royal family[8] In regard to the former Romanov rulers, it would be inaccurate to term it a "massacre" when it was carried out by a decree of the ruling Russian Government.[9] An act carried out with judicial sanction cannot be seriously termed a "massacre". If these must be included, then they should be balanced out with the massacre of the 26 Baku Commissars by British troops. Gulijan (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

An act carried out with judicial sanction cannot be seriously termed a "massacre"! That is coming very close to saying States cannot commit massacres. If the British massacred 26 Baku Commissars then why not include that? Sarah777 (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the event. The execution of 1,000 prisoners without some sort of trial might be considered a massacre. Mutinous soldiers killed in combat, perhaps not. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not familiar either but "Baku Commissars" don't sound very British, mutinous or otherwise! Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Gulijan while I personally agree with the sources you have found, I do not agree with the suggestion you are making. Providing that the claim is made in a verifiable reliable source and is not giving undue weight to a fringe view, then even if the killings are within the laws of war at the time or judicial sanction then we should include the accusation. However we should also include the counter point that it was within the laws of war at the time or judicial sanction providing there is a reliable sources that does so an is not giving undue weight to a fringe interpretation.

One of the points I made before is that although I do not think that this list should exist, a saving grace is that as it is an emotive word, the type of sources that make a claim that a massacre took place is of academic interest. For example it was Protestant Europe who considered the events in Paris in 1572 a massacre, Catholic Europe would no have described it so. So having claimed it was a massacre it could be used in protestant propaganda for centuries to come.

In the case regidcide it does not matter if it is judicial sanction or not, a substancial minority will consider it outragous and might well describe the killing of a royal family a massacre , see for example Nepal royal family massacred and Society of King Charles the Martyr. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

List of known massacres?

Anyone have any objection to the "known" being dropped, or possibly changed to something else? Right now, it makes it sound slightly POV. One Night In Hackney303 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better left there; there are obviously very many unknown massacres; to imply that is hardly pov. The less authority this list is given as a source the better - we are very far from solving the problems with it. Sarah777 (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
"The less authority this list is given as a source the better" - exactly my point. As was said above when people attempted to remove Fallujah on the basis that it's "alleged", all massacres are alleged by definition. The use of the word "known" tends to contradict that. One Night In Hackney303 04:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. OK, do whatever it is you were going to do! Sarah777 (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a point: "Alleged" does not mean what most people think it means. If you "allege" something, you are saying it happened and you WILL prove it (and soon). If no proof is forthcoming it changes into an (unproven) accusation (And look out. Now you are potentially civily liable. Something to which a proper allegation is immune). May I suggest we drop all discussion of minor points of literary etiquette and come up w a definition? That alone should keep some serious, cooperative editors busy for a couple months. If they don't let themselves get distracted ---- again, and again, and . . .67.161.166.20 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't agree with your personal definition of "alleged". And please stop worrying about American anti-Freedom of Speech Laws - nobody else gives a hoot! Sarah777 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The OED gives 3 different verbs to allege. The second verb has a first meaning of:
To declare upon oath before a tribunal, to give testimony for or against; hence, to bring forward as a legal ground or plea, to plead.
But there is also a related fourth meaning:
To advance (a statement) as being able to prove it; hence, to assert without proof; to affirm, predicate.
With the fourth meaning there is no time limit for example see quote 4 "1781 GIBBON Decl. & F. III. xlviii. 29 Where much is alleged, something must be true".
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, elucidate. Do you want a definition for "alleged" or "massacre"?67.161.166.20 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. Given that "massacre" tends to have no fixed meaning, it's an entirely subjective judgement as to whether anything can possibly be a massacre or not. Therefore it's impossible to provide absolute proof that anything is a massacre, in the same way it's impossible to prove Pelé is the greatest ever footballer. So the person making the allegation can either provide their own definition of masscre and outline why under the circumstances a particular incident is a massacre in their opinion and hope that other people agree, or they can simply provide the circumstances of an incident and hope that other people's pre-conceived definition of massacre means they agree. Massacres cannot be proved one way or another. Hence the reason why "known" is problematic. Now if you've finished with your failed attempts at intellectual posturing and oneupmanship, how about adding something constructive which you've generally failed to do thus far? One Night In Hackney303 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for getting personal, but I see no other way to communicate this. At least I (and several others) have proposed solutions for discussion which might solve this page's problems.67.161.166.20 (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No you haven't, this is not allowed per no original research. You can't provide your own definition of "massacre" and start labelling events as "massacres". One Night In Hackney303 21:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, your call. Provide a dictionary definition (identify the dictionary) and I will use that definition - until someone complains or you admit the lack of a useable definition is the source of this page's problems.IP,67,161,166,20 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead provides one:

The primary meaning given to massacre by the Oxford English Dictionary is "The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this".

BTW "the lack of a usable definition is the source of this page's" was the subject of a long discussion on this talk page (now in the recent archives) and was the primary reason for the ADF request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think including one particular definition causes problems. As by doing that and including a list underneath, the reader makes the assumption that the people using the term "massacre" had that particular definition in mind when using it. One Night In Hackney303 23:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Omagh

I hereby give notice that having removed dead links there remains only a single editorial claim by Henry McDonald in the Guardian that Omagh was a "massacre" and I will remove the item from the article in 24 hours if no other references passing the usual criteria are found. Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if no one else used the word "massacre", the description fits a massacre. Leave it in, find other source(s) that document the fact it happened as described, and I'll support.

By the way, when are we going to solve this page's real problems? We got a good start earlier, but then everyone seemed to drift away from what looked like a genuinely difficult exchange.

We still need a useable definition FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE. It does not have to be a dictionary definition since we have already learned the dictionary definitions are so vague as to arguable include every single instance of 2 or more people being killed in anything except a formally acknowledged war, feud, standdown, dead end fight.67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! the description fits a massacre counts for zilch on this article. Ain't you been paying attention?! (Btw, everyone drifted away because the page was unprotected and the controlling Admin offered no solution). All this was utterly predictable. Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry is right. OK, I'm naive. I was trying to solve a problem and get Wikipedia to work. No cynicism, no sarcasm, no personal attack - - should I stop?67.161.166.20 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This problem cannot be solved without a change in the article title. It is just taking a very long time to get that message thru! Sarah777 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...what's going on with this article?

Ref this edit by Sarah777. Look at the two references that were removed - this and this. They both refer to a July 2006 incident, whereas the Qana massacre was in 1996. We had this before with Fallujah, where references referred to totally different incidents. One Night In Hackney303 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The refs removed were supporting the anti-massacre argument; neither the argument nor its supporting refs fits as the massacre is not controversial. As the article is about the 1996 bombing any refs to other years are not relevant. What we had was some daft editor confusing 1996 with 2006; not my problem. Sarah777 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You've missed the point. Why were references about a 2006 incident used to attempt to NPOV a 1996 incident in the first place? One Night In Hackney303 02:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I miss the point - I just scanned the refs and said "not relevant" - some were confused on date and anyway I was taking the view that a counter-view was POV as the massacre was uncontroversial. Walk/chew gum/same time etc. (Of course it leads to the occasional mistake!) Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I see the "sources" are being added back.... One Night In Hackney303 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Another fails the "Fallujah Test"

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1991 Vilnius, Lithuania January Events 13[9][10] Soviet military troops attacked Lithuanian independence supporters.[9][10]

I removed this as no reliable MSM source uses the precise term. Anyway, it was a fairly small "massacre". Sarah777 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another fundamental flaw in this article. We'll never agree on a range for inclusion. Although photogenic white people will always get priority for inclusion (!). GiollaUidir (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond a joke

Edits to this article over the last few hours have left me shaking my head in disbelief, if someone hadn't just re-added the ones that were removed I'd have tagged this article as failing NPOV.

  • At 00:47 a massacre in Ireland was added, sourced by this book, which I'm slightly struggling to follow at this late hour as it mixes up several sources at the same time, but at least one part of it (the actual page linked to) is a letter sent from one man to another, which I would consider anecdotal evidence at best.
  • At 01:36 a massacre in Ireland was added, sourced by the same book and this site. The latter is an extract from a 1923 book apparently, more details here.
  • At 01:53 a massacre in the Soviet Union sourced by a book was removed citing "no MSM references".
  • At 01:56 a massacre in Islamic Spain sourced by various websites was removed citing "no MSM or reliable refs at all". This doesn't look too bad reliability wise, and there's sources easily available on Google Books see here and here.
  • At 02:42 a massacre in Lithuania was removed citing "no reliable refs that use exact words". This is an extract of Lithuania: A Country Study by Walter R. Iwaskiw (may well have been re-published as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania: Country Studies ISBN 978-0788140082) and contains the phrase "Although this attempted coup ended in a massacre of civilians--thirteen died, and hundreds were wounded--by the Soviet army".

I don't understand how non-Irish massacres sourced by books can be removed due to lack of "MSM refs", yet Irish massacres can happily be added despite lacking "MSM refs". This seemed to unduly slant the article by including as many Irish massacres as possible, while excluding massacres from other countries which are using similar sources. One Night In Hackney303 06:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am regrettably reaching the conclusion that this article is hopeless and should be deleted because of this kind of editing. Tvoz |talk 08:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
ONIH, I think the problem you have here is that you are seeking consistency across all massacres. I have been calling for that for the past two months, without success. But for the sake of clarity - are you saying (yes or no) that a massacre needs an MSM source using the specific words "it was a massacre"? If you could answer this it might avoid the type of apparent inconsistency you seem to be getting a bit worked up about. Sarah777 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm asking why you, an Irish editor, are removing non-Irish massacres claiming lack of MSM sources, yet adding Irish massacres without MSM sources? These aren't edits days or weeks apart, they were over the space of a couple of hours. One Night In Hackney303 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I call them as the evidence presents itself; there is no rule, apparently, that says we must be consistent in order to achieve WP:NPOV. Answer my question please. (I note that while you seem irate about perceived inconsistency you fail to answer a simple question that could solve so many problems with exactly such differing standards. If it wasn't that I was WP:AGF I'd suspect you had a different agenda here. I seem to recall you making a fuss about having "absolutely no interest" in the article other than Greysteel. Sarah777 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits that "One Night In Hackney" is commenting on were made by user:Sarah777 as a series of sequential edits between 00:28 and 02:42 on 4 February 2008. I am not going to comment on deletions -- as One Night In Hackney already has -- and because taking things off the list does not do as much damage to Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source as adding information that may be inaccurate (can't tell when it is not properly sourced). There are three edits which concern me and are place here for further discussion and which I am going to revert.

In the 1641 Massacre of Scottish planters entry, Sarah777 changed 12,000 to 4,000 in the deaths column, yet the source clearly states "A figure of 12,000 killed out of a protestant population of 40,000 is as close as it is possible to come; the figure includes death attributed to military activities". If 4,000 is to be used then a range should be put in with a citation to support the lower number. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that what you think Philip? How interesting - but it isn't what I think. My edit summary clearly spells out my reasoning and I will regard any tampering with my edits as edit-warring. Sarah777 (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1575 Ireland Rathlin Island massacre 600(Ulster Journal of Archeology) Irish forces sent their 'wives and children, their aged and sick' for safety to Rathlin Island. Over 600 women and children are hunted down and exterminated by Lord Essex and his English forces.[11]

The source for the number of dead is not accurate. The page cited from the "Ulster Journal of Archeology" is about a totally different topic. See below, the 'Kilwarlin Woods massacre' uses the same page as a citation so I suspect that this is a editing opy and paste mistake. However this means that there is only one source that makes this claim if it is a notable massacre there should be other accusation that it was and a source that gives the body count --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The source clearly describes the Essex killings of the "wives, children, sick" etc as a massacre. Sarah777 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Which page in the source? I ask because as I said above I think you have copy and pasted the wrong pFW link because that page is about the Kilwarlin woods massacre. Further did you know that there was another massacre on the island in the 1640? Scottish Campbells under the command of Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck massacred MacDonalds on the same island. (Royle, Trevor (2004), Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms 1638-1660, London: Abacus, ISBN 0-349-11564-8 p.143). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1641 Ireland Kilwarlin Woods massacre Irish Catholics are taken prisoner and killed by the English forces. 80(Ulster Journal of Archeology. Accessed 24 December 2007) Irish Catholics are taken prisoner and killed by the English forces.

I have already deleted this one, once because as I wrote in the history of the article "removed 'Kilwarlin Woods massacre' source Page 79 claims 80 killed and taken prisoner in a skirmish. Massacre in footnote on same page [is for] 700 massacred by Lord Inchiquin forces taking Cashel". (history timestamp: 20:16, 1 February 2008 Philip Baird Shearer). Did you miss this comment in the edit history when you restored the entry Sarah777? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 before you consider restoring any of these changes to the article page please discuss them here and build a consensus for such additions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that things must be discussed and agreed here before being added? So what are you doing re-inserting your POV re Fallujah? And where have all the other massacres come from? Don't see any discussion, much less consensus - do you Philip?!! Sarah777 (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous references to the Kilwarlin Woods massacre; try Google. I didn't miss anything Philip. I don't agree with your ever-changing rules. I regard the sources for Kilwarlin Woods as perfectly similar to other massacres on the list of similar vintage. Read pages 79 to 83; there is no confusion in the footnote with the Cashel incident. It is referred to to illustrate a similarity between the English and the Planters.Sarah777 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If there are numerous reference you will have no trouble finding a couple that state that the murder of prisoners was a massacre. The source you have found contains three primary sources about the skirmish in Kilwarlin Wood. Only one of those reports the murders that is James Turner who in his memoirs (published in this secondary source --and many more ) wrote "Those who were taken got but bad quarter, being all shot dead" You need a good secondary source that calls this incident of prisoner killing a massacre because WP:PSTS says "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Philip, you just don't get it, do you? "make no evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". So, if a headline said massacre, who are you to evaluate? Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Qana massacre

The justification for the attack is incoherent

Prime Minister Shimon Peres claimed that "We did not know that several hundred people were concentrated in that camp. It came to us as a bitter surprise." Both the U.S. and Israel accused Hezbollah of "shielding", the use of civilians as a cover for military activities, which is a breach of the laws of war.

Either the Israeli military did not know there were several hundred people concentrated there or they fired into the compound knowing that human shields would die. Which justification is correct? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the need to include any "justification" here? You want to post the views of the murderers explaining their reasons for committing a massacre? Seems daft, but OK - lets apply that to ALL massacres. I'll start with something that says that the so-called "victims", the ethnic-cleansers of 1641 (4k or 8k) deserved what they got as land-grabbing ethnic cleansers are beyond the pale of any legal or moral protection. I'm sure I can find those views written somewhere. Then maybe we can seek out the Nazi take on the Holocaust. Sarah777 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah is correct, we do not want to clog up the list with politician's quotes justifying murders or accidents. The purpose of multiple sources is when the immediate cause or facts themselves may be in question depending on POV. I reverted to an earlier version that seemed more coherent, better sourced and less POV. Feel free to discuss concerns here.--Knulclunk (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You reverted to an earlier version that's already been discredited a few sections above. The two sources you added back were referring to the 2006 bombing in Qana, not the 1996 one. One Night In Hackney303 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Aha! You are correct about the references! Thank you for paying attention. --Knulclunk (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is an easy mistake to make as I can testify. But while we disagree on one or two (maybe serious) points at least Knulclunk has spelled out his view of what is needed for inclusion in clear bullet-points; the only editor apart from myself to do so. And regardless of the mistaken revert; the question is "do we want a mini-debate with each entry?". I have no strong view but just point out that if we do it must apply to all entries. Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing Massacres

Philip, as you appear to be allowed to edit this article at will; so will I. You discuss your edits here to my satisfaction and I'll discuss them to your satisfaction. OK? Sarah777 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Date Location Name Deaths Description
1991 Croatia Voćin massacre 32 Voćin massacre was a war crime committed against Croatian civilians in the village of Voćin. It was perpetuated by Serb paramilitary units in December 1991 during the Croatian War of Independence[12].
1998 Omagh, Northern Ireland Omagh bombing 29[13] Car bomb attack carried out by Irish republicans opposed to the Northern Ireland Peace Process.

This was just added - I saw no discussion or consensus; a single ref (New York Times) and it refers to various massacres of Serbs and Croatians and the reporter doesn't call it a massacre in those exact words but quotes a Croat using the word. The article headline does call it a massacre but they aren't allowed, are they? Sarah777 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a good faith edit laking only one additional source. The headline does count. Besides, it has a sourced WP article with additional sources. (Voćin massacre) Seems like an excellent entry. Surely you're not taking exception?--Knulclunk (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The Headline is the issue; only if Philip et al agree that Headlines count am I happy with this. (You know my views on Wiki articles). But then we'd have to put Fallujah back immediately - I notice some edit-warrior has removed it again. Sarah777 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Whay are you adding Fallujah back with unreliable sources and sources that don't even refer to the November 2004 incidents in Fallujah? One Night In Hackney303 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I removed that reference, did I not? As for the rest of the refs just because someone tagged "unreliable?" doesn't make them so. We need to get those rules you are so reluctant to discuss before we make that judgment. How about an answer to that question ONIH; you need to be a bit more constructive here. Also see Omagh; now only a single ref in an opinion piece - that's doesn't qualify according to Philip. Sarah777 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You removed one reference, did you check the others? If you did, you'd see both the ones that weren't tagged as unreliable do not refer to the November 2004 incidents in Fallujah. Yet I'm unconstructive? Laughable.... One Night In Hackney303 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The rules of List of Massacres

  • Anyone can edit and add or delete a massacre.
  • Philip Shearer will either leave or revert the edit/addition/deletion.
  • If Philip removes it and you put it back; you are edit-warring.
  • If Philip removes it again that isn't edit-warring.
  • If you remove something; Philip may decide you should have discussed it first and got consensus; you won't know which "massacres" this applies to till you try one.
  • If you add something; Philip may decide you should have discussed it first and got consensus; you won't know which "massacres" this applies to till you try one.
  • Consensus means "Philip agrees with it".
  • Reliable sources means "Philip thinks they are"; ditto unreliable sources.
  • And don't expect a simple, clear answer from Philip regarding consistent practice across the massacres; Philip doesn't want to tie his hands on this.
  • OK, absorbed the rules? Start editing....
Sarah777 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

and not a single verifiable massacre (except of the invaders)!!!!

Once victorious Cromwell then proceeded to ship Irish Catholic slaves to Barbados, forcefully confiscated the land of catholic nobility, granting it as payment to the soldiers of his new model army and forced the majority of the Irish Catholic nobility to Connaught in the West to eke out a miserable existence on extremely poor soil. An estimated 200,000 Irish Catholics died from famine, slaughter and war related diseases due to the Cromwellian doctrine of scorched earth during this period. Indeed from the year of 1641 to around 1652 over 500,000 people had died (40% of Ireland's population) 400,000 where Irish Catholic.

The insanity of this article is indicated by the fact, per Philips rules the only massacre to emerge from all this is the killing of the invader/settlers. Sarah777 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the Norman Invasion needs to be listed as roughly 40% of the English population died from famine etc. Of course, this wasn't the deliberate attempt to kill people as the term massacre is defined as. Its awful what happened, but died from famine is not a massacre unless, like Stalin, you take away the food, farm equipment, and prevent people from leaving to obtain food.
I agree with you that Phillip seems to feel he owns this article. His pattern is MSM is required by others and all anti-US issues are to be called massacres. You seem focused on all Irish Catholic issues. I, of course, am the model of balance ;-) Maybe this whole list should be deleted and then everyone can go fight on the individual article pages. Mohummy (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd reckon taking away their land and burning their crops (scorched earth) is right up there with Stalin. Also; if you feel the Normans committed massacres in the invasion of England why not post a few entries if you can find a reference? Btw; native/Gaelic Irish rather than "Catholics". I am not sectarian. I've also a strong interest in how the modern ones in the Middle East etcetera are handled. Sarah777 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Native Irish? Seen all the mosques in Dublin lately?
Ok, so you are interested in anti-British, anti-US, and anti-Israel items. Do the murders last weekend in Iraq where terrorists used Down's syndrome victims to deliver the bombs counts as a massacre? Mohummy (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Who is native Irish? The protestants in Northern Ireland are Gaelic and their families have been there for hundreds of years. Does it count when the IRA was murdering them during the troubles? Mohummy (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What the f***! Wakey wakey; we are talking about events in the 1640s and 1650s; that was 300 years before "the toubles". You want an argument about the effects of US foreign policy I suggest you take off to a chat forum. This is about the article "List of Massacres". Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, please re-read the thread. "Wakey, wakey", I was referring to your comment "native/Gaelic Irish" not to a specific incident that you recently edited. What is native Irish, certainly the Scot-Irish should count as the children today of Moroccan immigrants. Ok, the recent immigrants aren't assimilating much if at all, but certainly those of 300 yrs ago are Irish today. Mohummy (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to "native/Gaelic Irish" in the context of 1640. And while you mention it the Moroccan immigrants aren't, to my knowledge, coming armed to the teeth and slaughtering natives and grabbing their land. Or am I missing the latest news? Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed the Rawandan massacres are not listed. Nor is the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes. Nor the slaughter of Beslan school children... All deliberate massacres of innocent civilians... Mohummy (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Rules for editing

Since apparently Sarah777 thinks I'm not constructive....here's the first two rules, as a result of this edit:

  1. Do not attempt to reference a November 2004 massacre with an article published on 12 April 2004
  2. Do not attempt to reference a November 2004 massacre with an article published on 21 October 2004

Take those refs away, and you're left with three references tagged as unreliable. If you really want to add Fallujah back, check the history and try something like this instead of adding a piss-poor entry that's terribly sourced (if at all) and doesn't merit inclusion in an encylopedia article. One Night In Hackney303 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, without consistent rules we cannot say that the tagged entries are unreliable; RAI is good - so the rest are mere extras. And you continue to evade my question; your rules??? What are they? Clear bullet points. I realise there were several massacres of Iraqis by Americans at Fallujah; the refs will be used in my next entry; probably the massacre of March/April 2004. As for your intemperate remarks about my entry this whole article is not fit to be in an encyclopedia - something you are strangely silent on. I wonder why? Sarah777 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"RAI is good - so the rest are mere extras" - RAI isn't in the version you added back, it's in PBS's version!!! As for the rest , perhaps Because this isn't a deletion debate? You want to delete it, start a deletion debate and I'll weigh in there. Until there is a deletion debate, I'm interested in maintaining the integrity of the article. One Night In Hackney303 20:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no sign of any concern for the integrity of this article. The RAI was cited and is good; the original was there and has been removed in the warring in which, I note, you have now involved yourself. Please restore the article minus the two incorrect refs. Sarah777 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Or have we now finally got a ONIH rule to work with? "If you see one bad ref you may delete the whole entry". That is what you did with 2 out of 5; deleted everything. Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
RAI was not in the sources added in this edit. This is your version of the page, where is RAI on the page? No prevaricating, no claims of "RAI was cited", what footnote number is it on that version? One Night In Hackney303 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Fallujah was not a massacre as the US did not target civilians and tried to avoid them. Civilian deaths that did occur are the result of Sunni terrorists using the population as shields. Mohummy (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Right here. Now, for the fourth time, will you answer my question. I'm getting rather tired of this one-way street. You really must try to be more positive in your approach. That's an interesting fringe view Mohummy; got any non-American English language MSM references to say that there was no massacre by Americans in Fallujah (using the exact word)? 'Cos I got refs says they did. Sarah777 (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong on about as many levels as it's possible to be. ICH is a one-man-band "truth exposing" website run by a non-journalist who prints any old crap he's sent. So it shouldn't even be linked to in the first place, especially as you can either link to RIA's version or the version on Google. So what's the justification for linking to that version? What critical commentary has he done on the piece? None, but secondary sources in PBS's version most certainly did. So why wasn't that version being used? Why were sources from before the event being used? Why were total fucking bullshit "sources" like indymedia being linked to? Those are the more important questions, as most people can now see the poor and/or biased editing of one particular editor is causing most of the problems on this article. One Night In Hackney303 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Anything about the Drogheda massacres, or the 1798 massacres, amongst others! 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.67.200 (talk)
Nah. The victims neither spoke English nor controlled MSM newspapers who might use that 'exact phrase' - so they don't count! Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
ONIH, your rather aggressive tone and breach of WP:NPA are noted. No need for bad language. Your comment especially as you can either link to RIA's version or the version on Google rather gives the game away, doesn't it? You know that there are good refs but instead of correcting the indirect link you delete the whole entry. You are gaming, not trying to improve the project. As explained, the direct source was lost in the various deletions of edit-warriors such as yourself. And I don't want to get diverted here but I had a chuckle at your reference to a website run by a non-journalist!! Are journalists, in your wee mind, the archetype of Truth?!! God Bless your naivete. Meanwhile, compose yourself, and answer that question. It won't go away you know! Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
And while you are composing yourself, you might reflect on your rubbishing of indymedia. Are you saying that it is less reliable than, say, Fox News? (As is my custom, a 'yes' or 'no' will be sufficient - I'd hate to be a drain on your editing time). Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Dublin massacre

Date Location Name Deaths Description
17 May 1974 Ireland Dublin & Monaghan Massacre 33 Massacre of Irish civilians carried out by Loyalist Paramilitaries using car bombs, possibly with assistance from the British Army.[14][15][16][17][18]

GiollaUidir (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Giolla; why not just add it to the article? Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh! You did. And Philip hasn't removed it yet (what time is it in America?) on some basis such as that none of the sources have a reliable source to state that they are reliable sources! Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Protection (2)

Hi there. I have semi-protected the article for now to prevent the unhelpful anon additions that were taking place. I will move to full protection if need be, though I hope that won't be necessary. Here are some of my expectations for how the future editing of this article will look from here on in;

  1. No reverts; 0RR on this article. Per Help:Reverting we are only supposed to revert to tackle vandalism, or vandalism-like behaviour anyway. Any vandal reversion can be done by me or another uninvolved admin. It shouldn't be a problem anyway with the sprot in place.
  2. No incivility. At all. Not on here, not in edit summaries, none.
  3. No major changes to be made from here on without reaching consensus here in the talk page first.

Anyone who breaches these terms can expect a short block, escalating to a longer block if necessary. Anyone who feels these terms are too harsh can either go and complain about me, or refrain from editing here at all until it is sorted out. I will undertake to treat everyone fairly and equally. I warn you, I am sick of the edit-warring and incivility that has taken place here, and I have a bad head cold so I am not in my most forgiving frame of mind. --John (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity....what does "major changes" refer to? Does that include all additions that haven't been discussed here first? Otherwise the 0RR tends to give people a licence to add whatever they want with no quick method of removing it. One Night In Hackney303 02:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit sore and cranky myself so I'll see how it goes. The mayhem here the past few days meant folk was skating on thin-ice re 3RR; no "policeman" was patrolling and IP's were trolling and every "normal" editor who arrived seemed to make matters worse. While I accept you are peed off with incivility and warring it is less clear how you see this being progressed unless you take the obvious view that the name of this article makes it virtually unmanageable. Sarah777 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason no "policeman" was on patrol was because I had hoped, perhaps naively, that my repeated requests that individuals disciplined themselves to 1RR would be heeded rather than enforced. That clearly hasn't worked so I support John's initiatives. I'll be watching this page on the night-shift and will be enforcing them strictly. Rockpocket 04:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Not intending to be critical of you Rockpocket; I think the job is impossible. Though I feel ONIH would achieve peace through urging those of us insisting on consistency to just go away! But there is no prospect of a balance being struck between "Western v Other" povs in the list without rigid rules. And rules which include a dozen ill-defined terms ain't rigid. Sarah777 (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for consistency. However I'm not going to be baited into an argument with you. One Night In Hackney303 09:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Which, translated, means - "I'll continue to demand answers from you but also continue refusing to provide any answers to you". Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Can one of you answer my question please? What's the procedure for adding content? If 0RR is in effect, it needs to be restricted as well in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to treat this page any differently from any other. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be used for this page just as they are for other pages there is no reason for treating this page as a special case. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your own edits are a good example of why clearer rules are needed. And it was you who suggested way back that we need tougher rules for including stuff here! But this article is very different to a normal article in that it is pure pov; whether direct or as interpreted by some truth-loving western hack. Sarah777 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I have checked "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (yet again) and the only one of the four categories that are relevant here is "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known". To make such a claim about Fallujah pushes the envelope for inclusion so wide as to cover almost any claim. - But push it out you did; hence these "Wiki-rules" as applied here are basically whatever you judge them to be. Such as your claim that allegations of massacre at Fallujah are "surprising and not widely known". Which is, simply stated, complete bulls**t. Sarah777 (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Miami Showband massacre

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1975, July 31 Northern Ireland Miami Showband massacre 5 Three members of pop group the Miami Showband are killed in a gun and bomb attack by members of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF). Two UVF members also died when the bomb exploded prematurely.[19][20][21][22][23]

Any objections to this going in? One Night In Hackney303 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to fit the article as it stands and should go in. I wonder what will happen if we add every terrorist attack, which is what this one is. They are all bad, but we will have dozens of entries for the troubles, and even more for the terrorist attacks throughout the middle-east, Europe, etc. It seems that a threshold needs to be established concerning numbers and intent to harm civilians. Mohummy (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion seems to be at editor's choice, which is fine. That seems to be the standard for most of WP anyway. The old list included individual incidents for Nazi attacks on villages, Algerian rebel raids, and Sri Lanka atrocities. Once an event is sourced and the WP community feels it fits our still loose definition, it should stay. The most notable incidents were at least reported to the outside world.
The best way to divided the list would be by date, that groups similar attacks together by time, as they usually are. Also it separates the better reported recent events from earlier ones.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A Clarification (I hope)

If I may express an opinion: The title of this article does not have to be changed (although that might solve some parts of the problem). What it needs is a REALLY GOOD opening statement (a little like what we've got now) that explains the word massacre is just plain too generic (so we use the following criteria), there are too many to list throughout history (so we use the following criteria), due to controversy in the sourcing some things are/are not a massacre (so we use the following criteria).

I've got some suggested criteria for all three points, but I'll wait until the dust settles and the vultures start to circle in.67.161.166.20 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Going forwards

I thought seriously about Sarah's message above that "the name of this article makes it virtually unmanageable". I am not sure myself, but one observation I would make is that unless there are some kind of objective criteria for inclusion, you will always get edit-warring over what should and shouldn't be included. I am not sure if that's what you meant, Sarah, is it? --John (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC) And 67.161.166.20, you should feel free to bring your proposals here, there is no need to wait. --John (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Explicit rules for what can be included and absolutely consistent rules for the sources and number of sources required plus equally explicit definitions of what "reliable", "controversial", "fringe view"; "undue weight" and several more common 'requirements' actually mean. There are way too many vague terms that effectively leave it to individual editors to make it up as they go along. Plus if we agree an entry than no allowing "justification" in some cases and not in others. I'm in a rush now but I'll happily spell out in detail what I see as necessary tonight. Sarah777 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be great Sarah. One thing I think worth considering would be a numerical limit, say 50 or 100. Events like the Kent State shootings which killed four people (tragic though that was) surely don't belong here. Not to diminish the importance of Kent State, nor to deny we could find a source which calls it a massacre, but just that if we are going to include all events which kill a small number and which someone has called a massacre, the list would either have to be unrealistically long, or to be selective in other ways. Thoughts? --John (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree on the numbers - as you'll appreciate I have very strong feelings about Bloody Sunday (both of them) - but they don't fit my "ink-blot test" reaction to the word "massacre". I definitely would have assumed very large numbers (certainly 50 or greater). This would cut out many of the "Kent State" and 'school shooter' type incidents; while leaving 'real' massacres like Beslan. This can seem heartless - but surely quantity is implied by the "mass" in massacre? The number of horrific murders is in the countless millions; can't fit them all (plus all their references) here. Simple fact. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Such "objective criteria" involves original research. Why is less than 50 not a massacre? If several reliable source calls an event a massacre who are we to say that is not a massacre? One thing that could be done is to look at using a definition of a massacre by a third party for example from the massacre article:

the Historical Clarification Commission agreed on a specific definition: "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state."(Humberto Sequeira, Chapter 9 : The Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification: Database Representation,MAKING THE CASE: Investigating Large Scale Human Rights Violations Using Information Systems and Data Analysis).

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No Philip, such objective criteria do not involve original research. I did not suggest that less than 50 is not a massacre, merely that we should consider restricting the scope of this article to enhance its usefulness. The concept is common on Wikipedia and ties in with our notion of notability. By analogy, a band starting out on its career is still a band, but may not be notable enough a band for inclusion on Wikipedia. I delete such articles frequently. Another example was when Rock and I last year enforced criteria on the Celtic F.C. page to prevent the "List of notable former players" section becoming untenably long. That was a success (though it drew protests as I knew this proposal would too). I think it is worth considering. --John (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Historical Clarification Commission? Sounds like some Soviet Stalin-era body. But as you cannot even define reliable source your contribution leaves us at first base. And I think reality dictates that John's approach is unavoidable if we are to prevent almost every topic on Wiki expanding without limit. Purely logistical reasons; nothing to do with POV or ideology. Sarah777 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the 5 or more suggested by Phillip's source, it is the "traditional" limit for the page. On the other hand, I think "objective rules" is overly legalistic, unnecessary, and directly opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As this entire "article" is directly opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia objective rules are essential in relation to both content and sources. Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So what would you propose to do then, Knulclunk? I was asked to intervene here because there has been a problem. Although I have not been involved in this page much in the past, a read of the talk page and a look at the history make it obvious there has been a lot of toing and froing over what should and shouldn't be included. It seems obvious to me that if we aspired to include every event from history that could be reliably sourced to have killed 5 or more and to have been called a massacre by someone, the article would need to become untenably long. There must be hundreds from WW2 alone. Now, let me hasten to add that I am not completely wedded to my suggestion about "50 or more deaths", but I am definitely committed to improving how the article looks and how people editing it behave. Make a counter-proposal and I will take your opinion far more seriously. The status quo is not an option. --John (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The status quo is an option. I personally think that we should put the list up for AfD again because the word has no legal definition and has negative connotations similar to the word terrorism. Another two option are: to move the list a to a name like "Wikipedia articles with massacre in the name" (no redirects in the list to discourage the muppets creating hundreds of them); or simply to refer to the reader to Category:Massacres. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) No, the status quo is not an option because it hasn't led us to a good article or to a harmonious editing environment. AfD would be a bad idea at present in my opinion as it is too soon after the last one. Keep thinking though, and remember to keep it polite. --John (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fallujah

The alleged fallujah massacre uses as one of its sources a web cite from the World Socialist Web Site. Should this be considered a reliable source since they are highly POV concerning the US, Iraq and are not a news source? I don't see that WSWS can be used here. Mohummy (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mohummy the use of the term massacre is often used to put over a specific POV. If the only use was by Trotskyists then I think you could make a case for dismissing it as a fringe view. But as it is one POV from several sources, (from different political backgrounds), that use the term, I do not think that in this case it should be dismissed for that reason. The second reason for dismissing it is that it is not a reliable source. But I think that the website of the Fourth International is a reliable source for expressing such a political point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Friday

A Belfast council meeting and http://www.independent.ie/service/about-us-24072.html do not seem to be unreliable sources to me. You are kidding right? A Unionist councillor says it once during a meeting, therefore it's a massacre? As for the other, it's an opinion piece by an anti-republican. Take a look around for other sources that say it's a massacre, I did and I couldn't find much. I'm giving notice that unless it's improved within 24 hours I'm removing it. One Night In Hackney303 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. 24 hours or else the organized, deliberate murder of many innocent civilians is no longer a massacre. Black Sunday is a massacre but Black Friday is not? Mohummy (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Your comment above shows you need to learn more about the events of Bloody Friday. Check the Bloody Sunday references, they are substantially different to the Bloody Friday ones. 19:29, 5 February 2008 Your comments above even prove that what you're saying is a fringe view. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs)
The Making of Ireland: From Ancient Times to the Present doesn't say it was a massacre either, for the record. One Night In Hackney303 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The Making of Ireland discusses it as one of a list of massacres. Mohummy (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. I've read it. One Night In HacknTrotskyistey303 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I know about the two events and their differences. I doubt it makes a difference to the innocent people who died. One was a killing of civilians by a police force that was supposed to be there to protect and it may have been premeditated. The other is a premeditated set of bombings of civilians by terrorists though in this case, some warnings were given out. Both had many innocent people killed over sectarian/political issues. Mohummy (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"The other is a premeditated set of bombings of civilians"? Really? That's funny, I've never seen a single source that's covered Bloody Friday in depth say that, and I've read pretty much all of them. Bloody Friday was a disaster for the IRA, it cost them a substantial amount of support. The sources tend to agree that it was simply poor planning that meant the security forces were unable to cope with the number of bombs that had been planted. One Night In Hackney303 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Mind you, Bloody Sunday wasn't exactly a PR triumph for the British Army. And it is unusual for Republicans to describe it as a "massacre"; murder certainly - but unlike Miami or Greysteel the term wasn't really used by the MSM - doubtless because it was the Army rather than a paramilitary. But he who lives by the MSM dies by the MSM I guess. Those truth-loving journalists again! Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
There's MSM sources for Bloody Sunday if you look - BBC, Massacre, CNN etc etc. Given the only sources provided for Bloody Friday are an opinion piece, a Unionist politican (inherently biased) saying it in a council meeting and a book which doesn't say it was a massacre, I've removed it. One Night In Hackney303 12:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The use of the word massacre is usually used to put over an emotive point of view. It is inevitable that these terms will occur in sources that hold a strong point of view (Like representatives of the constituency that is a focus of an attack) or in editorial pieces and opinion pieces in a newspapers. This does not make them unreliable sources. That is not what unreliable sources means (See WP:V). Now if you are questioning the validity of the record of the council meeting then that would make it an unreliable source. But Wikipedia usually considers documents produced by representative bodies to be reliable sources. To give you two examples from other representative bodies: Both the United Nations General Assembly resolution 47/121 in 1992 and a 2005 US Senate Resolution (109 S.Res.134) declared that ethnic cleansing as carried out in Bosnia to be a form of genocide. Yet the in 2001, four years before the US resolution, the ICTY rejected that formulation, an opinion upheld by the ICJ in February 2007. Do you think that the UN and US congressional views should be removed from articles like Bosnian Genocide because they are opinions not supported by international law, or for that matter by the majority of legal scholars (Source ECHR jorgic v. Germany)? Because if you dismiss Unionist politicians as a source because they are inherently biased, what about all the other articles that include a political POV, should they too have such opinions and cited sources removed, or do such opinions represent the views of the constituents of the representative -- as is usually held in the theory of representative democracy? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll copy exactly what you just said above. "Mohummy the use of the term massacre is often used to put over a specific POV. If the only use was by Trotskyists then I think you could make a case for dismissing it as a fringe view. But as it is one POV from several sources, (from different political backgrounds), that use the term, I do not think that in this case it should be dismissed for that reason." - doesn't that seem equally relevant? Minutes of council meetings are taken, simply because a person with a biased outlook says something during a meeting (which therefore automatically places it on record) hardly makes them a reliable source does it? It's a primary source. Why are you bringing WP:V into it? That shows exactly why the source shouldn't be used, especially for this article. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - do the minutes of a council meeting fit that description? No, you can say anything you want during them and it's recorded for all eternity. Does an opinion piece by a biased journalist fit that description? No. If we're setting the bar that low, practically anything any politican has ever said suddenly becomes a source. Your comparison above is irrelevant, as it's referring to outside bodies talking about Bosnia. The Unionist politician is anti-republican, and so is Kevin Myers. Therefore to paraphrase what you said above....If the only use was by anti-republicans then I think you could make a case for dismissing it as a fringe view. If the best sourcing that is available is a councillor saying it in a meeting and a biased opinion piece, it's a fringe view. One Night In Hackney303 12:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti Irish Republicanism (not to be confused with Irish Nationalism) is the view of all the major British parties with representatives sitting in Parliament as it is to those sitting in the Dáil so it is hardly a fringe view!
Primary sources can be used providing that they are published and their views are represented fairly without bias. A person writing for a Trotskyist newspaper is a far cry from a Trotskyist who was elected to a representative position in a democracy (or to lead a Trade Union). For example Roy Beggs (A Unionist not a Trotskyist!) and then MP for East Antrim, commented in February 2001 in a House of Common's Committee meeting to discuss Human Rights and Equality in Northern Ireland "I have gone out of my way to indicate that the concerns that there may have been abuse of human rights in respect of the victims of Bloody Sunday should have been no greater or less than that of the victims of Bloody Friday, or any of the other massacres that have taken place elsewhere." to be dismissed because he was a Unionist polititian?[10]. Now it seems to me that what you are suggesting is the targets of a massacre and their representatives should not be considered a definitive source that a massacre occurred and that a third party source from a disinterested party must claim it was a massacre. Does this mean that all American sources for the World Trade Centre bombings are not definitive sources or just those from democratically representatives from the city of New York? Does this also mean that you support Sarah777 position that American sources should not be used to support refutations that the Second Battle of Fallujah? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you sidestepped my point. You brought WP:V up, and rightly so. So are people simply saying things "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? If Joe Bloggs is stopped in the street and asked for his opinon by a newspaper who print his opinion, is he a reliable source? "Anti Irish Republicanism (not to be confused with Irish Nationalism) is the view of all the major British parties with representatives sitting in Parliament as it is to those sitting in the Dáil so it is hardly a fringe view!" - I'll have to try really hard to be civil here, but sorry that's very wrong. None of the major British parties with representatives sitting in Parliament are anti-Irish Republican. Didn't the Conservative Party issue the Downing Street Declaration, which would have allowed the transfer of power to the Republic if the majority of the population of were in favour? Hardly the actions of anti-Irish Republicans is it? Similarly the Labour Party and the Good Friday Agreement. As for the Dáil, do you honestly think it's the view of every party that there shouldn't be a 32 county Republic? The number of anti-Irish Republicans in the world is substantially less than the number of Trotskyists, yet you somehow seem to have reversed the positions. One Night In Hackney303 14:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a detailed answer to OMIH last posting on the talk page of ONIH as the details of Irish Republicanism is not directly relevant to this thread, but in summary Anti-Republicanism is not the same thing as being anti the Irish Republic. Indeed Irish Republicans are probably more anti an Irish Republic of only 32 counties than are the Irish and British governments! But back to this article ONIH you have not addressed the issue of whether you think the targets of a massacre and their representatives should not be considered a definitive source that a massacre occurred. And do you support Sarah777 position that American sources should not be used to support refutations that the Second Battle of Fallujah? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll address that more in detail later, as it's not directly related to what else I'm saying. However while there is a significant majority that are anti-IRA, there is a much smaller minority within that set of people who are anti-Irish republican. It is members of that much smaller set of people who were being used as sources. If an anti-war activist says there was a massacre in Fallujah, would that be an acceptable source for this article? To be honest I the whole sourcing of this article should come under WP:REDFLAG. I think the more neutral the sources the better, if the only sources are people very close to what happened then it's pointing towards a fringe view. One Night In Hackney303 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to concur with ONIH here. This might be a good approach to tightening up the article; it might indeed be preferable to the idea I proposed above about limiting it to "massacres" above a certain size. The down side would be, I think, how would we agree what exactly constituted a neutral source. Let's keep talking, as I sense that progress is being made. --John (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well I think we could agree that a Unionist councillor isn't a neutral source for Bloody Friday? Much in the same way that Irish republicans aren't a neutral source for the death of eight IRA members and one civilian being classed as a massacre? When it comes to Ireland, I tend to regard mainland British media as generally neutral, as they take an equally dim view of both republican and loyalist paramilitaries. One Night In Hackney303 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this clear, is it being put forward that Rudy Giuliani views on the World Trade Center is a non neutral source and should be avoided in favour of (for the sake of argument) the views of Vladimir Putin? Or if this statement is correct all the populations 19 Nato countries hold non neutral views on the attack on the World Trade Center an Asian news source should be used instead of one based in a NATO country? If not what are the qualifications that make some victims notable and others not? The more disinterested the source the less likely that the source will use the term massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily avoided. Just that if Rudy Giuliani is one of only two people making the claim, then it's a problem. Take Dunblane that I just added, I specifically avoided using British sources (despite them being the majority of ones on my search results) and used more neutral ones instead. One Night In Hackney303 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Change of Direction?

Given the circular arguments that have been happening about sources and numbers why not rename/move the page to "List of mass killings of more than xy"? Admittedly it would result in the removal of people's "pet" massacres (!) but you can't please everyone. The alternative is to keep this page and allow the inclusion of every bombing/shooting etc that gets described as a "massacre" by the local tabloids of whatever country it took place in.GiollaUidir (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is unrealistic as it would have to be thousands of pages long, sadly. --John (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Besides there is a list called List of wars and disasters by death toll which needs lots of work. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I sense the potential for a merge proposal...GiollaUidir (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think (and suggested yonks back) that it should be titled "List of killings considered massacres by the Western media". That has the benefit of both clarity and honesty. Who could object to that? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually found a quote in a John Pilger book (quite by chance) that could essentially be the introduction to such an article.GiollaUidir (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead to the article is unreferenced and WP:OR. There is a major problem with the article title, as "massacre" does not have defined parameters. The inclusion of specific events is dependant upon the use of the word by sources, but their use of it is relatively arbitrary, as "massacre" is a word used emotively and only one of a number of synonyms. Writers describing such events might equally well use a word such as "slaughter" or "bloodbath" or "extermination", or a phrase such as "cut down in cold blood" or "mass killing", to mean the same thing, and then the event would not be able to be included in this article, even though it was identical in all key facets to one that was. Really big massacres get their own special word such as "holocaust" and thus don't qualify. The Kent State killings, while tragic, become risible when included in this list, the title "Kent State Massacre" conjuring up a vision of hundreds of corpses, with the bathetic contrast of 4 victims in reality. Thus Sarah777's point above is relevant, and even more accurately stated as ""List of killings called massacres by somebody who counts as a WP:RS", which is a nonsense, as it is more about the view of a source than the event in question. A more objective and "scientific" yardstick is needed as an article title, something along the lines of "Mass killings of civilians/unarmed people" or whatever. This can then be prioritised by numbers of deaths. It could be a comprehensive list unlike this partial and relatively arbitrary one, which is doomed to remain so by definition. Tyrenius (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Genocide is never a massacre because it is never indiscriminate (see CPPCG Article 2 "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" -- my emphasis), -- although I am sure that little detail will not have stopped some calling some genocides massacres -- so I am not sure why you think genocides such as Holocaust should appear in a list of massacres. Personally I do not think that a massacre need involve more than a few, as its most common use in newspapers is for mass killings of less than a score. BI do not agree that using a WP:RS is makes this list a nonsense because the party that uses the term is often as informative as the identity of the victims. But I do agree with your that this list is a nonsense, which is why I put LoM up for deletion, but unfortunately unlike List of atrocities there was at that time not consensus that it should be deleted. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The previous move request failed. Genocide can quite easily be a massacre, for example Srebrenica massacre. I think the only way forward for this article is another AfD. One Night In Hackney303 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Tyrenius and Sarah, I agree that the present title and the present lack of objective criteria for inclusion are holding this article back from ever being truly NPOV. The question then arises, is there any way we can save the article as it stands by adopting stricter criteria (amongst ourselves would be sufficient as a beginning)? Or should we agree to AfD it, or is a change of title the way forward? If the last, what title would we change it to? Thank you all for your well-considered and thoughtful comments by the way; a little more patience from all concerned will lead to a solution I think. --John (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well there's several possible options:
  1. If a reliable source has called something a massacre it goes on the list. The problem with that is you're almost always going to find someone biased and/or sensationalist to use the word "massacre", so the list should theoretically have thousands of entries and be of no real use.
  2. If several' (say 3-5?) reliable sources have called something a massacre it goes on the list. That eliminates some of the problem above, but you're still unsure of what definition of "massacre" the sources are using, and if they are using the same definition. So how do we even begin to define what a massacre is in the article, it's impossible.
  3. The article is limited to events that have the word "massacre" in their name - Srebrenica massacre, Greysteel massacre, Dunblane massacre, Hungerford massacre etc etc. However this leaves us with an unbalanced list where virtually identical events that don't have the word "massacre" in the name are excluded from the list.
  4. We find a source, something like The Big Book of Massacres, and include all the ones from there. Ideally if two or more people have written similar books it's better.
  5. We send it back to AfD.
  6. We move it to another name. List of mass killings is going to be problematic. How many does "mass" mean? 5? 10? 50? 100? It's an entirely arbitrary decision, and thus renders the list meaningless.
Any more? One Night In Hackney303 18:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

My first thought was AfD and if the article stays as it is, I would support that. I don't see 1, 2, 3 and 4 as solving the problem (good analysis of the options, by the way). 6 is the best solution and that's what the focus should be on. List of wars and disasters by death toll seems to be managing OK. There are two main approaches:

  1. Numerical
  2. Chronological
    I suggest both are used in different articles with a generic title List of political or military killing of unarmed people + specific parameter (or a more succinct way of putting the generic title). This rules out simple civilian crime, unless it is wished to include that as well.
  3. Numerical would basically be starting from the top down and initially it would be a good idea to set a lower limit, say 5,000 (number to be discussed) to see how that fills up. If it looks viable then the bar is lowered. Title: List of killings of unarmed people by death toll.
  4. Chronological can generate various articles. An easy one is the re-ordering of the numerical list, using the same information. Others can be specific, defined by permutations of time and/or place. The parameter for each article can be as broad or focused as the subject matter merits. If necessary, a bar can be set and stated in the lead, but this doesn't have to be done, and the more detailed the research, the more specific the parameter can be. It might start as List of political or military killings of unarmed people in Foobarland, and, as that article became over-full, it can split into smaller articles, until it ends up as List of political or military of killings of unarmed people in Foobarland in 1998, List of political or military killings of unarmed people in Foobarland in 1999 etc. In this way there would be no need to set a numerical bar. Every single individual death can be listed.

But from the outset there must be an insistence on every inclusion having a solid reference.
Tyrenius (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I've just noticed the clever re-ordering button at the top of columns, which renders some of the ideas above redundant. Tyrenius (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Re 4. In the EU a list like The Big Book of Massacres would be copyrighted (so one would need two source lists to avoid this), what is the situation in the US? and Re. 6 what is a mass killing? Would the first morning of the Battle of the Somme count? If not would the last day of the siege of Drogheda count? It seems to me such a title would have just as many problems as this one as there are thousands upon thousands of mass killings in wars and as soon as one says within the laws of war one has thousands of debatable ones because military necessity is not black and white. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century could be used for some list sources during the C20th, but see the talk page some editors have problems with some of the authors mentioned on the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep up. I've already moved on from "Mass killings" in my post immediately above yours. Tyrenius (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well we have List of battles by death toll for the likes of the Battle of the Somme. I agree about the possibility for grey areas though. Can we take it that we are all agreed that a renaming is required? --John (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No. I do not agree that a rename is needed, as I have not seen a proposal that would allow for a reasonable sized list without Major POV considerations. For example with Tyrenius options would one list all bombing raids that killed civilians? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to stand alone at the moment in your resistance to a rename, which is uniting all other parties. Would you consider that bombing raids that killed civilians constituted "political or military killing of unarmed people"? If so, then from NPOV of course they would be listed. What exactly is the reason why they should not be? The vertical distance between perpetrators and victims doesn't mean the latter are any less dead.
There is one way to rescue the article as it stands. It is about the use of the word "massacre" as much as the events which are deemed to be so. The article can be moved to List of killings called Massacres and an extra column added: "Called massacre by". This column obviously lists people who have called it a massacre. Then it would provide a useful and NPOV approach to the subject, as the callers are every bit as significant as the called, in this context. Tyrenius (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried that format -- See the list before I zapped it. When I initially added the "Claimants" column I put some names in but it was reformatted into just a list of numbered footnotes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you planning to combine that with either of my options, for example with 1 or 2? If not, I don't see it changing much except the name of the article. The intro would read something like "these events were called massacres by people, we don't know what definition of massacre they meant but here's a couple of dictionary definitions anyway". If you're planning to include massacres based on a single source the list will still be ridiculously unmanageable, and arguably have undue weight problems. If one person talking about an incident has said it was a massacre but 99 didn't, isn't that a fringe view? The "Called massacre by" column would also grow ridiculously large for some incidents, unless you're planning to have a maximum number of sources? One Night In Hackney303 04:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't get hung up on the details, broad principles will be ok at this stage, we can fine tune it if we can all agree in principle what the article is supposed to be about. Criteria we agree for inclusion in the article would not constitute original research but just be guidelines for inclusion. The Celtic F. C. incident that Rock and I were involved in was an undefined list of "Famous former players" that had infinite capacity for growth, and also an infinite capacity for edit-warring as people sought to include or (less often) exclude particular players from the list. We chose an arbitrary number of games played which we figured would give us a manageable section, accepted there would be occasional exceptions which were just outside the criteria but were genuinely notable. The formula led to stability and genuine development of the section, a number of new articles were written and existing ones improved. The section was eventually spun into an article, which I believe continues to be stable. It's amazing how much article writing people can do when they aren't distracted by conflict. I see definite parallels with this article.
Let's continue to thrash things out here; first agree principles like you guys have started to do, that everyone here can live with, then pick guideline values for things like numbers of sources, neutrality of sources, number of victims or whatever we decide, to give us an article of reasonable scope to begin with. We will then have the basis of a good and stable article that can grow rather than be a battlefield in its own right. That's my suggestion. --John (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of possibly opening up a second front, we could always just merge this article to List of battles and other violent events by death toll which seems to cover all the bases? One Night In Hackney303 07:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Wack a rat. That list either has to go or it needs to become a list of lists. As it is at the moment it has all the problems of the lists it lifted the initial information from without any of the debate or sources (3 citation and two other footnotes!) that the other lists have and it is not being kept up to date to reflect changes in the more specific pages. I really do not want to have this very loooooonnnnnnggggggg debate on yet another page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is if we renamed this article, it'd probably be something similar to that anyway judging by the above discussion. It avoids all the "this terrorist attack killed x number of people, why isn't it on the list?" comments because it would already be there in a different section. One Night In Hackney303 08:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reformat

Perhaps limiting items on this list to massacres which have articles would go a long way toward reducing glut and providing future guidance. For example List of airliner shootdown incidents contains entries which all have linked articles, meaning that to question an items inclusion is irrelevant. Anynobody 03:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think almost all of them are linked to articles. Certainly I agree they should be. --John (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney's point no. 3 is the simple solution and provides an objective criterion: "The article is limited to events that have the word 'massacre' in their name - Srebrenica massacre, Greysteel massacre, Dunblane massacre, Hungerford massacre etc etc." This could also include articles such as Beslan school hostage crisis which has an alternative "massacre" name listed in bold in the lead: "The Beslan school hostage crisis (also referred to as the Beslan school siege or Beslan massacre)". The lead to the massacre list would need to state the rationale for inclusion and the fact that it does not include similar events that have not become known by the name "massacre". Tyrenius (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. Downing an airliner is in most cases a matter of fact which can be based on a crash investigation report. But massacre is a subjective word. If this list takes that route it will put pressure on the names of articles. At the moment names are considered on what the editors think is the most common name --I have recently seen such a debate over one of very recent the school shootings in America (massacre or shooting). At the moment each such article is considered on its merit, but if inclusion in another article means massacre in the name, then with some marginal names some editors will support inclusion of "massacre" so that it can be included in this list. For example if the "genocides in history" article took this approach it would only be days before it was proposed that the Srebrenica massacre be moved to Srebrenica genocide. If redirects can be used then some editors will create a redirect so that it can be included in this article, for example there is an article called "Siege of Drogheda" which I am sure will soon be added to this article, but if massacre has to be in the name to be included how long before a "Drogheda massacre" is created with a redirect to Siege of Drogheda#Debates over Cromwell's actions. If we exclude redirects how soon before lots of stubs (or even articles) are created e.g. a specific article on the "Drogheda massacre" consisting of text lifted from the specific sections from the Siege of Drogheda. I have been involved often enough in what names to include in the first sentence to know that the same problems would occur there as well. I do not think we should encourage such developments. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't determine article content on the basis of avoiding possible editorial contention, but per wiki policies. If it is determined that there is an alternative name that can be verified, which includes the word "massacre", then that should be included, if it is not already. It doesn't mean changing the article title, but it may mean adding to the lead, as in "The Beslan school hostage crisis (also referred to as the Beslan school siege or Beslan massacre)". If an editor tries to add a name with "massacre" which is only a "tiny minority" opinion, then it should not be included, as is the same for content derived from any such opinion. Certainly the individual article is the place to establish such matters, rather than a list format like this one. A good start would be to prune this list on that basis and only add to it when and if consensus on any individual article includes "massacre" in its name. Tyrenius (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Massacre is also a verb so reliable sources often describe an event as a massacre even though it is not known as a massacre. There is also a difference between an event which is a well known massacre where the name is a proper noun "ABC Massacre" and a descriptive name "XYZ massacre" are you suggesting both be included? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article title is ABC Massacre or XYZ Massacre, or if that is in bold in the lead as an alternative name, then it is eligible. If those conditions do not apply, then it is not eligible. Thus this is eligible: "The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre", because it is also known as. However, "The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229)" is not eligible, because it is not known as as massacre, even though it might be described as a massacre, or listed with a list of massacres, and actually be in reality a far bigger massacre than Kent State. Essentially the article is an examination of a cultural phenomenon, whereby certain events gain this nomenclature. I think it is important to indicate, where possible, how the name was given in each instance and who by, as this is a highly relevant factor. Tyrenius (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Beslan School

Any issue with Beslan being added? It seems to fit the criteria being proposed in terms of numbers, single incident, civilians, cites, etc. Mohummy (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but I'd recommend bringing any future additions here first please. One Night In Hackney303 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Suggestion

Would it be possible to have the article blocked (maybe even purged and blocked) indefinitely UNTIL the editors reach a consensus on definition, title, etc. and all those little things we have been fighting about for (IIRC) 5 years. Every time someone new or with an agenda shows up and tries to edit the article, we get another thread going. Bluntly this does not help the real problem.67.161.166.20 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am watching and will happily move to full protection should it become necessary. So far it has not. I agree that we need to solve the fundamental problems with the article rather than adding or deleting entries from it as it stands. I would welcome your substantive and constructive suggestions towards solving the former problem. --John (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So far it isn't because I, for one, sit on the sidelines watching a pile of merde that had been reduced to almost nothing being restored under your guidance. I will wait a few days more and if this continues I hereby give notice that I am withdrawing from the "agreement" that established editors are now bound by - but nobody else. Protection was way better than this. From that point I will add massacres and expect that everybody else will be bound by 0RR. And everybody means everybody. Sarah777 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Suggestion #2 was meant to be constructive (see history for what happened to that). I spent 40 years in the business of "analysis" (economics, technology, sociology, math modelling) and the most important question is "what is the question?". We have been assuming the question is "How to save this article?". It isn't. The question is: "How to save this compilation of information?".67.161.166.20 (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Now you are getting somewhere! Not only is it not worth saving but under its current title this list requires deletion or renaming. Talk of improving or saving this load of **** is just nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Guys, we can all agree that the article as it stands is less good than it should be, because of its arbitrary and unstable nature. Why not join the discussion above and try to see if we can make it into a good article? Because I agree, the alternative would be deletion or renaming. As both of these have recently failed to gain consensus, let's try and improve what we have. Sarah, thanks for the warning; your proposed course of action would risk leading to an edit war though. I implore you to agree what the article is about, in principle, first before adding material to it. Long term that is going to be a lot more beneficial to the article. --John (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll wait a week or two; but from my viewpoint (yes, I admit I have one!) it is growing worse as time goes by and will soon be as bad or worse than it was before it was "cut-back" before Christmas. Still, the talk above does indicate that folk are generally agreed this article has credibility issues and some of the suggestions emerging from all sides are interesting. So relax for a week or two! Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Definition

Since no one else is going to be so egotistical as to actually make a SUGGESTION, I guess I'll put my important parts on the chopping block and try to get things started:

Massacre (for purposes of this page):

The killing of 1 million or more human beings in one single incident or several incidents unquestionably part of a larger event.
The victims can be civilians or unarmed AND surrendered (essentially helpless) soldiers.
The perpetrators can have any status whatsoever.
Legality under law, custom, rules of war, present or at the time of the event, does not matter. A "justifiable" massacre and a completely "criminal" massacre both qualify for inclusion in this list.

Please note: I am psychopathicologically (Like that word? I'm not even sure it exists.) convinced of my own correctness and am violently committed to the acceptance of this definition as proposed. If you attempt to change this in any way (except reducing the number 1 million), I will force the entire group to read my poetry.67.161.166.20 (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you; except make it 100,000; one million means massacres wouldn't be physically possible till recently; we need something that applies back to 500BC (reliable written history). No, make it 10k. Legality under law, custom, rules of war, present or at the time of the event, does not matter. This is an absolute must to prevent moral relativity and (mainly Western) Wiki-lawyering. Great suggestion. Even better than mine. Sarah777 (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: while not sure it exists either I like psychopathicologically and I might even appreciate your poetry. Sarah777 (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion we should make it 1,000. Killing more than 1,000 people is pretty notable. I think the motivation behind quantifying is that events where 4 people lost their lives are being placed alongside events where more than 50,000 people were killed.Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is the minimum number to qualify is not fixed. We can change it if we ever run out of entries. Having a limit just keeps us from having an unwieldy statistical universe at the beginning while we're still having problems.67.161.166.20 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If incidents of massacre occur with very large numbers why do we have so few reliable third party sources calling very large mass murder massacre? Probably because as the Historical Clarification Commission suggested "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." Many large mass murders like the Killing Fields is the summation of lots of individual smaller massacres each of which involved killing many people at the same place as part of the same operation, but as they took place over a considerable time and different locations are not themselves usually called a massacre? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And so what Philip? What is the problem with that? Sarah777 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

Recently I made the following edits to the article: [11] [12]

I thought these were good edits that make the references more tidy. What I did was bring all the references under one set of <ref> tags. I've seen this done on other articles. However, my edits were reverted, and it was suggested I post something on the talk page. What do you guys think about these edits?Bless sins (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I would say forget it. We have bigger fish to fry in trying to come up w a definition. After we succeed w that (I AM an optimistic type) the whole thing will probably need tidying, scrubbing, expansion, etc.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Request to add Tlatelolco Massacre

Can we add this? Tlatelolco Massacre, here's cnn and foxnews calling it a massacre, there are a lot more spanish sources calling it a "matanza", which is the same as massacre.

  • Mainstream sources: [13] [14][15] [16].
  • Around 200 or 300 killed
  • Student protesters killed by the army

-Solid Reign (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour. I'd probably put a low number of 30 though, as that's the figure (well, 30-40) claimed by the Mexican government. One Night In Hackney303 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, although in Mexico it's widely known that that number is fabricated, should we still use it? -Solid Reign (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Even the BBC say there's an official figure. I was suggesting the figure we use was "30-300", with an explanation inline, not just a figure of 30. One Night In Hackney303 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so what are the policies here, should I go ahead and add it? or do we need more people to approve? -Solid Reign (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and add it, with the sources. use the 30-300 number, sourcing that as well. Thanks! --Knulclunk (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. -Solid Reign (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I have requested a block of the main article. We are cheerfully back to editing a complete disaster and making no effort to fix the problems.

I've had it. I'm out of here.67.161.166.20 (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am open to the argument that going to full protection for a week might focus our minds on this discussion, but so far I am not there yet. Can we come up with draft guidelines for inclusion in this article please? All numbers liable to haggling, but can we start to draft some ideas? I'll add to this from the various good ideas above, unless someone else wants to. --John (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Draft guidelines

1 "If the article title is ABC Massacre or XYZ Massacre, or if that is in bold in the lead as an alternative name, then it is eligible. If those conditions do not apply, then it is not eligible. Thus this is eligible: "The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre", because it is also known as. However, "The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229)" is not eligible, because it is not known as as massacre, even though it might be described as a massacre, or listed with a list of massacres, and actually be in reality a far bigger massacre than Kent State." (proposed by Tyrenius)

2 "the whole sourcing of this article should come under WP:REDFLAG. I think the more neutral the sources the better, if the only sources are people very close to what happened then it's pointing towards a fringe view." (proposed by ONIH)

3 "At least x people died" (proposed by John) where x is say between 5 and 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Further to ONIH's proposal, I would like to clarify this; unless we can find a neutral source which calls it a massacre, it doesn't belong here. It'll be too easy otherwise to fill the article up with massacres which are claimed by one side or another but not more widely recognised. Non-neutral sources are worthy of inclusion to reference facts (for example to give us the error bars for our death toll), but at least one neutral reliable source per massacre. This would over-ride Tyrenius' rule; we might even want to take back our findings to edit some of these articles eventually! --John (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • What happens if there is a section in an article called massacre as there is in Irish Rebellion of 1641#Massacres are such sections included or excluded from this proposal? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If this statement is correct all the populations 19 NATO countries hold non neutral views on the attack on the World Trade Center. So would a source have to come from a news paper outside the NATO area? What about other English language sources such as from Ireland would that count as neutral. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Does a source about Drogheda have to come from a non Irish/English source? Given that some American/Australians/... Irish are more Irish than the Irish do they count as a neutral source? Does one have to check a person's family tree to see if they are qualified. The people most likely to refute the accusations of the Drogheda massacre are likely to be British or Irish simply because people tend to specialise in their own history are their scholarly refutations to be excluded because they are British or Irish? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    For example an editor recently added a "dubious" statement to "Genocides in history" because the editor argues that R. J. Rummel is not an expert on the Verdee pacification that some have argued is a genocide. Needless to say that many of those who say it was not a genocide are French academics. In a similar situation here the above suggestion is that non experts (which they most probably would be because they are using what many would consider a non scholarly word) will state that something is a massacre but the balanced POV would be excluded because they are of the same nationality as the accused.
    If a western media source claims that the Serbs massacred Kosovans in the Kosovo War as in the Račak incident is that source disallowed because NATO intervened in the province to stop such incidents? To balance the point, Russia is a traditional friend to Serbia, are all Russian sources about the same incident tainted? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Massacre can also be used as a verb. Are all such accusations to be ignored --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A google search for "massacred"[17] gives 1,750,000 results, including the Nepal Royal Family, sea lions and pets. A google search for "massacre"[18] gives 30,300,000 results. This article is going to be bigger than the rest of wikipedia put together! It is not viable to include events which have been described as massacres, because there are simply too many, rather like trying to have a List of streets, erm, which I now find exists. Maybe that could provide a solution: the subject is so big that it cannot be dealt with in one article. Tyrenius (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But this article can always subdivide so it becomes List of massacres in Europe etc as List of streets did. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused here. PBS seems to be advocating including any incident any time someone has used the word massacre, but that's the exact opposite of the stance he took in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atrocities. You can't be in favour of deletion of that article for one reason, and in favour of retaining this article with identical problems for the same reason. There's two options - deletion or restructure. One Night In Hackney303 09:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of deleting the list, but if it exists keeping to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If reliable sources claim that an incident was a massacre then I would not oppose its inclusion in the list if it meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That excludes the Amritsar massacre. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate, I propose that all three conditions would need to apply before we would include an event here, so having the name alone would not do. We are all experienced editors and know what constitutes a neutral source; Russian state-affiliated sources would not likely be neutral on an event concerning Serbia. Further to what I proposed above, we might consider limiting the number of Second World War massacres. If the list is becoming unwieldy, we can always tweak the number which forms the lower limit (not the upper limit, CarbonLifeForm).
I'm not saying this is a perfect solution. I am saying that it will provide us with a basis we can all agree on and allow us to work on improving the article instead of squabbling. In order to achieve this we will have to make compromises. --John (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm against making arbitrary limits, and don't see, for example, why World War 2 massacres should be limited. Surely it is encyclopedic to include everything. If this list is going to be created, then it is going to be massive to do it properly, per the "streets" example above. Furthermore, it will not be necessary to find a source that specifically calls something a "massacre", because a massacre is still a massacre, regardless of whether someone has used that particular word. There are synonyms that mean the same thing. Per the OED definition at top of article, a massacre is "The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this". It's ridiculous to rule out an event because it's been called, say, an "indiscriminate and brutal slaughter" instead of being called a "massacre", when the former is the definition of the latter. (As an aside, the Dresden bombing fits the bill for a massacre, and was called one at the time by Goebbels. He's not a neutral source, no doubt, but he was right, in this instance.) If it is wished to limit the size of the list, then it could be created by numbers of people killed, starting with the top and working down, or, as I suggested above, a list of killings "called massacres". Tyrenius (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to mention Dresden, at least be NPOV and mention the Coventry Blitz :) One Night In Hackney303 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In both cases, the claimed target was industry, not population. Does the killing have to be an intent to be a massacre, or can it be a by-product of a different intent? The OED definition of "indiscriminate" needs refining, as most instances will have a defined target, namely people perceived to be enemies. It is only indiscriminate within that parameter. Tyrenius (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
And there we see the sort of argument we can guarantee perpetuating if firm criteria for inclusion are not adopted. If you do not agree with the ones I suggested above, maybe you can suggest better ones. Experience shows clearly though that leaving it as loose as it has been is not an option. Remember, the guidelines we adopt do not have to be perfect. --John (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
John, it is difficult to remember things you never knew! Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress - v good essay. Sums up my own feelings about what the project is and where it is. But "massacres" is an unusual article in that it is explicitly about a subjective and pejorative term - massacre. So we need unusually tight and unusually clear and consistent rules. Just reading the suggestions above - I could drive a coach and horses through any of them to either make the article miniscule or gigantic; depending on whim! We are not getting anywhere near tight, clear NPOV rules that don't point in one direction or another (or both, ironically). Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition

There are 3 ways of defining an event as a massacre:

  1. It is known by that name. This is the title of the article on it or an alternative name in bold in the lead.
  2. It is described as a massacre by reliable sources, even though it may not be formally known by that name.
  3. It is a massacre, because multiple people are slaughtered in an uneven situation (as in soldiers or armed individuals against civilians or unarmed/outnumbered individuals), though it may not be known by that name or even described by the word.

I suggest a straw poll below with option preference as in 1st, 2nd, 3rd choices, with brief comments, but keep discussion to special section underneath, in order to keep the poll readable. Tyrenius (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Massacre in the name

  • 1st choice. Derives from article, where detailed debate can take place. Objective and simple parameter for inclusion. Tyrenius (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice (=) So long as all the articles referred to are accurate or can be made so, this will work and avoid conflict from restarting. See also below. --John (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 3rd choice. With an associated WP article or at least mention within a larger article by name. Now, actually ANY event with "massacre" in its name (other than shooting sprees) can be included, but it is the least important criteria for inclusion in the list. Sort of a catch-all for events like Kent State. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice. The "alternate name" part may need some minor tweaking to make it workable though. One Night In Hackney303 16:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolute no. Can't use the title of Wiki articles as sources! Daft idea; would make the POV situation even worse. Sarah777 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Described as massacre by RS

  • 3rd choice. Massacres are not always described as such. Tyrenius (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice (=) No article should be using this terminology unless it is coming from reliable sources. I would go even further and say we should have multiple neutral sources to justify this, but I recognise that not everybody is with me on that. To use the example Ty already gave, the bombing of Dresden was described as a massacre by the Nazis. While that is a reliable source, it is not a neutral one. By insisting on multiple neutral sources for this term we can perhaps avoid the article becoming bloated. --John (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 3rd choice. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 2nd choice. With an associated WP article or at least mention within a larger article by name. 2 Mainstream sources, as always. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 2nd choice. If this is accepted the article should go to AfD, but it's better than the option below. One Night In Hackney303 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 2nd choice. But this doesn't touch on the problem of what constitutes a reliable source; the main problem with the existing article. The example John cites and his comments confirm my fears in regard to the RS notion. He appears to be looking not for reliable sources - but for neutral (as opposed to Nazi) ones. What source, exactly, is neutral about the Nazis? Wouldn't anti-Nazi sources be equally, by definition, non-neutral? Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3. It is a massacre, regardless of name/description

  • 2nd choice. Comprehensive article as with List of streets. Tyrenius (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No vote. Too broad. Which or whose definition of massacre would we use? This would lead inevitably to the article's deletion or renaming. --John (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 2nd choice. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice. Armed v Unarmed, with the specific intent of targeting a helpless population.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 3rd choice. Absolutely not, no, not under any circumstances. It's a green light to "as long as some people died, roll on up and describe it as a massacre". If you're renaming it to "list of mass killings" then possibly, otherwise not a chance. One Night In Hackney303 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 1st choice; the only non-pov definition possible. Otherwise let's get real here and change the name. All I can see from John and ONIH are attempts to 'head off at the pass' any danger that their fav British/American acts of heroism in WW2 might be called massacres. Sarah777 (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion section

Please list discrete points under sub-headings

Numerical limit

  • I agree with Tyrenius. Plus lower limit of 6 killed. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If there is a limit it should come from a neutral source. As stated earlier on this page, the Historical Clarification Commission agreed on a specific definition: "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state."(Humberto Sequeira, Chapter 9 : The Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification: Database Representation,MAKING THE CASE: Investigating Large Scale Human Rights Violations Using Information Systems and Data Analysis). Even so, the would be some exceptions either way (Kent State shootings, I would think as one). Tyrenius (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In which case the figure of 4,000 to 12,000 "massacred" settlers in the Irish Rebellion of 1641 will have to go; and replaced only by much smaller verifiable specific instances. That would be a major step forward. Sarah777 (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral sources

I think there is an inbuilt problem requiring "neutral" sources, as "massacre" is an emotive term to start with and used to communicate a POV. One person's massacre is another's cleansing or strategic bombing campaign. The use of the word denotes an identification with the killed. It is particularly perilous when it comes to e.g. WW2, as revulsion for the Nazi regime tends to pass on by association to those ruled by it, and who just happened to be living in Dresden at the time. The allies are hardly neutral either. In a world war, who is, especially with anything where Hitler is concerned? Tyrenius (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well indeed. I think this is the nub of Sarah's concern. See also WP:TERRORIST. I think it behoves us to adopt a conservative approach to these things; while there may be a good case for saying that Dresden was a massacre, I think I would still want to see non-German neutral sources before including that one. Because otherwise we are back to the old "He says... she says...". Although I don't often say this, in this case I think we should try to behave like an old-fashioned paper encyclopedia and err if necessary on the side of omitting events whose descriptions as massacres are only made my the obviously partisan. (This reminds me of the recent debate on whether to include the phrase the Irish holocaust in the lead paragraph of the Irish potato famine article. It turned out that the only sources which called it that were Irish republican ones, thus it deserved a mention in the article but not in the lead.) --John (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I can only imagine the edit warring if the Loughgall Massacre (see Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade) gets added to this list... One Night In Hackney303 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Under proposal 1, it wouldn't be as it's Loughall Massacre, and it would need to be established in that (as yet non-existent) article first, which shifts discussion to that venue and removes it from this one. That is a better place for it. Tyrenius (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
So long as we are agreed on that, I am happy with this compromise. Politically (in a Wikipedia-politics sense) and practically, it will reduce the drama here to devolve these arguments to other articles. It will not make the drama go away but it will disperse it somewhat. I still think it is an important principle that for something to be considered a "massacre", someone other than the victims themselves or their relatives should regard it as such; see Dresden example above. But we are getting there. Let's give it another 48 hours, and if nobody objects we can consider this binding. --John (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree for the reasons I have already given (see #Discussion). Also there is no reason why there should be edit warring over Dresden or Loughall providing for controversial ones like those the sources are named in the text and the other POV is also included in the text. This is what is done for Allied war crimes the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the case of the British bombing of Germany in 1945, because the accuser is obviously partisan there is not even a refutation and if Joseph Goebbels called Dresden a massacre (known to be a discredited biased source)I'm not sure there is any need to balance the POV. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have especially strong objections to this practice of allowing the perpetrators excuses to be included in the list for Western war crimes but not for others. Let's give the alternative take on (9/11 and 7/7 etc, shall we? The arguments are by no means weak or fringe (in a global as distinct from Anglo-Saxon sense). Either way; one rule for all. Sarah777 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with Tyrenius or with me? --John (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Philip but I am not getting your meaning there. Do you mean that you would accept Goebbels' characterisation of the bombing as a massacre and include it on the list? I would far rather insist on multiple, neutral sources describing it as a massacre for inclusion here, and more importantly in the lead of the article itself too. This seems in line with Wikipedia principles as well; we do not use Wikipedia as a reference, but we may sometimes use it as a guideline of notability. Our encyclopedia should also be consistent about the use of such an emotive word. If our article on the subject describes it as a massacre, or shows it as an alternative name for the event in bold in the lead, we include it. If people wish to haggle, they can do so on the individual articles, a much more appropriate venue. If an article changes for a reasonable period, we reflect that in this article. Elegant, consistent, and the best way forward I have seen yet. --John (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two meanings to reliable source on Wikipeida. Is the source that something is published in reliable (I.E. a reputation for telling the truth) and the second is the person making the statement a reliable source -- knowledgeable and trustworthy and notable on a specific issue. As I understand it there is no need for sources to be neutral providing that any view that is expressed is balanced with the alternative views (WP:NPOV) and of course taking into account the section in NPOV called "Undue weight but noting the clause in that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" -- In this case I'd go further and say quote a prominent adherent. John, you do not seem to have addressed the examples of why I think neutral sources do not help us with this article so I'll give you another to ponder. Many scholars have written about the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre is any French scholar, or any scholar who is a Protestant or a Catholic considered to be a non neutral source? There were several other points that I made in the #Discussion section above which you do not seem to have taken into consideration. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So Philip, you decide if the media is neutral; if the writer is also neutral and then decide whether to admit the "massacre" and further whether the opposing view should be added? Personally, I'd prefer if I did as I reckon I'm way more NPOV than you are. Sarah777 (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is no requirement to use "neutral" sources, only "reliable sources", and to represent the "majority" viewpoint and "significant minority" viewpoint giving appropriate loading to each, and to not usually represent "tiny minority" viewpoints at all. NPOV applies to editors, not sources. And there is no need to "balance" a viewpoint just for the sake of it. Tyrenius (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"tiny minority" would be, globally speaking, the view of the billionaire controlled Western MSM. So that rules them out. I guess only the Opinion Polls count then - I could go with that. Sarah777 (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when were non-neutral sources ever considered to be reliable sources? --Veritas (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Very good question! Since PBS and John appointed themselves as the only path between majority opinion and truth! Sarah777 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. What sources can ever be considered "neutral"? Everyone has cultural assumptions. Tyrenius (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes Tyrenius you are right. I appreciate your ability to see shades of grey where others see black and white. However, the problem here is that we do actually need to make a black or white distinction, as we cannot partially include events here, we can either include or exclude them, there is no middle way. I think I have addressed your points Philip, or at least I have tried to. If an article has "massacre" in the title or in bold in the lead, we include it here. If not, not. This would (currently) exclude Dresden and Loughgall; if someone were to disagree with this, under my proposal, the discussion would be devolved to Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II and Talk:Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade. Once agreement was reached at those venues and a stable inclusion in the individual article had been achieved, we would have grounds to include the event in this list. That is all we need currently agree on here to take this forwards; my own opinions about whether a source is reliable on a particular topic may well be moot. Regarding the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre though, I think the references we have there at present look credible (though I do not know as much about that period or the best sources for it). Certainly I would have concerns about including this event if the only sources calling it a massacre were Huguenot ones. As that doesn't seem to be the case I would be happy for it to be included. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The two other issues are: What happens if there is a section in an article called massacre as there is in Irish Rebellion of 1641#Massacres are such sections included or excluded from this proposal? Massacre can also be used as a verb; are all such accusations to be ignored? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice question. I would say yes, but any such cases should be discussed here. This is another grey area; for me, the reference here is persuasive, and the article seems to be in line with a wide spread of sources in using the word "massacre" to describe the events. It would still be better in such cases to clarify the language in the article if you disagreed with it by discussing at Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1641. A good way of thinking about this might be to ask the question: "If we had a stand-alone article on this aspect of the rebellion, could/would/should it be called Massacres in the Irish Rebellion of 1641?" As, in this case, I get the answer "yes", I would incline to allow the inclusion of such cases.
Unlike many words, there doesn't seem much difference in meaning between the verb and the noun in this case, so I am less concerned by this.
Remember, we are better to establish broad principles here at this stage. We can then use the principles we agree to take the article forwards. --John (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hang on as they say

I see talk of moving on if there are no objections - I've been deliberately giving this issue a rest the past week but I am totally against giving support to the list based on what a Wiki article calls them (as per policy). For reasons I'll go into if necessary that would only intensify the Anglo-American bias. Sarah777 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names

We'd need to be careful with this. For example Bombing of Dresden in World War II has the "Dresden massacre" name bolded in the lead. So it gets added to this article. Then suddenly all hell breaks loose on that article with people saying it shouldn't be in the lead in bold as it's a minority term and it's being given too much weight etc etc. So would we remove it from this article, or would it stay? If it's stable in an article then it's ok, otherwise we've got problems. One Night In Hackney303 16:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We already have an example of this where PBS went back into the Irish Rebellion 1641 article to try and eliminate the massacre of Catholics by doctoring the source article. Sarah777 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The truth is in the edit history of the article and is highlighted in a section on the talk page see Talk:Irish Rebellion of 1641#Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish and these two edits Revision as of 12:10, 5 February 2008 by PBS and Revision as of 22:29, 5 February 2008 Sarah777 My edit replaced an unsourced sentence which mentioned three massacres with two detailed paragraphs (with citations) on two of the three massacres, and did not mention the third massacre of which you later wrote on the talk page "OK Philip, I never heard of the Glenmaquinn massacre before, so I'll have to concede on that pending some research. "[19]. When you have had time to consider what I have just written, I would appreciate it if you would strike through your claims that "PBS went back into the Irish Rebellion 1641 article to try and eliminate the massacre of Catholics by doctoring the source article" as I did the very opposite and expanded into two sourced paragraphs two of the three Catholic massacres only mentioned in one unsourced sentence in the section previous to my edit and in addition I added a third incident that happened when Newry was taken. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, as I said above. We will need to be careful about that. It would need to be stable there for a week or two to merit inclusion here. Any arguments could be had at Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II, where it more likely to attract people who are knowledgeable on the subject than it would be here. --John (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Also please consider the move history of this article
and compare the corresponding improvement in the text. The genocide allegations are still mentioned in a genocide section, but it is a section in the context of Soviet human rights. Would there have been more opposition to removing genocide from the lead if such moves if it had also meant that the corresponding genocide allegations in the genocides in history article had also been removed. I suspect there would. Another example is Foreign_relations_of_France#Algeria a POV version of this text was at one time in an article Accusations of French genocide against Algerians (see the talk page for details of the AFD) which was a recreation of Algerian Genocide and Algerian Genocide Claims. NB when the French parliament passed a resolution recognising the Armenian Genocide and making it a crime in France to deny it, in 2006 the Turkish Parliament retaliated with a similar proposal about the Algerian Genocide.[20]
Do we really want to encourage small new stubby articles created in certain formats simply so that they can be constructed to have massacre in the lead? Or new articles created by spinning off sections from larger articles simply so that they too have the word massacre in the lead? I think that this proposal would open up a can of WP:POVFORK worms. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, no, and yes. But this is outside our remit to decide here. If anything like that happens there are ways it can be dealt with. --John (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Quite. And this is List of massacres, not List of genocides, so we don't need to address the latter at all. It's bringing up irrelevant problems. Tyrenius (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The above are not directly relevant here, but they are examples of how people with strong opinions about an issue will behave. For example since I whacked the large list that was here before Christmas it has been recreated a number of times under different names. What makes you think that people will not behave in a similar manner if it gets their point into Wikipedia? I think it is better that if this list is to exist, these types of issues are dealt with in one place than spread out over lots of articles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, my reserves of WP:AGF are a little depleted at the moment, so I am in full understanding of your pessimism. However, we cannot realistically aspire to solving all of Wikipedia's POV and editor conduct issues here on this talk page. What we can do is agree that for the purposes of this article, we will adopt the criteria for inclusion that we have all worked so hard to agree on. As these criteria are founded on good logic and good adherence to Wikipedian principles, they may well carry some weight in future discussions that may arise on individual article talk pages. Let's, as they say, suck it and see. --John (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
John let me be clear, I do not think it is not matter of bad faith by other editors. Take for example the entry Zoran Zigic, it is very dry, and then search for his nickname "Ziga" in this document that I was recently introduced to. This is not a monster that walked the earth when our grandfathers were young this is a man who committed his crimes in the 19990 and I fully understand if people are passionate about incidents of the type described in the document and wish them to be publicised. I just don't think we should put into this article requirements that encourage problems in other areas. I think that if this article exists then compliance with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines are sufficient. But now that I have made my point I'll shut up see if despite my reservations, others come to a consensus on this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You guys are unreal! All the concern that obvious massacres like Dresden be excluded while trying to construct rules to make sure Soviet atrocities are not!!! This is a perfect illustration of why the list should not exist. You honestly can't see your own bias! There are vast numbers of massacres, enough to make this article the biggest on Wiki - are you going to try and construct rules (consistent with WP:NPOV) that will accommodate them all or not? All I can read into the discussion above is that the main concern is to exclude huge classes of British and American (or Anglophone) actions - I see no evidence of striving to create a NPOV list - or any indication that it is possible to do so. Sarah777 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Sarah777 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I think we do have principles that we can (if we want) agree and take forwards. Although I said it is better to go for broad principles here, it is only in examining the specific cases that we can get a feeling for how it would change the page. Can we proceed on the basis of Tyrenius' suggestions, as modified above by discussion? I really see this as the only way forwards; it is the closest we are ever going to be able to come to making this a good article. Let's agree on that, can we?
By the way I want to say that the standard of discussion has been very high recently. Please don't start throwing around accusations, I believe Philip is trying to improve the encyclopedia too. --John (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. It is against Wiki policy to use Wiki articles as references. Exract the references and move them here if they stand up. This is a non-runner. Sarah777 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Operation Sanko

From the history of the article Rv deletion by Philip Baird Shearer - Wow, deletion is sure constructive editing... If you had read the main article you had found an english source which I added here...

User:Flying tiger What does the English source say? Because what you have put in to the text is a pacification campaign ("atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." --Tacitus, Agricola 30) that may well have contained massacres but the operation its self is not one. Please quote the specific words that claim that the Three Alls Policy or "Operation Sankō" was a massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So Philip, are you saying that an overall war or campaign cannot be called a "massacre"? Please remove the Irish Rebellion 1641 from the list - to be consistent. Sarah777 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Here is an excerpt from Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, page 365 : «...Hirohito also knew of and approved the "annihilation" campaigns in China. These military operations caused death and suffering on a scale incomparably greater than the totally unplanned orgy of killing in Nanking (...) These operations targeted for destruction "enemies pretending to be local people" and "all males between the ages of fifteen and sixty whom we suspect to be enemies." They continued off and on for the next four years, gradually becoming larger in scale, organized, systematic and widespread. Eventually, Chinese Communist Party labeled them "three alls policy"; that is "kill all, steal all, burn all", or, in japanese, sankō sakusen. --Flying tiger (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2008

(UTC)

Pretty clear. Restore Sanko to the list. Sarah777 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
No, according to what we've said above, unless the Wikipedia article uses "Massacre" in the article title or in bold in the lead, it would not be eligible for inclusion here without a proper discussion. Please, whatever you do don't start an edit-war over it now. --John (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Rubbish. There is no consensus for breaching Wiki policy in this manner. I hereby give notice that, effective immediately, I withdraw from the 0RR policy applied only to some established editors. I will now edit the article in the normal manner just like PBS and everyone else. Sarah777 (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Flying tiger there does not seem to be a claim in the source you have provided that states the operation was a massacre. Instead it seems to be a word that you are using to describe the actions that "caused death and suffering on a scale incomparably greater than the totally unplanned orgy of killing in Nanking". That orgy of killing in Nanking is described as a massacre in the source provided, and in many other sources as a quick Google will show. All the other incidents on this page contain a source that claimes that the incident was a massacre. Do you have such a source that states that the operation was a massacre?

Sarah777: I am not stating that a war or a campaign can not be called a massacre, because as I have repeatedly said the allegations should come from reliable sources and I am not going to prejudge what is in reliable sources. I removed this particular incident because there was no source given that claimed that this operation was a massacre (it says "... caused death and suffering ..." which is a less emotive and better choice of words for a scholarly book. And I think that it is much more likely that events in a campaign/operation will be described as massacres in a reliable source than an operation itself. But not in all cases, see for example Operation Searchlight which was also a pacification operation that led to many massacres,[21] and which a journalist called Robert Payne wrote a book called Massacre in which he wrote "When President Yahya Khan, the military dictator of Pakistan, decided to massacre the Bengalis of East Pakistan for daring to demand regional autonomy,..."(Page 2). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's covered in The Massacre in History (now there's the sort of source we want!). Not sure about the total, says on pae 239 one foreign witness estimates at least 300,000 were killed during the Japanese advance, but whether that's referring to the entire thing I haven't checked. One Night In Hackney303 13:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I could not find the word massacre on the page (238) you have found, on page 239 the word "slaughter" is used but that is not massacre (shame this is not "List of slaughters"), or are you saying that any mention of any even in this book automatically counts as a massacre? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly won't start an edit war on this, but I think to stick on the exact word "massacre" is completly erroneous. The intent of the operation should be the first criteria, not the use of a specific word. There are many words which can have the same meaning as "massacre", which is NOT a scientific term. According to my general dictionnary, a "massacre" is "the killing of persons without defense" and a slaughter is a "carnage, massacre"!!!.... In that case, is there a difference in result between a "slaughter" and the Manila massacre ? For Sankō Sakusen, Bix uses the words "annihilation" and "destruction" (of humans). This should be enough...--Flying tiger (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You are 100% correct on this issue. Sarah777 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
So what you are doing is taking a source and declaring that the authors mean massacre even though they do not use the word. However, if you look through the talk archives, that is seen as a synthesis for the purposes of adding something to this list. So unless you can find some reliable sources that call the operation a massacre it should be deleted from this list. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Disagree; in this case the arguments re "synthesis" don't stand up. Sarah777 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
If a reliable third party source uses the word massacre and it is not being used figuratively, then it is a massacre. But to assume that a reliable third party source meant massacre when different words are used to describes an incident is WP:SYN. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No. It isn't WP:SYN. Poor interpretation of the policy. While Jimbo said that truth doesn't matter, only verifiability, he didn't extend 'verifiability' to include idiocy. What would he make of the abomination that "massacres" was - and is again becoming? Flying Tiger is correct in this case. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry guys, it isn't going to happen. That way lies madness and conflict. Instead find a few reliable sources that call it a massacre and go to the relevant article and get consensus to add in "Massacre" as part of the names in bold in the lead paragraph. Then come back here and we can discuss it. --John (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry John, as that is at odds with normal Wiki-policy you'd need exceptional consensus for that approach and you haven't got any! Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 if an incident is a massacre then there should be some reliable sources that call it that, otherwise an editor can put any incident in hit list and call it a massacre. For example one editor could add that the captain of RMS Titanic massacred the passengers and crew when he ran into an iceberg. There may not be a reliable source that makes the claim but lots of people died and if one Wikipedia editor claims it was a massacre, who is to say it was not? The trouble is that words can not be chased through the dictionary to justify their inclusion. For example there may be a slaughter of the forlorn hope as it breaks into a fortress, and there may be a slaughter of the defenders in the fortress and there may be a slaughter of prisoners at the end of the assault. But only one of these incidents would usually also be called a massacre. There is also a differences between the usage for carnage and massacre. If we go for the inclusion of any nasty event that an editor thinks was a massacre, and the exclusion (despite sources to the contrary) of massacres like Second Battle of Fallujah because some editors do not think it was a massacre, then we may as well forget about asking for references and restore the list as it was on 16 December 2007. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Philip. The iceberg that you reasoning flounders on is that you appear to imagine that normal Wiki practice can apply to reliable sources in the context of an article titled massacres! Clearly that isn't the case. The keystone thus removed your bridge collapses. (But least John imagines that he spots a contradiction I must point out that the notion of "consensus", unlike "reliable source", is independent of article title. External - a different set. Sarah777 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
"Clearly that isn't the case." Please elucidate why you think that Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not apply to this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Because this is an article about opinions, not facts. And manifestly the 'reliable source' criteria as interpreted by you are massively biased when it comes to "massacres" committed by, or against, the Anglo-American world. If you continue to waffle or deny this simple statement of fact you can't really expect assumptions of good faith. Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the "Anglo-American world". It's done some terrible things in its time. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground to right all the ills of history. This argument is moot here, given the compromise we have adopted. --John (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
How dare you suggest I am breaching WP:BATTLE. The point I am making is that an acknowledged source of systematic bias in Wiki is being made worse by your dictat which you choose to mislabel "consensus". Unlike you, I take WP:NPOV seriously. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, congratulations, I suppose. --John (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I said at 00:27, on 13 February that we could give this another 48 hours. Now that time has more than passed and everyone has had a chance to comment, let's accept we have a consensus to move forward on the issue. This is not to say it is the last word, merely an expedient way we can actually start to make some progress on the article. I cannot see a better way, but if someone thinks they can, now would be the ideal time to raise it. If I don't hear a workable alternative proposal in the next while, I'm going to mark it resolved. --John (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is clearly no concensus. Sarah777 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not the "workable alternative proposal" I asked for. (It is not even how you spell 'consensus'.) If this is the only dissenting voice I think we can still move on. Sorry Sarah but we don't need everyone to agree for it to be a consensus. --John (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have 'consensus' by any definition bar your own. You move on, preferably away from this "article" - I'll stay. OK? (Btw, your making an issue of typos sums up your Admin credibility, dunnit?) Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your dissent from the broad agreement we spent so much time drafting is noted, Sarah. Now I suggest you restrict your contributions here to those which would be useful. Thanks. --John (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no "broad agreement"! Are you taking some sort of hallucinogen???! Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus agreed. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If the "consensus" is a restrictive interpretation, based on presence of the word "massacre" in the name given by some to one event, then I'm neither part of it... I support a broader view based on at least, common sense (found in dictionary) synonyms such as «slaughter, carnage, annhilation etc».. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If a reliable third party source uses the word massacre and it is not being used figuratively, then it is a massacre. But to assume that a reliable third party source meant massacre when different words are used to describes an incident is WP:SYN. For example you (Flying tiger) have yet to come up with one reliable source that describes Operation Sanko as a massacre. If reliable third party sources are in agreement that it was a massacre you should be able to come up with a few that use that specific word. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone opening a dictionary can see that there is no scientific basic to what you are arguing and refering to an urelated Wikipedia definition does add more sense. You (Philip Baird Shearer) can make an artificial distinction between words covering the same reality but it does not make your point of view more logical. --Flying tiger (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I hear what you are saying, but in the absence of any clear agreement that has been the de facto position thus far, and it has led to an article which is neither good nor stable. What we are proposing is not perfect, but it is a way to remove the acrimony and wooliness from this article, which is why I think it is imperative not to waste the opportunity we have to go forwards. I would very firmly resist going back to the bad old ways. --John (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I already wrote I won't start a war edit on it. If a majority of users think the article would be better and more useful with a restrictive interpretation of "massacre" that dose not cover other synonyms, then go ahead ... --Flying tiger (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Good point Flying Tiger; there is no consensus except in the mind of the self-appointed article-minder. Moving forward to the worse new days. Just a thought John; could you take a pot at listing those editors you imagine form the consensus? It ain't the least bit obvious from anything written above. At least to those of us only drinking tea. Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
See also User talk:John#No consensus. To summarise, we note Sarah's opinion that any article may be added here as she considers this to be in better conformance with WP:NPOV, and we register her unhappiness. "I represent a minority in purely numerical terms and consensus in terms of the rational viewpoint and the debate". Nevertheless, going forward and with Rockpocket's support on my talk page, we proceed on the basis of Tyrenius' suggestion as modified by discussion and agreed by the majority here:

That this article is a list of events which Wikipedia calls a massacre, either in the article title or in bold in the lead.

Events which are close to this, which are for example section headings in an article at present are to be discussed individually here. The best guide to inclusion should perhaps be, if the section could be expanded into an article, would the title legitimately have the word "massacre" in it? If we agree the answer is yes, we could include it.

We also note that, as in all articles, the presence or absence of "massacre" as the title (or alternative title in bold in the lead) of an individual article should always be capable of verification through third-party, reliable sources. However this is a discussion that is better had on the individual article talk pages.

Any change to this should come from a further discussion and a demonstrated clear consensus to replace these criteria with other criteria for encyclopedic reasons.

I think this will open the possibility for real progress on improving not just the article but Wikipedia's coverage of the whole area. Any comments? --John (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No it won't, because you are going against the consensus. When did you start calling yourself "we" btw? Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Sarah, your dissent from the consensus has been noted. Once again, it would be great if you could come up with anything constructive. Until then, --John (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Calling yerself "we" again I see. Figures. But the real "we" have not adopted anything. For the record. There is no consensus in favour of your proposal. I realise from the exchange above that your are struggling to grasp the concept of "no consensus". How can I explain it simply? You see, I cannot "dissent" from something which doesn't exist. This remains the case whether you keep "noting" it or not. I guess this is akin to your "voluntary" exclusion of a few specific editors from the article. You seem to have a difficulty with fairly simple words pertaining to 'agreement' - 'voluntary' and 'consensus' being two recent examples. Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Onwards and upwards

Well, I think we have had all the discussion we are going to get here. Could anyone else lend a hand in trimming out all the entries which clearly do not relate to massacres, as discussed above? I may have time to have a hack at it myself later on. Thanks. --John (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took a look and removed all examples where the word was not present in the lead paragraph. I think it looks a lot better now, and I hope that this business can now be concluded. --John (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not what we wanted.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Who is "we"? And the consensus is clear. One Night In Hackney303 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Baghdad

To forestall an edit-war erupting, we need to decide what to do about Baghdad. I (rather generously) left it in place when I did my big snip last night, as the article contains a section, Baghdad#Stagnation and invasions (10th to 16th c.), with "The Mongols massacred most of the city's inhabitants...". On reflection I am inclined to agree with Tyrenius that this does not satisfy the agreed criteria. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't belong, in my humble opinion. If people's pet massacres don't meet the inclusion criteria, they don't get added to the article. One Night In Hackney303 15:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Also doesn't the "Mongols massacred most of the city's inhabitants..." part refer to the Battle of Baghdad (1258) which is easter egged right before it? That's another one you removed last night. One Night In Hackney303 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dujail and Babi Yar

While both these don't technically meet the current inclusion critera, I think they should stay. Babi Yar may be the name of the ravine, but even a cursory glance at the article shows it's not about the ravine really and should be at Babi Yar massacre. Similarly Dujail, the current problem is that there's not much that can be written about the place apart from the massacre. It'd turn into a tiny stub, with a huge content fork to Dujail massacre. 4,500 search results show it is the name of the event, and it's one of those where you can't really include an alternate name in the lead, as it's referring to something different than the actual article. Thoughts? One Night In Hackney303 16:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Babi Yar already has massacre in the lead. I've bolded it as the redirect goes to the article. Same can be done for Dujail:
approximately 10,000 inhabitants. It is the site of the Dujail Massacre
I haven't done that as it's not yet established by that name in the article. Tyrenius (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've put it in the article as it appears to be a well-referenced term for the event. Give it a few days and if it is stable there we could reinclude it here. --John (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's already here! One Night In Hackney303 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it? Sorry, I should have said, give it a few days. If anyone wants to remove it in the meantime I wouldn't object. Time for a cup of coffee, too many massacres. --John (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wounded Knee

I'm surprised that Wounded Knee Massacre, Sand Creek massacre, and other massacre's from the Indian wars aren't included. George Armstrong Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn might be another candidate. Although Custer massacred himself and his men by charging into a suicide battle. Modernist (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a case of rebuilding the article right now. All suggestions gratefully received! One Night In Hackney303 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I added the Bolton Massacre too. Fascinating story. --John (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've now added the Wounded Knee Massacre and Sand Creek massacre. I'm less sure about the Battle of the Little Big Horn. --John (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Way to go, thanks John, the Battle of the Little Big Horn probably isn't an official massacre, just a foolhardy move by Custer and his men, although they did get massacred. It's semantic I suppose. Another famous massacre that may or may not work here is the Saturday Night Massacre, albeit not a bloody one it eventually cost Nixon the presidency. Modernist (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Boston and St Valentines

I added the two to the list since there most commonly (almost always) referred to as massacres. Charles Stewart (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Description section

This should be as brief as possible to reduce the list length and because the full details are in the linked main article. Tyrenius (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? If so I'll trim my last one. --John (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. A general observation. Some of the existing ones give needless detail. Tyrenius (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As brief and NPOV as possible. One Night In Hackney303 20:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've trimmed slightly; feel free to trim any others that are excessive. We should aim for a super-summary form here. Also, am I right in thinking all should use present tense? At the moment some are present and some past. --John (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought past as in "Anglo-Saxon king Ethelred II ordered the killing of all Danes living in England", which makes it seamless with the main article. It did happen in the past after all. Tyrenius (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me; I haven't edited too many list articles and wondered if there was a convention to write them in present tense or something. If not I agree with you, but it should certainly all be in the same tense. --John (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither have I! Also active voice is better than passive where possible. Tyrenius (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Clifford's Tower York 1190

150 Jews massacred, should it be included? 78.19.120.125 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, as there is no evidence that it is referred to as a massacre. --John (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows massacre

This one is being made into a feature film, called September Dawn. On September 11, 1857, renegade Mormons dressed as renegade Indians massacred innocent men, women and children for revenge. They all got caught in the end. Modernist (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Add it... Tyrenius (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Can someone clever who is adept at "move" archiving get rid of the oldest talk, as this page has become very long. Tyrenius (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -