Talk:List of massacres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating.

Contents 1 I'm finding more mistakes . . . . 2 Added some details about the slaughter of Christians at Antioch in 1268 3 Archives 4 Missing Massacres 5 Port Arthor Massacre 6 First Crusade massacre 7 Restoring lost lists 8 Iraqi royalists 9 Bangladesh Liberation War 10 Holocaust 11 Pacific War 12 Deir Yassin 13 Serious omission! 14 Definition of Massacre 15 Stalin's USSR 16 Recent addition 17 where in the list? 18 Samar Massacre 19 Tibet 20 9/11 21 No Gun Ri 22 Stalingrad 23 World war II bombings 24 China under Mao Tse Tung 25 Beige background 26 Bold items, Date format 27 Badajoz a massacre outside of rules of war? don't think so 28 Defining "massacre" 28.1 Numbers 28.2 Timeframe, location 28.3 Alternative layout 29 Bromberg 30 12 31 Nanking Massacre 32 Waco 33 Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[edit] I'm finding more mistakes . . . .

Since when is the bombing of Kobe a massacre? Especially since the bombing of Tokyo (40 times for deaths) seems to have been excluded. This page seems to be becoming an opportunity for people to vent about man's cruelty to man. How 'bout deleting this page and starting one that's complete and correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.174.53.196 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Added some details about the slaughter of Christians at Antioch in 1268

Since this article is obviously ridden with left-wing anti-Western-Civilization nonsense, I went ahead and elaborated on the very scant treatment of Baybars brutal annihilation of the city of Antioch in the 13th Century. I also removed the false information about the Crusaders killing Jews and Christians during the First Crusade. That's sensationalism and has nothing to do with history.

[edit] Archives

• Talk:List of massacres/Archive 1

I couldn't agree more! Some "massacres" are called "conflicts" and some are called "pogroms" -- some are massacres of what? 35? and others of millions! I suggest dumping it and simply putting a link to the democide site at the U of Hawaii : http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ - Wiki is inadvertently aiding propaganda here. I say dump it. The function of wiki isn't to make lists or determine what qualifies/doesn't qualify as a "massacre". Juanita 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Massacres

The missing massacres on this list of Native Americans during the 1800's is striking and somewhat offensive. NOT EVEN THE TRAIL OF TEARS HAS BEEN INCLUDED. This person, however, included several "massacres" of settlers by Native Americans. Also , in the case of Mountain Meadows, there is much debate about this incident as to what really happened with the Mormon pioneers. I don't think the evidence is definitive enough in this case to be combined on a list including many massacres where the situation can be factually verified. This list is appalling. I'm atleast comforted by the fact that I'm not the only one that noticed the glaring omissions.-V.A., Utah

This is really a bad page.

We have included nothing about the (possibly) millions of massacres for taxes (all cultures, all times), when did hydro government (cutting off the water to the crops) become a massacre? How many had to die to qualify? As the Mongols spread across Asia, they probably massacred (by ANY definition) a couple thousand times. What they did going in to China to form the new dynasty probably qualifies a few thousand times. This is JUST the Mongols, everyone else is on the list.

The indigenous peoples of North America massacred each other to the point of genocide regularly. I don't think it's even POSSIBLE to compile that list. I hate to think what went on for 6 thousand years (30 thousand?) in Africa before record keeping came along.

When a Sultan executed every woman in his harem, was it a massacre?

I could go on and on, but will ask others to also take a critical look at what HAS BEEN LEFT OUT of this page.

I personally suggest it should be deleted. Not because it is bad, but because it's just plain wrong by reason of raging incompleteness.67.174.53.196 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

When Samson burned the grape fields of the Philistines, was it a massacre? No one died directly. No one starved. But the people were forced to drink water at a time in history when the water supply WAS REAL QUESTIONABLE. How many deaths from the galloping never get overs to qualify?67.174.53.196 04:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to keep coming back. I just checked, the article seems to have three references to the suicide bombings of the middle east. Since the fifties there have probably been thousands of these and every one documentd as to date, location, number of victims, and names of victims. If we don't include something this well documented, the entire idea of a LIST of massacres becomes a bit of a joke (IMHO)67.174.53.196 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I keep checking this page (morbid curiosity) and it keeps coming up real incomplete. ex. When the British left india, the country immediately dissolve into SERIOUS violence - most of it done w the personal intimacy of a knife. Estimates are 4 million dead (on both sides). I can't find it on the page.67.174.53.196 19:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why there is nothing about Spanish and Portuguise Conquistadors massive massacres? And there is also nothing what happend to millions of American Indians. I guess nobody can deny them.

Just did a quick edit search on the word "china". This page has missed 4 to 6 thousand years of incredibly bloody history.67.174.53.196 02:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. -- Миборовский 05:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are none of the Native American massacres listed under state sponsored massacres?

In the last several hundred years, the western world has kept meticulous records of every verifiable massacre of the crew of a ship by pirates (western, muslim, etc.). None of these have been included. The Chinese pirates perpetrated even more massacres, but are not very well recorded. Piracy has existed for thousands of years, and all places there is water (fresh as well as salt). We do not seem to have included any of the Pacificulture massacres committed by the wars for territory.67.174.53.196 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Only 4 references to massacres by Islam/Muslim armies? 69.62.148.253 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Port Arthor Massacre

What was the political motivation behind this? Shouldn't it be listed under criminal massacres?

[edit] First Crusade massacre

It says in the list of massacres of "December 12, 1098 First Crusade ~20,000 Ma'arrat al-Numan Almost all Muslim inhabitants massacred and then eaten by the Crusaders". Eaten? Is this true?

It would seem so.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 22:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a very dodgy story for which I can find no reputable reference.

The most I can find is this...

From Guibert of Nogent, Historia Hierosolymitana

There was a certain man of Norman birth and of not low station in life, so they say, who started as a knight but became a foot soldier; he saw that these men were wandering without a lord, so he laid down his weapons and clothes, and volunteered to be their king. From then on he was called King Tafur in the barbarian language. For these men were called Tafur by the infidels whom we, if I may speak more colloquially, call Trudennes or tramps; they are so called because they tramp, that is, they do things in a carefree way, travelling hither and thither throughout the years.

When at Ma'arra - and wherever else - scraps of flesh from pagans' bodies were discovered; when starvation forced our soldiers to the deed of cannibalism (which is known to have been carried out by the Franks only in secret and as rarely as possible), a hideous rumour spread among the infidel; that there were men in the Frankish army who fed very greedily on the bodies of the Saracens. When they heard this the Tafurs, in order to impress the enemy, roasted the bruised body of a Turk over a fire as if it were meat for eating, in full view of the Turkish forces.

Please see Ma'arrat al-Numan. It appears genuine enough (sources at the bottom). Let us know if you're 110% sure it's not.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 02:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this entry becuase it is false. The basis for this myth comes from accusations against the Knights Templar. It is obviously propaganda and is outside of NPOV. There are numerous outrigth false hoods and gross over / under estimations of deaths. With a distinctly Anti-Western Civilization slant. This article requires HEAVY re-writing or removal.

--I would add, though, that this is hardly the only reference to King Tafur and his cannibal legion. cf. http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~freethought/foote/crimes/c9.htm It does cite Guibert of Nogent, but also adds input from a great many other sources to confirm popular thought of the day on the activities of the Tafurs and their King, including poetry encapsulating the perceived heinousness of their deeds. Thankfully too, that site is rife with citations to confirm if one is so inclined. Tafur and his ghoulish band do seem legit. There is some speculation, as well, that the term "ghoul" itself was created as a description of the Tafur army. Historically, this holds together. It would not be Anti-Templar propaganda as the accounts clearly state that Tafur was acting independently, beyond control of the orthodox nobility. They had nothing to do with it, save to watch and hope for the best.

I'm afraid becuase it is false isn't quite persuasive enough. Are there any scholarly research on this? AFAIK the claim is not new, I've seen it many times in print and online. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous situatuions stated on line and in print. This does not make them reliable or true. This specific claim has been debunked more times than it has been printed. It is true that isolated acts of cannibalism did take place during the crusades but to paint with such a broad stroke is as irresponsable as saying the holocaust did not happen. So the fact that it is false is persuasive enough. The example you site is not "Scholarly" at all. I have removed the offending entry becuase it is proven false by the very example used to prove it is true. And by the way the entry about the small pox and natives is also suspect. Was it discussed? Aparently. Was it done? No one knows. Check out this article for clarification

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html

Once again we have a WIkipedia article which is POV only because it is politically correct to suffer the sins of the father. The history of Western Civilization is filled with mans inhumanity towards man. I'm getting a little tired of it being so slanted in the past every nationality and race has been utterly miserable to one another. And this half hearted politically correct reporting dis-honors the truth and the victims of it.

Smallpox and blankets have nothing to do with this. Please keep the discussion on Ma'arrat. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Be careful who you issue orders to pal and watch your tone. Amending an order with please will not obsolve you of a nasty tone. I'd much rather keep this a civil conversation. Think you can Slappy? . The small pox portion of this article is sited as an example of yet another inacurate listing just as is the one on Ma'arrat. And its the self righteous attitude of the articles editors which has required a POV neutrailty check. I don't have the time available to go through ALL of the listings that are suspect but I assure they are legion in number. So how about we stop this bickering and trade info instead of barbs?

Keep it civil. Your tone is unlikely to endear you to anyone. You are the one throwing insults around, so unless you act like a mature person I see no need to converse with you further. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring lost lists

I am no longer watching this page so I was very surprised to come back here and find that some of the least contentious parts had been deleted. I guess it was a mistake: Compare 18:46, 21 October 2005 FireFox -- 18:50, 21 October 2005 Miborovsky shame on you who watch the page for not noticing. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iraqi royalists

I removed these two:

Iraqi royalists massacre hundreds of minorities in tehy 1930s,

1943 Iraqi royalists massacre hundreds of Jews in 1942,

Becuase No links, no source and no format. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation War

I removed this entry:

!|March 25, 1971||Bangladesh Liberation War||up to 3 million||Bangladesh|| Mass executions by Pakistan Army. During the War, over a period of just under nine months (267 days), up to 3 million Bangladeshis were killed by Pakistan Army. Around 200,000 women aged between 8 years and 60 years were raped.

Not because I question if up to 3 million died, but a war is not a massacre. It needs to be broken down into individual events. We do not put in World War II and just list all the civilian dead as one massacre. This is particularly for wars which took place before 1977 and GC Protocol I with its articles to protect civilians. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

It lists 5.6-5.9 million, but that just accounts for the Jews killed. The total death toll was around eleven million. GreatGatsby 02:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have clarified appropriately. / Ezeu 02:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have become declarified. The number on the list currently says est. 5.6 to 6.1 million, which is actually the most commonly quoted figure for the number of Jews killed. My understanding (off the top of my head) is that 12 million died in the death camps, etc., including Roma, homosexuals, Slavs, mentally ill/disabled people, physically disabled people, and "communists" (so-described by the Third Reich, but in fact any Left opponents of the Nazis). In one way I agree with the anonymous comment below that it is incorrect to include only Jews under the term Holocaust - but, as I understand it, "Holocaust" is a religiously-derived term itself that was applied by Jews to the genocide, and so it may be inappropriate to use the term to label the killings of non-Jews... Nevertheless, since the Holocaust article uses the term to include all groups targetted and killed by the Nazis, it's fine here as long as the correct numbers are included and the descriptive text isn't misleading (it currently says: Systematic destruction of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators, including the mass deportation of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals..., which is both a non-sequitur {referring to "Gypsies" and homosexuals as part of European Jewry} and incomplete {leaving out some groups}). Of course, the term "Gypsies" is itself both incorrect and offensive. Pinkville 14:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word "disputed" from Holocaust casualty figures. These numbers are no more disputed than many of the other massacres listed. Gni 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is offensive to include only Jews. BTW, even for Jews alone, given recently declassifications it is known the number is much higher.

[edit] Pacific War

1931-1945||WWII Pacific War||15+ million||all Japanese occupied lands in Asia & the Pacific||Non-military, non-combat related deaths; includes those killed in Japanese bioweaponry experiments

I removed this item because a war is not a massacre. It may have massacres in it but as the definition at the start of the page says: "to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killings". A war is not an individual event.

The earlier comment on the history page: 23:43, 29 November 2005 Miborovsky rv to version by Iulianu. japanese don't keep records of who they massacred and when and where. besides, if we include individual incidents, this page would have too many. Does not make sense, either they are recorded (by someone) and can be listed, In a sub list page which is topic specific if necessary, or there is no record in which case how can anyone know if a massacre took place as not all deaths in war are the result of massacres. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

So in battle, there has to do a guy running back and forth and counting the dead bodies, and interviewing the people who killed them, for the dead to be considered killed and entered into the records? No. After the battle, there's a head count and those who live live, those who are killed are killed. There's no record of how every single soldier in a firefight got killed, so technically, they cannot be considered to have been killed? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, one of the most accurate records kept by western armies is a list of their own MIA KIA and other casualties after all it effects battle orders, pay, rations, etc, etc. So at the end of a war between two Western nations one can with the correct records map out most battlefield casualties for both sides to the nearest day and often to the hour. But this is not a list of KIA this is a list of massacres. For a massacre to be listed in Wikipedia it must have been listed in a primary or secondary source as a massacre eg The Bangka Island Massacre, February 14 1942 --Philip Baird Shearer 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that a good place to start would be with a web site already listed in "External links" George Duncan's Massacres and atrocities of World War II: The Pacific Region --Philip Baird Shearer 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, the Japanese don't keep meticulous records on who they massacre. Even if they did, they're not about to hand it over. But the indisputable fact is that they did carry out massacres. If does not matter if there's a name for a massacre or not. It does not matter whether you consider them "not specific enough". There were massacres, and that's all that matters. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. If it is an "indisputable fact" then the massacres will be well documented and called such in other sources. Secondly please see the bottom of an edit window "Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. -- Philip Baird Shearer 00:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Which part of "the Japanese don't keep meticulous records on who they massacre" can you not understand? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the 9 million figure is well documented. How they derived it I do not know. But it is the figure quoted for most sources out there. Just because individual massacres may not be named does not mean they did not happen. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To be listed as a massacre in this list not only must it fit the definition at the start of the article but it must also satisfy WP:NOR, Wikipedia:verifiable and WP:NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see footnotes given at the end of the article. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The footnote is not relevant. Word War II is not one large a massacre. There were massacres in it but the whole war. You have started the process of listing the massacres in the theatre but lumping them into one is not the way to do it. Please break them out into separate entries as they are in the European theatre. There is another problem with the definition you are using in the section, During World war II killing enemy civilians in enemy occupied territory was not a crime. Killing enemy civilins in in occupied territory often was a war crime and was always a war crime if they were kill as a reprisal for actions taken by others. Further using Rudolph Rummel as a source whos interests are in democide has little to do with massacres because he tends to rely on statistics to calculate the numbers not on reports of individual massacres. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deir Yassin

The Deir Yassin row should really be moved to the "during armed conflict" chart

[edit] Serious omission!

Can it be acceptable in an objective and accurate encyclopaedia like Wikipedia not to include some serious genocides? It is my opinion that the genocide of the Greek populations of Pontos which started in 1916 by Turks should be included. The genocide of Christian Greek populations in 1922 in Asia Minor and Smyrna by the Young Turks should also be included, maybe in the same entry with that of Pontian Greeks. The pogrom of Constantinople (see Istanbul Pogrom) in 1955 should also be included in the Pogroms list. If there is no objection, I shall add those two historical atrocities in the list. Petros The Hellene 20:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the Istanbul Pogrom article, I would oppose it being included on a List of massacres. Although there were some fatalities, it was not a massacre. It is already mentioned on the article dealing with pogroms. --Damac 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that I did not notice it in the pogroms list. Sorry. What about the rest? Petros The Hellene 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't even touch on the thousands of massacres and genocides of pre columbian north america. South america is worse, but better documented.24.10.102.46 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Massacre

If a massacre is defined to be "mass" killing, how can shootings involving as little as 5 deaths be on the list of massacres? Not to say that those incidents are insignificant, but the term "massacre" seems misused and overused in some of these situations. I question whether the article as it is is meeting NPOV. LilianPhoebs 09:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As no one else has replied: To a large extent it depends on the type of massacre. Describing private enterprise killings as a massacre has a long history. For example the St. Valentine's Day massacre is well known and resulted in "only" 7 deaths. For newspapers massacre is a headline grabbing word, that sells newspapers, so it only takes a small simultanious mass murder for this term to be used. As can be seen by the list here many editors of Wikipedia also think it is a headline grabbing word and include things I would not personally include as a massacere (like the London 7/7 bombings), but as the WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." and so it someone comes up with a "reference to reliable, published source" which says it is a massacre they are entitled to include it here. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I really question whether this page should be kept. Superficially, the listing is OK. However, the definition of massacre and the heavy preponderance of listings only for those cultures, etc. that had a historical documentation procedure skews things heavily for the western world, modern world, media world.

Should the Chegnone massacre be included? How about the Boston masscre? An AMERICAN jury found all the British soldiers but one innocent. The one was branded for manslaughter. This is a massacre?

The concept is OK and consistent w wikipedia, but the page will never be even close to complete/correct by ANYONE'S definition.24.10.102.46 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Really suggest this page be removed. I did a little research (one book) and came up w 30 massacres from the Middle East on one 12 year period.

This page will just plain never be even close to complete, correct, or not subject to an awful lot of controversy (legitemate).24.10.102.46 04:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, just to expand my argument this will never be a good page: You completely missed the "black hole of Calcutta", what the Zulus did to the British, what the British did to the Zulus, what the Zulus did to everyone else. Still in South Africa, you also missed the "beast commando" that killed no one directly but probably starved a lot. I see absolutely nothing about the Inca who did SOMETHING so terrible they didn't need to put occupation forces in conquered territories. Just say "send the tribute or we'll be back". There was at least one BC middle eastern culture who's writing brag about covering the walls of a city w the skins of the residents. This must have happened many time. Don't even get me started on southeast asia, the Maori, the Hawaiians, the Chinese vs the Koreans, etc. W only minor effort, I could go on and on and on .. . . .

If this page were actually a good page (i.e. correct and complete) it would (probably) have to be a couple thousand pages. This is a HUGE subject and there is no way it will be a good wikipedia entry.24.10.102.46 19:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin's USSR

I was wondering, why are none of Josef Stalin's purges included? I realize that it's a little tough, considering how spread out it is, but still, anyone know? --outsidethewall 23:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why haven't any of the massacres committed by Police in the United States under the Asset Seizure laws been included? (There have been about 300 "incidents" of which the majority would not qualify due to too few victims).67.174.53.196 00:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition

What does everyone think about these additions. They ring a bell and I think they do belong here, but need redrafting. --Tēlex 13:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where in the list?

where should I put Turbi Village massacre ? --Melaen 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Where should we put the Deerfield massacre? Technically it (and all the other "massacres" perpetrated by the American Indian) was within the rules of war, as practiced by the Indians (when the whites did it, it was outside their rules of war and definitely fits the definiton of massacre).67.174.53.196 03:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Ovčara massacre placed under "Massacres during peace time"? It happened during the war, after the biggest and longest battle...?

[edit] Samar Massacre

This is described as:

During the Philippine-American War, while the Philippines were a colonial possession of the USA, Filipinos armed with machetes kill all American soldiers from the garrison of the port of Balangiga on the island of Samar (see Balangiga massacre)

Look what those dreadful Filipinos did! They attacked soldiers who invaded their country.

Missing from here is the thousands killed by these same colonial forces. Or the reaction to the attack on the garrison:

General Jacob H. Smith instructed Major Littleton "Tony" Waller, the commanding officer of the Marines assigned to clean up the island of Samar, of the methods he was to employ. He was quoted to have said: "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn; the more you kill and burn the better it will please me." He directed that Samar be converted into a "howling wilderness." All persons, who did not surrender and were capable of carrying arms, were to be shot, and this meant anyone over ten years of age, according to Smith. Due to these orders, he became known as Jacob "Howling Wilderness" Smith.What followed was a sustained and widespread massacre of Filipino civilians.

So who is responsible for the rubbish on this page? Herne nz

[edit] Tibet

Why no listings for the various massacres of Tibetians by Chinese forces? (e.g. the aftermath of the 1959 Norbulinka, Lhasa uprising, and various others before and after.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.221.61 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 August 2006.

I'm not sure. Feel free to add them however. —Khoikhoi 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

The 9/11 attacks are listed under "non-governmental" massacres. I suggest this be changed slightly as we do not have sufficient evidence that this was non-governmental. NPOV demands this. Freedom usually cares, kindly 18:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Gun Ri

No Gun Ri incident is known as No Gun Ri massacre. Please add to the list. Mukadderat 03:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalingrad

I missing here bombing of Stalingrady by germans in 1943? in this list.

[edit] World war II bombings

What are bombings in World War II doing here? Bombings by airplane inbetween countries that are officially in a state of war do not belong in a list of massacres. They should either be moved to a separate list or deleted.

[edit] China under Mao Tse Tung

I have heard that Mao murdered 60 million Chinese people. I recall reading somewhere that, after his death, the successor government acknowledged 20 million of these killings.

Considering that this is the biggest massacre on the list - why isn't it on the list? --Uncle Ed 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, possibly because famines can't meet the definition of "massacre". -- Миборовский 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why "Deaths due to man-made famine" should be excluded. If not on this page, than we should create a special page for it. Stalin and Mao both killed more people than Hitler. --Uncle Ed 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere else. Not here. Famines don't meet the definition of "massacre". Besides, nobody other than Jung Chang gives that large figure and attribute it squarely on Mao. -- Миборовский 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beige background

Beige background   Massacres whose primary motive was internal ethnic or religious hatred rather than war or reprisal.

Looking at the current state of the list, these seem to be difficult motives to disentangle, so I've removed use of the beige background (at least for the time being). David Kernow (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold items, Date format

Some larger massacres are in bold, but others not. Can we set a cut-off point of 10,000 or something or have no bold rows (bold is distracting and takes up more space) or just a different background colour, maybe for numbers box only? The date format is also inconsistent. I will standardise the date format and then fool around with the bold vs. background colour and we can revert if it does not look good. --Deon Steyn 11:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the month-day information, because it only clutters the table and can be found on the article for the particular event. I have also removed the use of header rows (starting line with "!" instead of "|") some editors incorrectly used for emphasis. --Deon Steyn 12:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Deon!

1. Re small font-size across entire table, I was thinking it might be preferable to restrict this to the "Summary" column (which, after all, acts as a preview for each massacre's article linked); what do you reckon...?
2. I was also thinking of inserting all the various types currently dividing the list ("Massacres during armed conflicts", "State-sponsored or state-condoned massacres during peacetime", etc) into the main Ancient/Modern lists, then using other background colo/urs to indicate those of particular types... I don't think it will turn the list into some kind of psychedelic rainbow as I query many of the present characteriz/sations; what do you think...?

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, large (wide or long) tables look best with a slightly reduced font size for the entire table. We could bump it up to 95% if it looks too small. For the description column the <small> tag is perhaps more appropriate, but definitely easier and neater than the span/font-size tags... it results in a font size of about 70% (guessing).

I would also remove the two tables you mention, but I don't know if I would even bother distinguishing from the other entries, because the criteria ("during armed conflict", "political", "government") are a bit too subjective. --Deon Steyn 07:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badajoz a massacre outside of rules of war? don't think so

What happened at Badajoz (1812) falls under the rules of war at the time. The killings and rape of civilians(I'm not sure if there was that much killing; it was mostly rape I believe) by the British soldiers was justified by the fact that the city held out and forced an assault by Wellington. KingOfAfrica 21:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't sound "justified" to me, but I guess this is pre-Geneva Convention...  David Kernow (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defining "massacre"

From #Archives above:

Some "massacres" are called "conflicts" and some are called "pogroms" -- some are massacres of what? 35? and others of millions! I suggest dumping it and simply putting a link to the democide site at the U of Hawaii : http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ - Wiki is inadvertently aiding propaganda here. I say dump it. The function of wiki isn't to make lists or determine what qualifies/doesn't qualify as a "massacre". Juanita 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rudi Rummel? No, thank you. I know his methods.

Xx236 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

Whilst I'm not convinced no list should be made, I agree with Juanita that the variation in numbers killed is far too great. According to the (relevant) American Heritage Dictionary entry for "massacre" at http://dictionary.reference.com, a massacre is:

1. The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

So the numbers of people involved are "large". One threshold already in place is the yellow background for massacres of over 10,000 (!), so perhaps a "large" number of people might be set at 100 or more...?  (A separate article for those "massacres" involving fewer people could be made.)

Thoughts, anyone...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

...How about:

List of massacres involving thousands of people

List of massacres involving hundreds of people

List of massacres involving less than 100 people...?

(Those massacres involving unknown numbers omitted, or perhaps given List of massacres involving unknown numbers of people...)   David Kernow (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes more sense than this incomplete turkey.67.174.53.196 04:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeframe, location

Two other aspects are:

1. Whether "massacre" may refer to a single continuous event no more than (say) hours in duration or something as extended (and initially intermittent) in time such as the Holocaust;
2. As a corollary, whether a "massacre" is an event occurring at one or at more than one location (and/or the scope of "location" – a city, district, region, country...?)

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"...a list of incidents that either meet the criteria of resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event, or that are commonly labelled as massacres, though they may not be on the same scale. Generally, the list includes individual events only, but..."

—article ¶3

[edit] Alternative layout

Alternatively, rather than separate the list into lists involving N people or the like, a single chronological list of three columns (featuring shorter or no summaries) could be retained, the first column carrying massacres involving thousands of people, the second massacres involving hundreds and the third massacres involving up to 100 (or an unknown number)...?   Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bromberg

A combination of the 350 to 5,000 ethnic Germans killed during the Polish Defensive War and the subsequent massacre of c.3,000 Polish civilians in reprisal. See Bloody Sunday (1939)

If the total number of German civilians killed is quoted, why not the total number of Polish civilians? 3,000 was a short term reprisal in a small area. Xx236 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12

If 12 is a massacre, then the Holocaust deserves more than 10,000 lines and German crimes against Polish gentiles thousands lines. Xx236 11:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanking Massacre

The text about the Nanking Massacre in 'Massacres during armed conflicts' has clearly been hijacked by a Japanese right-wing revisionist (note the poor English.) This needs to be revised. Just because someone says a massacre did not happen, or the figures are in dispute does not make it so. The vast majority of historians regard 300,000 civilians were killed, a handful of neo-con revisionist Japanese historians disputing this fact on flimsy and one-sided evidence does not warrant the entry there. Every massacre is disputed in terms of numbers but only this entry has had it posted, the Japanese revisionist historians try to sow seeds of doubt in peoples minds by disputing tiny things and then using that to say all other atrocities never happened / are fabricated. They are insidious and I encourage others to help me police Wikipedia for their attempts at misinformation, disinformation and distortion or rewriting of history in relation to Japanese atrocities during WWII. Just because you can lie to your own poorly informed and educated populace does not mean you can do it to the rest of the World! --JG13 03:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and edit that mess if you want too. --68.149.181.145 03:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waco

Give me a break! The circumstances surrounding the Waco seige are hotly contested. Labelling it a "massacre" is disgustingly POV. --68.149.181.145 03:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Both bombings should be on the list, as is the bombing of Dresden and other massive onslaught of civilians during WWII.--84.208.194.186 12:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)