Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 6

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 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →
Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Archive using move procedure


Contents

FYI

For earlier discussion in this section see Talk:List of massacres/Archive 5#FYI

Definition

For earlier discussion in this section see Talk:List of massacres/Archive 5#Definition

Alternative names

For earlier discussion in this section see Talk:List of massacres/Archive 5#Alternative names
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

For earlier discussion in this section see Talk:List of massacres/Archive 5#Operation Sanko

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)

I've tried to implement this; see what you think. --John (talk) 17:24, 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)

Done. --John (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
cleaned. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent job! --John (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

It is clear that this has become a "List of Wiki Articles termed "massacres". I will formally propose moving this article to that more appropriate title. Any objections? Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a very strong objection per WP:POINT as it would be a disruptive action. This is not how wikipedia articles are titled. The lead states what this is, namely "a list of events which are known by the word "massacre" in their name" — not a "list of Wiki articles titled 'massacres'". A Wiki article is titled such (or it is given in bold in the lead section) because this is what the event is known as. If the event is not known this way, then the Wiki article is wrongly titled, and this needs to be addressed in that individual article, where a depth of discussion is feasible that becomes overwhelming in a list article of this nature. Likewise, if an event is known by such a name and the Wiki article does not have that title, that too needs to be addressed. List of American artists before 1900 and List of American artists 1900 and after, for example, are constructed on the same principles as List of massacres: you will see that only blue links are present. This has succeeded in turning them from chaos to a useful resource. Tyrenius (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Per Tyrenius, this would not be a good idea. The article has become what it should be, a list of massacres. --John (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) shows how articles about events are named. One Night In Hackney303 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

School killings

I see that Dunblane massacre has been added. Do we want to send school shootings over to that page and leave an appropriate redirect at the top?--Knulclunk (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I see 12 11 others there that could potentially be added here. I haven't examined the articles, just their titles. If they qualify, by all means add them in. --John (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't understand what you mean. I notice there are a number of "massacre" articles listed at School shootings, which are a specialised area and a bit out of keeping with the theme of state/military violence in this article. I propose leaving out school shootings which were the result of a pupil/civilian, and instead leaving a note at the top of this article directing readers to School shootings for details of those articles titled "massacres". Is that what you mean? Tyrenius (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. What do others think? --John (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We should leave school shootings out. There are actually dozens, and miss the original point of this list. Even with the new filter, we should limit the list to military v civilian or the armed authority v the unarmed and defenseless.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The original point of this list seems to be political soapboxing in that case. If they are known as massacres, they should be on the list. One Night In Hackney303 07:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Though easily abused by those who wish to make a point, or soapbox as you suggest, the killing of civilians is a significantly different concept from List of school related attacks. For which there is already an article. --Knulclunk (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing the essential difference that makes school massacres exempt from inclusion. We already have two, with Beslan and Dunblane. --John (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was seeing School shootings as a sub-article of this one, but it doesn't exactly fit the bill, and that tack is already starting to raise problems, so it may well be better to just stick to the agreed format and include them.Tyrenius (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion

I followed the link given in the AfD header, but it only lists the previous AfD discussion. Where do I go for the current discussion? — Val42 (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow the link in the template called "the discussion" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The AfD was malformed and has been commented out. I must say it looks rather pointy having come from an editor who has tried three times to insert the Bloody Sunday killings into the article against the consensus we formed here, and without ever raising it on this talk page. --John (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The new AfD is not listed properly as yet.[1] Tyrenius (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is now. --John (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new start

It seems to me this can be far more then just a list of events that had a "massacre" in its name. I'd like to propose a new structure for this article which would significantly improve its contribution to Wikipedia and the reader understanding.

Every encyclopaedia article needs a purpose for being, which is to inform and educate. A bare list in itself is not particularly educational.

Suggest move to new title

== Unresisted killing of groups ==

(Would still require redirects from massacres, butchery, slaughter, killing)

  • Earliest source - Jeremiah 51:40 "I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he-goats." The slaughter referred to here is the annual celebration of Passover.
  • Etymology (English) - origin, meanings. The meaning is derived from the Biblical source (above) of a ritual slaughter using a ritual knife during Passover. The word for a knife in Hebrew is sakeen (Hebrew - סַכִּין) with a prefix -מִ (from, of), vocalised mi-sakeen. The suggestion is a Latin borrowing as macellum "provisions store, butcher shop."; Old French macacre, macecle "slaughterhouse, butchery" reflecting originally non-atrocity based meaning.[1]
  • Synonyms (English) - butchery, slaughter, killing
  • Definition - a massacre is an event notable for a significant loss of life by use of force on defenseless victims (see etymology) in a short period of time, as opposed to genocide or ethnocide. A massacre may occur during a military conflict, a civil war or civilian ethnic cleansing occurring over a longer period. The notability varies depending on the scale of the even in perception of the society within which it was perpetrated. A killing of several individuals in a small community (small group)<ref>Most researchers define a small group as having at least three and no more than twelve or fifteen members. A group needs to have at least three members, otherwise it would simply be a dyad. [http://www.abacon.com/commstudies/groups/definition.html]</ref>, or one that is not usually subjected to such events is likely to be as notable as large scale and long duration events in societies where such occurrences are experienced more often, and in larger populations.
  • Scope - massacres encompass all periods of human history and all societies. Perpetrators have been known to be civilians, para-military and military forces, organised and acting haphazardly, directed by higher political or military entity as a matter of policy, or perpetrated by individuals driven by mental disorders. The article is intended as a resource for comparative analysis of such events.
  • Perspectives - Perspectives presented in the list are those of the apprehended perpetrators, victims, and law enforcement personnel.
  • Event records in English language
  • Event records in non-English languages
  • Behaviour by perpetrators
  • Commonality in perpetrations
  • Events by type of perpetrators
  • Events by type of victims
  • Events by means of perpetration
  • Events by number of victims
  • Events by duration
  • Ratios of perpetrators to victims
  • Behaviour by survivors
    • Adults
    • Children
    • Effect on descendants
  • Analysis of the incidents
  • References
  • Sources
  • See also —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a good outline for an article on Massacres. Lists by definition are abbreviated in their scope. Tyrenius (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this is an improvement over the previous criteria. What you are proposing is more than a dictionary entry would have. However, it isn't quite right, but I can't put my finger on it. Keep working in the criteria; you are at least going in the right direction. — Val42 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Philip is absolutely right, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I actually think that any Wikipedia article that has a single word for the title is not conveying the intent to inform in the encyclopaedia sense, but only provides a long definition on what should be a Dictionary/Thesaurus entry. Authors/editors should ask themselves, if I create/edit this, is this what the reader wants to see? Undoubtedly there is a purpose as to why anyone would look in an encyclopaedia, and ours is not to do and say "bye", but to question why (oddly enough that sounds familiar, and somewhat appropriate) :o\
I think with all the ethnic cleansings, and atrocities being committed in the World as we edit, this article can be evolved into an important article, and even an FA article given a bit of active encouragement for participation.

Category:Human rights abuses Category:Violence Category:Dynamic lists Category:Military lists Others as the article is being edited (mental disorders, cults, etc.)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


The place to talk about this is on the massacre talk page but I think you should read the archives to this page very carefully because the problem with the word massacre is exactly the same as with the word WP:TERRORIST a word with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to the actions one's enemies and opponents.
Do you think we should have a page on "Carnage" and "Bloody slaughter" as well as massacre? If not why not?
Also I would question much of what you have listed above for example the "Earliest source" which is the area of the OED specalises in is 1578 R. LINDSAY Hist. & Cron. Scotl. (1899) II. 291 The xxiiij day of August..the grytt..murther and messecar of Paris wes committit. for the noun and 1588 J. PENRY Viewe Publ. Wants Wales 65 Men which make no conscience for gaine sake, to breake the law of the æternall, and massaker soules..are dangerous subjects. for the verb and this is a dictionary issue not an encyclopaedia issue. The Etymology that the OED gives for massacre is so far from the one you have given I won't even bother to list it. I would go through others but lets skip strait to the categories you have suggested. For example there is a strong case for saying that many massacres are not "Human rights abuses" because the term is attached to many events that are not, or were not human rights abuses. For example there is nothing in the dictionary definition that stops any mass killing within the laws of war being described as a massacre but that is not a human rights abuse, or are you going to make up a roll you own definition? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to read the archives later.
"Carnage" and "Bloody slaughter" seem rather journalistic to me.
The early source is for etymology, not for the occurrence of massacres. Etymology is a rather long conversation, so I will enter into that discussion when I need to.
I included "defenseless victims" to include killing of POWs also. A defeat of an outclassed enemy in combat is not a massacre even if it may have been described as one by survivors, but a military failure.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Genocides are greater crimes and should have their own list/category. Massacres are definitely something that happens in a time-local manor, such as a day. We're still working on this as well as other criteria. — Val42 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought you have put into this but I think as a list article it should not contain substantial discussion. I also think that be loosening up the criteria you are going to see a return of edit-warring. Some people no doubt refer to almost any military defeat or killing as a massacre and we will be back to everybody wanting their own pet massacre included. Please keep thinking; there are certainly improvements to be discussed but to mind this would not be one. --John (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My own preference is not to have lists. An encyclopaedia is not a "Book of lists" because lists are just catalogers and not encyclopaedic entries. I think this article would survive much better if it can be converted into a proper article that teaches something, with sources, etc, and contans lists within it.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Good luck tackling the lists on wiki.[2] There is nothing to stop you writing an article anyway. It is not incompatible with the existence of this list. Tyrenius (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mau Mau

Having come across this list in AFD, I contributed an entry which I found by searching Google News for the word massacre. The first hit was a reference to a Mau Mau massacre in Kenya. I sourced this to the NYT which had a clear use of the word in its headline. And I referenced the Mau Mau Uprising article which likewise refers to this as a massacre. Some one has just removed my addition on the grounds that "word massacre does not appear". If this list is now being operated in an absurdly perverse way then I join those such as Sarah777 who dispute this method.

Such precise literalism is not appropriate for the English Wikipedia because the language is well known for containing many synonyms for words, due to its mongrel roots in French, German and other languages.

If people want to make searches for exact character strings then the search button provides this facility. The point of a constructed list is surely to add some intelligence.

Colonel Warden (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

While I have no disagreement with your addition personally, using outside sources to confirm a "massacre" is not (currently) the rule for this page. According to User:John's consensus (see further up this page) and the note at the top of the article page, the word "massacre" must appear either in the title of the main article on it in or in bold in the lede in order to be listed in this article. Neither of these conditions is true for Mau Mau. I don't want to rehash everything that has preceeded this decision, nor to suggest that I agree with it; however, until the rule is changed, may I suggest that you delete the entry leave the entry deleted until there is consensus to reinsert it? ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically, we do use outside sources to confirm a massacre, as that's how the term would end up bolded in the lead of the other article in the first place. One Night In Hackney303 19:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, One Night; you are correct, of course. I apologize for my sloppy language use. Outside sources notwithstanding, as the Colonel's references would seem to show, until the word "massacre" does appear in the title of the article or bolded in the lede, it is the current rule not to add the event to this list. Perhaps, as others have suggested in general terms, the Colonel would like to propose the change to the original Mau Mau article. That might be both simpler and less controversial -or perhaps not. The word is loaded wherever it appears, or doesn't. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Mau Mau Uprising included many massacres and I instanced the most notable of them. There is not, so far as I know, a separate article for the massacre in question which is mentioned at the end of the uprising article.
The rule suggested cannot bind editors in the way you suppose since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and so we're not in the business of enacting rules per WP:CREEP. In this case, the supposed rule clearly gets in the way of improving the encyclopaedia and so fails. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and, once consensus creates a "rule" (or, if you like, a "definition", a "parameter") everyone abides by it, or works to develop a different consensus. (Certainly, there are editors here who do not even agree that the parameter has consensus, and you may, of course, join them.) I suspect everyone who has ever read about or worked on this article, would love to have a defintion or parameter or rule that is neither arbitrary (which is the way I view this one) nor open to everyone's favoutrite death of more than one (which is what the article had become before this latest round of deletions). As the article is still in AfD, I suggest that editing it in a way that runs counter to the current status, however you may view that status, without either a clear definition of "massacre" or agreement from a body of editors who have been involved with that definition, may be viewed as the opening salvo in an edit war. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have explained why John's rule is not binding or sensible and cited policy in support of this. I have reworked the entry to conform better to the spirit of the article and added another source. If you revert this good faith addition then you will be placing an arbitrary rule above the basic purpose of this article - to assist readers in locating coverage of notable massacres. Doing this while the AFD is in progress is fine as the AFD template says that we should feel free to edit the article. And the issues raised are a significant aspect of the AFD discussion so a fresh example may help in establishing a better consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You may well think that "John's rule is not binding or sensible". Others disagree. Explaining your opinion is fine. It is step one. Getting others to agree is step 2 (through however many steps it takes to gain consensus). That's the part you have left out. Controversial subjects usually require agreement on their talk page before any changes are made to the article. The article has had dozens of fresh examples. If you check #6, above, for example, you will see a discussion of a very similar example to the Mau Mau/Lari article. There is unlikely to be "death of more than one" that hasn't appeared here in one form or another. If you have a criterion or set of criteria to propose, that would be very helpful; adding events that clearly do not meet the current guidelines, however worthy in your view, is not. I believe we are both "wikilawyering" at the moment, though in a most civil manner, so I shall stop here. What the rule is does not signify; that it has general acceptance does. Talk it out here, then make any agreed changes, not the other way around. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Lari Massacre has been reverted with an improper summary. Please note the following guidance. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Use of edit summaries in disputes
Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary. Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.
As far as I can tell, Colonel Warden, the Lari Massacre (note true red link) is still where you put it. I see no record in the History of the article noting it had been (recently) removed or re-inserted. I certainly have not touched it as the discussion was still open. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon - I made a mistaken assumption, I suppose. Mea culpa. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

As I pointed out in the most recent AFD my interpretation of editors comments to this talk page is that there is no consensus for restricting this list to massacres that appear in the lead of other titles:

John in response to your question on my talk page here is a list of editors who have objected to using massacre in the lead of another article since Talk:List_of_massacres/Archive_5#Definition. Myself PBS As I have repeatedly stated inclusion should use Wikipedia content policies and guide lines (like WP:V), also Sarah777, Flying tiger|, Knulclunk. Those who have expressed positive support for it are Yourself, Tyrenius, CarbonLifeForm, One Night In Hackney. Passively accepted: Modernist, Passively rejected - because did not comment on the talk page but did so by page edits and placing the AFD Ledenierhomme. 4+1 to 4+1 does not seem like a consensus to me. Basically despite all the postings to the talk page very few people have in the last few weeks been involved in the talk page debate. John unless you intend to police this page indefinitely then I suggest you change you opinion because I think this page is a rock you are setting you self up as Sisyphus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I wrote that one could probably add or subtract a name or two to both sides of the issue. But AFAICT there is no consensus for only including massacres that appear in the lead of Wikipedia articles. To give an example of why this approach is flawed. Most lists of genocides -- a legally defined term so less open to misunderstanding -- would include the Holocaust but if we were to adopt this idea for genocides in history then the Holocaust would not be included because it is not described as a genocide in the lead of the Wikipedia article (instead it uses genocide as a verb "The persecution and genocide"). I still think that this list should be deleted but the current AfD is set to be close with no consensus so we need to look at the list again. If the list is to remain as List of massacres, then I think any event describe as such should be included in the list providing that it is backed up with WP:SOURCES as that has a the broad Wikipedia consensus of the content policies. If the article is moved to List of events named massacres or some other similar name then the use of verifiable reliable sources should still be used to decide on admission to the list. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

You seem intent on head counting, while ignoring the lengthy and protracted discussions that took place, in which the people who seem to disagree with the consensus largely failed to take part in finding any constructive solution to the problems with the article. One Night In Hackney303 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No I am not intent on head counting but neither do I think it correct to claim there is a consensus when there is not one. I have been active in trying to find a way forward for this page, and although I think Wikipdia would be better off without it, I have accepted that there is currently no consensus to do so. I have been an active participant in two reformations of this page, (as you will be aware from reading the archives and looked at the edit history), and just because I think that the current idea of restricting entries to articles that have massacre in the lead is mistaken, that dos not mean I have not been trying to find a constructive solution to the page. The reason I did not directly and object after the 12 February was to give the proposal a chance -- after all it was a tightening of what I have been proposing for many months -- but please look at the edit history I have been constructively active in trying to have some alterations to the lead policy (like taking note of sections in articles as valid entries), and I only raised the issue of no consensus for it once it became clear to me that there was non after a number of other editors objected, I see no harm in facing up to that, and seeing if we can find another solution.

By insisting that all entries are fully cited with verifiable reliable source without giving undue weight to a fringe accusation and if necessary to present the counter balance with verifiable reliable source without giving undue weight to a fringe refutations then we are complying with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Although such a solution does not remove systemic bias and the other problems I and others have highlighted, it does at least mean the list does comply with Wikipedia content policies (an so has a consensu) and the list using those content policies is not as off the wall as it was last November. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Our experience with this list

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/wikimass.htm

I wrote an article about our experiences while adding massacres to this list. Grist for the mill...

wade frazierWadefrazier (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the article at that time. The current definitions are clear enough, so something, for example, like Parsley Massacre can be added without an issues, provided this is a referenced accepted name for the event. Tyrenius (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a case of rebuilding the article. Category:Massacres is the place to start, but you'll hard pressed to find anyone who's going to waste hours adding them back with an ongoing AfD. One Night In Hackney303 02:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed move

To List of events named massacres, since this is what is being included. Tyrenius (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't this be dealt with in the AfD? I've seen plenty of articles renamed as a result of them? One Night In Hackney303 01:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Now included in AfD debate. Tyrenius (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is to be renamed why include events why not just use List of named massacres? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Tyrenius (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Focussing upon the name is not correct as it will mislead our readers. Listing usages of the name such as ECW Massacre on 34th Street rather than Rape of Nanking would not be sensible. We are supposed to cover topics in a well-rounded, common-sense way, not play word games. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the current name is that massacre is not a legal term and it is often used in an arbitrary way for example an author may describe one incident as a massacre and in the same paragraph describe a similar incident in the next village as a slaughter for stylistic reasons. Also like the word regicide it can be a noun and a verb, so for example one could construct a list of regicides that included events and people instead we have an article called regicide for the events and List of regicides of Charles I for the people of the major English regicide. A further problem with massacre is that it often carries a strong negative bias (Like terrorism (see WP:TERRORIST). for example the first recorded use of the term in English was by Protestants describing the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, it is unlikely that Catholic sources did the same and one only has to see the arguments on this talk page to see that modern day massacres often carry similar perceived negative connotations. Trying to work around these problems makes this a very arbitrary list. I personally think that this Wikipedia entry should be deleted, but the current AFD is not supporting that opinion, but at least with a "list of named massacres" one would have a definition that could be used, even it the list contains the error you point out and is not of any real use. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Both usages of regicide are nouns. The verb/noun usages of massacre don't appear to be important in the case of this article. If A massacres B (verb) then you have a massacre (noun). What people seem to be striving for is the concept of notable massacres. This is mainly matter of the facts as supported by reliable sources. The language used is secondary. If the language and sources are propagandistic in nature then they are not reliable and so this will deal with the tendentious cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comes of engaging fingers before brain! You are right of course both types of regicides are nouns but one describes events while the other people. With massacre any one can walk into a school and start to massacre the pupils and the event may become know as a massacre. The difference is important because several reliable sources my describe what happened as a massacre even if the event is not known as a massacre. Bias sources may well be reliable sources. For example the Torygraph is a reliable source, but you would not expect them to support the current British Government, however it can be cited as a reliable source according to the criteria of WP:SOURCES. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have posted an entry at WP:RSN which may help. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's decide what the criteria is going to be for this article before we decide what to rename it. — Val42 (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for basic restructuring

This article has had 23,128 views in January.[3] It clearly serves a purpose for many readers. There are in excess of 600 named massacres as wiki articles.[4] The current format is not suitable to accommodate them all (it contains just over 50 at the moment). I propose instead a list format List of named massacres along the lines of List of American artists (see two linked lists), giving abbreviated details. The list should use the current criterion (i.e. the event has the widely used name of massacre in reliable sources) and should work in combination with other lists, which can cover the gaps in this one. Tyrenius (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The suggested title List of named massacres means a list of massacres which have names, e.g. Rape of Nanking or Sicilian Vespers. Arguably, ordinary massacres that don't have an unusual and distinctive name would not qualify for this. What you are wanting might better be called List of nominal massacres. This latter title would be fussily exact but that is what is being proposed. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I had considered that interpretation ("means a list of massacres which have names") when I suggested the more succinct "List of named massacres" and one sentence in the lead can be used to clarify the issue. It also has the advantage over the current method that events call massacres can be listed (given compliance with the Wikipedia content polices) even if they do not have a Wikipedpa article (which helps to eliminate one potential bias problem, and may spur people to write new articles if a name massacre is noted in the list and there is currently no Wikipeda article on it). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The concept of a name seems weak though. For example, many/most of these supposed names just have the form "<placename> massacre". Sometimes, just the placename is used, such as Katyn. The name is really just the name of the place and the rest is a just a form of words meaning "the massacre which took place at <placename>. Given that every purported massacre has some location, you can always construct a name of this form and references may not be difficult to find. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD tag

I note that the AfD has been closed, and the result was to rename. That has been done. So why do we still have a tag pointing to the deletion discussion? Or is this article up for another deletion discussion (if so, the link should point to a new discussion and not the old, closed one.) Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The closer forgot to remove the tag. I have done it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
We seem to have done it at the same time PrimeHunter, I'm not sure why the DB did not flag an edit clash as I started my edit before you saved yours!. Blueboar why did you not remove the template yourself as this entry must have taken longer than a look at the edit history and an the edit to remove the template would have taken? On second thoughts don't bother to answer as it would take longer to type than ... --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I've seen some anemic and useless stuff in my time, but this article, as it now stands, ranks pretty high.

THINK! Why would anyone want a list that includes what they are called and excludes something virtually identical because common usage leaves out a particular descriptor.Aaaronsmith (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This list is completely arbitrary and has no encyclopaedic value. Looks like people were just trying to find a criterion that would enable them to have a manageable page. --Folantin (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem that we have to address is that after two AfDs there is no consensus for delete, and given that outcome, the move to a name that is more manageable is the best that we can do. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Because this article lists the use of a particular descriptor, as with List of bands named after places, List of asteroids named after people, List of named ethnic enclaves in North American cities etc. Names have an intrinsic interest and value. This article does not claim to do anything beyond that. Feel free to start an article that satisfies other criteria. Tyrenius (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(This is meant to be slightly humorous) 'How about I start a page "List of Events Named Massacres that don't have a Double Letter in the Name"? (selected 'cause it would disqualify Fallujah).Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm now finding that I can add entries without much difficulty. Is there some particular cause celebré that is being excluded? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation: Tianamen square, Bombing of Dresden, Atomic bombings of Japan, Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, Execution of the "Great Escape" prisoners, Servile War, --- but the "Boston Massacre" will be included.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You are free to link to a related article/articles where they can be found. Tyrenius (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Rape of Nanking is already in. I have just added Tiananmen. I used two good sources and there are thousands more so the usage seems incontravertable. Colonel Warden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed it. I suggest taking any discussion to Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 if you disagree. --John (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, since the matter is at issue here, I propose to discuss the matter here - this is normal practise. I have just produced many thousands of sources showing that this event is routinely referred to as the Tiananmen (Square) Massacre. This fulfils the requirements of this article's title and lede. Please explain and justify your revert. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the hidden text in the article and it will become clear to you. If the article calls it a massacre, then this article may. If not, not. I hope that helps. --John (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You have hidden it too well. My understanding of this matter comes from the Reliable sources noticeboard where Tyrenius, in particular, indicated that reliable sources were sufficient, as one would expect. Since then I found that this works well in the other cases I have added and thought we now had a good working consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And so to bed. I do not accept that John's reversion has consensus support but am content to sleep on it. And I'm still not sure what is meant by the hidden text. If something is important to read, then please don't hide it. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I certainly thought that John's assertion of "consensus" was not correct but with the new article name I think his approach is much more acceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Other articles also with different criteria to this one, such as Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century and can be created, if needs be. Tyrenius (talk) 18:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Colonel Warden. Put the Tiananmen Square Massacre in this list because that's its common name in English. PS: "Tiananmen Square Massacre" now appears bolded on the relevant Wikipedia page. --Folantin (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

criteria for inclusion - Tiananmen Square

I wish to opine on the criteria for inclusion here... I think they are overly strict. I can understand the desire to limit the list and keep out events that are only tangentially called "massacres" (ie where the name "Umpty-ump Massacre" is not commonly used)... but to say that the word "Massacre" must either be the title of the Wikipedia article on the event, or be used in BOLD in the lead is unacceptable to me. If we take the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 as an example... it is true that the article does not use the word "Massacre" in its title or lead... but it does use the name "Tiananmen Square Massacre" several times in the main text. Furthermore, the event is named the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" in numerous reliable sources. It clearly fits the title of this list.

I think this limitation is a clear violation of the NPOV policy... and goes against the intent of the "keep and rename" ruling of the recent AfD... which to me was clearly a compromise intended to find a medium ground on this issue (to make sure, I have asked the closing admin to pop over and clarify her ruling).

I propose that we change the inclusion criteria to include events that 1) are clearly named "Massacre" in reliable sources, and 2) where that name is discussed or used anywhere in their Wikipedia articles... not just in the lead or title. Yes, that will broaden the scope somewhat... but it will still keep out the smaller, less notable events. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Check the history of that article, and the talk page. The term was removed due to sourcing problems. Fix the sourcing problems, then bring it back here. One Night In Hackney303 16:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If you look at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 you will see that this problem is now fixed. --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Only recently. So when it's seen to be stable, it gets added here. One Night In Hackney303 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The term may have been removed from the lead (I see that Folantin has readded it in bold to the lead... but given the history of the article I expect that addition to be removed), but the term was not completely removed from the article... it is used several times lower down in the main text Furthermore, the term is sourced in the article. My point is that while I agree that the name "massacre" needs to be established by use in another Wikipedia article, I do not agree that this needs to be established in the Title of the article or in its lead. Where or how that event article establishes that the name is an editorial discision to be made by the editors of that article ... as long as the article establishes that the name is used, somewhere in it's text, it should be included here. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The naming of a Wikipedia article is one generally better off decided by the regular editors of that page, and this applies equally to any alternative names especially in the lead. If it's not a common enough name for the event to go in the lead, it's more than likely a minority term. You're just trying to drag this article back into the gutter, where if you can find a single source that calls something a massacre it gets included here. Been there, done that, didn't work, not doing it again. One Night In Hackney303 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"The Tiananmen Square Massacre may be the best-documented massacre in recent history" (Brenda K. Uekert Rivers of Blood: a Comparative Study of Government Massacres, Greenwood Press, 1995 p.31). Plus common knowledge, common sense and 117,000 Google hits for "Tiananmen Square Massacre" say this makes the list. --Folantin (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, when it's stable in the other article. One hour isn't enough time to judge. One Night In Hackney303 16:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You're just making up criteria now. Everybody knows this is called the "Tiananmen Square Massacre". I've even provided references. --Folantin (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Erm, no, it's on this talk page. Please try reading, it might help. One Night In Hackney303 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to inclusion criteria

Taking this discussion away from the specifics of any one event.... The inclusion criteria for this list is currently stated in hidden text as follows:

  • 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 on the talk page. The best guide to inclusion should 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 if we agree to do so. 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.

As outlined above, I feel that this is overly restrictive. While I agree that the name "Blah blah blah Massacre" needs to be established in a Wikipedia article and in reliable sources before being added to this list... I disagree with limiting that establishment to the Title of the article or a bold mention in the lead. I feel that as long as an article on the event establishes that the event is named the "Blah blah blah Massacre" somewhere in the article, and that this usage is supported by reliable sources, it should qualify for inclusion in this list. I therefore propose the following language:

  • This article is a list of notable events which are commonly called by the name "Massacre" in reliable third-party sources. To establish the notability of the event, a Wikipedia article on the event must exist prior to inclusion in this list. To establish that the event is named "Massacre", this name must be used or discussed somewhere prominently in the Wikipedia article on that event (idealy in the article Title or in the lead of the article), and the name must be verified by reliable third-party sources. Note: the fact that a source has discribed an event as being a massacre is not enough for inclusion in this list. The word "massacre" must be used as part of the name of the event (an example of this is the "Boston Massacre"). The usage as a name must be established in the Wikipedia article on the event, and must be verified by use in reliable sources.

I also think that we should state the inclusion criteria openly in the article and not put it in hidden text. This would avoid misunderstandings. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

You're still opening the door to fringe views with that. Right at the top of the talk page it says "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them" - yet you still get disruption from editors who refuse to accept the inclusion criteria and cry and bitch and hide behind "there's no policy says I can't wah wah wah". One Night In Hackney303 17:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
How does this open the door to fringe views? Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this talk page" - if you can't be bothered to do that, I can't be bothered to explain it to you. One Night In Hackney303 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read the talk page... and the archives. Please take my question seriously... as I am taking your comments seriously. In what way does my proposal open the door to fringe views? Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar, almost every killing in history has been called a massacre by somebody. Take Fallujah for example. There was a book or a movie made called Fallujah, the hidden massacre. Does that mean Fallujah gets included here? If not, why not? What about Hiroshima? Dresden? The Paris massacre of cats? If we open it to every event for which a reliable source can be found calling it a massacre, we end up with continual edit-warring. Devolving the burden of proof onto the individual articles rather than the list has worked quite well so far. Give it a chance.--John (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
John, Falluja would not meet my revised criteria for inclusion. While the article mentions the movie, nowhere does it establish the fact that the event is commonly named the "Fallujah Massacre" or something similar. The same holds true for the various articles dealing with the bombings of Hiroshima and Dresden. I don't think wikipedia even has an article on the massacre of cats (unless it goes by another name). I am wondering if you have read my proposed language... I think it makes it quite clear that the article on the event must establish that the word Massacre is commonly used as part of the NAME for the event... and do so prominently... none of your examples come close to doing so. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
To give an example of something I would allow ... take the event discribed in the article Gwangju Democratization Movement. The article uses the name "Gwangju Massacre" no less than three times, but not in the title or in bold print in the lead. I would say that the article establishes this as an alternate name for the event. This is backed up by multiple reliable sources (you could pick several from this Google search). Indeed, looking at the sources, "Gwangju Massacre" (or "Kwangju Massacre") is the most common name for this event in English sources. To my mind to exclude it from this list, but under the current criteria we can not do so... can you give a good reason why it should be excluded? Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No way. This would bring us right back to the bad old days. Give the status quo a chance first. --John (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Blueboar's proposal. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm particularly worried by this sentence in the current version: "If we agree the answer is yes, we could include it if we agree to do so". That's so ambiguous it could mean anything a small group of editors wants. --Folantin (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, who is "we", and what if "we" disagree? Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Blueboar's proposal for the reasons I gave above, but I do agree that that could be better worded. What would you suggest? --John (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the overly restrictive option is a good one, considering what the article was before that. If an event was truly a massacre (or atleast known prominently as such) it will be called that somewhere in the lead. If it isn't, then users can take that up in the respective article. If something is mentioned in the lead it means its a majority view, while the body contains a mix of majority and minority views.Bless sins (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Side comment to John

First of all, I think you are over stating things by saying that there is a "status quo" here... the current criteria was added only 11 days ago... It was immediately challenged as not having consensus. About half of the people commenting on it favored it, and about half objected. It also does not reflect the fact that since being added, the name of the article has changed (due to the AfD ruling). This renaming essentially makes this a new article... The AfD was clearly meant to be a compromise between two extreme positions (overly inclusive and overly exclusive). The current criteria does not reflect this. Given the renaming, I think it is quite reasonable to revisit the issue of what the inclusion criteria should be.
Look, I am not trying to push an agenda here, nor trying to twist the inclusion criteria so as to add my pet massacre or something. I understand, and agree with, the desire to keep fringe views out of the list. This is why I start my proposed language with "This article is a list of notable events which are commonly called by the name "Massacre" in reliable third-party sources." I fully agree that in order to be listed here, an event should have an article (so only notable events are included). I fully agree that the event should be commonly named with the term "Massacre" by high quality sources (to avoid the fringe issue). My only beaf is with the overly restrictive requirement that the word Massacre be in the title or in bold in the lead. There are many reasons why an event might not fit this requirement... editorial discisions on the part of the article's editors... Compromises due to NPOV disputes... poor writing. The point is, there are events that are routinely named "Blah blah blah Massacre" by multiple reliable sources, but for one reason or another are not named such in the title of the Wikipedia article on the event, or have the name typed in bold face in the lead. We should not "open the door to fringe views"... but neither should we be reliant on how another wikipedia article is written. If it is logical that an event should be placed in this list, we should be able to do so.
I am more than willing to revise my proposal to prevent "opening the door to fringe views" and to avoid returning to the "bad old days" (if last week can be called the "old days")... I am sure we could reach a compromise... but to do so, I need more constructive comments than just "nope... I like the current wording and don't want changes". At least explain to me why you feel my proposed language does not address your concerns. At the moment I feel as if you are essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA...I can't HEAR you!" Blueboar (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel this way. What in your opinion is wrong with devolving arguments about whether an event can be called a massacre to the talk pages of the articles concerned? This is the essential meaning of the compromise we have adopted here. --John (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have absolutely no objection to devolving arguments about whether an event can be called a massacre to the talk pages of the articles concerned. In fact, we should not deal with events that are called massacres at all... we should only deal with events where the word Massacre is commonly used in the name of the event. I think my proposed language addresses this quite clearly... by saying: "To establish that the event is named "Massacre", this name must be used or discussed somewhere prominently in the Wikipedia article on that event (idealy in the article Title or in the lead of the article)".
My language still requires that a pre-existing article establish the fact that the name is commonly used (and must do so in more than just a passing comment)... I simply account for alternative editorial descisions and allow some flexibility as to where that fact is established within that pre-existing article. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case I think I could live with your proposal. We need to be careful about creating grey areas and room for argument though, lest we get back to a situation where "anything goes" and there is constant bickering about what can be included. --John (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation and question from AfD closer

I am posting here following a note on my talkpage from Blueboar, in which I was asked to clarify my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination).

The first thing I ought to say is that it was a difficult AfD to close. As I noted in the closure, a lot of the contributions added very little to the debate: suggestions along the lines of "discuss it on the talk page" were next to useless when there has been so much discussion here and so many unresolved concerns. Discarding those comments as background noise, the most crucial point arising from the debate was that:

  • There is no generally-accepted and definition of a massacre which allows a objective assessment of whether a particular event should be called a massacre. The use of the word is determined by point-of-view, and events which may be called a "massacre" from one widely-held perspective may be called something very different from another perspective. (One example cited at AfD was "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989"/"Tiananmen Square massacre")

Everything else flows from that conclusion.

This is not a list-by-definition, it is a list-by-name. There is a clear consensus across numerous CfD debates that "similar name" is not a basis for a category — see WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES — but neither the AfD debate nor my own research showed any similar restriction on lists. So in principle, a list-by-name can be acceptable, subject to compliance with other policies and guidelines.

The difficulty here is the lack of an agreed name for many of the events which could be included in the list, and so far I can see that's the issue which has exercised this talkpage so much.

At the AfD, Tyrenius was very clear in setting out the definition in use for this article:

  • "That this article is based on what wikipedia articles happen to be named (i.e. with "massacre" in the title). It is not. It is based on that name being in accepted usage for an event, as established by reliable sources. It has been decided to devolve that usage or lack thereof to the individual article, where it can be discussed in depth."[5]
  • determining if an event constituted a massacre is not usually a clear-cut matter. That is not what we are determining. We are determining whether it is named a massacre by reliable sources. Per WP:NPOV it is not our job to determine motivations of sources.[6]

I did not see any dispute at AfD about that definition, which is is clearly NPOV: it does not attempt to weigh the relative importance of different names, let alone to decide whether one of those names is "correct". This too is crucial, because inclusion or exclusion in a list is a binary choice: either an event is listed here, or it isn't. Yes, footnotes can be added to explain inclusion (and per policy such as WP:V they should be), but the choice remains a binary one of "in" or "out", with no half-way house.

Tyrenius's criteria at AfD would not involve editors making some editorial choice between different names; it simply involves the presence or absence of evidence in reliable sources that at least one of the "accepted names" for the event includes the word "massacre". I don't believe that an attempt to decide whether a particular name was "correct" or "appropriate" or "fair" would be acceptable under WP:NPOV, and if I had reason to doubt Tyrenius's assertions at AfD about the inclusion criteria, my conclusions would have been very different — the closure was in the end a fine call between "rename" (to reflect the fact that it is a list by name) and "delete" (as arbitrary trivia), but if Tyrenius's neutral definition had not been accepted, I would definitely have closed the debate as "delete". However, Tyrenius's explanation of the article's current inclusion criteria did not appear to be challenged, and I accepted his summary in good faith.

However, if the "keep" arguments had been based on the name which wikipedia uses for an article on an event, or on the content of such the article (such as the inclusion of the word "massacre" in an alternative name in the lead section), then I would definitely have closed the article as a clear "delete", because that would be making wikipedia entries the grounds for inclusion, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. That objection was made powerfully made at AfD, but I accepted Tyrenius's explanation of it as inaccurate.

If Tyrenius was wrong in his claims at AFD, I will obviously accept that he made a mistaken assessment while acting in good faith ... but nonetheless, if there is no consensus to rely on reliable sources, then the whole basis of my "keep" closure was wrong.

I would be grateful if the editors on this page could promptly determine whether there is actually a consensus on the lines set out by Tyrenius, that:

  1. Inclusion in this list is based on the use of the word "massacre" in an accepted name for the event, as determined by reliable sources
  2. Inclusion in this list is not based on the content of a wikipedia article or the title of a wikipedia article.

Unless there is consensus on those lines, then I will have to conclude that my closure of the AfD was mistaken, and I will take the matter to deletion review and ask that my closure be overturned and this list deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you BrownHairedGirl. Your take on the issue matches mine. The name must be based upon usage in reliable sources, and not in a wikipedia article. I do think it is fair to say that the event should have a wikipedia article (to establish its notability of the event)... and that the name should be mentioned somewhere in that wikipedia article (to establish the notability of the name). Do my restrictions meet with your intent? Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we partly agree; as I set out above, the crucial issue is 'the use of the word "massacre" in an accepted name for the event, as determined by reliable sources'. However, the existence or content of a wikipedia article is irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added three entries in recent days - the Lari Massacre, the Great Cat Massacre and the Tiananmen Square Massacre. All three massacres have good sources. The first and last cases do not link to articles with the same exact name while the second case links to an article which was created specifically to match the entry when there was an objection to the redlink. Despite some reversion, all three entries are still there though John perhaps still wishes that they were not.
The main issue in establishing consensus is the comment text which currently appears in the article:
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE EDITING THE ARTICLE!!!
This article is a list of events which Wikipedia calls a massacre, either in the article title or in bold in the lead. ...
This purports to be the de jure rule but it is not the de facto consensus and so should go or be amended.
Colonel Warden (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE: Given the above, I have cut the comment text (essentially inclusion criteria) completely. A proposed substitute is floated in the discussions above... but given BrownHairedGirl's comments, I think we will need to loosen up even more. Blueboar (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I confirm BHG has interpeted my meaning correctly and done a fine job in doing so. We are all agreed that RS are the basis. The only point of contention is the venue where the enquiry should be held as to the validity or otherwise of the RS confirming the name. My reasons for suggesting the talk page of the relevant article are as follows:

  1. Purely practical. Several such debates could easily occur on this page and that could get quite chaotic.
  2. On the article talk page, editors familiar with the subject would be drawn to the discussion to add their knowledge (there may already be relevant material on the talk page or in its archive).
  3. If the name is included as an accepted name for the event in this list, the name should also be in bold in the lead to that article per MOS naming conventions.
  4. Something could be decided in isolation on this page, and then attract editors involved in the article to start the debate up all over again. It is better to decide it properly and centralise the inquiry to gain consensus (a link should be made from this talk page to the article talk page when there is a relevant discussion going on).

I agree the text above by John (quoted I must say from my text) is not clear about the above points, but that was a shorthand way of trying to make them. Obviously a bit too shorthand. It was never my intention that a wiki article in itself should be used as validation. That has been pointed out, but I see it needs to be done so unambiguously.

I welcome BHG's advice on the above, if she feels able to contribute further to this, but understand if she feels she's done her bit by now.

Tyrenius (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tyrenius... I undersand your concerns... but BHG makes it clear that: "Inclusion in this list is not based on the content of a wikipedia article or the title of a wikipedia article."
I can see requiring that a wikipedia article on the event exist (to establish notability and keep out truly fringe stuff)... I could even see requiring that the name be confirmed by use in multiple RS... but it seems clear that inclusion must be based on RS and not on what happens or does not happen in another Wikipedia article.
Realisticly, I don't think there will be much argument once we establish the new criteria... if a reliable source (or more than one if this is acceptable) uses the word "Massacre" in naming the event, that event can be placed in the list. If the source does not (if it only discribes the event as being a massacre), it may not be. not much to argue about. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have also made it quite clear that "Inclusion in this list is not based on the content of a wikipedia article or the title of a wikipedia article." BHG was quoting me. We are, as I pointed out in my post just above yours, all agreed that RS are the criteria. My point is about the venue where the validity of those RS should be examined. You have not addressed that issue. Furthermore, bearing in mind the contentiousness of the article, I propose that new content should first be proposed on this talk page before inclusion, and if there is any dissent, the conversation should be moved to the talk page of the relevant article (for the reasons 1, 2, 3 and 4 I have stated above). Tyrenius (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... the idea that any disagreements over RS should be moved to the talk page of relevant article has merit... as the editors who are involved in the relevant article are more likely to be familiar with the sources than we will. I could agree to that. As long as we no longer require that the relevant article mention the name in any particular place, I think it would meet with BHG's comments as well. Not sure about needing to vet every new addition here first... seems overly bureaucratic to me.
What if we state that, in the event of the reliability of a source being questioned, the entry will be temporarily moved to this talk page, pending discussion at the relevant article's talk page? That would mean we only have to deal with entires that are disputed ... and then only to the extent of pointing the disputants to the correct venue. If the editors at the event's article agree that the source is reliable, then we can return the entry to the list. Blueboar (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Provisional agreement. The principle established is that there needs to be a consensus that RS establish the name, and, in the event of that being disputed or questioned, the debate should be moved to the article talk page, which then serves basically as an extension of this one. If consensus is reached, then the event can be listed here, even if it is not included in the article lead, but, if it is agreed to be name for the event, it should per MOS be included in bold in the lead anyway. I would like to see what John and ONIH have to say on this as well. Tyrenius (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't there also a qualification that it be established by three reliable sources that it was known as a massacre? — Val42 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that discussions here should bear mind that this list has only narrowly survived two contentious AfD debates, and that it has been the subject of long and heated debates on this talk page. That's not a satisfactory situation, and unless a lot of care is taken to try to achieve some sort of stability in which this list can be clearly demonstrated to follow policies and guidelines, the marginal status of a list-by-name may lead to its deletion in the future. Since there was a consensus to rename, but not a consensus to keep (no consensus on that issue, at both AfDs), an early return to AfD would be be quite permissible if the list's criteria remain unstable or are not clearly based on policies and guidelines.

I stress that "clearly demonstrated to follow policies and guidelines". This is such a difficult and contentious issue that I think the policies and guidelines need to be followed very closely and carefully, even to the point of pedantry — it's only way there is a chance of reaching some stability.

So I think it's really important to assert reliable sources as the inclusion criteria, and not other wikipedia articles. I take Tyrenius's point about centralising discussion, and it's a good one, but I still think it's important to be very clear about basing an inclusion decision directly on those reliable sources.

Sure, the use in an article of a name including the word "massacre" should be assessed in much the same way: it too should be a decision based on the reliable sources, not on wikipedia. In other words, centralising discussion is fine, and trying to co-ordinate the usage in the list and the article is also fine. (It doesn't seem to me matter to much where it is centralised, so long as editors can easily find the discussion)

However, it seems to me that there is danger of tripping up over how that centralised discussion is used. Tyrenius's latest comment seems to me to get it right, although for clarity I suggest that it should be phrased a little differently. I suggest:

  1. inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event
  2. Where there is dispute over this, discussion should be centralised on the talkpge of the article concerned, if the article exists.
  3. Any name for the event which is established by use of reliable sources as being one of the accepted terms should also be included in the lead section of the article
  4. Inclusion in this list does not of itself justify inclusion in the article, and nor does use of the name in an article justify inclusion in this list, because wikipedia is not a reliable sources. Both uses must be based directly on explicit references to the sources, which should be cited in footnotes. However, it is hard to envisage any situation where a name including "massacre" could be included in this list but not mentioned in the lead section of the article (or vice versa); if that situation arose, both the uses should be carefully examined.

If that sounds very pedantic, it's because it is very pedantic :) But as above, I don't see this list achieving stability without very precise definition of its inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, and thanks again. It is just as well to spell everything out. It will make editing easier for everyone. It may well be that an article using the title needs to be questioned. I have already done this at Talk:Massacre of Novgorod (I removed it from the list in the meantime). Tyrenius (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Works for me (both BHG's clarified criteria and Tyrenius's removal of Massacre of Novogrod). Blueboar (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Good! If there is consensus on those 4 points, may I suggest that they are placed in a box at the top of this talk page, for the benefit of any editors new to the article? Preferably surrounded by big red flashing lights and sirens, or at least some links to the discussions which produced these criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an improvement, but I'm really not happy that the arguments over whether a massacre is named a massacre or not are going to be farmed out to individual talk pages. This will just spread the confusion resulting from this list across large sections of Wikipedia. Many of the articles in question are already affected by POV edit-warring and this is merely going to increase the disruption. I've already seen a "dubious" tag stuck on Massacre of Novgorod for no good reason. If people are going to fight over whether a massacre is to be included on this list it should be done here to minimise the potential for conflict. I've been involved in some of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia trying to maintain neutrality and I know just how many hornets' nests are waiting to be stirred up again. --Folantin (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BHG has expressed my own point of view more elegantly than I have, but I take issue with a couple of details:
  • "Where there is dispute over this ..." ,although it is permissible to ask for comments on the main article talk page from editors involved in editing that article, (but also noting Folantin's worries,) inclusion or not in this article should be focused on this talk page and not on some other, (WP:TALK "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.").
  • " Any name for the event which is established" should not be pressed here as that is an issue for those articles. It may be that a case can be made for that, but it often depends on how the article is structured for example see the Siege of Drogheda. That issue should be taken up on the talk pages of the articles not included in criteria of this debate.
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The Siege of Drogheda is a perfect example of an event that might be contentious, and I thank Phil for mentioning it as it highlights the issues we will have to deal with and the process we should follow...
If we judged inclusion by the Wikipedia article on the event, this event would certainly not be included in this list. While the article does discribe the even as being a massacre in several places, at no point in the article do we see the name "Drogheda Massacre" or "Massacre of Drogheda" or some variant thereof. But we are not supposed to judge inclusion on what the article says... we are supposed to base inclusion on what is said reliable sources.
So the question becomes... are there reliable sources that use the word Massacre in naming this event? Doing a quick google search, it seems as if there are sources that do (I have not looked at them, so I do not know if any are reliable or not). Thus, this is at least a potential candidate for inclusion, dispite what is written at Siege of Drogheda.
Now, let us assume that someone wishes to add this event to our list. We don't allow arguement whether the event is or is not a massacre... we don't allow argument about whether the source is "right" or "wrong". We only deal with three criteria here...
  1. Is the event notable? (ie is there an article on it... in this case, yes)
  2. 2) does the source use the word "Massacre" as a name for the event? (in this case, probably)
  3. 3) is the source reliable by Wikipedias rules (not known at this time).
If all three of these criteria are met, the event can be listed. If not, the event can not be listed.
This brings us to the issue of what to do if a question or challenge arises as to whether any of these three criteria have been met. The first is easy to deal with... no artcle, no entry. The debates will arise from the other two... Now, to be realistic, any discussion about this is going to start here on this talk page. That is one of the purposes of talk pages. We might be able to reach a consenus determination... it might be obvious whether the source does or does not use the term, or whether the source is either reliable or unreliable. If so, no problem... the entry is either returned or rejected. But, if we can not reach a quick determination, I think it is quite appropriate for us to bounce the question to those who are likely to be familiar with the sources (in this case, the regular editors at Siege of Drogheda). If they reach a consensus, we follow it. If they can not reach a consensus, we bump the question up the chain... we ask at any related Project pages... we ask at the RS Noticeboard, we file an RfC, etc. The entry stays suspended until there is consensus that a determination has been reached, one way or the other.
To me this is quite simple and easy to follow. It fits with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and moves heated debates to more appropriate venues. The only remaining issue is whether we want to require multiple reliable sources. I could see a situation where one single (reliable) source names an event with "Massacre", but no other (reliable) sources do. In this situation, the single source has essentially "coined" the name. I could agree to the requirement that we need at least two reliable sources. At some point we need to discuss this. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to stress again how concerned I am about the potential this article has to spread disruption to other pages. Personally, I'm still with Aaron Smith in regarding this list as unencylopaedic and absurd, but at least few people know about it and thus it is relatively harmless... so far. However, if this is going to start spreading disputes to other talk pages just because there is a debate over inclusion here, then I think it will be positively dangerous. As I say, I'm aware of some of the more contentious areas of Wikipedia and I can well imagine how this page could reignite simmering disputes. Many of those disputed areas are subject to ArbCom sanctions which will inevitably apply to this list. It's worth remembering that this page barely survived an AfD. If it becomes positively harmful to Wikipedia then it will certainly have to be deleted. --Folantin (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
False argument. We edit per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If the issue of the proper name(s) for an event has not been properly determined in the light of these policies, then it is a good idea that it is discussed further on these other pages. Ty 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a false argument, it's a serious concern (and I note that similar concerns of mine which I expressed at the AfD have not been addressed in spite of promises to the contrary). I first became aware of this list when it began affecting an article on which I had worked hard to maintain some neutrality. At the time I thought it was absurd but relatively harmless if it was kept within its own bounds. I expect the editors of this list to behave responsibly and not cause unnecessary disruption for the sake of creating this list (which no one really needs anyway). Some users clearly understand this. If this list does start spreading disruption then I will have no option but to contact ArbCom to prevent it stirring up trouble in some of Wikipedia's many "hotspots". --Folantin (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure how this list will disrupt other articles... In the event of a dispute here, the only issues we would be asking the editors at the event's article to determine is whether a) the given source uses the term "Massacre" as a name for the event, and 2) is the given source to be considered reliable. We can make it clear in our requests that we are not interested in debating any other issues, such as whether the event is or is not a massacre, or whether the author is "correct" in naming the event. We are looking for guidance on the source... not a debate about the event itself. Blueboar (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that this discussion has been very useful, and that Folantin's contributions are timely. Folantin's concerns were very well-expressed at AfD, and I quite agree that it would be highly undesirable for a marginal list such as this to spread dissension into other areas of wikipedia. (I hope everyone else agrees on that too!)

However, I haven't seen any dissent from my conclusion that the AfD did not demonstrate there was a consensus to delete at this time. It was a close call, but no consensus to delete.

So, the question for now is simply how this list can be made to work. It may turn out to be the case that Folantin's fears are realised, in which case a return to AfD would be in order, but the issue for now is trying to define inclusion criteria and a process for assessing those criteria.

If I read this discussion correctly, we have broad agreement on the four points which I set out above, but deep concerns expressed by Folantin, which should be taken seriously. However, all I'm seeing so far from Folantin is a description of a problem in the solution we have been moving towards, and at this point I can see only no alternative to noting Folantin's concerns and proceeding anyway, unless Folantin can propose an alternative approach to deal with those concerns.

So ... Folantin, you do you have any suggestions or proposals for an alternative? If there are suggestions above which I have missed, please forgive my oversight, but for clarity it would help to spell out them again, preferably under a new-sub-heading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd quarrel with Point 2. I'd say every effort should be made to keep the discussion on this talk page unless absolutely necessary. Since the criterion for inclusion should be based on reliable sources not Wikipedia articles then it shouldn't be a problem to do the research here. It's just I've had too much experience of "POV hotspots" not to be pessimistic about what would happen if you stuck a "dubious" tag on the name of some massacres or even simply called its title into question. There are just too many tendentious users out there who will see that as a green light to game the system and take the opportunity to rename the massacre to something far more anodyne or deny any massacre took place at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folantin (talk • contribs) 08:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As long as we are talking about how this list could disrupt other articles... BHG's point 3 (Any name for the event which is established by use of reliable sources as being one of the accepted terms should also be included in the lead section of the article) is where I see the bigest potential for disruption. I understand what the MOS says, and I agree that any name for an event should be included in Wikipedia articles ... but on highly contentious "hot spot" articles, there is often a long history of compromise and consensus editing involved. If we go barging in demanding that the name we have sourced (one including the word massacre) is added to a contentious article, we risk upsetting previously reached consensus.
I also see an internal contradiction between point 3 and point 1... on one hand we say that we base inclusion purely on reliable sources... but then we go on to say the name must be included in the lead of the event article. What if the editors of the event article reject our addition of the name (citing IAR if not a more legitimate reason)? Do we then have to reject the event from our list? If that is the case... are we not basing inclusion in this article on the content of another wikipedia article?
Yes, if we find that the event article does not include a sourced name for the event, we should add it to that article. But I don't think we can make this a manditory part of the inclusion criteria for this list. We could mention it as a suggested follow-up step perhaps... but not as part of the inclusion criteria. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
"If we go barging in demanding that the name we have sourced (one including the word massacre) is added to a contentious article, we risk upsetting previously reached consensus". Exactly. I also think this page is relatively peaceful so far because most of the "hotspot" editors are unaware of its existence. Once you go advertising it on talk pages you can guarantee there will be some major fights here. --Folantin (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A second try

OK, folks, I think we have a few more issues on the table, but that they can be resolved.

First, Folantin's point that discussing issues related to this article on the talk pages of contested subjects may fan the flames of simmering disputes. I see three options here:

  • a) run the risk of igniting a dispute, and bring the issues there anyway. If flame wars erupt, deal with them in the usual ways (blocks, pages protections, long trips to RfC and arbcom etc)
  • b) Decide that it's not worth the risk of the hassle which Folantin warns of, and just discuss inclusion in this list on this list's talk page. That may lead to a puzzling difference between this list and the linked article
  • c) Try a compromise: the key principle here is to centralise discussion. So inclusion may be discussed either on this talk page or on the article's talkpage, but either way a link should be posted on the other page so that the editors watching either the list or the article are aware of that the discussion is happening — just as would be done in other cases of a discussion affecting more than one article.

I suggest adopting the compromise position C. It's not perfect, but it seems to me like the best way of satisfying all concerns. Can people live with that compromise?

Secondly, Blueboar makes a point above about the condition of the name being included in the lead section of the article, and suggests that points 1 and 3 of my four points above contradict each other. I don't think they do, but I can see how they could reasonably be read that way. If I understand things correctly, the intention behind that requirement was as a double-check on the acceptability of the sources, by ensuring that the editors most familiar with the subject of that article accepted the sources justified using the "massacre" name as an alternative name.

However, Wikipedia:MOS#First_sentences says "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given. Equivalent names may follow, and may or may not be in boldface."

That's significant: it says "equivalent names may follow"; not must or even "should". Of course, not every article has an "equivalent name" or "alternative name", but it seems to me to be stretching things a little to suggest that the MoS requires that any alternative names to be listed in the lead section. I think that the lists' requirement in this respect could be eased, to allow flexibility, basically by saying "would usually" rather than "should" ... and that Blueboar's suggestion of this not being an inclusion criterion is useful.

On that basis, I offer a revised draft below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Revised notes on inclusion in this list

Amended from my four points above to accommodate concerns raised by Folantin and Blueboar.

Inclusion
  1. inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event
  2. Where there is dispute over this, discussion should be centralised. If it is discussed on the talkpage of the article concerned, a link should be posted on the talk page of this list; if the discussion is on this list
Notes
  1. Any name for the event which is established by use of reliable sources as being one of the accepted terms would usually also be included in the lead section of the article
  2. Inclusion in this list does not of itself justify inclusion in the article, and nor does use of the name in an article justify inclusion in this list, because wikipedia is not a reliable source. Both uses must be based directly on explicit references to the sources, which should be cited in footnotes. However, it is hard to envisage any situation where a name including "massacre" could be included in this list but not mentioned in the lead section of the article (or vice versa); if that situation arose, both the uses should be carefully examined.

Is this acceptable?

Before replying, please may I ask editors to consider this carefully? Discussion about the purpose of this article has gone on now for over a month, after protracted edit warring and a side-trip to a very long AfD. I have tried to be an honest broker to help editors reach a policy-compliant compromise, and I'm not sure that there is much more I could suggest beyond this.

So I am not asking whether this revised proposal is perfect: I'm pretty sure that the answer to that is "no". The question is whether editors are prepared to accept this as being as good a compromise as we can currently agree, and to agree to use it as a basis for developing this list? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is acceptable to me. I would prefer to require multiple sources (It would help to avoid fringe type situations)... and I could see some small revisions in the exact wording before we place it in the article, but I think the underlying concepts are solid. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The reference to the lead is poor since I can easily conceive of situations in which the lead will not mention the massacre. For example, the Mau Mau Uprising article mentions the Lari Massacre someway down since that was just one incident in a long campaign. There is no separate article for the Lari Massacre and we should not require editors to create spin-out articles in such cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
How about this revision to note2: "However, it is hard to envisage any situation where a name including "massacre" could be included in this list but not mentioned in the lead section of the article (or vice versa); if that situation arose, both the uses should be carefully examined."
Does that cover the situation you describe? I think that in any case the point about the lead in well enough covered in note1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest (changes in bold):
  • "Any name for the event which is established by use of reliable sources as being one of the accepted terms would usually also be included in any article devoted to the event."
  • "Inclusion in this list does not of itself justify inclusion in an article, and nor does use of the name in an article justify inclusion in this list, because wikipedia is not a reliable source. Both uses must be based directly on explicit references to the sources, which should be cited in footnotes. However, it is hard to envisage any situation where a name including "massacre" could be included in this list but not mentioned in an article devoted to the event (or vice versa); if that situation arose, both the uses should be carefully examined." Blueboar (talk)
I'd prefer something like "commonly accepted names for the event", just to avoid any ambiguity. One Night In Hackney303 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
How do we determine if a name is "commonly accepted"? How many sources must use the name for it to be considered "commonly accepted"? Two? Five? Fifty? I fully agree that we want to omit the really fringy stuff, but I am not sure if we can objectively define "commonality" or "acceptance" Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Through discussion on a case by case basis? It already says "as being one of the accepted terms" which you're seemingly objecting to now, I'm just thinking of tightening it up slightly with "commonly" as well. One Night In Hackney303 22:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't know if I object or not... You say you want to avoid ambiguity, and I agree. However, I find the phrase "commonly accepted" to be abiguous itself. I understood BHG's use of "one of the accepted terms" to mean that you need at least one reliable source that uses the name. But when you add the modifier "commonly", I don't know what you mean. If you mean we need more than one reliable source... I could agree to that. But if you mean something else, I might not. So I am asking... what makes a given name for the event "one of the commonly accepted terms"? Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're talking one source or even two sources, I think you're opening the door to fringe events. I'd wager I can easily find more than two sources for Dresden massacre, but it isn't even anywhere near a common name for the event. One Night In Hackney303 00:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps... But I still don't know how to objectively define what makes a name "common". Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well then it falls under part 2 - "Where there is dispute over this, discussion should be centralised. If it is discussed on the talkpage of the article concerned, a link should be posted on the talk page of this list; if the discussion is on this list". It would still fall under that if there was disagreement about an "accepted" one anyway. One Night In Hackney303 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In which case, I don't think I can agree to this... Under BHG's criteria the only challenges that I could see occuring were "this source does not use the word Massacre as a name" or "this source is not reliable". You have now added an entire new dimention to argue about "yes, the name Massacre is used in several reliable sources, but it isn't commonly used!". I can even see repeated debates over whether it's use is common enough. You are not avoiding ambiguity... you are promoting it, and inviting all sorts of WP:V and WP:NPOV violations. We need clear and unambiguous inclusion criteria for this list.... black and white, not shades of grey. While I can agree to requiring X number of sources (assuming X is not rediculously high), I can not agree to a subjective term such as "commonly accepted". Blueboar (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You've already agreed to something equally subjective - "that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event" - accepted by who? The mainstream? Fringe theorists? You're advocating going right back to the problem version of the article that caused endless edit wars and arguments. "x number of sources" is completely meaningless. How many is "x"? 5? So if you've got 5 sources that say it was a massacre and 5,000 that use a different term does it go in the article? I hope not, but if you've got 5 that say it was and 5 that use a different term it's an easy one. One Night In Hackney303 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Accepted by reliable sources as per WP:V ... my personal opinion is that X should = 2, but I am willing to accept a higher number if that is the consensus of other editors (and please, I am not saying that we use the letter X in our criteria... what ever the consesus is, we should state that number in the inclusion criteria). I think that if we are clear in our inclusion criteria, we will not get endless debates and edit wars. If X number of reliable sources use the name it can be mentiond in the article. If X number of reliable sources do not... it may not. The only arguments will be" 1) whether a specific source actually uses the the word massacre as part of a name for the event (easily resolved by either looking at the source or asking for a quote) and if the source is reliable (this will be grounds for argument... but can be forwarded to other venues for definitive deliberation).
I have a feeling that we will continue to disagree on this... so let's let BHG review our comments and give her opinion before we get into further argument. Blueboar (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that even people with fringe views can be reliable sources. WP:V is meaningless on its own if you're using it to throw WP:NPOV out of the window which is non-negotiable even at Foundation level. I can provide you with two or more reliable sources right now for Loughgall Massacre but it still doesn't belong on this list as it's a minority fringe view. You can't put a number on how many sources are required, as the number might only amount to 1% of the people using the term in relation to the event. One Night In Hackney303 03:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I read NPOV exactly the opposite way... if more than two reliable sources call the event the "Loughgall Massacre", how can we not include it in the list? But as I said... I want to hear what BHG has to say on this issue before I say more. Blueboar (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned now that the well-intentioned suggestions on the the table could take us down the path of spending a lot of time polishing words. As above, it really does seem to me to be time to agree something which is "good enough" rather than prolonging the exercise trying to perfect a form of words.

Picking up the suggestions above, Blueboar's changes seem to me to be mostly a grammatical clarification, but I suggest that the phrase "devoted to the event" would be better phrased as "about the event". In some cases, the wikipedia article which covers the "massacre" may have a wider focus — such as the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which is not "devoted" to the massacre.

I understand why ONIH suggests "commonly accepted" rather than just "accepted", but I fear that it would just open up all sorts of arguments about what the threshold was for "common", and whether that meant "common to both sides of a dispute". Taking the Tiananmen Square example again, "massacre" is commonly used in Britain and and the US, but hardly ever used is China. I don't think that a precise definition of the inclusion threshold is going to possible, but I think that "one of the accepted names for that event" is as good as we can get: that needs evidence that the name has not just been coined by one newspaper columnist or used in one political speech, but evidence that it has become an accepted usage in some quarters. That may need multiple references, but not always: e.g. it may be enough to cite one scholarly work which demonstrates that the term has been widely used, and the media pages of British newspapers often examine the language used to describe a an event.

Please, can we wrap this up? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"can we wrap this up?" Are you trying to impose a time limit? Do you wish to include new involvement? Should minor objections be ignored? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone is of course free to join in the discussion and I cannot impose any time limit on editors. However, at this point I do feel that there is not much more to be discussed without either retracing ground already covered or getting bogged down in nuances. The discussions have now been going on for over a month, without a clear set of inclusion criteria being agreed.
At this point, I really do have to appeal to all editors involved to try to bring to an end — at least for now — the long-running debate over the list's inclusion criteria. I think that agreement is potentially quite close, and that it would be very helpful for editors to agree something "as fairly good", even if it's not perfect, and to set aside minor objections in the interest of getting something in place.
Without a clear set of agreed inclusion criteria, this list is likely to find itself back at AfD quite soon. That may be what editors want, but rathrer than to prolong the uncertainty over the list's future it seems to me to be much better to put something in place and consider tweaking it later.
A discussion like this can of course go on for ever, but I don't think that this list has got unlimited time on its side. Sometimes the best can be the enemy of the good, and it would be a pity if all this effort just continued as a discussion without reaching a much-needed conclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BHG. This is becoming incredibly confusing again. It's probably better to proceed with the criteria that have been reached at this stage in the discussion and see what happens. If this ends up causing disruption or fails to work then the process can be halted and taken back to the drawing-board. If the worst comes to the worst and the list is a complete disaster then it can be AfD'ed again. --Folantin (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As one of the editrors who kept coming up with thoughts, questions and suggestions and delaying our ability to reach a basic consensus... I appologize. I agree... let's see if we can reach a basic "good enough" consensus, and see how it works. Instead of worrying about, and trying to anticipate hypothetical problems, we can see what problems actually arise and deal with them specificly. Again, my appologies for delaying consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "accepted mainstream name" or similar then? All those calling to go forward with the current criteria are missing the point. We've used these critera before, and it was nothing but chaos. We've progressed forward from there, and now people are calling for a return to the madness from before?! One Night In Hackney303 13:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
But what do you mean by "mainstream"? If the reliable sources show that a shooting of 500 civilians in Afritania is referred to in that poor and isolated country as the "X massacre", but elsewhere as the "X incident", is the Afritanian name "mainstream"? There is a real danger with this sort of terminology that words like "mainstream" or "common" end up being interpreted as "used in the Western media", which seems to me to be rather biased. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(<<out-dent) I would say greater than one verifiable reliable sources not "accepted mainstream name" as the former is Wikipedia policy and the latter is not. I would justify more than one as a filter on reliable sources because sometimes a book title (or a chapter heading in a book) or a newspaper headline may use the term just to invoke interest in the potential purchaser/reader and it may well not be a common name. But if it really is only named in a few sources then there is no reason why the authors should not be named in the description field -- or at least the most notable authors ("If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;" (WP:UNDUE)). However this area of defining what is in or out needs a large dollop of common sense because "here be dragons", simple rules will not work well around this issue, see for example as a warning Emma Brockes#Chomsky-Guardian Controversy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. "mainstream" is too ambiguous. ONIH, would you be willing to at least try BHG's criteria on a temporary basis, and see if it works? Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Category instead

What can this article accomplish that a category couldn't? I supported keeping this article when the AfD came up. However, now that there has been further discussion, I am undecided; not for or against, but undecided. For me, there should be a minimum of six months before revisiting deletion of an article. (I can provide the Wikipedia policy that there should be a reasonable period between deletion votes if anyone can't find it. "Reasonable period" isn't defined, but I use six months.)

To help me decide, assuming that an inclusion criteria can be determined, I am looking to discussions about what this list could (potentially) provide that a category doesn't. Here are some of my ideas:

  • Category
    • Less maintenance
    • Allows subcategories
  • List
    • Can provide more organization than does a category
    • Can be ordered by date, number of victims, etc.
    • A table, such as used in the current article, can be easier to search for information by column

What do others think? Please limit your comments to this topic; what should be include would be off-topic for this section. — Val42 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read BHG's analysis above, she points out why category is not an option. Tyrenius (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I went back and read it. Now that I reread it, I remember that I read it before. She has clearly stated why a category isn't acceptable. So it is a list or nothing. It is good that the qualifications for this list seems to be progressing. — Val42 (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
We already have a huge super-category for massacres [7] which is more comprehensive than this page is ever likely to be. --Folantin (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_2#Category:Massacres. Proposed renaming, otherwise deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Deaths column

Should the "Deaths" column discuss only deaths or should it discuss injuries also? Should it discuss whether the casualties were civilians?Bless sins (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. Just deaths. That is what most people think about when they hear the word massacre. And I don't think it matters whether they are civilian or military. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say maybe. A high death to injuries ratio has been used as evidence that an event was a massacre as opposed to a genuine battle. See "Massacre at Eureka" -­ The Untold Story, Bob O'Brien, ISBN 0-909874-19-0. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unpleasant Comment

Has anyone besides me searched for "List of Massacres" on the web? I found a couple of parodies of this page, it is repeatedly used in articles analyzing what is wrong w Wikipedia (I did not look really hard at the hits or read in detail).

Since the web is a world wide phenomenon, I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say this page is a bit of a world wide joke.

The preceding unconstructive comment added by:Aaaronsmith (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup... It's a good thing we junked the bad old "List of Massacres" and substituted this new article comprising a list of "Events named massacres" (which has a much narrower scope, and will be significantly less contentious). Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The page The Biases of Wikipedia – A Case History is an essay well worth reading if anyone is any doubt why the "List of massacres" was not working. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"an essay well worth reading". Really? I thought it was pretty poor myself. (But let's not go down that route :) . There's already enough to debate on this page as it is!). --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And may I, as a well known troublemaker hereabouts point out that is is exactly because of the fact that this would hold Wiki to ridicule that I suggested that it be deleted or modified. I have suffered blocks and threats and huge time input to get to the somewhat better current situation post the name change. A Wiki martyr is what I am! Sarah777 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You're night quite martyred yet, Sarah. The prison doctors tell me that so long as you still have a pulse, however, weakened, you're not technically dead ... and until it stops you can't technically be a martyr.
Anyway, thanks to lots of hard work by you and many others, it seems that we may be near a consenus. Alhamdulillah! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion critera - revised Draft

Here is some proposed language, based upon all the comments above. I am sure that this will need further tweeking, but I think it is close to what we are all saying. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

This is a list of notable events that include the word "Massacre" as part of their names, as evidenced in reliable sources. In order to add an event to this list, the event must meet with three fundamental criteria:

  1. A Wikipedia article about that event must exist. This will establish the event's notability.
  2. Multiple (at least two) sources must use the word "Massacre" as part of the name of the event. Note: the fact that sources may discribe the event as being a massacre is not enough for inclusion in this list.
  3. All sources must be reliable.

Challenges

Should an editor wish to question or challenge an entry for not meeting with one of these three criteria, they should do so on the talk page. The entry on the event will be suspended and temporarily removed, pending determination of the question or challenge. In the event that the editors of this list can not reach a quick consensus, the issue will be forwarded to the editors of the main article on the event (as these are editors who are the most likely to be familiar with the sources and their reliability), and we will abide by their determination.

Please note, however, that legitimate challenges are limited. The editors of this list will not argue over whether an event is/was actually a "massacre" or not. Such questions are not within the scope of this list. If all three of the inclusion criteria are met with, the event should be listed. If any one of them is not met with, the event should not be listed.

Discussion

With regret, I think that this premature, because we really need to see whether Folantin has any suggestions on how to address his concerns.

A few other points:

  • basing inclusion on the existence of a wikipedia article is a self-reference (wikipedia is not a reliable source, and there are many reasons other than notability why a wikipedia article on a subject may not exist)
  • For a contentious area such as this, "reliable sources" should refer to the policy at WP:V#Reliable_sources, rather than to the guideline at WP:RS.
  • I don't think that it's helpful to omit so much of what was included in the Four points I listed above.

May I suggest that you withdraw this proposal, at least until we see whether Folantin has an alternative to suggest? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BHG... no problem. Consider it withdrawn (I will mark it as a Draft). I really just intended it as a way for us to focus discussion and move forward... and did not expect it to be a final version. But if you feel that even this is premature, I understand. Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Not (1). There is no need for a Wikipedia article to exist e.g. there is no Drogheda Massacre or Masasacre at Drogheda but it is easy to find a couple of reliable sources that state it was, and in deference to Wikipedia it is not uncommon for notable events not to have articles, either they have not been written or like Drogheda the article is structured in such a way there is no one for one correspondence between the information and the claim it was a massacre. Recently I have been writing new articles about English regicides and the reason I knew that an article was needed was because they were red links in List of regicides of Charles I there is no reason why the same thing can not happen here. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, BHG has already stated that (1) is out... but to reply to Phil, while there is no article named Drogheda Massacre or Massacre at Drogheda, there is an article on the event ... Siege of Drogheda. So the event would qualify for my first criteria. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Blueboar I think you are pushing the envelope here, and I do not think you need to as I think the point is made. If you like I'll find another example, but is it really necessary? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
No, not necessary. I fully accept the rational behind dropping point one... and withdraw my suggested language on the other points. I am going to let the rest of you draft the inclusion critera, as I seem to inadvertantly delay our reaching a basic consensus every time I try to help out :>) . I may have suggestions to improve language after we see how things work out in practice... but until then, I am content with BHG's basic points (above). Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question to ask ourselves

During my discussions above, a question occured to me. If we go with requiring multiple sources... do they all need to use the same name-including-the-word-Massacre for the event? Say we require three reliable sources... and two of them call an event the "XYZ Massacre", while the third calls it the "Massacre of ABC"... does it rate inclusion? My initial feeling is that for a name to appear on this list, the sources should agree on the name. No need to reach a determination on this yet... considering we have not yet reached a proper consensus on if we need multiple sources, much less how many. (and of course, if all we need is one reliable source, then that is a moot point... either name will work for inclusion.)... I simply raise the issue for everyone to think about. We can come back to it later. Blueboar (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind... we can deal with this when and if it actually happens. Let's work on reaching consensus on the basic inclusion criteria and not get disctracted by hypotheticals. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough discussion

The general intent of the criteria is evident, even if the precise wording isn't agreed. However, the latter doesn't need to be. It is the spirit of it that matters, combined with good editorial judgement based on core policies. It would be better to stop trying to find the perfect wording in theory, and instead try out the ideas in practice with any disputed events that arise. Ty 03:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. That said, I do think that we need to state the consensus criteria in the article... even if it isn't perfect. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To move us forward... Here is a revision of BHG's criteria... reflecting what I think are her changes after our last batch of comments...

Inclusion
  1. inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event.
  2. Where there is dispute over this, discussion should be centralised. If it is discussed on the talkpage of the article concerned, a link should be posted on the talk page of this list; if the discussion is on the talk page of this list, a link should be posted at the article's talk page.
Notes
  1. Any name for the event which is established by use of reliable sources as being one of the accepted terms would usually also be included in the article on that event.
  2. Inclusion in this list does not of itself justify inclusion in the article, and nor does use of the name in an article justify inclusion in this list, because wikipedia is not a reliable source. Both uses must be based directly on explicit references to the sources, which should be cited in footnotes. However, it is hard to envisage any situation where a name including "massacre" could be included in this list but not mentioned in an article on the event (or vice versa); if that situation should arise, both the uses should be carefully examined.

I think we could add a clarification in the first line... along the lines of ... "A reliable source that mearly discribes the event as being a massacre does not qualify the event for inclusion in this list. The word Massacre must appear in the source as part of a name for the event."... however I will not object if people think this is overkill and wish to go with BHG's criteria without change. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... with no reply after several hours, I have added the above (with my additional line) to the intro of the list. I feel confident that this reflects consensus, but if I am premature (again), just revert it (but please explain why)... I will understand. Blueboar (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll never get anything that's not open to differing degrees of interpretation, so we may as well run with it and discuss problems and/or changes as they come up. One Night In Hackney303 03:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done for going ahead with the wording.
One point, though, that I think may have been missed ... and if so, that's my fault for not pointing out my intention.
The sentence "solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that a name including the word "massacre" is one of the accepted names for that event" needs to be read carefully. This is not saying that it is enough for the sources themselves to use the word "masascre" in the name of the event; it's more restrictive than that, and requires that the reliable sources must show that "massacre" was part of an accepted name for the event.
So if the source says "the Foobar massacre happened on the 35th April when 69 dope-smoking rockers were shot dead by the Nonagenarian Liberation Army" .... that doesn't do it. That's just using the name, not asserting that it is an accepted name.
However, this would qualify: "the shooting on 35th of April of 69 dope-smoking rockers by the Nonagenarian Liberation Army, popularly known in Ullapool as the Foobar Masacre, ...".
Hope that makes sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That does make sense. I agree "the Foobar massacre" is a description. However, "the Foobar Massacre" is an assertion that that is the proper name. Ty 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why must the word massacre be in the name?

Take the Battle of Caen (1346). Yes it’s a battle, but followed with a massacre. After the town was taken, 2,500 of the town inhabitants were killed. Five hundred bodies found in a mass grave, multiple direct sources, and almost every book on the subject clearly described it as a massacre. But because it is never called the Massacre of Caen, it gets excluded.

It is described as a massacre in at least three books I’ve read

It is odd that the St. Brice's Day Massacre of 1002, where there is no archaeological evidence and we have no idea how many died, get included. Yet the massacre of Caen, with direct sources and archaeological evidence, gets excluded.

I appreciate that multiple sources is vital, but I believe that to insist it must be called a massacre directly in its name is too narrow, excludes so many indisputable massacres to make this list worthless. Multiple, varied and reliable sources is more important than an insistence on a formal name.

I also appreciate that there are politically controversial ones. And tabloid sensationalist problems to deal with. But insisting on the word massacre in the ‘events name’ neither solves that whilst excludes clearly obvious other massacres. What is the point of a list of massacres that excludes 90% of massacres? Chwyatt (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Search me. I've yet to work out the encyclopaedic purpose of this page. I imagine the criteria are just an attempt to make the list more manageable given the vast number of massacres in history. --Folantin (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally appreciate that (and I wish some wikipedians wouldn’t try and silence other people, just because they weren’t part of the previous debate). It’s a tough one. But it does seem the criteria for inclusion now has become so strict as to exclude too many justifiable inclusions. I don’t see how the current article resolves the St. Brice's Day massacre anomaly, that may not have even happened. I see other people want to close this issue. But it clearly isn’t resolved. Or maybe we need a list called Massacres that are massacres but not called massacres for the missing majority of massacres (which would be silly of course) Chwyatt (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This page was called "list of massacres" and there was a huge list of events. There were also lots of edit warrings and discussions about wheter some mass killings could be labeled "massacre" or not. So given the lack of an objective criteria to attach the "massacre" label to the events it was decided to change the list to a "list of events named massacre".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Given that fact that there seems to be consensus concerning the move to rename the entry "List of events named massacre" I think unfortunately that your very astute point will fall on deaf ears. Once upon a short an heated time (see the archives somewhere) I tried to offer a rationale that suggested that this was the worst possible move. Reading the commentary here every so often I've now become convinced that this entry should simply be deleted. There is to much contention involved to get editors not to edit war over an objective criteria for inclusion and the current criteria, which cleverly sidesteps those issues, also unwittingly promotes a list of minimal utility. In fact it does more than just that, it promotes a very specific cultural politics. It doesn't matter then what history tells us happened on any given day, unless the English speaking world has decided to call it a massacre we don't want to hear about it. One suggestion back then, which was heatedly rejected by a more dominant element here, was to create a rough criteria for for inclusion that could be sourced via history books. That is to say, if it was common and undisputed and easily sourced historical knowledge that X, Y, and Z happened then it doesn't matter what mass culture prefers to call the event, its a massacre. I think there are very level headed editors who are backing the current proposal because it does away with contention, but that isn't a good reason to have a Wikipedia entry. Perhaps someone should also create the List of disputed massacres. At least then this entry will have sociological utility, since readers will be able to see what Anglo-American culture is comfortable enough, or simply knowledgeable enough about, to call a massacre, and what other groups, or elements within Anglo-American culture would like to call "massacre" based upon a very blatant similarly to that which is popularly so called. Also, please do not delete this post, as someone did with the one I'm responding to. As long as someone is in good faith discussing the entry and its contents its pretty bad form to do that.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. It is a little annoying when someone asks a question in good faith and it gets deleted. I agree that this subject throws up problems. And with your final suggestion PelleSmith. Regards. Chwyatt (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the recent AfD debate and the explanation I posted above of the AfD closure, you'll see that that there was no consensus to delete this page, although it was a close-run thing, and that there was a consensus that if kept the list should be renamed to List of events named massacres.

The arguments you make about objective criteria for a massacre have been made before, and while that doesn't mean that they are invalid, this list has only just reached a stable set of inclusion criteria after a month or more of debate. Please may I ask that you give this list some time to try out the new inclusion criteria? --13:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How does the new inclusion criteria deal with the fact that the term "massacre" is also commonly used in a sense that has nothing to do with actual slaughter or killing? According to the criteria, and despite the fact that Wikipedia calls the pre-Revolutionary War event the Boston massacre, I should be able to include the 1978 Red Sox-Yankees series on this list as "The Boston massacre." Common sense has kept anyone from doing so, but the criteria actually welcomes the nonsensical move. This means that instead of explicating the empirical criteria for what a "massacre" is or should be considered, we are relying on some sort of intuition and common sense--"duh, we all know these are events that involve the killing of people." Well I dare you to actually say so, and then see where this latest cease-fire ends up.PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
PelleSmith... you assume that we can only cite to English language sources. Not so. While English sources are preferred, Non-English reliable sources can be used. See: Wikipedia:V#Non-English sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok but we obviously will never have "massacre" as a label of an event in any language that was used by polupations that have been "massacred" without being influential in the development of the language later used. The criterion is a filter that behave differently - for example - with respect to massacres of english or spanish settlers by american aborigens rather than massacres of american aborigens by the settlers. This means that the criterion amplifies the systemic bias.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Not to mention the fact that translating a term like massacre between even more dominant languages will be contentious as well, depending on the circumstances. There are other terms and phrases one can use to describe mass killings, and there had been extensive debate about the very fact that "massacre" was a charged term with a very politically motivated use--as used in English to refer to events that involve actual human death. Who translates? What if there is a discrepancy? What if foreign naming conventions are such that nothing is ever referred to as a "massacre," in its common name? The list goes on and on and what it points to over and over is that our popular Anglo-American narratives about ourselves, presently and historically, however fantastical they may be, are given complete sanction. Well I'm sorry if this makes me uncomfortable, as I see the work of an encyclopedia from a more idealistic perspective. We should not be perpetuating fantastical narratives but presenting factual accounts that, when empirical evidence dictates they do so, "contest these narratives." We are the counterbalance to popular myths and narratives, or else we should just become a big blog.PelleSmith (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith, you may a very interesting point about cultural bias here, and I think that you are probably right in your conclusion that it creates a list which is biased towards English-language sources.

However, that's a problem only if you start from thinking of this list as an attempt to create a comprehensive "list of massacres", which it emphatically is not, any more than a "list of people called George" is an attempt to create a list of people, or a "list of Acts of Parliament using the word 'reform' in the title" is a list of reforming legislation. All are lists-by-name, attempts to collate usage of a name, and since that name is an English-language word, it will inevitably be biased towards usage in English or related languages.

I share your discomfort at any bias, such as one towards popular Anglo-American narratives, but the problem is that the word "massacre" lacks any consistent and objectively-usable test; it is a term which tends to be applied by the victims and rejected by the losers. As I noted when closing the recent AfD, "The term "massacre" is rarely applied by the perpetrators, and looking at some of the incidents in the list, I suspect that the "verb" massacre fits neatly in the only game of conjugation: I conduct measured security operations, you cause excessive civilian casualties, he massacres."[8]

If you can find some neutral way of cataloging the sort of events included in this list, something which avoids the cultural biases associated with a particular word, then I encourage you to proceed and start work on it. So far, the only neutral and objectively-assessable words that I have come up to describe this sort of event are either so all-inclusive as to make a list a unmanageable ("mass killings" would include all wars, and anyway how do we define a non-arbitary threshold for "mass") or very narrow in their focus, or both.

It would be great if you can do better than me, and find some terminology which is neutral, verifiable and not original research, and which does not involve arbitrary inclusion criteria (e.g. "more than 100 deaths" is arbitary; why not 99 or 101?). Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Your point about this being list of minimal utility was made at AfD. Since at that point there was no consensus as to whether to delete, it may well return to AfD ... but the process of refining and formalising the new inclusion criteria is only just nearing completion. Please allow some time to see how the new criteria work out in practice; the arguments you make here may well carry some weight at a further AfD, but I don't see much purpose in rehashing them here. They are arguments for deletion, and belong in an AfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I did point out before this new criteria was introduced that it would result in an unbalanced list. Similar incidents to "massacres" will be excluded simply because they are known by a different name, despite the circumstances being the same. One Night In Hackney303 14:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It's an unavoidable consequence of using the word massacre, which is more of a term indicating a perspective on an event than any sort of objective categorisation of an event. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Entry - Dunmanway Massacre

This event was recently added, then deleted (with the objection that the addition was made by a sock of a banned editor) and then readded by an IP editor (same person?). I will leave the banned editor accusations aside (since I do not know the situation), but I agree that the entry does not (yet) qualify for inclusion... for the simple reason that the adding editor only gives one source and we reqire multiple reliable sources. I am going to temporarily remove it until more sources are provided. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Also I can assure you it's a sockpuppet of a banned editor. One Night In Hackney303 14:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That would need to be confirmed by check-user, of course. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Account blocked by checkuser, and don't those IPs look familar? One Night In Hackney303 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, sock proven. I have posted a note about the entry and lack of sources at the article's talk page (centralizing the discussion here)... if another editor (not the banned sock-puppeter) wishes to add the event, and gives us multiple sources, we can revisit the issue. For now, it's off the list. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The only reliable sources I can find for the event are The Irish Protestant Churches in the Twentieth Century by Alan Megahey, and this book review which I realise is stretching it a bit. One Night In Hackney303 14:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Brice's Day massacre - sources may not meet criteria

St. Brice's Day massacre "Anglo-Saxon king Ethelred II ordered the killing of all Danes living in England."

One source looks good... I have questions about the others:

  • <ref>Staff. [http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-516876/Saint-Brices-Day-massacre Saint Brices Day massacre], [[Encyclopaedia Britannica]], Accessed [[26 December]] 2007</ref> - this source is good.
  • <ref>Sue Cameron [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e896f82e-871c-11dc-a3ff-0000779fd2ac,s01=1,stream=FTSynd.html?nclick_check=1 England’s massacre of the immigrants], [[Financial Times]] [[30 October]] 2007 </ref> - uses a different name ("England's massacre of the immigrants")... not sure if this is actually a NAME or simply a discription.
  • <ref>Staff. [http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/M/monarchy/biogs/ethelred_ii.html Ethelred II The Unready], website of [[Channel 4]] Accessed [[26 December]] 2007</ref> - does not use the word "massacre" as a name.

Temporarily removing from list pending discussion, or the addition of better sources. Will post a note to the event article's talk page. Have posted a request for help at the event page... asking them to help us find the best sources possible. That should not stop us from looking for sources that are "good enough". Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think that's one that should have stayed - see here just for starters. I'm all for removing them if sources can't be found, but it's obviously best to have a quick look first surely? One Night In Hackney303 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
So add it back with better sources. I actually agree with you that this one should stay... but (as stated below) we can not be hypocritical or selective here... we need to make sure that all of our entries meet our new criteria, even the ones that obviously belong. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I will do, but please see my comments in the section below re this. One Night In Hackney303 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add the massacre in 1860 Damascus...it is well referenced, including Albert Hourani, Bernard Lewis et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.150.243 (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Review of current entries

OK... as you might be able to see... I undertaking a review the entries already on our list, to make sure that they pass our new inclusion criteria. I know that some of this may seem silly, with temporary removal of events that "obviously" should belong on this list... but I feel that it is vital that we be even handed in enforcing the new criteria, and set a good precident for future disputes. When it comes to these "obvious" events, it should be easy to find reliable sources that meet our new requirements, and the event will be quickly returned. I will go slow (perhaps one review per day) so that this does not get out of hand. Please be patient. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to that, but as above if the sources aren't up to scratch (and you're doing it at a slow rate) is there any chance of you checking for better sources rather than just instantly removing an entry? If there's 93 results for the exact term on Google Books, you pretty much know it should stay. One Night In Hackney303 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
True... I was actually thinking in terms of setting a precident for what to do about disputed entries... looking to the future.
But you do have a point... Rather than remove and then fix the problem, we want editors to try to fix the problem first... and only remove and discuss if they can not fix it.
OK, I will change my plan of opperation. I want to continue to review (and please join in), but I will not remove the entry as a first (or even second) step ... I will first see if I can find better sources myself, and simply raise the issue here (without removal) if I can not. If we, as a group, can not fix it... then we can remove by consensus and ask at the event's talk page. (sigh... once again I have jumped the gun in my eagerness to get this list up and running in a way that will work... sorry, I should know better by now.) Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiding the inclusion criteria

I very much disagree with "commenting out" or "hiding" the inclusion criteria for this list. The criteria need to be stated in an easy and obvious manner, so that any editor coming to this page to add an event can see them. Leaving the criteria as plain text will help prevent any number of edit wars and disagreements. Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One Night In Hackney303 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid says it all. --John (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
However, given the history of this list, and the contentious nature of it's topic, I think there is a very valid reason to Ignore all rules here. For one thing, this revised version of the list (and its new criteria) are fairly new... I fully expect that we will get people coming here to add events who will not know that we have changed the criteria. Perhaps, as the list grows, as time passes and more people become familiar with the new criteria, we can hide it... but for now I really think we need to hit people over the head with it. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Add it at the top, add it in the section. If they don't notice, it's their problem. IAR is for improving the encyclopedia, not making it look shoddy. One Night In Hackney303 00:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think heading off edit wars and being clear as to what the local rules are on a contentious list like this is improving the encyclopeida. And I don't find it at all "shoddy". But rather than get into an edit war over it, I have asked BHG to pop in and give her opinion. If she feels it should be hidden, I will drop the matter. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks shoddy, breaks several guidelines, and will no more head off edit-warring than it would as an invisible comment. --John (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand Blueboar's concerns, and appreciate his rigour in trying to minimise the opportunities further misunderstanding, but Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid applies here. In particular Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Articles_are_about_their_subjects says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so our articles are about their subjects; they are not about the articles themselves" ... and the precise explanation of the inclusion criteria which Blueboar added[9] are about the article rather than about the subject.

There are many other contentious articles of the encyclopedia where a consensus has been built up over time on how to handle issues relating to the article. However I am not aware of any of them breaking the no self-references rule other than by using one or more of the standardised maintenance templates at the top of the page.

I think that the ideal solution would be to have to inclusion criteria clearly displayed above the article text whenever the page is opened for editing, so that it was the first thing than editor saw after pressing the edit button ... but I don't think that the software offers any such facility at this point.

The next best option is to add the inclusion criteria in comments, so that that they are displayed when the editor scrolls down to the edit box. As ONIH says, the commented-out criteria should be added at the top of the list's source text, and at the top of each section if the listing.

However, I suggest that the inclusion criteria should also be displayed very prominently at the top of the talk, using a protected sub-page as a template. That way any editor coming to discuss the inclusion can see straight away what the status quo is.

I will doodle a draft template now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, see Talk:List of events named massacres/Inclusion criteria.
I initially created it by mistake in article space, from where User:Corvus cornix promptly moved it to Wikipedia space; I deleted it and recreated it as a subpage of this talk page. Maybe it should be in Wikipedia space, but it would be simpler to keep it in talk space if that's OK.
Anyway, any comments on the draft? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good. A couple of comments. I think it is preferable if talk is centralised on the article talk page, rather than the list talk page, to avoid the list talk page becoming even more unwieldy than it is at present. Also the example, "The Smalltown Massacre was the lastest in a series of atrocities in the north of the country" is cited as not being acceptable usage. Sources are not usually going to conveniently say, "This event commonly called XYZ" to help us out. If it is commonly called XYZ, then they will simply call it that—which is proof that it is commonly called that. This obviously demands editorial judgement on the number and validity of sources using it in that way, and possible discussion to reach consensus about such usage. I would differentiate also in such instances between "Smalltown massacre" and "Smalltown Massacre", the former using the term in a descriptive way, the latter being a name. Ty 08:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you saying in note 1, but there has to be a better way of stating it. I understand the arguments for examples two, but I think that it has arisen from thinking about modern massacres and is flawed. If one does a Google scholar search on Droghada: "Recent articles Results 1 - 10 of about 50 for "the Drogheda massacre" OR "the massacre at Drogheda" OR "the massacre of Drogheda"" or on the SBDM "about 706 for "Bartholomew's Day Massacre"" it may be that there will be a source somewhere that says that these are accepted names, but more often the name will be shown to be accepted by usage. It would be wrong if the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre was removed from this list because the texts do "not assert that "St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre" is an accepted name for the event." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"I think it is preferable if talk is centralised on the article talk page, rather than the list talk page". I certainly don't for all the reasons I've constantly stressed. This page is a mess, it always will be a mess, but let's try to keep the chaos localised here and stop it infecting areas of Wikipedia that really count. I mean, we now seem to have reached the absurdity of discussing whether the "St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre" was really called the "St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre". --Folantin (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll try answer the difft points under separate headings below, to make replies easier.
Where to centralise discussion
  • I understand the argument by Tryrenius and others centralising discussion on the article talk pages, but Folanatin made a good case for trying to keep discussion related to this list off the article talk pages. The text used was a compromise between those positions which I proposed a few days ago (while Tyr was a well-earned break from these proceedings). Could we try living with this compromise for a while, and see how it goes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Capitalisation
  • Tyr's point about capitalisation is tempting, but I think that before adopting it we should look carefully at how viable it is to distnguish between "Smalltown massacre" and "Smalltown Massacre". I thought I'd test it out on the Tiananmen Square massacre, so I did a Google search on The Grauniad and on the Daily Telegraph, and both sets of results seem to show "Tiananmen Square massacre" being much more widely used than "Tiananmen Square Massacre", which isn't encouraging (I don't think there is any plausible argument that this is anything other than a widely-used name. Also, older texts (pre-19th century) don't seem to follow the convention of capitalisation only for proper names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Accepted name
  • The "accepted name" phrasing is also a text which seemed to have been agreed for a few days, and I thought it was reasonably stable, while not perfect. Maybe we should have road-tested it a little further, but I think that discussion has revealed a problem, that it may not be easy to find sources which actually discuss the name, and that's the current criteria require something close to that. PBS's "shown to be accepted by usage" point seems sensible, and I think that this could be resolved by adding an alternative evidence-of-usage test, so that we could accept either a small number of refs which directly discuss the name, or a larger number of refs which use the name without comment, but when taken together demonstrate that it it is "an accepted name". I'm hesitant about suggesting a numerical threshold, partly because any threshold is inevitably arbitrary, and partly because some weighting is relevant: for example, one usage in page 63 of an scholarly but obscure book is much less significant than a ref on the front page of a national newspaper or a major encyclopedia, or a widely-cited account of events. If that approach is acceptable in principle, could we discuss a form of words?
    As an afterthought, is the flaw in the phrase "accepted name"? I wonder if "widely-used name" would be a clearer way of encompassing both direct evidence of multiple usage (by lots of cites), and evidence of reported widespread usage (which is how it is approached in my examples). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I just edited one of the examples in the criteria page to allow for the evidence-of-widespread-usage test: see this edit. (I reverted my change afterwards, to avoid confusion about which draft we are discussing). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we should try your version on an experimental basis. As you know, I don't think this page is viable, but if others want to make the effort at fixing it I won't interfere so long as it's done responsibly and the inevitable convoluted arguments don't spread to other pages. --Folantin (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Presuming that silence=assent, I have added the template Talk:List of events named massacres/Inclusion criteria to the top of this page, and protected it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Granada Massacre

Continuing my review... The Granada Massacre of 1066 needs sources that meet with our inclusion criteria. The sources provided do not. I did a quick google search, but have no idea which of the results should be considered reliable or not. Some mearly discribe it as a Massacre. Will post a call for assistance at the article talk page.

Note... so far the first two entries on this list, while they obviously belong, do not meet our new requirements. I have a feeling that this is going to be a difficult process. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations have been updated Blueboar (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jamestown Massacre

Fails inclusion criteria. NONE of the sources that were given substantiated the name. Neither did a quick Google search. The article itself uses it as an alternate name for the event in the lead, but does not give a citation. A call for assistance has been placed at article's talk page. I'll give the editor's there some time to respond, but I think this one should probably be taken off the list. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations have been located and updated (thank you) Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Batak massacre

The only source cited for this entry says "The principal scenes of massacre were Panagurishté, Perushtitza, Bratzigovo and Batak". Unless I'm missing some part of it, is that enough to qualify the entry on the list?Bless sins (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct... this source does not meet the criteria. Do a quick Google search to see if you can easily fix the problem... if not, tag the event name as needing sources and post a request for help (explaining our criteria) at the event article's talk page. Give people some time to respond. If, after a suitable amount of time has passed, no one updates the citation, we can discuss removal. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Massacre of Scottish and English planters

This entry points to Irish Rebellion of 1641#Massacres. While it is heavily cited to establish numbers killed and the fact that the Irish Rebellion of 1641 contained numerous sub-events that are discribed as being massacres, none of the sources establish the use of "Massacre" as an accepted name. Will post a comment at the relevant article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah... the system works!... I got a reply at the event-article talk page. Apparently, "The event is also known as the Irish Massacre of 1641. Multiple references here". Right now, I am focussed on reviewing the entries and posting notices for help. If someone else wants to update this entry and follow up at the event article, please do... otherwise I will get back to it later. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have taken this list off my watch list, but your question was flagged because I have the Irish Rebellion of 1641 on my watch list. Blueboar you could have done that Google Book search yourself, without asking on the talk page of the Irish Rebellion of 1641. That seems to me to be exactly the sort of problem that concerned Folantin (Let sleeping dogs lie). Also note on the second page page returned by Google Books (John Ranelagh A Short History of Ireland) shows that at least one author thinks it is a propaganda term and that too probably should me mentioned for a balanced POV. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the word "massacre" always a propaganda term? Why is it any more or less so in this case than in any other? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No not always: if a named massacre is coined as a massacre by neutral third parties it may be an accurate description not a propaganda device particularly if as in the case of the Srebrenica massacre there is an international court case where people are found guilty of mass murder. Another exception is the Guatemalan Historical Clarification Commission because it defined a massacre as "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."[10] so any massacre found to be such by the commission was not propaganda. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That's the sort of answer I was afraid of :( Your answer assumes that there is a "neutral" definition of massacare, rather than many possible definitions adopted at different times and places for difft purposes. The problem is that Guatemalan definition could be very plausibly disputed: why five rather than 4 or 6 or 12 or twenty? how exactly do you define indefensible? what exactly does that word "execution" mean in this context, and is (for example) an aerial bombing an execution? (No, don't answer: I'm just pointing out that while the Guatemalan Commission has adopted a definition which suits its purposes, there are many other other possible ways of defining the term).
I did not say that massacre can and often is used for propaganda, what I am doing is showing that in all cases at all times it is not "always a propaganda term". As for the Guatemalan definition it is not that it could be disputed, it is that they used that objective definition in their investigations. So their use was not a "propaganda term", I do not have to defined "indefensible" or "execution", if you wish to see how they used the terms you need to read the transcript of their investigations.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Srebrenica massacre is a red herring here, because the charges brought were of genocide, not "massacre".
The futility of this sort of attempt to try to argue whether a particular event was "truly" a massacre is precisely why this list was recast and eventually renamed. If you start selectively applying definitions, you demolish the whole basis of the current inclusion criteria, which is to track the usage of the word "massacre" in names for events rather than to try any objective assessment.
I had hoped that we had a consensus to try applying those criteria, but if you want to drag this list back to a series of arguments about whether the term has been applied justifiably, then the list will rapidly return to AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources (that are not a fringe view) that claim an event was not a massacre, these should be included to balance the point of view that an event was massacre. It is a matter of neutral point of view. It has nothing to do with whether the list is a list of named massacres or any other type of massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern Phil... but remember that this list no longer concerns itself about whether an event actually was or was not a massacre... it is simply about whether or not multiple reliable sources use the word massacre as part of a name for the event. There will be events that are omited because the event isn't NAMED as such, even though tons of sources agree that the event was a massacre (The Battle of Little Big Horn comes to mind as an example)... and there will be events that will be included, even though there are people who disagree as to whether it was or was not actually a massacre. In other words... this is more a list of names than a list of events.
That said, I have several suggestion that might address your concerns. First, we could add a collumn for "Alternate names". Second, we could add a collumn on whether the name was contested or not (I could see this being a simple Yes/No... with citations if the answer is Yes). Or third, we could discuss any controversy over the name in the "discription" collumn. The key, however, is to focus on the names and not on the event itself. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


I have changed the name to "The Irish Massacres of 1641" and added citations Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Massacre of Elphinstone's Army

I have done a quick google search (on both Google and Google Books) and can not definitively say whether this meets our new criteria or not. A LOT of sources discribe the event as being a massacre, but it is unclear whether they name it such. I am wondering if there are alternative (and perhaps more common) names for the event? I don't think we are at the point of removing the event from the list... but we need more definitive confirmation on the name. I have requested help from the editors at the main article. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Candelaria Massacre

I thought I'd bring this up here first rather than put it straight into the article, but I'd like to propose the addition of the Candelaria Massacre. There was an item about this on the BBC World Service today and it pinged my memory of seeing this article a few weeks ago. I reckon this article fits the criteria:

Any objections?

The first two sources (both CNN) do not fit the inclusion criteria (they use the term in a discriptive manner, not really naming the event as the "Candelaria Massacre".) The NY Times and BBC reports do seem to substantiate the use as a name. The question is whether these press reports indicate that the name has become accepted. My initial thoughts are that they do, and thus the event should be included on the list. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
When you've got 3,000 normal Google hits, 59 Google news, 47 Google books and 18 Google scholar you're generally onto a winner. I'd tend to avoid the BBC reference as it's actually a letter written by a non-BBC employee therefore not necessarily subject to the BBC's editorial policy, but there's plenty of other reliable sources out there. One Night In Hackney303 18:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 -- Awkward title

I really hate to say this, especially as one who is to date peripheral on this rather controversial page, however I find the title "List of events named massacres" a bit complex. I've seen that this page has already had much debate in arriving at this somewhat committee-driven name and an awkward construct. I find "List of events" overly cumbersome when "events" would likely suffice barring krufty wiki-age. "Events named massacres" is more succinct. "List of named massacre events" prevents some confusion with "named massacres" in scanning.

Sorry for the ramble, but I've been coming back to article a few times recently as the article's scope is interesting as it takes on various facets from the political to those simply "pushed over the edge". Settling on a definition for this I see has not been the smoothest of projects but I see good things have come from the struggle to define the page. I found it very educational with regards to events happening outside of my time and frame of reference. Love the article and appreciate the effort, but by gum, the NAME... Ogre lawless (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Howabout List of massacres? GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a list isn't it? And redirects are cheap. One Night In Hackney303 18:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ya know: It's easy and fun to come up w suggestions for other people to do the work. So I'm going to surrender to the temptation and do it.
What about a page that includes ALL possible massacres by the most general definition possible (Yes, Sara777, this would include Fallujah, but also the mass executions of common criminals that were common in China a thousand years ago). Then provide an absolutely heavy duty sorting capacity. Not just by date, size, etc. But also by DEFINITION: Done by a legal army, done by a peasant levey (legal), just plain done by peasants, Called massacre, Called massacre but not considered a massacre (Boston Massacre for example), Lot of dead, but war properly declared, Lot of dead and war not properly declared i.e. a mistake (Pearl Harbor), Lot of dead but legal for the era (Servile War), Lot of dead but legal for the culture (all of the American Indian efforts to keep their land), Just plain legal (all of the American Indian, African, etc. native wars), massacres resulting from friendly fire, etc. etc. etc. This should keep a couple of real enthusiasts busy for years and (maybe) end all the controversy since EVERYTHING will be included, just show up on different sort choices.Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The only reason this list survived at AfD was by strictly limiting its scope. There is no controversy now... either multiple reliable sources indicate that an event is named with the word "massacre" or they don't. If they do, it can be listed... if they don't it can not be listed. No controversy. Blueboar (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Little Problem

Why is this page so heavily oriented to the evils of the West? Isn't it kind of patronizing to leave out the unpleasant parts of everybody else's history?

Yes, we've got a few in there. But only two in China in the last 4,000 years. Bull.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). One Night In Hackney303 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I did the math. In order to fix this page just for the last 200 years, I would have to research and enter almost 300 "events". I think I'll leave that to one of the apologists.
By the way, has anyone else noticed there are a lot of languages that don't have a word meaning the same thing as the english word "massacre"? We could have an interesting discussion on how that skews NPOV.24.10.110.75 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Not logged in.Aaaronsmith (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The word "Massacre" must be part of the name for the event. That has been decided. It is either this, or the article goes back to AfD and gets deleted. If you think the article is lacking "non-western" events... do some research and find more few non-western events with sourcing that meets our requirements, and add them. You don't have to do all 300... just 10 would make a huge difference. Blueboar (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Bluntly, I'd rather see this raging example of political correctness be deleted. This thing is no better than it has been for the last 5 years. I fact, it was better 5 years ago. At least it was an list w some commonality to the popular definition All you've got now an article with no significance. 14,000 villages scraped to bare rock by the Mongol hordes - and not included. The Boston Massacre, adjudicated IN A COURT OF THE VICTIMS and declared NOT to be a massacre - IS included. Give me a break! Why don't we have a list of historical rulers who ascended at the age of 19 3/4 and were gone at 23 1/2? Makes as much sense.Aaaronsmith (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
NO no no... far too POV... it should be a list of historical people that are named rulers (in reliable sources) who ascended at the age of 19 3/4 and were gone at 23 1/2. Otherwise we are going to end up arguments over whether so and so was simply a pretender to the throne.
OK, to be serious here. Whether you like it or not, we are stuck with the current inclusion criteria. Some of us are at least trying to make it work. If you disagree with what is going on... nominate the list for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...

I've got to admit I'm shocked that sanity was restored to this page. How did this happen? I'd given up all hope a while back. Kudos to the group of people responsible for establishing meaningful inclusion criteria, and actually enforcing this criteria. - Merzbow (talk)

Wikisearch for massacre anyone?

Some articles are not included. Is it because they do not satisfy the inclusion criteria although they exist as articles?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First, a minor point: this is a list of events not a list of articles (having an article is not part of the inclusion criteria, while it is likely that any event added here will have an article, it is not required). That said... It may be that they do not satify the inclusion criteria, or it may simply be that no one has added them yet. If you know of an event that that is not on the list, and is named with the term "Massacre" (as opposed to being discribed as a massacre) in multiple reliable sources, feel free to add it. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugly Little Suggestion

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

While you're at it why don't you make the "List of Massacres No One Wants to Name as Such."PelleSmith (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This could get interesting. How about "List of Massacres Everyone Has Forgotten About"?Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think very carefully about it, such a list would always have to be empty. At the moment in which an event was added to the list, it would no longer be forgotten about by everyone, and would therefore have to be removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. That comment was meant to be ironic. Readers were supposed to catch the logical inconsistency. It is SO difficult to communicate irony in the printed word.Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You're talking to the editor that created List of events called massacres that don't have a double letter in the name, it's time to stop feeding the troll I think. One Night In Hackney303 01:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that gem, but thanks for the warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It does sound a bit ugly, but comprehensive navigational aids are desirable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... "List of Events That Some People Think are Massacres, But Other People Don't Think are Massacres"? or perhaps "List of Massacres Nobody Cares About"? or even "List of Events that weren't Massacres"? We could double the size of Wikipeida in a week if we get creative. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The challenge of usefully indexing the world’s greatest encyclopedia won’t be easy. I was thinking more of lists of other mass crimes (theft, swindling, pillage). List of Disputed Massacres. Lists of other types of murder (heinous, political, religiously motivatived). For balance, and to maintain your own mental health, consider: Lists of acts of altruism, charity, bravery. It will all be on the edge of violating NPOV and NOR, but if it improves accessibility, it is good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was this not included in the list

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

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

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

Can someone tell me why this is not there

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

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


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

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

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