Talk:List of massacres/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Page one

The massacre by U.S. forces of Korean civilians taking shelter under the Nogun-ri ["Nogeun-ri" under new South Korean romanization standard] railway bridge July 26-29, 1950 appears to be missing from your list of massacres. An apparently balanced report from the Voice of America, as reproduced by the Federation of American Scientists may be seen at http://www.fas.org/news/skorea/1999/991028-rok2.htm and an extensive Associated Press presentation is available at http://wire.ap.org/APpackages/nogunri/, but a web search on the words "Nogun" and "No-gun" ("-ri" simply means "village" and some sources say "Nogun village") will turn up much.

66.128.193.246 23:03 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to decide what is or isn't a massacre, but many of these really aren't what I would call a massacre. Kent state for example, wasn't a deliberate attempt to kill large numbers of non-combatants, characteristics that I would propose. My Lai would be a massacre. Without some direction, this list will grow to thousands of entries, few of which are best described by the title. Perhaps the list needs to be split into a series of related articles. Perhaps there already are related articles. Bwood 03:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow. I just saw this page for the first time and totally agree - there needs to be criterion set for what a massacre is. I look at this list and I see things like kent state, columbine, and others where mere dozens of people were killed and yet things like the 1994 Rawandan massacre of 800,000 people appear nowhere (I'll add it). If you look at this list, the numbers of people killed in these "massacres" and the frequency of massacres increases sharply in recent history. I think this is primarily because people today were alive when they happened and remember them clearly, not because they are significant enough to be considered massacres 50 or 100 years from now. I'm not trying to say that these events are not tragic or significant, rather that massacre is a very strong term and its application should not be a light decision. I think consensus needs to be reached on what consists of a massacre (i'd suggest >50 or 100 people) and this list trimmed down. -lommer 04:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
P.S. on another note, I think it would be a good idea to convert this list into a table with the dates in the left column, rather than listing the dates after each entry. Thoughts? Comments? -lommer 04:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Agree, this should be a table. How about: Date(s), Name, Casualties (est), and description. Casualties will almost always be a range and be disputed. Description should include who (aggressor), who (victims), what (general category) Bwood 22:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and converted the article to a table, I also added location as a column (somewhat as an afterthought though). However, as you can now see - we have nearly no data for casaulties! Most of these events have links to them to, so if anyone feels motivated it shouldn't be hard to go through them and find numbers for casaulties. However, it's getting late here so i'm going to bed. -lommer 07:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I just added the numbers for the casaulties and also wikified the table. Conti 23:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Just a note on dating conventions for the list, if the massacre spans >1 year just use the two years, if it spans >1 month, just include the year it occured in, and if it spanned a few days use the convention you currently see in the article (e.g. September 26-30, 2078). For one day massacres just use something like this: February 30, 3152. Thanks -lommer 08:06, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

---
I think it's time to try to hash out what is and isn't appropriate.
Proposed NOTs:

  • school killings (Columbine, e.g.)
  • when victims are armed combatants (Custer, e.g.)
  • large asasinations (Munich olypmics, e.g.)

Bwood 03:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

    • Arg, the problem with that is that some people will tell you that Columbine is commonly called the "Columbine Massacre", and others (me included) will tell you it doesn't qualify. Either way you're gonna end up stepping on someone's toes... -lommer 04:41, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
So the list will grow to several tens of thousands? Can we include Arlo Guthrie's Thanksgiving Massacree? I think it's more important to go by the real nature of the event, rather than what inappropriate name has been attached. They can still look up the event by its name in the general search. Perhaps, the list might be divided into types. One of the values I'd like see from this article, is to be able to compare the scale. Something like a list of who killed the most wouldn't apply to this article, since massacre wasn't the only method used. Bwood 01:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Where the hell is Sept. 11?

If you want to maintain NPOV in this article, you need to add the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001 on New York and Washington by the (Taliban-backed) Al-Qaida Islamist group. 3,000 civilians were killed in this terrorist attack which doubles as a massacre.

If the author is going to include incidents from the war in Afghanistan where Afghanis died in large numbers as massacres, he should have the common sense and decency to do it for Americans likewise murdered in epic numbers. Otherwise, this article appears to have a bias against America, and violates NPOV.

ANTI-COMMUNIST

There is no single author of this page. Why don't you add it yourself? Then you will be one of its authors as well. Adam Bishop 20:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Adam, I would do it myself, but I have a technical problem. I'm not really (as you would say) "computer savvy", and I don't know how to place the Sept. 11 entry into the article in it's current "chart" form. I could use a pointer or two there, but if I don't hear from you for a day or two, I'll add it to the best of my ability.

ANTI-COMMUNIST

Mukaradeeb

How exactly does Mukaradeeb have any distinct political significance? TDC 21:36, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

It has "distinct political significance in shaping subsequent events" insofar as, having been widely publicized, it has affected both Arab and American views on US policy in Iraq, thus impacting to some degree both the American election and the current Iraqi situation. - Mustafaa 23:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And your evidence for your statement is ........... ? TDC 00:17, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Which point do you dispute? That it's been widely publicized, or that widely publicized events affect politics? The latter point strikes me as axiomatic; for the former, try searching Iraqi wedding party bombed. - Mustafaa 00:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Back to the definition as stated in the article,
Massacres are individual events of mass killing of civilians or noncombatants, almost always characterised as having distinct political significance in shaping subsequent events.
The widely publicized portion has absolutely nothing to do with the article. It also has an insignificant, if any, political significance. Unless that is you can point to one and document it. Columbine spurred gun control, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was the spark of the public outcry against mobsters in Chicago. What, if any, impact has this incident had. TDC 03:21, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Rather than continue to argue what strikes me as an obvious point, I remind you that that whole clause is an optional extra: almost always..., not "always". - Mustafaa 19:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please enlighten me as to why it is "obvious". If you make a statement, you must be able tio back it up with some verifiable evidence. I fail to see how the attack of a wedding party whose members were running a smuggling operation has had a distinct political significance in shaping subsequent events.
But by all means defend your statement. TDC 19:19, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Once again Mustafaa, please provide more of an argument for your case besides "I think so". Your own personal thoughts on this subject are completely irrelevant, and until you can make the case that Mukaradeeb has had any deep political impact and or it was an intentional attack of civilians, then I will continue to remove it. Cheers TDC 22:12, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

What possible case do you have? Even if it has no "distinct political significance", it would still fit the definition of a massacre in this article:

Massacres are individual events of mass killing of civilians or noncombatants, almost always characterised as having distinct political significance in shaping subsequent events.

Do you dispute that? - Mustafaa 15:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. TDC 17:11, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

What about it? It's:

  • an "individual event"
  • an event of "mass killing"
  • a killing of "civilians or noncombatants"

I take it none of these are being denied. The only part you have disputed is whether it had "distinct political significance in shaping subsequent events", which, as the wording "almost always" clearly shows, is not an obligatory feature but an optional extra. - Mustafaa 23:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dasht-i-Leili massacre

In light of recent information I dug up, I think we might consider pulling this one from the page. TDC 05:54, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Not so fast please. see Talk:Dasht-i-Leili_massacre --GD 10:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I saw it, and that is why I am proposing this. TDC 16:43, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Clearly pulling it is not in order. Changing the number, or range of numbers, may be. - Mustafaa 19:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Hiroshima Nagasaki

Either ALL Bombing raids of WWII, and consequently other military operations are added to the list or the 2 atomic bomb drops should be removed. What about Coventry, Rotterdam, Warsaw and not to talk abour the many other German cities, which were bombed. I vote for removing these two events from the list. Cheers - User:Bernd_zh 1pm, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the list is to be kept, adding at least the main raids of WWII is a very good idea - although not too many of them will compare in number... - Mustafaa 12:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be better to move the bombing raids - including Hiroshima and Nagasaki - to a list of its own. I do not belive that the British policy of "de housing" was ethically justified, nor that the atomic bombings were justifiable. But I do belive that there is more to this discussion than the label "massacre" denotes. The concept of "total warfare" as it was understood during WWII needs to be addressed and resolved first.

Another aspect of this is the scourging of the land that both Nazi-Germany and The Soviet Union engaged in. Sometimes a "massacre" can be very indirect...

--itpastorn 16:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the killing of 100,000 people at one moment sure sounds like it fits the definition to me, whether in war or not). I also think that there are a few other bombing raids which would qualify as well -- the Tokyo firebombing, the Dresden firebombing, etc. They seem to fit the definition. --Fastfission 17:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why list pages are nearly always a bad idea

This is the kind of page that adds nothing to Wikipedia. What use can it be? It is not comprehensive. There have been thousands upon thousands of "massacres". The Romans used regularly to massacre populations. So did Timur. If it is not comprehensive, it is no use to someone who has a use for a list. As a navigational aid, it is also useless, because who is going to be looking up a list of massacres when they could simply type in the name of the massacre in question? As for the argument over defining "massacre", you are simply trying to define in those that are of importance to you and define out those that are not. Since when did massacres have to have "political significance"? Or be of civilians only for that matter! They simply have to be indiscriminate, largescale killings. When the Romans massacred the people of Carthage, it wasn't not a massacre because they killed the soldiers too.Dr Zen 03:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting point. A category might be a better way of handling this... - Mustafaa 12:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably you're right, Mustafaa. If you're to have anything. That at least will answer the charge that you cannot be comprehensive.Dr Zen 04:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I can understand your inclination, I have to disagree that lists are a bad idea. I can think of several uses of lists that you didn't mention. Just to start, what if I can't remember the name? A list is an easy, efficient way to jog my memory. Having a collection assembled in one place has many other uses, especially if summary info is included. You might be able to compare things. Etc, etc. Bwood 23:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personally speaking I should mention that lists certainly help when trying to find massacres that aren't listed on Wikipedia as a quick way to find red links instead of searching for them one at a time. However it might be a good idea to create specific guidelines when creating lists. I would certainly think war related massacres as part of this list (unless a war attrocities list exists). 64.12.116.73 04:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps seperating massacres by specific types or era's might be helpful ? 205.188.116.132 00:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposing some distinctions

In ancient times almost every battle turned into a massacre, as the victors rarely let any prisoners live. In many cases they were killed in gruesome ways. We also have the massacres committed to the surviving civilian population of conquered cities (Timur Lenks specialty). But in ancient times there also was no clear distinction between civilian and combattant. That is a modern invention. Also, before the 19th century and the invention of canned food any army was expected to plunder for food. And soldiers were "paid" by letting them plunder after a victory. By modern terminology therefore (almost) every war ever fought has included countless massacres.

Here is my proposal for what should go into this list:

  • Historically recorded deliberate masskillings of prisoners in the aftermath of a major battle.
  • Historically recorded deliberate masskillings of the population in a city or a region after its conquest.
  • Historically recorded deliberate masskillings of people as part of a program of genocide or ethnic cleansing.
  • Historically recorded deliberate masskillings of people carried out by fanatics, militants and lunatics.

Here is what I think should not be included:

  • Loop-sided victories (remove Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, do not add Highway of death)
  • Police action gone wrong (ie some policemen panicked and started shooting), whereas policemen ordered to fire into crowds could be said to be a massacre.
  • Unintended civilian casaulties in a military battle or police action.
    • BUT: Hostages killed by kidnappers, according to their threat, when kidnappers demands are unmet or during police assault, should qualify. The kidnappers could have chosen to surrender and not commit the massacre. Killing the hostages must be considered deliberate, even if their primary objective was something else (Munich and Beslan stays).
  • Civilian casualties caused by someones carelessness, in peacetime or during military action.
  • Bombing raids or artillery barrages that are part of a "total war" effort, even though they may be abominable. See my comments on Hiroshima and Nagasaki above.

--itpastorn 17:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


While I agree with most of what you say, I'm going to present some opposing thoughts:

"clear distinction between civilian and combattant": Still, there was some and killing by battle was quite distinct in everyone's mind as opposed to killing by massacre. Quantity doesn't necessarily prohibit having a list for something. Seeing how much carnage we've done to each other, for how long, should be quite informative and educational.
Large numbers of killings while plundering would be massacres if deliberate (planned and ordered), but not if the victims had any organized armed resistance.
I'm not sure your INCLUDE list is broad enough, but I agree with your EXCLUDE list except for the last. Whether a bomb is used or automatic rifles and pits, a massacre is primarily a function of the type and numbers of killed victims. A bomb that is delivered to primarily kill civilians is a tool of a massacre, no matter what overall purpose the massacre has (to overwhelm an opponent into peace, or to remove a type of person you hate or fear).
Bwood 23:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


I am willing to change some of my proposals. I also agree that the purpose of a list such as this one is to show how we humans have been doing evil to each other way too much. Personally I believe this helps to remove some notions of our national "glory" of the past. (We Swedes were terrible in the 15th - 17th centuries. That was not our "glory days" but our days of shame.)

I still would argue that in ancient times (such as in the OT of the Bible) there is no clear distinction between "battle" and "massacre". During the actual battle relatively few were killed. When one side got the upper hand and the other turned and fleed, that's when the actual carnage began. To most people of the era that was not a "massacre", but part of the battle. It can be argued that it indeed was part of the battle as the people being slain had not surrendered and probably would come back to fight another day if they had escaped. To many people today it nevertheless seems more like a "massacre". I think we should include however those who were killed who had stopped fleeing and had surrendered.

"Large number of killings while plundering" is technically a massacre, but it's very hard to draw a line between "planned and ordered" and "implied", ie it was generally understood by the participants that such plundering would occur. There was no need for orders to be given. One could compare:

  • Rome eradicating Carthage - definetaly a massacre, planned in detail.
  • The turks plundering Constantinople - the Sultan saying for x days you may plunder, rape and kill at will, later being apalled by his own soldiers savagery.
  • The plundering in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. While it was not the american soldiers who did the plundering, and it was not ordered, they did willfully (and showing a high degree of stupidity) ignore it, even defending the looters ("they are venting out steam" etc).

As for the bombing raids, I do agree that you might call Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as the bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Warsaw, etc). I belive these bombing raids are worthy of a chapter of its own, and since the World War was so long and gruesome - as well as recent enough to be well documented - that if we would list every incident this list would lose its educational purpose. Maybe we could have one line with the most notable ones:

  • Warsaw - set the precedent.
  • The blitz - changed the mood. Civilian neighbourhoods became a legit target.
  • Hamburg - the first "firestorm"
  • Berlin - the british tried to duplicate Hamburg but failed.
  • Tokyo - the worst "US made" firestorm
  • Hiroshima

--itpastorn 09:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What? No mention of the quebec massacre April 1st 1918? In which members of the canadian armed forces fired on rioting civilians killing 4 and injuring 70. (french)http://www.ville.quebec.qc.ca/fr/ma_ville/toponymie/rues/printemps_1918.shtml


Removing reference to Jenin "massacre"

This is a note to state that this previous reference...

"|April,2002||Jenin Massacre||~500||Jenin,Palestine||Israeli Army ruthlessly demolishes houses with palestinean people inside being crushed to death."

...is no longer listed on this page. The reason is fairly simple: anyone following the link to the actual "Jenin Massacre" wiki page will note that both the United Nations and Palestinian sources--the head of Fatah himself!--now say that between 52 and 56 people died, over half of them armed combatants, NOT "~500" people as originally alleged. Furthermore, the previous one-line-description of the event was not only biased, but factually inaccurate; going by the actual wiki page, there are no established reports of anyone being crushed to death inside houses.

Good catch. TDC 03:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Criticism by Matthew White

There's detailed criticism of the neutrality and accuracy of this article by Matthew White at [1]. Gdr 20:15, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

The guy's an idiot. He's using the information in a totally perverse way. He ignores, the links or perhpas he doesn't understand what they are.--Jirate 20:28, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Jirate, you are the idiot. How is this list anything remotely close to 'academic' or 'legitimate'? Look, for instance, at the section regarding "Smallpox blankets" from 1763. First off, it bothers me that for the entire 7 Years/French and Indian War, there are NO massacres from this major war listed! (you have a deportation of French Acadians listed -- where no one dies, and then the oh so pivotal failed 'rebellion' of Pontiac and a dozen or so indian chiefs). Irregardless, look at the 'smallpox' example... "DEATHS: Unknown (none OR possibly hundreds)"....... WTF? Unknown, None, or possibly hundreds? Don't you think this is a WEE BIT IMPORTANT to know? "the holocaust? oh, it killed none, or possibly hundreds, or its unknown." "the urban legend about waking up in a bathtub without your kidneys? it killed none.. or possibly hundreds." ...... WTF WTF WTF-- THIS is the sort of drivel that shows why Wikipedia is NEVER accepted in ANY university (mine included) as any sort of citation or 'proof', and NEVER will be... You need to actually READ matthew white's criticism-- the guy has hit the nail on the head.... "using the information in a totally perverse way".. no, that would be saying a 'massacre killed none, or hundreds, or unknown' Anonymous 3:51, 2005 May 25

He doesn't seem like an idiot to me. He's simply saying that because the article is incomplete and unrepresentative, it conveys an inaccurate and biased point of view. Gdr 22:49, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim to be representative or complete see the opening paragraph. He ignores the see also section at the end. It's a list it doesn't have a viewpoint.--Jirate 22:53, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I think he has a point... a selective list does act to support a viewpoint, whatever the cause of the selectivity. Unfortunately, that's not something easy to solve. Sounds like a job for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias- Mustafaa 00:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His criticisms are dead on and get right to the heart of the great problem of Wikipedia: its visibility far outstrips its reliability. The presumed philosophy behind Wikipedia is that a critical mass of informed editors will (one day?) rectify weak or erroneous contributions from the ill-informed, the trolls, and the polemicists. I don't see that happening anytime soon. He's wrong when he writes as if there are always editorial decisions being made about "balance" and such things. What is more often the case—certainly in this particular list—is that people just haphazardly add or delete stuff as they see fit. But this of course highlights another Wikipedia weakness. --Kevin Myers 05:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
So let's fix the article. I can't stand when people criticize a single article without bothering to fix it. White should just fix it himself, and if his information is accurate it will stay. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You guys are such tools. This is why Wikipedia is NEVER accepted as a legitimate source in any school anywhere. "White should just fix it himself"... so you mean to tell me that he must make his life to fix other people's vandalism, bias, or error? What if he puts his heart and soul and somehow fixes 1% of all Wikipedia errors... and then some jerk comes along and changes it all. Hmm, yeah, it's a real head scratcher why Matthew White doesn't devote his time to fixing something that will never be permanent. Sheesh. Anonymous 02:13, 25 May 2005

Proposal: require political significance

I recommend to add ne column to the table: "political significance", giving short explanation how this or that massacre influenced future events. Those that fail to show *significance* will be removed.


This should help to weed out this growing page a bit. Having everyone to add their own favorite massacre makes the whole article unusable. Pavel Vozenilek 17:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That seems problematic and POV to me; how would you judge whether or not a particular massacre influenced future events? Maybe they should be limited to massacres of a certain minimum size instead. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Other options is to grow beyond all limits. The page may list several dozens of non-disputed and "significant" massacres. For example the Rwandan Massacre is such one (size, impact on whole nation, known), while Munich Massacre, Lidice, Romanov Massacre or shooting in an US high school, however cruel, are just minor events.
I have problem with these lists - like (former) list of Father of the Nation or List of Dictators: they tend to grow and grow as everyone feels urge to put favorite father/dictator/massacre/etc w/o giving attention to cohesity of the article or even factuality. Some over-eager editors were even searching missing countries and adding the good/bad guy there, in attempt "to make the lists complete".
My solution for such lists would be to keep number of items small but well argued and documented. For every new item one old would need to be removed. Pavel Vozenilek 21:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My edits

As anyone can see, I have been making some edits to the page. I tried to answer Matthew White's criticism by adding in more of the specific massacres in World War II, as well as other massacres he identified in his pages. I corrected a number of errors (the date of Charlemagne's slaughter at Verdun, for example), wikified some bits, and added casualty statistics that were missing or inaccurate (the massacre of Varius's legions was different on the main page and this one, etc.) I also added many missing famous massacres, especially those outside Europe (some of the numbers are shocking). All are large events, with thousands to tens of thousands of casualties. If anyone has questions, feel free to ask.

In an attempt to address that this page does double-duty, serving as a list of things labelled "massacres" and as a list of massive democides, I attempted to boldface all massacres in which over 10,000 civilians were intentionally killed. This gives the list some weight around the more catastrophic events, and makes the list more useful to skim, instead of just numbing.

I hesitate to bold some of the bombings -- Tokyo, Dresden. Yes, these resulted in large casualties, but they blur the line between intentional massacres -- Babi Yar, Srebrenica, etc -- and acts of war in which civilians were killed, such as the Blitz on London, or some of the bloodier days of the Iran-Iraq war. Personally, I would remove them, but I didn't want to do anything too large as a removal, as I did too much work on the article in the last couple of days to prompt a revert! --Goodoldpolonius2 04:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's Matthew White, not Michael White.. no problem , just thought I'd add that (and no, i'm not him -- i'm the one 'Anonymous' who left those scathing remarks to the "tools" a few lines back) Jun 06 2005

I don't see why the reason why you want to include the Hiroshima, but not the Dresden carpet-bombing. The result was pretty much the same, only the weapon used was different. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 19:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, I would have cut the atomic bombs as well for the reason you stated, but I think that there might be resistance from the other editors, so I wanted to see what the reaction was first. There has always been a more dubious nature associated with those two atomic bombings, rightly or wrongly, than any other strategic bombing attack on cities, so I thought it best to move cautiously in making any changes. What are you thoughts? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CE

There was a proposal to change dates from the familiar AD/BC Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate The proposal was made and lost. So why has Goodoldpolonius2 changed the dates here? --ClemMcGann 13:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ClemMcGann: First, I was the first person to add events before 1 AD/CE among many others, I didn't change anything just to change it, as far as I know. Second, the proposal was to set a single standard, the vote failed and there isn't one, but according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." I went with BCE and CE because (a)it is used in most discussions about massacres (especially since so many involved non-Christians and non-Westerners) see Matthew White's page and (b) it is perfectly fine by Wikipedia standards. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You did change AD to CE. I just asked why? Where is Matthew White's page? A quich check on Google for "massacres bce" has 8,000 entries (with this article first) and "massacres bc" has 45,500, so how can you conclude that it is used "in most discussions about massacres"? --ClemMcGann 21:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize I changed it - I was the first to add BCE events, and I must have changed it then. Matthew White's page is the source of a lot of data, and he uses BCE and CE. Again, I am not sure what the problem is, there is no need to go on an anti-BCE/CE crusade - both are acceptable in Wikipedia policy; BCE and CE are more commonly used by historians; they are more common when used to describe non-Christian events (like many masscres); and who will ever have trouble finding this page because they are searching for "massacres bce"? However,if this is really driving you crazy for some reason, we can make it AD and BC -- I have spent way to much work updating this page with information about various historical tragedies to get in a fight over something like this. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have yet to see any evidence that ‘’CE are more commonly used by historians’’. Nor that there is a connection with ‘’ non-Christian events (like many masscres);’’. Possibly there is a connection with anti-Christian propagandists’ pages. No more than Thursday being connected with the Norse God Thor, nor June with a Roman deity. To novel BCE/CE is used by groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses to emphasize their point of view. Since you value this page, I suggest that you remove, what is in effect, a warning louder than a ‘neutrality disputed’ template. --ClemMcGann 09:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Clem, that seems really over the top, especially since I mentioned that compromise was fine, and the current approach follows official Wikipedia policy. Did you even look at the link in my reply? Do you think that Matthew White is a anti-Christian propagandist (especially absurd as the regimes that committed the most massacres were often not Christian) ? Or that because Jehovah's witnesses also use the dating system it is somehow illegitimate? I understand that you don't like the use of CE and BCE, but you are seeming to imply that I used them for some sort of evil purpose or to make a point. Why the heck would following Wikipedia policy create a neutrality problem? Again, change the dating system if it causes you such pain, like I said above, and maybe try to be a little less strident in your attacks when you disagree with another editor. --Goodoldpolonius2 12:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I asked why you changed AD to CE. Your change leads to confusion. To illustrate this, consider your entry for Spartacus and his slave revolt. Click on your 71 BCE and rather than an entry for Spartacus, you will find the founding of York which was in the year 71. Perhaps you might consider using 71 BC? (Somehow, I'd rather not change it myself) --ClemMcGann 13:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've fixed both problems, in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are some things bold-faced and others not?

And some things are centre-aligned and others are left aligned? Makes no sense to me.

I think that those are massacres where more than 10,000 people died, but it makes reading the table harder. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 11:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, the table mark-up was wrong <th> (! in wiki-markup) is supposed to be used only for headers. I removed it. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 11:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I am restoring the bold face, it was a solution for the problem of the data appearing to be a meaningless series of numbers, with no differentiation between large-scale slaughters and things called massacres in which a few people died. If you have a better version of how to do bolding, please feel free to add it in instead. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Differentiating between them would not be NPOV, because you have to set an arbitrary limit between the bolded and not bolded massacres. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, please don't revert to that form, because the HTML generated by the wiki-table mark-up is not valid. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 16:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
That is a misunderstanding of NPOV - one can catagorize without expressing POV, in fact, one has to, or else we give every event equal mention without distinguishing importance or scale. A major complaint about this list was that it had every incident in which people were killed in history, and it was unclear at a glance what were major "massacres." Trying to restrict the list is impossible, so the solution was to bold or highlight the large-scale civilian casualties so this list would have some meaning to the causual reader. If you think 10,000 is arbitrary, propose another line, but creating a threshold is far from NPOV, indeed it is the best way to ensure that the list . I am going to restore, the HTML has been readable to date (I am not sure why you say that mark-up is not valid, it is used in this style on many tables in Wikipedia). If there is a better way to indicate the large-scale events (shading?) lets decide on that and you or I can make changes, but calling differentiating between the Boston Massacre and Babi Yar non-NPOV hardly seems like the best approach. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Per Bogdangiusca/bogdan's comments on 11:40, 16 July 2005, I agree. <th> is used incorrectly. It not only bolds the row, but it centers it, making each row out of place. I propose we implement the following as an alternative to <th> (!): |- style="font-weight: bold;" --Kevin McManus 23:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If the bolding continues to be used, an obvious explanation should be added to the page. I won't do it yet, because it seems the use is still under dispute. (Regarding the actual use of the bolding, I have no opinion.) --Jacqui M Schedler 01:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup July 2005

There is so much wrong with this list I do not no where to start. It seems to be a random list of any action where 2 or more people were killed (I was going to write murdered but even that is not correct).

Just to take three examples of many:

  • Fall of Drogheda -- "Surrendering Garrison and civilians massacred by troops of Oliver Cromwell" The garrison had not surrendered and under the law of war at the time killing a garrison after an assalt was lawful. The killing of unarmed civilans was not allowed.
  • "Bombing of a wedding party; described by US forces as a mistake provoked by its celebratory gunfire." killing the wrong people by mistake is a regetable accident but it is no more a massacre than the sinking of the titanic.
  • 7/7 Series of four suicide bomb explosions strike London's public transport system during the morning rush hour. Terrorism perhpase but not a massacres.
  1. To make this list as NPOV as possible it needs to be broken down into categories eg
    • individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents that would qualify as war crimes or atrocities. -- which needs qualifying by which war cime was committed at the time.
    • the term massacre is used more widely to refer to individual, civil, or military mass killings on smaller scales, but having distinct political significance in shaping subsequent events.
    • etc
  2. Each massacre should have another column stating who claims it is a massacre with a source to the claim.

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Philip, in general I have sympathy for your observation. It is just a random list of murders. We do need to have some sort of classification and definition. However, I do not agree with your particular points.
  • Drogheda was a massacre. Cromwell wrote “"This is a righteous judgement of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood”. He saw it as revenge from the earlier murder of planters in Ulster (which did not involve Drogheda). You mention that such killing was ‘lawful’ at the time, perhaps, but it is still a massacre. It was deliberate in order to encourage other Royalist garrisons to change allegiance. After the fall of Drogheda, Cromwell sent demands to other towns and many acceded. Cromwell wrote of the massacre “…it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret.”. There have been some recent publications which seek to excuse Cromwell’s actions (such as Cromwell: An Honourable Enemy, by Tom Reilly ISBN 0863222501) from which you might draw the excuse that such killings were ‘lawful’. In its review of that book, the journal “History Ireland” [2] said: “The author's style is often superficial, volatile, tendentious and partisan in the face of known historical evidence. The book adds little to our understanding of the actions of Cromwell at Drogheda or at Wexford. His general thesis that Cromwell may well have had no moral right to take the lives at Drogheda or Wexford 'but he certainly had the law firmly on his side' does not stand up to examination.”
  • "Bombing of a wedding party;” I fail to see how a “mistake” makes it any less a massacre.
  • “7/7” I fail to see how “terrorism” makes it any less a massacre
--ClemMcGann 14:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Philip. As someone who has worked on this article quite a bit, I understand your concerns about defining massacres in an NPOV way, but I think you are making this a bigger problem than it is. This article is a list, and suffers from the problems of a list -- it attracts many editors who add their own pet articles, it is difficult to control and edit, and it quickly grows in size. However, the idea of a list like this is to provide jumping off points to other articles that do explain why (and who) thinks various events were massacres; it is more of an index than a detailed description, as most list articles are. If there are things on this list about which there is a common consensus that they were not massacres, then those items should be removed. Otherwise, as long as the linked article discusses the nature of any incidents that seem to be borderline cases, they should stay.
The problem is that "massacre" is used in many different ways (as I tried to express when I rewrote the introduction), and you are arbitrarily constraining it according to your particular definition of what qualifies. It would be fine if people constrained the idea of masscres to war crimes, but unfortunately, your definition does not seem to be the only one in use:
In short, I wish that better definitions were available, but the nature of the definition of masscres is always based on somebody's point of view. While there are clear cases (Babi Yar, the destruction of Herat by Genghis Khan, etc.) many others are subject to dispute. Those should be dealt with on the appropriate page, not here. See List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which was handled much the same way. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps what I said was not clear enough. Any killing which involves killing more than one person can be called a massacre. If you are going to get a grip on this list then you need to break the list into categories which follow a specific definition, otherwise there is no way of reaching any form of NPOV. The three I choose as examples were not supposed to be an exclusive list of all those with problems but three to highlight the POV issue. However to answer some of the points raised above on those examples:
  • It was usual at the time of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms that if a garrison did not surrender before an assault all could be put to the sword if the assault was successful. Why single out the Drogheda garrison (note I am not mentioning the civilians also killed) when there are hundreds (if not thousands) of cases in the 30 Years War and the English Civil War. To pick two other examples from that time. How about the killing of the garrison of Cashel in 1647 or the killing of the garrison of Fort Royal in Worcester 1651? As all three engagements took place within the laws of war as the were defined at the time why are they massacres if killings within the laws of war today are not massacres? This is very different from the massacre at Hopton Castle which was outside the laws of war at the time [3].
  • What makes the wedding pary bombing any more of a massacre than any unfortunate accident which kills many people eg when the UN shot up a convoy of civilians in Kosovo by mistake [4] or a road accident involving NATO forces [5]?
  • What makes the killing of 53 in London in 2005 a massacre when the killing of 450 in London in one incident in 1940 is not? What makes any particular bombing which kills more than one person during the troubles a massacre and not all the others. Are you really suggesting that every bomb that killed more than one person should be listed as a massacre? If not why not?
A start would be to get hold of the OED definition of the word massacre. Not knowing what that publication says I would hasard a guess that it includes a major definition similar to http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/massacre . "The killing of a considerable number of human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty, or contrary to the usages of civilized people". and "To kill in considerable numbers where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and contrary to the usages of nations; to butcher; to slaughter; - limited to the killing of human beings."
As I said above if you do not come up with a list or lists based on a clear definition(s) this list is going to be full of biased POVs and endless edit wars. BTW I am not coming to this subject without some experience with other lists on Wikipedia which had similar POV and edit problems until the list was cleaned up by first defining an unambiguous definition of what the list is supposed to include. Philip Baird Shearer 16:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Philip. I do agree with your general point. We do need definition. We do need classification. However I still regard your three examples as massacres. Hopton Castle was bad, but 28 dead is a lot less than the thousands in Drogheda. However, if you wish to add it to the list, then do so. As you mention it, Cashel, where Inchiquin “thickly covered the ground” (with corpses) deserves a mention. Inchiquin was a royalist who changed sides after Drogheda. In both churches were the scenes of the massacre. As for Worcester, it is said that Cromwell then sold his soul to the devil and died seven years later on that day. By all means, add your examples, the only one, which I would question, is the traffic accident. --ClemMcGann 00:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
What about my third point: "What makes the killing of 53 in London in 2005 a massacre when the killing of 450 in London in one incident in 1940 is not? What makes any particular bombing which kills more than one person during the troubles a massacre and not all the others. Are you really suggesting that every bomb that killed more than one person should be listed as a massacre? If not why not?"
Killing garrisons during an assault who did not accept surrender terms when offered was within the laws of war at the time. So if the garrison (and armed male civilians who were also fair game to be executed) are excluded, how many were killed at Drogheda? Scores, hundreds, but not thousands. Killing garrisons who had not accepted surrender terms when offered at that time was no more a massacre than the Argentinians killed in combat during the fight for Goose Green. That is different from Hopton Castle which was a war crime at the time it happened. One would not normally consider the 20,000 killed on the first morning of the Battle of the Somme a massacre but from what you are suggesting any mass killing during war is a massacre. This is inevitable if one does not distinguish between lawful killing and unlawful killing, because lawful killing in peacetime and war time is different and both differ over time and place. This is not to suggest that if a dictator defines it lawful to kill a group of people that therefore it is a lawful killing and should not be listed as a massacre, because under international law for many centuries there has been as is expressed in the Hague Conventions the concept of "the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience "[6]. Since World War II this has been built upon to the point where there is a consiberable body of treaty and custom covering this area which can be used to define what is and is not lawful killing under international law.
The point I was making was not if the other examples I gave, or any of them, are or are not massacres and should or should not be listed here. It is that with the loose definitions at the top of this page any killing involving 2 or more people could be listed, which makes the list unmanageable and full of POV (often by selective inclusion and exclusion). The definition given by websters 1913 dictionary would exclude deaths caused by accidents ("under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty") and killings within the laws of war ("contrary to the usages of civilized people" and "contrary to the usages of nations"). I am not suggesting that this definition is used but something similar is needed if this list is to be managable. It is also neccessary to mention that international law changes over time and that todays laws should not be used to judge what was or was not a massacre in the past, rather the norms of those times should be used. Philip Baird Shearer

Well, this back and forth about Drogheda is exactly the reason we put in bolding for the largest slaughters of civilians, and exactly why defining and classifying is difficult for the list as a whole. It is hard to define a massacre, there are at least three to four legitimate uses of the word, and all are POV in one way or another - rarely does the massacrer acknowledge something as a massacre, for example. Any attempts to classify are likely to turn into a massive dispute. My suggestion is to add in missing massacres, acknowledge that the list of atrocities is huge (and subject to debate), and continue to use this as an index. The problem is that "unambiguous definitions" do not exist in this case, so this article will always retain some ambiguity. That is not the same thing as POV, it just means that nuance will need to be tolerated. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It is because there can be a legitimate differences in the definition of the word massacre that the list would be much better if it was subdivided into lists by a specific definitions and not just one chronological list. Some examples of what I mean:
At the top in the introduction there needs to be some general definition about what is or is not a massacre. Like the websters definition, but the main definition in the OED would be better. Then a section on different definitions of the word massacre by diffrent authoritative people, and respected organisations and institutions.
Then lists by different types of massacres:
  1. Massacres during armed conflicts which fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre.
  2. Massacres committed by or condoned by the government of a state during peace time.
  3. Massacres not condoned by the government of a state, committed for political reason during peace time.
  4. Massacres committed by criminals for none political reasons.
  5. etc.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Phillip,
I doubt that we will achieve much by discussing Drogheda. If you read Tom Reilly then you will form the opinion that few were killed and such killing was justified. If you read others you will conclude that thousands were massacred as part of a deliberate policy to terrorise other towns into siding with the Parliamentarians. And the view 'but he certainly had the law firmly on his side' does not stand up to examination. As the journal History Ireland observed: “Reilly's treatment of the massacre at Drogheda is disingenuous and he ignores the conclusion, long recognised by generations of historians”.
As for your question of the bombing of the shelter in West Ham in 1941, I do accept it as a massacre. The only example, which I would question, is the road accident
As I already said, I support your quest for definition and classification.
--ClemMcGann 20:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

OED

"First catch your hare" Does any one have access to the OED's definition for massacre? Philip Baird Shearer 10:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(pocket edition)
noun: General slaughter especially of unresisting persons
verb: to make massacre of.
--ClemMcGann 23:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Unabridged OED Definition

I still think we are going about this the wrong way -- there are many legitimate uses of massacre. What catagories do you propose? In any case, the unabridged OED answer is below, which just backs up my point that a massacre is broadly construed than the limitations that you are trying to place:

1 a. The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this.

b. In the names of certain massacres of history. Massacre of St Bartholomew (in early use often Massacre of (also at) Paris), the massacre of the Huguenots throughout France ordered by Charles IX at the instigation of his mother, Catherine de Medici, and begun without warning on the feast of St Bartholomew (24 August) 1572. Massacre of Glencoe, the massacre of the Macdonalds of Glencoe on 13 February 1692, perpetrated by soldiers under the command of Archibald Campbell, acting with royal authority, ostensibly on account of Alexander Macdonald's failure to take an oath of allegiance to William III. Massacre of the Innocents: see INNOCENT n. 2.

c. fig. A great destruction or downfall; an act of wholesale or ruthless destruction.

2. A cruel or atrocious murder.

-Goodoldpolonius2 04:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

removal of template

I am still not happy with this list as it is I think it is too open to POVs. I still think it needs a much tighter definition at the start of article and/or the start of sections. Those massacres which are listed in the various sections which do not fit the definitions should be culled. For example the Bangladeshi war may have involved some notorious massacres but the whole war was not one big massacre. Another example the massacre of unarmed civilians in Drogheda was a massacre but killing a garrison which had not surrendered was not under the laws of war at that time.

However as some of the issues have been addressed, I do not think the template is needed as badly as it was in July. I'll leave it to others to try to get a handle on the list and clean it up. Good luck who ever you are, you will need it! --Philip Baird Shearer 09:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

SS Cap Arcona

The sinking of the SS Cap Arcona isn't a massacre in the general meaning of the word. What was a massacre was the killing by the SS of survivors who made it ashore. The number killed therefore needs to be changed ( to what, I am not sure ), plus the perpetrators need to be labelled at the Nazis, not the RAF, which is how the article currently looks. If there are no adverse comments on this soon, I will research and amend accordingly.--JRL 06:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If the subsequent killing isn't sourced the item should be removed. Pavel Vozenilek 19:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The loss of life at sea is not usually known as or called a massacre. Not even the civilian loss of life due to the sinking of blockade runners or unrestricted submarine warfare. For example the sinking of the Lusitania is not usually called a massacre although it caused outrage in the USA and hastened the USA's entry into World War I.

Nor for that matter is the loss of life caused by the deliberate downing of civilian aircraft usually called or known as a massacre. Eg: Iran Air Flight 655 July 1988, Korean Air Flight 007 September 1983,[7] or Pan Am Flight 103 --Philip Baird Shearer 10:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Drowning in Numbers Letter by Steve Parsons, July 2002

In a review of Antony Beevor's 'Berlin: The Downfall' (June SR), mention is made of 'the greatest maritime disaster of all time', the sinking of the Goya by a Russian submarime with the consequent drowning of 7,000 refugees.

However, a disaster of even greater magnitude took place on 3 May 1945, when the RAF bombed and machine-gunned the German luxury liner, Cap Arcona, in the Baltic in the bay of Lubeck, south of the Danish island of Lolland. On this occasion 7,700 died, and what makes the incident even more grotesque was the fact that the victims were concentration camp prisoners.

At the close of the war a determined effort was made by the Nazis to kill the surviving concentration camp inmates by commanding them on forced marches away from the advancing Russians--the infamous death marches. Ten thousand prisoners from Neuengamme, a camp in the vicinity of Hamburg, ended up in Lubeck, where they were then ordered aboard the ship Cap Arcona, and fully expected to meet their deaths by being sunk by the Germans. Sighting British planes they were overjoyed, believing they would now be saved. Of course the British airmen did not know the ship was full of prisoners. Yet their fate has been allowed to disappear from the general historical consciousness, and instead it is the Russians who are given the responsibility for the world's 'greatest maritime disaster'.

Steve Parsons

Denmark

Steve, the issue is not that the Cap Arcona was not a disaster and a tragedy - it was just not a massacre, a knowing slaughter of deportees. Please read the discussion above. The German machine-gunning of the survivors, however, was certainly a massacre. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Jacobs/Eugene Pool - The 100-Year Secret : Britains's Hidden World War II Massacre - The Lyons Press, October 2004 [8]

Operation Bluestar

Operation Bluestar was not a massacre. This was a millitary dispute between insurgents in the state of Punjab and the indian millitary.

shell6@gmail.com

Slice and dice

Again, how would you catagorize the types of massacre? The dictionary definitions don't help. We could limit it by size (as I did with the bold face), but what else would work? Remember that massacre is inherently a POV subject as well. -Goodoldpolonius2 04:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not think size is sufficient as that results in only one list of many types of massacres which could include almost any action which resulted in the death of more than one person. As I said above I think massacres should be listed by type of massacre which falls into a particular type with a definition (which I am not supplying in the text below) of that type of massacre eg.:
  1. Massacres during armed conflicts which fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre.
  2. Massacres committed by or condoned by the government of a state during peace time.
  3. Massacres not condoned by the government of a state, committed for political reason during peace time.
  4. Massacres committed by criminals for none political reasons.
  5. etc.

If anyone has any other ideas I would be interested to read them. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that as the list grows, a classification will become apparant. Such as your "armed conflict" example. I just added the San Patricios just after the Goliad massacre. They are both massacres. But they are somewhat different to the murder of civilians. --ClemMcGann 23:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I have tried to put the list into more specific categories. There will need to be some further categorisation because I am not familiar with many of the massacres and may well have placed them in the wrong subsection. The items in the section other need to be categorised but there was not enough information for me to do this in most cases and I could not decide where to put the SS Cap Arcona.
I was not sure how to deal with the Nazi mass killing of Jews and other ethnic groups. I'll leave that to others. Perhaps a specific subsection called Holocaust should be made and all those massacres linked to that overall title should be placed into that section. Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have moved Philip's catagorized list to List of massacres/temp. The reason is because, while I strongly support the need to organize this list, I do not generally think this catagorization scheme works, though it is a heroic effort. His catagories are:

   * 1.2.1 State sponsored large pogroms
   * 1.2.2 Pogroms
   * 1.2.3 Massacres during armed conflicts which fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre
   * 1.2.4 Massacres committed by or condoned by the government of a state during peace time
   * 1.2.5 Massacres not condoned by the government of a state, committed for political reason during peace time
   * 1.2.6 Labour conflicts
   * 1.2.7 Massacres committed by criminals for none political reasons
   * 1.2.8 Other

I have three issues with the list. The first is that there does not seem to be standard definitions of these catagories, I am not sure, for example, why certain massacres are labelled pogroms, and why some are labelled "during armed conflict," and I don't know whether this is Philip's own idea or one from some outside source. The second is that the divisions do not seem particularly useful as an organizing principle -- that is, I don't think that the catagories help me understand anything about a particular class of massacres. Finally, many of these catagories overlap, making it difficult to know why one catagory is chosen over another for many of the massacres. I would like to note again that Philip did an impressive job even attempting this-- the list currently is very random, and thus very hard to catagorize, since it includes massacres of many scales. Perhaps we can work on the List of massacres/temp page? --Goodoldpolonius2 14:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There are no standard definition because a list of massacres is so POV to begin with that the term is meaningless. I would list a massacre which is predominantly ethnic based as a program (crime against humanity), but I would list those killings which were predominantly war crime under "Massacres during armed conflicts which fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre", however I am the first to admit that these need work and refinement. If you think that the categories overlap then you can define them more succinctly, or if you think that other subsections are needed or that subsections need to be combined then lets get on with it.
As you can see from above I have mooted this change for some time and asked for other ideas on the 25 July 2005. To which only one person replied. So I am going to revert the list because if it is not done then the list in temp and the main list will grow out of sync and the best way to get these new categories fixed is for people to work on them which is less likely to happen if the changes are in a ghetto of a temp page. Further even thought the subsections are not perfect it is better than what is there at the moment and is a first step towards more coherent lists. Philip Baird Shearer 15:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Philip, I don't agree with your catagorization. Pogroms are not equivalent to ethnic-based conflict. State-sponsored pogroms and pogroms are not differentiated. War crimes are a modern term and cannot be applied to past conflicts. Peacetime and wartime are not often clear. I really don't think that the catgories work, I think they add to the confusion. If I wanted to find out about the Hadassah medical convoy massacre where would I look? I really have no idea with this division. I don't want to create a ghetto, but I think that it would be better to hash it out elsewhere, rather than on a live page. We are creating our own catagorization, and that might take some time. Just because you got no reply to the original idea does not mean there is consensus, lets try to work together on this, rather than unilaterally. I am reverting. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a consensus to change. Not one person has said that the list is satisfactory at the moment. The only debate is how slice and dice. I understand your concerns but we can work out the diffrences we have on the Wikipedia page. Althought you have questions on some sections, I presume it does not involve all the sections, (for example "Labour conflicts" and "none political reasons") so you ought not to revert all of the changes. You ought to edit those you disagree with.

To answer your point on war crimes. War crimes are not new. Some things have been a war crime throughout the modern period. For example perfidy (eg to attack under a flag of truce). I do not deny that what is a war crime has changed over time, but that does not mean that war crimes did not exist in the past. Becase as it says in Hague IV (1907) Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience. But you will be aware of my POV on this because higher up this page I expressd the view that I do not think the killing of a garrison who did not surrender before the forlorn hope attack was a war crime in the 17th century as "the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples" allowed for this killing as part of war. Philip Baird Shearer 16:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

As to your point about the "Hadassah medical convoy massacre", one can always search/(find) for it. Under the current scheme one would have to do the same if one did not have an idea when the massacre took place. There are always going to be a few hard cases which are difficult to categorise, the can always put them under other. (In the specific case of the HMCM I would put it under "war crime" section). However using this new scheme if I was looking for a "labour dispute massacre" or a "postal massacre" it is now easier to find. Philip Baird Shearer 17:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I can't revert again. I do not object to postal massacres as a catagory, nor to some sort of non-political single-person massacres. The other divisions still don't make sense, and I will argue, they are less useful than chronological order. Chronological order lets one see the rise and fall of various massacres, and, for me, has been the jumping off point to a number of historical incidents. Having pogroms, state-sponsored pogroms, etc makes the page more difficult to read. The problem I have is now trying to figure out how to disentangle the various catagories if I wanted to do this, since you have already divded them up as you wanted. Could we please restore the non-labor dispute, non-postal, non-crazy-guy massacres into a chronological order, at least? --Goodoldpolonius2 17:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that is a good idea to put them back in just chronological order because the whole point of putting them into sections is to try to reduce POV which at the moment is rampant in this list. There are other sections to which you are not objecting too for example terrorist massacres. However I am open to putting all the Holocust massacres into one section as at the moment having an overivew and then the specific incidents is double counting. I suggest we try that and then see how the list looks. Philip Baird Shearer 17:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

copied from the /temp talk page
While I applaud any effort to structure this article, I fear it will lead to disputes. We need clear definitions on all the headings; definitions which can be resolved. Consider, for example, the entry for "Fall of Drogheda". You have categorised it as "Massacres during armed conflicts which fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre". A book has been published which claims otherwise. Those who support Cromwell will quote the book. Meanwhile the history journal "History Ireland" is publishing other historians who agree with your categorisation. My fear is that issues such as this could become the focus of revert wars. Regretably I do not have a proposal of my own. I applaud any effort to structure this article--ClemMcGann 16:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[9]

If this page is not categorised I think it is a candidate for VDF^h^h^hAFD. The reason for doing this was precisely because of the wooly way anyone could add a horrible event and call it a massacre.
Drogada like SS Cap Arcona should be categorised. IMHO the killing of the garrison at Drogada was not a massacre but the killing of unarmed civilians in the town was. Under similar logic the bombing of the SS Cap Arcona was not a massacre but the machine gunning of survivors was.
I think an analysis of the motives behind an attack helps to define if it is a massacre or not. For example I do not think that deaths by accidental killing is a massacre. So if an organisation gives a warning before a bomb explodes, then can that be classified as a massacre or does one include reckless endangerment as well as motive?
I am the first to admit that the subsections can be defined, renamed, redefined and cleaned up and I will help with any cut and pastes needed in that task. Then we can get down to the real task of deciding what is and is not a massacre. Philip Baird Shearer 20:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

No Blacks Allowed (again)

I wondered why none of the massacres against Black people listed? So I searched on Wikipedia, and to no surprise, the wording changes. Apparently when Black people are the victims of white sponsored killings (especially when they try to defend themselves), the massacres are relabeled "riots" in order to make it look less atrocious. Come on guys. --208.254.174.148 00:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

So let's see what happens when I add some of the infamous massacres against Black people into the list. Tulsa, Rosewood, Detroit in the 40s, etc. Or are we going to actually use the excuse that the whites were jusfitiably provoked enough to NOT call it a massacre. --208.254.174.148 00:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

No trolls allowed. Hiddekel 23:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Matthew White's page

An editor keeps deleting the reference to Matthew White's Atlas from the external links. It is totally unclear to me why they would do so, given its utility. Their reason is that Matthew White does not have a WP entry, which has never been a requirement for inclusion as a link, nor has academic credentials (though he is referenced by R.J. Rummel, who is a well-known academic who writes on democide). Matthew White has a comprehensive list of massacres from various sources, and thus is a quite useful (and well-referenced) assistance a page like this. And, again, it is an external link. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Matthew White is not an important name, he may have a well laid out list, but that's about all. Good typography does not make an argument good. Using his name suggests heis some kind of respected authority, he isn't. The majority of Web references to him are on WikiPedia clones.--Son of Paddy's Ego 21:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you rather call it the "Page Of Massacres," because your objection is to the name Matthew White? Do you see any other such list available online we should use instead? What is your objection to the contents? The page is referenced by the Parliment of Australia[10], by Harvard University[11], by R. J. Rummel, by various university classes[12], etc, and, furthermore, it is directly relevant to the page. Explain why it should be deleted, because these arguments don't make sense, it is clearly a good source for further reading on the topic, even if it is not the ultimate source, and that is the standard for WP. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


Laconia incident

(From my talk page, edited to remove discussion on Matthew White, above--Goodoldpolonius2 22:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC))

It interesting that your comment was (-rv incorrect summary of Laconia incident) when what you did was remove it completely. If your going to revert things you should atleast be honest in your edit summary. This looks like you are trying to remove it without saying that that is what you are doing. The US forces clearly broke with the rules of war and commited a war crime. Is it that you don't want the US being the bad guy's or is it you don't like Germans being the good guy's.--Son of Paddy's Ego 17:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, assume good faith when editing, rather than accusing me of something. I have added US war crimes to the list, and reverted people who have deleted them -- I removed the Laconia incident because it does not qualify as a massacre, and because it was added as one. I thought my edit summary was clear, and I apologize if it was not, but your attacks were unjustified. As for the incident itself, in it, as is the case of many ship sinkings, there is no reason to expect that this was a knowing massacre of civilians or POWs, which is what the massacres page requires as a condition. The Laconia article itself makes it clear that there was no reason to suspect the Americans did not know anything about the POWs, and good reason to believe the order did not violate the rules of war in any case. Take a look at the rest of the massacres on the page -- do you really think it fits? Anyhow, I was not the only one to revert, and feel free to bring this up in the appropriate Talk page. Goodoldpolonius2 21:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a massacre as it was commited under order and was contary to the practice of war. It was a typical America kill them all and let god sort them out kind of crime.

'Hartenstein signalled to the pilot requesting assistance. Lieutenant James D. Harden of the U.S. Army Air Force turned away and notified his base of the situation. The senior officer on duty that day, Captain Robert C. Richardson III, replied with the order "Sink sub."'--Son of Paddy's Ego 21:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

..as for the Laconia incident, I hardly think that the two sentences you have indicate that there was a knowing massacre of POWs and civilians, otherwise, any bombing or sinking of a ship might qualify. See the consensus on the Talk page over the Cap Arconia. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The attack by the US was in direct contravention of the practice of War, of case law, of precedent. I have read it and it is rubbish. It simply ignores all the history of warfare and imposes a typical American misunderstanding of the traditional practice of war. If the Laconia isn't a massacre then it is very difficult to find anything in WWII which is. Non combatants and POW attacked, whilst under a flag of truce. If it was the Germans doing it, it would be here. If it had been America POW it would be here. Doesn't the US recognise flags of truce?--Son of Paddy's Ego 21:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Your views of what is rubbish are original research. The article on the incident says that this was not in contravention of the rules of war, and, even if it were, there is no evidence that the US knew it was attacking non-combatants and POWS, which is required for the page. Please post your future comments to the Talk page. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I am they are here. You don't have a view your just voicing someoneelses one which you don't undertand.
It is your view that is rubbish. That you cannot count is even evidence of your ability to handle even the simplest data. Stop talking rubbish all over the place.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
No it isn't a good source. It's light on detail and shallow, very shallow. The Name Matthew White does not appear on any of those pages, and they are not very authorative, and don't actually endorse any of the pages on the list. If you want to call it Matthew Whites PR page that would be more acurate. He has his own page let him stand by that rather than having a PR push from WikiPedia.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Could someone help? The amount of insults being thrown my way makes it seem unlikely that further discussion is likely to result in anything productive. SoPE asked for proof the page (Matthew White's Historical Atlas of the 20th Century) was referenced elsewhere, I provided a number of links, including Harvard University (which called it "an excellent resource for maps and figures regarding the 20th Century") and the Australian Parliment, yet now I am told that somehow that this is not good enough. I have changed the name of the link, since that seemed to be causing the issue, but the link itself should not be deleted, especially as the objections of User:Son of Paddy's Ego, along with his insults, seem more personal than substantive. Anyone else care to weigh in? --Goodoldpolonius2 22:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
You ask on my talk page can we end it. Yet here your trying to carry it on.--Son of Paddy's Ego 23:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

I came to this page after a complaint about 3RR over at WP:AN3. After looking it over, I cannot take the view that the Laconia incident was a "massacre" at this point... it seems more of a misunderstanding (afterall, it was the Germans who sunk the Laconia in the first place, it is hardly right to blame the Americans, I am not one by the way, as they could not be absolutely certain on what the submarines were up to). To say it was a massacre is a bit of a stretch based on what I have seen. However, Goodoldponius2 has violated 3RR and shall summarily be blocked for doing so. nevermind, he was off by half and hour (but stop the revert war and any further reverts will be considered 3RR IMO and part of gaming the system). And I am also removing parts of the external link that I see as irrelevant to this article (i.e. the criticism of Wikipedia, I don't mind the criticism, don't get me wrong, but it has absolutely no relevance to this page). Sasquatcht|c 07:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sasquatch on the Loconia and the removal of the external link. The link (s)he has removed is well out of date and is now archived on that site. As it is out of date, the statistics it reports are misleading. (If it were up to date I would be in favour of keeping it). BTW the Italian POWs were no longer POWs once they were off Laconia and escorted by a German sub. -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
On the Laconia debate, you all know my opinion when considering consensus on this issue, but I will wait for a clear view to emerge, rather than arguing over it more myself. On the issue of 3RR, I think User:Son of Paddy's Ego and myself have addressed some of the issues that led to the edit war, and are both depending on third party opinions on the topic to resolve the substantive parts of the disagreement. I also agree, btw, with the removal of the criticism link, it is now out of date, but I thought the rest of the material should stay, obviously. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
In your last edit comment your said. I have changed the offending name "Matthew White." Can we resolve this on Talk, rather than edit warring further?. You didn't mention that you had deleted the Laconia incident. You deleted it without wait for a "wait for a clear view to emerge". Would you like to comment on that?--Son of Paddy's Ego 20:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure when I removed the Laconia, it was likely during the middle of the revert war we were having, and the intent was not to sneak one by you. I apologize for any confusion. Also see my comment below regarding consensus on the issue.--Goodoldpolonius2 22:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
You seems to have forgtten about the Poles and the Civilians. It is was contary to the practice of war by everyone except the US. Attacking people under a flag of truce is a crime, if it results in lots of people under the protection of that flag dying then it is a massacre. You can not tell what the enemy will do but flags of truce to remove wounded, safe passage to civilians and other humanitarian situation. Where common practice in WWII. Expept where the US was involved, which has always had a blood thirsty total war attitude stretching back to 1777. --Son of Paddy's Ego 10:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Son of Paddy's Ego, the consensus is 3 people saying Laconia should be deleted, and only you who think it should be added. You really shouldn't re-add it unless you can gain consensus. To avoid going back to our previous arguments, I will refrain from removing it again, pending thoughts from others, but you might want to consider removing it yourself until you are able to persuade another editor or two to support you. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

First Crusade massacre

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

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

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

The most I can find is this...

From Guibert of Nogent, Historia Hierosolymitana

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

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

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