Talk:List of massacres/Archive 2

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 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Archives

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


Missing Massacres

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

This is really a bad page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No mention of the massacre of the Banu Quraiza by Muhammad and Sa'd ibn Mua'dh in 627 AD.

Port Arthor Massacre

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

First Crusade massacre

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

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

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

The most I can find is this...

From Guibert of Nogent, Historia Hierosolymitana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Restoring lost lists

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

Iraqi royalists

I removed these two:

Iraqi royalists massacre hundreds of minorities in tehy 1930s,
1943 Iraqi royalists massacre hundreds of Jews in 1942,

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

Bangladesh Liberation War

I removed this entry:

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

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

Holocaust

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

I have clarified appropriately. / Ezeu 02:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to have become declarified. The number on the list currently says est. 5.6 to 6.1 million, which is actually the most commonly quoted figure for the number of Jews killed. My understanding (off the top of my head) is that 12 million died in the death camps, etc., including Roma, homosexuals, Slavs, mentally ill/disabled people, physically disabled people, and "communists" (so-described by the Third Reich, but in fact any Left opponents of the Nazis). In one way I agree with the anonymous comment below that it is incorrect to include only Jews under the term Holocaust - but, as I understand it, "Holocaust" is a religiously-derived term itself that was applied by Jews to the genocide, and so it may be inappropriate to use the term to label the killings of non-Jews... Nevertheless, since the Holocaust article uses the term to include all groups targetted and killed by the Nazis, it's fine here as long as the correct numbers are included and the descriptive text isn't misleading (it currently says: Systematic destruction of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators, including the mass deportation of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals..., which is both a non-sequitur {referring to "Gypsies" and homosexuals as part of European Jewry} and incomplete {leaving out some groups}). Of course, the term "Gypsies" is itself both incorrect and offensive. Pinkville 14:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Pacific War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which part of "the Japanese don't keep meticulous records on who they massacre" can you not understand? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
In addition, the 9 million figure is well documented. How they derived it I do not know. But it is the figure quoted for most sources out there. Just because individual massacres may not be named does not mean they did not happen. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Deir Yassin

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

Serious omission!

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

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

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

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

Definition of Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalin's USSR

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

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

Recent addition

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


where in the list?

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

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

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

Samar Massacre

This is described as:

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

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

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

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

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

Tibet

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

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

9/11

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

^ lol. why are u so tenative about posting the offcial story of 9/11, an event that occured five years ago, but you are so sure about events that took place 1000s of years ago? If you're going to speculate about a recent event, why even bother with history that is largely composed of exaggerated or loosely based facts?

No Gun Ri

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

Stalingrad

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

World war II bombings

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

China under Mao Tse Tung

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

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

Hmm, possibly because famines can't meet the definition of "massacre". -- Миборовский 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Not all of the deaths attributable to Mao were brought about by starvation. In fact, in the early 1950's several hundred thousand people were executed before large crowds during what was called the "suppression of counterrevolutionaries." And there were many instances of mass killing during the so-called "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (e.g. the Daxing Massacre, etc.) This site has some interesting info on such atrocities: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-23/25124.html --C.J. Griffin 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why "Deaths due to man-made famine" should be excluded. If not on this page, than we should create a special page for it. Stalin and Mao both killed more people than Hitler. --Uncle Ed 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere else. Not here. Famines don't meet the definition of "massacre". Besides, nobody other than Jung Chang gives that large figure and attribute it squarely on Mao. -- Миборовский 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Beige background

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

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

Bold items, Date format

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

I have removed the month-day information, because it only clutters the table and can be found on the article for the particular event. I have also removed the use of header rows (starting line with "!" instead of "|") some editors incorrectly used for emphasis. --Deon Steyn 12:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work, Deon!
  1. Re small font-size across entire table, I was thinking it might be preferable to restrict this to the "Summary" column (which, after all, acts as a preview for each massacre's article linked); what do you reckon...?
  2. I was also thinking of inserting all the various types currently dividing the list ("Massacres during armed conflicts", "State-sponsored or state-condoned massacres during peacetime", etc) into the main Ancient/Modern lists, then using other background colo/urs to indicate those of particular types... I don't think it will turn the list into some kind of psychedelic rainbow as I query many of the present characteriz/sations; what do you think...?
Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, large (wide or long) tables look best with a slightly reduced font size for the entire table. We could bump it up to 95% if it looks too small. For the description column the <small> tag is perhaps more appropriate, but definitely easier and neater than the span/font-size tags... it results in a font size of about 70% (guessing).
I would also remove the two tables you mention, but I don't know if I would even bother distinguishing from the other entries, because the criteria ("during armed conflict", "political", "government") are a bit too subjective. --Deon Steyn 07:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Defining "massacre"

From #Archives above:
Some "massacres" are called "conflicts" and some are called "pogroms" -- some are massacres of what? 35? and others of millions! I suggest dumping it and simply putting a link to the democide site at the U of Hawaii : http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ - Wiki is inadvertently aiding propaganda here. I say dump it. The function of wiki isn't to make lists or determine what qualifies/doesn't qualify as a "massacre". Juanita 23:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Rudi Rummel? No, thank you. I know his methods.

Xx236 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

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

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

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

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

...How about:

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

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

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

Timeframe, location

Two other aspects are:

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

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

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

– article ¶3

Alternative layout

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

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

Since this article is obviously ridden with left-wing anti-Western-Civilization nonsense, I went ahead and elaborated on the very scant treatment of Baybars brutal annihilation of the city of Antioch in the 13th Century. I also removed the false information about the Crusaders killing Jews and Christians during the First Crusade. That's sensationalism and has nothing to do with history.{{—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.14 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

^Actually Jews were often killed. Revert the changes Einstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.123.213.111 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bromberg

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

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

12

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


Nanking Massacre

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

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

Why is this massacre listed twice?71.197.68.37 03:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly are "most historians"? The Communist Chinese propaganda machine, that's who. It's equally one-sided. You're the one who is poorly educated, or were you there?


I'm finding more mistakes . . . .

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

Speaking of mistakes, why does the key indicated that "lavender background" indicates massacres associated with the American Revolution or War of 1812, when most of the entries using that color are involved with neither. 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect this list to be perfect, but how can you include "Crystal Nacht" and not include "The Night of the Long Knives"? They show up in the same books, and sometimes on the same page.24.10.94.105 19:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we include the Sack of Otranto? That was 100% legal by Muslim law and (less 100% but arguably) legal by all other extant law.71.197.106.123 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

With such reasonning, we can also exclude the Holocaust, since killing Jews was 100% legal accoring to Nazi laws. --Lebob-BE 19:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If I read this correctly, the list is supposed to be "civilian" deaths. That implies some involvement, at some level, of military. So why do we have things like the Valentines Massacre? When a peasant levy crosses a river and slaughters another village, does THAT meet the criteria? I think we need a stricter (not better, I'll accept any definition that solves the problems) definition.71.197.106.123 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Waco

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

  • I agree. Per discussion on tightening the level of evidence required for the article, I am removing the section. (Please see the discussion below on Haditha concerning level of evidence for events.) Djma12 17:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. 89 people died in a police action. No blame is assigned in this entry and we can link to the main article. Whether one feels that they were killed by an overly agressive FBI or a suicidal cult leader, families died through the incompetence of the athorities. It deserves to be on the list as much as many other things. There is no harm of it being on the list. --Knulclunk 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

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

I totally agree. I'm surprised they're not on by now. Done. -Madbrood 13:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Aerial bombardment during world war II killed many civilians, but air raids are not commonly known as massacres. The laws of war did not prohibit attackes on civilians in enemy territory (see Area Bombardment#Aerial area bombardment and international law, (See also Military necessity and total war) To include such incidents without reliable sources to back up such claims, that they were massacres outside the laws of war is original research and such incidents should not be included in this list without a verifiable reliable source, stating that an incident was a massacre.

With reference to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State made a case for the attacks being outside the laws of war BUT basing their arguments on the 1923 Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare while ignoring the later Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War, Amsterdam, 1938 (where a defended city was defined) draws into question the usefulness of the judgement, which is not widly quoted as a precedent under interntional law (for example AFAICT the 1996 ICJ advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons did not quote its findings as a precedent). --Philip Baird Shearer 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a list of war crimes. It's a list of massacres. A masscre is: Below is a list of incidents that either meet the criteria of resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event, or that are commonly labeled as massacres, though they may not be on the same scale. Aerial bombings meet these criteria. Mitsos 13:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See the article "Massacres during armed conflicts -- To be a massacre, the event must fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre." If it is within the laws of war it is not a massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Something conveniently forgotten by people who want to see the atomic bombings as some kind of crime: JAPAN WAS NOT SIGNATORY TO THE GENEVA CONVENTION or any other convention.71.197.68.37 02:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

States did not have to have ratified the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 for them to be binding on them by the time World War II took place. See Nuremberg Trials#Influence on the development of international criminal law --Philip Baird Shearer 21:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

POV questions re westerners - Feb 2007

Why is this list so heavily Western oriented? If we included the entire world it would be about 1,000 times bigger and the west would be about 1% of that.

By the way, I can't find the massacre of the confucian scholars (china) or any of the genocides committed by native americans.71.197.68.37 03:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the repeat, but . . . I can't find one single massacre from the crusades perpetrated by anyone except the crusaders. We do not have ONE single massacre at sea. I can't find ANYTHING from Southeast Asia (the locals not the 20th century).71.197.68.37 05:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

SERIOUS NPOV PROBLEM: I'm no longer sorry for the repeat. We list (approx) 500 massacres here and throughout history, only 64 (by my count) were NOT committed by Westerners. We got a problem.71.197.68.37 05:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Possibly this is a point. I don't know enough. But one suggestion is that westerners are good at documenting massacres by other westerners. Just a thought. --Merbabu 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case, then the title of this page should be "List of Massacres as Recorded by Literate Societies Honest Enough to Admit It".24.10.102.199 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the very nature of this article invites POV which is not what an encyclopedia is about. It's not a human rights advocacy page, nor should it be political in any way. But, it's clearly a topic that invites subjectivity. Merbabu 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the list does not mention the luxor massacre in Egypt, 1997. I was researching just after watching "Babel"...where the bus driver mentions to pitt that "in egypt, in a town like this, they slit thirty german tourists throats" - does anyone know if this is a fictional massacre or true? the german tourist detail sounds familiar. i know the luxor article says that the majority of victims were swiss so im assuming its a differnt case.

...Also is there an article here that talks exclusively about the Europa hotel massacre in Cairo, '96?

We need to source these!

I propose we removed ALL unsourced entries on this list that do not have corresponding Wikipedia Articles. To claim a massacre here, we should at least have some external, easy to confirm, references. All red link entries like 614 | Jerusalem massacres or no link entries, like 1398 | Massacre of Delhi should be removed unless a reliable source is cited. --Knulclunk 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely support the need to have every one of these entries reliably-sourced with in-line citations. I'm not sure of your suggested method though. Mass deletions will lead to an edit war. Instead, i suggest putting dated {{fact}} tags against each one (that's not cited) and give some time to provide citations. I'd suggest two months is AMPLE time. But make it four weeks, then remove incited ones. I agree that deletions are pro-active and incite responses, but lets give people a chance first. Related to that, i will support reversion of any NEW edit from now that adds or changes info without a reliable cite. How does that sound?Merbabu 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. We don't want an edit war, and the end goal is inline citations. I was also able to link some entries that did have associated WP articles (Ft. Pillow, Bad Axe River) and will help on that end also.--Knulclunk 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, though I don't think every event requires a related wiki article. I'll see what I can dig up for primary sources. Djma12 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is not sourcing. This thing is just plain incomplete - to the max.71.197.69.229 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the list is incomplete and flawed, but since users refer to it, we should make it as accurate and complete as possible. Besides making sure all entries are cited, we should be careful about NPOV, weasel and peacock words. Go to the massacre's main WP entry and make sure all the facts are there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knulclunk (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
Let me add that these sources should have a high level of reliability - newspaper headlines (and most websites) aren't enough. Respected historians should be used as the basis for most of them. CovenantD 09:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War

Please keep in mind the definition of massacre used in the opening of the article:

incidents that either meet the criteria of resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event, or that are commonly labeled as massacres.

This definition was specifically chosen, otherwise every single war would classify as a massacre. Please keep this in mind when adding events to the list.

Djma12 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, of course. But we should really add Haditha back in. I didn't catch when that was pulled out.--Knulclunk 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Haditha should totally go back in. My apologies if I removed it by accident. Djma12 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No it should not. How can you call it a massacre until you know all the facts? Why so quick to condemn? Wait a few months and when the truth is out then add it if it needs to be added--Looper5920 08:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. But as the list contains only time | place | number of victims | perpatrators, is there any dispute on these facts? --Knulclunk 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Does every somewhat large number of civilians killed during a war constitute a massacre? What if these guys followed every procedure in the book and still those people died? Is there not some aspect of intent to a massacre? Unfortunately civilians die during war. If added for that reason alone then any large number of deaths (say +20) ever would need to be included--Looper5920 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole issue about Haditha is that there seemed to be intent. Armed forces moved from house to house, killing women and children. This was not collateral damage or even a "human sheild" problem. The victims were not mistaken by identity or by target. By all appearances, Haditha was a brutal reprisal killing and the troops involved are being charged with dereliction of duty and murder. --Knulclunk 00:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Looper5920 brings up a good point. What should our threshold for evidence be for this article? This is not a rhetorical question, but a call for suggestions. Djma12 00:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. They have been charged but not convicted. You or I don't know the facts of what went on there so it is best to wait and see. We don't know what happened on the ground. "By all appearances" is not good enough. Especially when you are throwing around the term "massacre." Let's just hold off, wait for the facts to come out and then take it from there.--Looper5920 04:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's leave the bottom link tho. --Knulclunk 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact citation

Let me be the unpopular one and say that anything on this list that is not cited probably does not belong. If you are going to call something a massacre it better damn well be cited. I am not even talking about the argument of what is and what is not a massacre...that is for later. Everything here, now, should be cited because of what the term 'massacre' implies. Yes the links to some pages are there but this is a stand alone article and will be referenced by Google searchers and others looking for info and they may not be looking at all the links. Besides...if the event is here then the articles themselves should have a reference to say so. I am not talking about a mass deletion right now but in time, if references are not provided, then yes, the items should be deleted until a ref is provided--Looper5920 09:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

See above; you have lots of support already. CovenantD 09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

One of the key criterion for inclusion is "civilian deaths". In a recent series of edits, the Dachau massacre had been added in two different locations. This particular incident involves the death of German soldiers and German SS guards — neither group would be deemed civilian. (In addition, these edits were inconsistent with the referenced information in the subject article.)

To calm the back and forth addition and deletion of this material, I've sprotected the page for a short while.

— ERcheck (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be deleteed?

I realize many people have put much time into this article but I thought I would throw out the idea that maybe this article should be deleted. "Massacre" is such a subjective term and the fact that the the so-called "Orangeburg Massacre" where 3 Americans died is on the same list as the Rwandan Genocide reeks of such western ignorance/hypocrisy/arrogance that it should not be here. Who are we to determine what is a "Massacre?" Is it defined somewhere? Did I miss the breakdown in the dictionary? Do we really believe that when 1 - 10 white people die in an incident it is the same as thousands of non-white people? We should do ourselves a favor and delete this article.--Looper5920 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We should keep the article. Many of the events I had never heard of (San Patricios), or had heard of, but didn't recall the name (Tulsa Race Riot). It is important to have a central area to locate and link these events. The user can then follow to the full article. The only way for the list to improve is to keep it posted, honest, and have those who feel it is incomplete, add more.
We can improve the article by:
  • Making sure entries on the list are consistent with the full, linked article.
  • Trimming the descriptions down to the minimum, allowing the article to give the full scope.
  • Removing POV words from descriptions.
  • Requiring a source for all entries that do not have a corresponding article.
  • Organizationally, the list might be improved a number of ways, but I was going to lurk for a few more months before I made a proposal.
The massacre entry in WP has a human rights definition that works nicely. "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." [1]. So, I agree, less than 5 victims could be deleted, though there are some famous incidents that have the "massacre" title by tradition and might as well stay.
As far as Western centric, you will note that there was some discussion earlier this month about there being too many "western committed" massacres on the list. I think that is unavoidable, but again, this can be an evolving list, as more omissions are added.
--Knulclunk 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to provide info on deletion question: I notice there is also a "List of Riots". I suspect there should be and AWFUL lot of correlation between these two lists. Doesn't look like it to me.24.10.94.105 19:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

I'd like to suggest that the various subsections be converted to a simple timeline, similar to the first section. It seems that listing them by motivation or sponsorship introduces some POV that can't be addressed in a list. The details of why an event happened is best kept to the individual articles. CovenantD 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Waco?

Hi guys, I was wondering what your thought on the inclusion of Waco should be. Here's the definition of massacre used for the article:

Below is a list of incidents that either meet the criteria of resulting in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event, or that are commonly labeled as massacres.

Though a large number of civilians died as the result of the government raid, I don't think we have enough compelling evidence that it was deliberate. Thoughts?

Regards,

Djma12 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put it back. It should be on the list, but I agree, I'm not sure where. As we discussed before, the categories need some work. I would consider Waco a "botched police action" similar to Kent State and most of the Labor Conflicts. Waco has elements of State-sponsored or state-condoned massacres during peacetime as well as Jonestown, y'know? --Knulclunk 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I actually see a difference between Kent State and Waco. Kent State (IMHO) involved direct and deliberate fire from the National Guardsmen into a crowd of students. In Waco, the civilian deaths occured as a result of a fire that had no evidence of intentionality. I think this should be the criterion used to seperate "massacre" from "botched police action." Djma12 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if all the responsibility was on Koresh and the Davidians themselves, it would still qualify by the loose rules of this list. It wasn't an accidental space-heater fire. Koresh was responsible for the safety of his people as much as the FBI. --Knulclunk 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the deal :-) I'm trying to tighten the rules on this list, even if its a slow and tedious process. As it stands now, this list is way too loose.
And I agree. In my opinion (which does NOT qualify per WP:V...), the government probably did accidentally set the fire. But the key word here is ACCIDENTLY. I think that a level of intentionality should be used to define what is a massacre. Otherwise the freakin' Titanic qualifies as a massacre.
Djma12 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Echoing Djma12, the biggest problem with this list is the lack of clear and unambiguous criteria. That leads to discussions like the above and opens the door to all kinds of Original Research. It's not up to the editors of Wiki to decide if something is a massacre - we are simply supposed to assemble what has been reported elsewhere, by reliable sources.
Looking at the article on Waco, I can see only two references that actually call it a "massacre." Both are book titles, which is suspect itself (titles are crafted to catch the eye and not for accuracy). Based on what has been included in the companion article, Waco doesn't qualify for this list. CovenantD 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removals from the list

Strictly following the criteria in the beginning of the page (numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event, or that are commonly labeled as massacres), I propose removing the following from this list:

  1. Battle of Changping -- the slain were not civilians
  2. Agincourt -- slain not civilians. (War crime, yes, though not massacre by this definition.)
  3. Sack of Otranto -- We need more information
  4. Fort Caroline massacre -- need citation
  5. Enryaku-ji -- "warrior monks" were mercenaries, arguably not civilian
  6. Massacre of Aberdeen -- need citation / more info
  7. Massacre of Bolton -- same
  8. Wyoming Valley massacre -- non-civilians
  9. Beothuk massacres -- need more info
  10. Japanese biological warfare program -- not a single event
  11. British India -- not a single event, not direct
  12. Muhuta Church massacre -- need more info
  13. HOW SHOULD WE DEAL WITH THE "Massacres during armed conflicts" CATEGORY?
  14. Bonus March -- should 4-5 deaths count as a massacre?
  15. Gorla Massacre -- no evidence of DIRECT (i.e. intentionality)
  16. Taejon massacre -- more info needed
  17. Waco Siege -- again, no evidence of intentionality
  18. Winnipeg General Strike -- 2 deaths a massacre?
  19. SHOULD THIS CATEGORY "Criminal and non-political massacres" even remain?

All these are, of course, open to discussion. Note, the items that require "more info" may be able to stay if they receive, well, more info...

Regards,
Djma12 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should change the definition at the begining from civilians to unarmed or helpless. I see no reson why the murder of POWs wouldn't be a massacre. --Knulclunk 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, good point. Perhaps this page needs to be divided then? A page for list of massacres and a list of warcrimes? At ~85 kb, this list is getting really bulky... Djma12 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. The question is getting complicated. If we include POWs, do we include helpless military that AREN'T POW's? ex. After the battle of Stalingrad, the Russian military came in and solved feeding the prisoner problems by pouring gasoline into field hospitals. The soldiers were helpless, but had not surrendured - did not even know they were in that position.71.197.106.123 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed: Why do we include the Third Servile War? The execution of the defeated rebels was 100% legal by both roman law and worldwide custom at the time. Technically the rebels were not civilian, not surrendered military, but rebels i.e. common criminals and would have been found so in a completely fair (for the day) court of law and then executed.71.197.106.123 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stricter Inclusion Policy = BAD

71.197.106.123, I've been tracking your comments, and I disagree strongly. The rules to make this list do not need to be strict at all. Individual entries can be debated on their merits, but I think we should lean to more inclusive on this list, as most entries have and attached article. We should stick to the definition as "if it looks like a massacre, it probably is".

But, to help clarify, I linked to massacre. It expands the definition to include prisoners of war and includes "events commonly called massacre" as well as a nice definition from the human rights coalition. I still encourage all entries to be cited and to be consistant with their WP entry.

By the way, it is preferred to add new comments at the bottom of the talk page. --Knulclunk 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point - but do not agree. I've had a lot of arguments in my life where it turned out we were not talking about the same thing. As it stands the current lack of definition amounts to intellectual dishonesty. No matter what gets added/deleted someone can argue the other way. I don't care WHAT definition we use, it should be spelled out in a subtitle or at least very fast in the article.71.197.106.123 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wichita Massacre

It makes no sense that this was deleted.

Definition of massacre (bolded those which apply):

Main Entry: [1]mas·sa·cre
Pronunciation: 'ma-si-k&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French
Date: circa 1578
1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
2 : a cruel or wanton murder
3 : a wholesale slaughter of animals
4 : an act of complete destruction <the author's massacre of traditional federalist presuppositions —R. G. McCloskey>

Murdering 4 innocent, naked people execution style in the freezing snow certainly qualifies. In fact 5 were shot but one survived thanks to the bullet being deflected by a hair clip. I notice there are other massacres with only 5 or so victims (e.g. the Greensboro massacre). If that can be included, then The Wichita Massacre should be allowed as well. --C.J. Griffin 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, I've edited the article, so I'm quite aware that it was a terrible, terrible crime. But when all is said and done, it was merely another "garden variety" mass murder. (Believe me, every single one of them is horrific in some way.) If there's a list of mass murders, that's where it belongs. If we included every mass murder on this list, it would double in length in the blink of an eye -- and it would lose most of its value. I've deleted a bunch of entries from this list in recent weeks that just didn't qualify to be listed here for one reason or another, when looked at carefully. This one isn't even a close call, IMO. Cgingold 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Cgingold removed the Wichita Massacre from the list for one reason, and one reason alone: race politics. He does not want anyone to know that the Wichita Massacre was perpetrated by blacks against whites. (Not to mention, that it was doubtless a hate crime.) Thus, no amount of editing will satisfy him, nor will any argument, no matter how exquisite its factual support and logical form, and there is no reason to even try. Why must one accommodate him, rather than him accommodating others? One can either honestly edit articles or accommodate him, but not both.

Prior to the addition of pictures to the article, he had also censored any reference to the respective races of the perpetrators and the victims, making said reference “invisible.” (His term, not mine; hit “edit this page” at Wichita Massacre and see the section he hid between “Trial and aftermath” and “External links.”) Conversely, User:Cgingold never removes references to white perpetrators of violent crimes against blacks. He spends much of his time censoring factual information that does not support his POV out of articles, and condemns any source publishing such information as “rightwing” and “POV,” including when the source is more reliable than Antipedia. 70.23.199.239 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My goodness. It's always such a thrill to come across somebody who knows me even better than I know myself! Clearly, you have a direct pipeline into the most inner recesses of my mind. I sure hope you'll permit me to consult with you when I'm in need of assistance in sorting out personal confusion. :) LOL!!
Seriously now, I won't even dignify this drivel with a point-by-point response. I will address one issue, however.
I invite all interested parties to look at my original edit of the article The Wichita Massacre. As I said in my edit summary, I "took steps re POV issues: moved all text regarding rightwing backlash to "invisible text" at end pending further consideration". Note that I could have simply deleted all of that text and made it vanish. I left it as "invisible text" for possible use as a starting point for creating a NPOV section at the end discussing the "right-wing backlash".
When I first came upon the article, it was written in a very sensationalistic, tabloidesque manner, inappropriate for Wikipedia. The material about the "right-wing backlash" was given hugely undue prominence right in the intro to the article. In short, it was a mess. Rather than tag if for deletion, I chose to spend a fair amount of time working on it, getting it into some approximation of a Wikipedia-style article.
As for 70.23.199.239, he evidently has a long history of this sort of thing. I guess I am in good company. Cgingold 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Cgingold says of the text he censored, that he "could have simply ... made it vanish." But he did make it vanish! He himself calls it "invisible text." And he has made it vanish, in order to prevent readers from learning the truth about one of the most heinous racial massacres in American history. His claim that the information in question had "undue prominence" before he disappeared it, is a variation on a Wikisophistry tack that I have only previously seen used by Wikicensor Lquilter, who once used the strategem of claiming that a brief mention of the robbery/assault on Nadine Gordimer by four black men would give the episode "undue weight" within the article. (Of course, that particular Wikicensor had previously confessed that, as far as he is concerned, only a racist would mention the robbery/assault at all.)
The real problem with the censored passage in the Wichita Massacre article is its obsession with white nationalists, in order to seek to tar anyone outraged at the crime, and not suppressing the racial identity of the perpetrators and victims as a racist. Any decent person would be outraged at the crime, and would note its irreducibly racial character. Thus, it is the preoccupation with "white nationalists" that is the problem with the censored passage, not the mention of the Carr brothers' and their victims' respective races.
All that my having previously been blocked testifies to, is that I am not a Marxist. But I've never tried to pass as a Marxist. User:Cgingold, on the other hand, seeks to pass as an "NPOV" encyclopedia editor. The following example from the cybertrail of his politicking, however, proves otherwise.

"Serial Copyvio problem

"Hi, Will. If you're not too busy, could you possibly lend a hand on a problem I just discovered? In the space of one hour earlier today, an anon. editor posted lengthy POV Copyvio edits on nine separate articles (whew!). I have already confirmed and deleted two of these copyvio edits, and I am quite certain that all of the others were copied from the same source -- a very POV right-wing website called Discoverthenetwork.org. I also left a note on the anon's talk page asking him not to post such material. However, I have to leave and cannot finish the job right now, so if you can spare some time to help clean up the mess I'd sure appreciate it. Regards, Cgingold 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)"

User_talk:Will_Beback

Discover the Network's articles on political figures and organizations are invariably much richer in information, more reliable, and better sourced than Wikipedia's. And therein, for Cgingold & Co., lies the problem. Were someone to quote the passages in question or otherwise resolve the copyright violation "problem," Cgingold would censor him, all the same. He'd claim that they were "POV," but he doesn't censor references and quotes from dishonest Marxist (if you'll pardon the redundancy) WP articles, and indeed, the WP:NPOV rule (one of the rules most commonly misrepresented by Wikicensors) never requires that one only use "NPOV" material, only that WP articles not be "POV."
Where on earth would one find "NPOV" material on political topics? The "POV" charge regarding source material is nothing but a scam used by Wikicensors, in order to impose their own POV, and to suppress information that contradicts it. That grain won't grow, Comrade.
70.23.199.239 09:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading The Wichita Massacre now, the main article seems fairly good. It appears that race was not really a factor. If there was a "right-wing backlash" in Wichita, or if this crime is brought up regularly by white extremists, then it should be mentioned in the aftermath section of the article.
In many Masscre List entries, race (or religion) IS a factor, and it should be mentioned. In the Long Island Railroad Shootings, white victims were seperated by race before being executed. In the Tulsa race riots, the black neighborhood bore the brunt of the violence.
The Witchita Massacre is not considered a "race crime" in the mainstream media.--Knulclunk 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't mind it being on the Massacre List, but unless the killers were charged with a "hate crime", race should not be mentioned on the list. --Knulclunk 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to re-insert The Wichita Massacre.--C.J. Griffin 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Beslan School Massacre?

300 children were murdered! Why the hell isn't this mentioned?!

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.157.7 (talk • contribs)

In the section Politically motivated non-governmental massacres. Please remember to add comments at the BOTTOM of talk lists. --Knulclunk 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Santa Monica Farmer's Market

This seems out of place on this list. Since it wasn't ruled to be murder -- he was criminally negligent or reckless. Aren't there other incidents where someone caused multiple deaths and was convicted and ruled to be criminally negligent? And if so, shouldn't those incidents be on this list as well?

It seems to me this "List of Massacres" contains lists of willfull and motivated mass murders. Granted, the Santa Monica incident is a borderline case... I dunno. It just seems out of place.


--64.173.240.130 18:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. It should not be on the list. I have removed it. --Knulclunk 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Viet Minh and Khmer Rouge Massacres

This whole list seems very biased. For instance, why is the My Lai massacre committed by Americans listed but much larger Massacre at Hue by Viet Minh and the Killing Fields of Cambodia not listed? Countless other massacres and genocides are omitted also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.106.103.254 (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Simple: Wikipedia makes an effort to be unbiased - but does not succeed. Check almost any other subject that includes the Americans doing bad and at least 25% of the article will be American evil, and the other 75% will be 6,000 years of other people's evil. (side comment: Since it's darn difficult to list something that isn't recorded, could part of the problem be the Americans can read/write and are fairly honest about their own history?)71.197.106.123 02:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You are encouraged to add sourced or linked events that you feel meet the criteria of massacre. Check every section, as some that appear overlooked may be listed elsewhere (like the recent addition of Bangladesh, 1971). Or, you can point them out here on the talk page, and someone will get around to it eventually. --Knulclunk 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek - Turk

Recent edits of user hectorian is historically inaccurate, im deleting them..--laertes d 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They are sourced. if u rm sourced info, i will rv u back and inform an admin. Hectorian 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

hectorian how old are you ten, twelve? i can also name massacres one by one and increase their numbers, massacres of the turks in Navarino, Vrachori, tripolis etc..the numbers you provided are mostly fictitous and funnily do not fit with the original articles..--laertes d 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How old am I? Younger than u, i suppose, but definately not twelve (as suppose that twelve were those Turkish officials who "did not" know that children die if exiled in the desert)... I can add more sources if u'd like. btw, a battle is NOT a massacre! Navarino massacre? LOL so, we also have 'Dervenakia massacre' as well? how about the 'Matzikert massacre' then? lets me serious, please. Hectorian 23:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Im taking from the Greek war of independence article you keep vandalizing..

"From the 26th of March until Easter Sunday, which fell, in the year 1821, on the 22nd of April, it is supposed that fifteen thousand Mussulman souls perished in cold blood and that about three thousand farmhouses or Turkish dwellings were laid waste."[37], followed by all but 22 in Missolonghi,[38] 500 families in Vrachori,[39] almost all the men, women, and children in Navarino.[40]"

George Finlay, History of Greek Revolution, London, 1861, p. 187.--laertes d 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hectorian invented a constantinople massacre and made up the number as 30.000 and it became sourced information, somehow nobody, any non-greek non-turk historian, mentions occurance of any such specific massacre..--laertes d 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced. btw, did Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory commit suicide? Hectorian 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Historian W. Alison Phillips wrote in 1897: "Everywhere, as though at a preconcerted signal, the peasantry rose, and massacred all the Turks —men,women and children— on whom they could lay hands..

W.Alison Phillips, The War of Greek Independence,1821 to 1833,New york,1897,p.48


St. Clair said "The orgy of genocide exhausted itself in the peloponnese only when there were no more Turks to kill."[45]

William St. Clair, That Greece Might Still Be Free The Philhellenes in the War of Independence, Oxford University Press London 1972 p.12 ISBN 0192151940

Other estimates of the Turkish and Muslim Albanian civilian deaths by the rebels range from 15,000 out of 40,000 Muslim residents[30] to 30,000 only in Tripolis[42] to 60,000..

enough source?--laertes d 23:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Massacres started in Peleponnese thats not an issue of debate..--laertes d 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets see what i "made up": Psara 1824, Kasos 1824 (also, alternative spelling Kassos 1824), Constantinople 1821 Greeks, Cyprus 1821, bla bla bla... Also, check the dates. Hectorian 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hectorian, where do you make up these numbers for the massacres that you keep adding in the article? interestingly enough none of the books, all of them is being written by non-turks, mentions occurence of any such significant massacres in Constantinople or elsewhere. i know that massacres took place in Chios and Psara but the rest, at least the numbers you put there, seem to be your imagination..i can also continue with this silly game and add more massacres to the list--laertes d 15:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The British and Foreign Review: Or, European Quarterly Journal, p.244[2]. If the so-called Navarino massacre, won't be removed, i will add all the battles as massacres, starting from Matzikert... Hectorian 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

a massacre occured in Navarino after Greeks captured the city, George Finlay himself, a philhellene who is fighting for greeks, mentions about it..Btw, the article is now full of your garbage materials "the worst massacre in the history" who made that decision? Just grow up a bit--laertes d 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i can add to this list separetly massacres in Kalavryta, Kalamata or Laconia and many more, if we have to open a new heading for each of them one by one--laertes d 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"the worst massacre in the history" is as garbage as the "Turks of every rank, merchants, sailors were suprised and massacred in cold blood" quote that u added. if u add quotes, i may will too (or ask an admin on what should be done about this). btw, do provide some more sources and do not rely in Finley alone. i can easily challenge your "single-source policy". the notability of the massacres is provided by their historic importance and the number of the people massacred. if u continue adding "500 families", "all but 22" (how many were "all"?), i can add massacres committed by the Turks in every single greek (and not only) village and town since 1071... Think about it... Hectorian 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hectorian youre a ten years old kid, im bored wasting my time with you. The new massacres you added are mostly your imagination, nobody in history mentions any such occurence of something like "Constantinople massacre", Patriarch and some dozen greek buraucrats were hanged thats true but if turks exterminated greeks in constantinople there were hundred thousands of greek were living there at that time, the number wouldnt be 30.000..--laertes d 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Challenge me with sources. Hectorian 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just cause none so far bothered to add these massacres here, doesn't mean that they did not happen... Afterall, i use many sources, u use just one; maybe yours will be removed as undue weight, fake chronological appearance, no notability, etc etc Hectorian 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

i use several sources and i can also hijack the article with every single massacre committed in the history by Greeks..--laertes d 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As i've already said, i challenge u. Hectorian 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


How can herods massacre of the innocents be listed. the only source in the whole world is the bible. No historian of herods time or after his time ever mentions this massacre. Even if it did happen i heard an estimate of maybe 10-20 children would have been killed because the population of bethlehem at that time would not have been large.

Massacres in Colombia

I have been working on a few articles about Colombia's recent history. After reviewing this article, it is not clear to me under which category to include the hundreds of massacres that took place in Colombia en the late 1990s and early 2000s. They were largely comitted by AUC, a group that was battling FARC and ELN at the time, and though there are reports that elements of the Colombian military may have been involved in them or knew about them, there are few evidences that indicate massacres were a state policy. Additionally, some massacres were also conducted by FARC and ELN themselves, which can now hardly be categorized as political groups, due to their heavy involvement in drug dealing. Any light on this issue will be greatly appreciated. Jealonso 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionary War/War of 1812 massacres?

Question. Do the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 really require their own specific highlighting colour to point them out? I do not mean to devalue them but given the breadth of this page it seems a bit outside of a neutral point-of-view to specifically highlight a small number of attacks on people in only a single pair of wars, at least one of which is of very limited historical importance. Thoughts? Wally 05:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree w Wally.71.197.106.123 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, I do not think they merit their own background, wihtout objections they should be removed? Justinmcl 16:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree remove the color. --Knulclunk 01:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We're missing an awful lot of Socialism's contribution to ethnic cleansing

The Butovo massacre (Moscow area) was 20,000 people killed by the NKVD for the genetic crime of being christian. I notice a lot of the failed empire's bloodier crimes are missing from this list.71.197.106.123 05:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are encouraged to include them. Please be sure to cite references or link to specific articles. Thanks for the help! --Knulclunk 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Knulclunk, but I'm not really interested in trying to contribute to what I consider to be a fatally flawed page. It horrifies me how easy it is to scan this page and see biases and ommissions that can be spotted just w common sense, even if you aren't an expert on the subject.

Example: I found 10 listed instances of Muslims massacring Muslims. I bet there have more occurences in that category in the last month - let alone the last 1600 years.

This page is a legit idea, but so huge/complicated/political it will NEVER be halfway to mediocre quality.71.197.106.123 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just noticed we do not have ONE - repeat not ONE massacre of American Indians by American Indians. This is another example of mistakes so obvious you can spot them by common sense.

I am hereby offering bragging rights to anyone who can expand the list of missing/skewed data on this page that should be notable without doing further research. i.e. Missing some obscure massacre in Outer Mongolia doesn't count, but missing entire nations w military traditions does.71.197.106.123 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are encouraged to include them. Please be sure to cite references or link to specific articles. Thanks for the help! --Knulclunk 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Keerips! I knew this thing was bad, but I just applied a little more common sense. Before 1500, we have exactly ONE massacre east of Delhi, India. ZERO from the Western hemisphere (North AND South). Zero from Africa. ONE from asia. NONE from the Pacificultures. NONE from Madagascar. ONE from India. We do not have one single massacre for non payment of taxes (a VERY common occurence in ALL central government cultures). We have ZERO incidents (VERY common) of not using the sword, but just shoving everyone into a box canyon and letting them starve to death. Zero incidents of hydro government (cutting off the water and letting everyone downstream starve to death - also VERY common). ZERO incidents of the common practice of tossing rotting bodies into besieged cities and starting a plague (this one may not qualify, but I think it should be included). Should all the thousands of "incidents" where the victorious army put no one to the sword, but walked away w all the food and tools and trashed the crops and destroyed the orchards and salted (or peed on) the soil to let the populace starve behind them be included?

Anyone else want to add to the list of big, huge, bleeding, omissions? Feel free.

I knew this thing was anti western (or maybe pro honesty), but even where we seem to have covered things (the Mediterranean area and Middle East) the listing is so short as to beggar belief. I mean, we do not have ONE massacre committed by the ancient Egyptians, and those are documented in writing (OK hieroglyphics). I'll bet there were more massacres than are on this list EACH YEAR!

Why don't we start a list of "Massacres no one but PhD historians has ever heard of"? It would be about as useful.71.197.106.123 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Should Virginia Tech be Dark Grey?

It did involve a murder of someone from the holocaust. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.13.147 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't even think this classification should exist at all. A separate article named "list of massacres that are part of the WWII holocaust" would be just fine, but I don't think any special group of massacres should be highlighted here. The fewer details, the better... Less chance for biasing. -- NIC1138 01:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No VA Tech is not part of the Holocaust. I think the dark grey Holocaust classification should stay for now.--Knulclunk 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Contributing To Mans Inhumanity To Man

1. Please note that none of the tables after the first one "Ancient and Middle Ages (to 1500)" has a column for Claimants, even though everyone is supposed to put one in.

2. This article should be entitled "A List of Western Society Massacres by 'Non oppressed By Todays Standards' Peoples". As it is so badly biased that it does not meet Wikipedia's definition of politically neutrality or its criteria for fairness. [The Americans with the longest American lineage did not get those feathers for great social deeds!]

3. User:71.197.106.123 was wondering if the germ warfare used by the Greeks, Romans, and about everyone else (including the Europeans that settled North AND South America) counts as massacres? They counted the Jews that died in the holocaust due to disease, starvation and thirst; so all the others should count also.

4. The definition of massacre is, at least according to Merriam-Webster:
(Bold emphasis mine) "massacre
the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
atroc·i·ty
1 : the quality or state of being atrocious
2 : an atrocious act, object, or situation <the...sufferings and atrocities of trench warfare -- Aldous Huxley>
atro·cious
1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC
2 : APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>
3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>"

So it would seem that there are a lot of the incidents reported that are not massacres at all. Including all the ones under "Criminal and non-political massacres". Even the Jonestown massacre would not qualify because the people committed suicide and were not killed (they even have it written in the comments), they were not helpless, they could have snuck away at any time, and they were not unresisting because they wanted to take the poison. And as far as their children, they did not kill other peoples children, but rather chose to end their own children's life, just as the Jews did at Massada. Interestingly enough, Massada isn't listed as a Massacre. Is that because we think of Jim Jones as a CULT leader that did wrong so the killing of the children was a massacre and the Jews an OPPRESSED MINORITY so their killing of their children was OK? Personally I go for the killing of children as always wrong, WASP or Jew. And I believe bigotry rears its ugly head in many forms; this article being one of them.

5. Such an obviously bigoted article in Wikipedia points out several very important points about this experiment in everybody contribute whatever they want to:

Even the best intentioned people are themselves so bigoted they cannot even comprehend the fair application of law (killing of children is just wrong no matter who or what entity does it).
The best intentioned do not realize what freedom is. They don't see that Jim Jones and the Jews at Massada had the same basic problem, an overpowering majority oppressing them and an overpowering desire to be what they wanted to be.
Presenting just part of the story is lying by omission. By nobody looking at the Eastern, African, Ancient North American, Ancient South American, etc. societies WE as a group have created a lie in this article by omitting the other cultures. And this lie is an atrocious lie to say the least.

Excuses like "our readers are primarily from western cultures" is a great big cop-out. It is a brazen attempt to justify your own bigotry. I can say this because many of the readers and contributers to this forum have knowledge of the massacres of their ancestors in other societies. The U.S. in particular is a melting pot of peoples from all over the world. And until we the people are willing to come out and say yes, these are the mistakes of our ancestors, and from this we have learned ... we will only live up to the old saying "If you fail to learn from history you are bound to re-live it."

Unfortunately it would seem we have not learned that laws applied unfairly, and not understanding the ways of our ancestors as well as the ancestors of the rest of the world will distort our concept of reality, so we wind up repeating history over and over and over.

It would be in the best interest of humanity if this article was made closer to correct, and leaving it as is will surely contribute greatly to mans inhumanity to man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.138.2 (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)



We're missing an awful lot of Socialism's contribution to ethnic cleansing

The Butovo massacre (Moscow area) was 20,000 people killed by the NKVD for the genetic crime of being christian. I notice a lot of the failed empire's bloodier crimes are missing from this list.71.197.106.123 05:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are encouraged to include them. Please be sure to cite references or link to specific articles. Thanks for the help! --Knulclunk 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Knulclunk, but I'm not really interested in trying to contribute to what I consider to be a fatally flawed page. It horrifies me how easy it is to scan this page and see biases and ommissions that can be spotted just w common sense, even if you aren't an expert on the subject.

Example: I found 10 listed instances of Muslims massacring Muslims. I bet there have more occurences in that category in the last month - let alone the last 1600 years.

This page is a legit idea, but so huge/complicated/political it will NEVER be halfway to mediocre quality.71.197.106.123 21:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I just noticed we do not have ONE - repeat not ONE massacre of American Indians by American Indians. This is another example of mistakes so obvious you can spot them by common sense.

I am hereby offering bragging rights to anyone who can expand the list of missing/skewed data on this page that should be notable without doing further research. i.e. Missing some obscure massacre in Outer Mongolia doesn't count, but missing entire nations w military traditions does.71.197.106.123 01:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are encouraged to include them. Please be sure to cite references or link to specific articles. Thanks for the help! --Knulclunk 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Keerips! I knew this thing was bad, but I just applied a little more common sense. Before 1500, we have exactly ONE massacre east of Delhi, India. ZERO from the Western hemisphere (North AND South). Zero from Africa. ONE from asia. NONE from the Pacificultures. NONE from Madagascar. ONE from India. We do not have one single massacre for non payment of taxes (a VERY common occurence in ALL central government cultures). We have ZERO incidents (VERY common) of not using the sword, but just shoving everyone into a box canyon and letting them starve to death. Zero incidents of hydro government (cutting off the water and letting everyone downstream starve to death - also VERY common). ZERO incidents of the common practice of tossing rotting bodies into besieged cities and starting a plague (this one may not qualify, but I think it should be included). Should all the thousands of "incidents" where the victorious army put no one to the sword, but walked away w all the food and tools and trashed the crops and destroyed the orchards and salted (or peed on) the soil to let the populace starve behind them be included?
Anyone else want to add to the list of big, huge, bleeding, omissions? Feel free.
I knew this thing was anti western (or maybe pro honesty), but even where we seem to have covered things (the Mediterranean area and Middle East) the listing is so short as to beggar belief. I mean, we do not have ONE massacre committed by the ancient Egyptians, and those are documented in writing (OK hieroglyphics). I'll bet there were more massacres than are on this list EACH YEAR!
Why don't we start a list of "Massacres no one but PhD historians has ever heard of"? It would be about as useful.71.197.106.123 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting criticism, but I'd wager that what's included in this list (which, I agree, is very flawed, though perhaps not entirely for the same reasons) has more to do with the historical knowledge of English-speaking Wikipedians -- i.e., something presumably West-centric -- than it does with outright anti-Westernism. If you'd like to make any changes, then citing references (like, say, some scholarly sources for your Egyptian examples) would abet their inclusion. Maxisdetermined 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Slice and dice

Back in June/July of 2005 it was decided to break this list up from one large chronological list into subsections. Over the last year some of earlier massacres (before 1945) have been moved back into a single chronological list and the definitions at the top of the lists have been removed. I think this is a mistake and would like to rectify it. Having one list without categories makes it much more difficult to identify those items in the list that are not massacres. If for example "massacres during armed conflicts" had the additional prohibition that "To be a massacre, the event must fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre." This allows at least the most blatant error to be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wounded Knee Massacre" is a Wikipedia article, but not listed sub "massacres". Is it a massacre or not? Looking for an explanation . . . --charlandes 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got a (politically incorrect) idea. Why don't we list chronologically by geography. That would make it painfully obvious how much of the world we've missed.71.197.106.123 16:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Massacres"?: Small numbers, events identified as "shootings," etc.

Particularly in "Criminal and non-political massacres," a number of events are identified as massacre that resultd in arguably non-massacre death totals, were we stick by the definition on the Mass murder (massacre) page, which requires a "large number" of victims. I'm mentioning this here and not on the individual pages, first and foremost, because many of the entries in question don't have pages for the event itself: Cleveland Elementary School massacre: 2 deaths; Springfield Mall massacre: 3; Oliverhurst High Massacre: 4. Are these what the events are overwhelmingly considered in the public/media?

Also, a number of these events are titled "shootings," etc., not "massacres," e.g. Amish school shooting and Trolley Square Shooting (5 deaths each). I'm not saying something couldn't be both, in theory, but this sounds a bit off to me. Maxisdetermined 17:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Massacre sells more newspapers that shootings. Hence the "St. Valentine's Day massacre" If this list is going to exist then such events should be included. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't know what you're trying to say. You seem skeptical of the word "massacre," and yet you wish to include events for which the title seems more than usually sensationalistic. Or do you oppose the existence of this list altogether? Personally -- and perhaps this isn't relevant -- I could sympathize with that, though the existence of certain historical "massacres" (we could call them "legacy massacres"), such as that shooting in Boston a couple centuries ago, makes that a little more difficult. Maxisdetermined 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Sabra and Shatila image

I think we should not use the image for several reasons, including:

  1. It is unsourced, from a broken link
  2. The event is controversial and disputed
  3. The image is of very low quality, as well as being distorted
  4. The existing image of the My Lai massacre illustrates the concept fully

--Knulclunk 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources for all claims

I think that this list needs to be culled. Only those incidents that have at least one reliable source to back up its inclusion as a massacre should be listed here. That means that FU BAR has claimed that this was a massacre not that the events took place. When many reliable sources claim it to be a massacre, then only list a couple of the most reliable and add a mention that many sources also claim it to be a massacre. So that list is not duplicated in a long long list of footnotes, I suggest that an additions column is added with Harvard style references. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay (though forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure what "FU BAR" refers to -- something in Wiki policy?). I would agree with a move to cull entries, after such actions have been mentioned -- and discussed, preferably -- here. I suggest we begin with the ones I've mentioned:
  • Cleveland Elementary School: 2 deaths; a Google search for "Cleveland-Elementary-School-shooting" yields 1,620 results, "Cleveland-Elementary-School-massacre" only 1 (this page, actually)
  • Springfield Mall: 3; "Springfield-Mall-shooting" 4, "Springfield-Mall-massacre" 4, "Springfield-Mall shooting" 608, "Springfield-Mall massacre" 403
  • Olivehurst (misspelled in list) High: 4; no results for either full phrase (school spelled correctly), only one possible result for either with word separated, and that one (Newsvine article, no longer available) seems to have been more about Virginia Tech, so it's hard to say what name, if any, was attributed to the event at Olivehurst. Maxisdetermined 19:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

FU BAR is just a place holder for saying that "Mr a reliable source says". Obviously if there are lots of references, then a couple of the most reliable can be provided. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe FUBAR comes after SNAFU and before FUBB in the chronology of military lexicon. It means: Fucked Up Beyond All Repair.71.197.106.123 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

W'atever, it is also used in IT where it is also spelt "foo bar"... But back to the topic at hand. If an entry does not have a source specifically stating that that the event was a massacre then it should be deleted. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I see what you are trying to do, and while I'm not opposed, most of the events listed link to larger Wikipedia articles with dozens of citations. I would be more concerned about Entries with no coresponding WP article or only one, possibly POV citation. --Knulclunk 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure cramming all the citations on the right side makes for better readability. What was the thought behind that? Perhaps just have the footnote #'s in the far right column? --Knulclunk 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm against footnoting all the entries in the lists and not having them in a column for two reasons. The first is the list of footnotes will be bigger than the individual lists which makes navigation difficult.

The second is that if an incident is a massacre then someone (other than a Wikipedia editor) must have called it that otherwise it is OR. If this is a list of massacres, then the notable person or persons who called a massacre is at least as important in the list as the incident that is called a massacre. If there are articles with dozens of citations then pick the one or two most notable and if it considered that there are others just as notable them note the others or make a note that "It is widely/universally known as a massacre see main article name#References for a more comprehensive list.". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the citations can link to the bottom of the page, footnote style. There is not enough room on the right. --Knulclunk 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

also missing the indonesian massacre and South American coups sucg as Chile 1973

Copied from the article about Suharto:

Between 300,000 and one million Indonesians were killed in the mass-killings following the arrest of PKI members in Suharto's cabinet on October 6, 1965. Both the military and auxilliaries from conservative Muslim, Catholic, Hindu and secular nationalist militias conducted the killings. Though most communists were identified by locals, the CIA is known to have supplied the Indonesian military with a list of 10,000 suspected communists. Ironically, a CIA study of the events in Indonesia assessed that "In terms of the numbers killed the anti-PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century..".[22]

It must also be noted that, in addition to the CIA, British and Australian intelligence were well aware of events as they transpired.

Time Magazine presented the following account on December 17, 1966 : "Communists, red sympathisers and their families are being massacred by the thousands. Backlands army units are reported to have executed thousands of communists after interrogation in remote jails. Armed with wide-bladed knives called parangs, Moslem bands crept at night into the homes of communists, killing entire families and burying their bodies in shallow graves."

"The murder campaign became so brazen in parts of rural East Java, that Moslem bands placed the heads of victims on poles and paraded them through villages. The killings have been on such a scale that the disposal of the corpses has created a serious sanitation problem in East Java and Northern Sumatra where the humid air bears the reek of decaying flesh. Travellers from those areas tell of small rivers and streams that have been literally clogged with bodies."

Amongst the worst affected areas was the island of Bali, where PKI had grown rapidly prior to the crackdown. On November 11 clashes erupt between PKI and PNI, ending in massacres of PKI accused members and sympathizers. Whereas much of the anti-PKI pogroms in the rest of the country were carried out by Islamic political organizations in the name of jihad, the killings in Bali were done in the name of Hinduism. Bali stood out as the only place in the country where local soldiers in some way intervened to lessen the slaughter.

In December the military proclaimed that Aceh had been cleared of communists. Simultaneously, Special Military Courts were set up to try jail PKI members. On March 12, the party was formally banned by Suharto, and The pro-PKI trade union SOBSI was banned in April.

With the justification of denouncing Chinese communism, Suharto not only closed communist-leaning parties, but also extended his reach toward all Chinese Indonesian parties and all aspects of Chinese Indonesian socio-culture. Suharto effectively stripped Chinese Indonesians of power, banning them from politics and the military. He championed forced assimilation policy against Chinese Indonesians so that they would forget their ties to China. This policy brought forth many anti Chinese legislations. Suharto passed and enacted very discriminatory citizenship laws, such as forcing Chinese Indonesians to re-register themselves as Indonesian citizens by renouncing their alleged Chinese citizenship regardless of the validity of the Indonesian citizenship they may already have. He denounced Chinese cultures and banned Chinese characters and literature. Allegedly, Suharto was also the mastermind of the 1965 slaughter of millions of Chinese Indonesians, purportedly to eradicate the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.97 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

God's Massacre

User at IP 65.125.138.2 is repeatedly adding The Biblical Flood to the list, which seems a bit off topic. Care to discuss? --Knulclunk 15:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I might agree with Sodoma and Gomorra, but I believe they fall as well in the class of "acts of God",,, -- NIC1138 00:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima

I can't find in the list the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Pokipsy76 18:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

These bombings were done in self defense. The Japanese started killing Americans in a surprise Attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and refused to stop killing them. The Japanese also showed through both military and civilian suicides that they were unwilling to accept either a military or political settlement. In order to prevent the further deaths of many Americans the U.S. president, in self defense, brought the war to a close with the fewest [American?] deaths using the Atomic Bomb. Defense of ones own life or the lives of ones own group is generally accepted as a valid means of survival. 65.125.138.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.138.2 (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant if the bonbing had or not a legitimation, it is relevant if there was a massacre. I don't think anyone could deny there actually have been one.--Pokipsy76 12:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)\

It's been discussed in the Archives. Also, if you're interested, there is a good article on Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. --Knulclunk 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your information. So now my question changes to this: on what grounds can we say that
To be a massacre, the event must fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre.
this appears to be a meaningless specification. Are we suggesting that if Hitler ruled the war and changed the laws then the Holocaust shouldn't have been a massacre????--Pokipsy76 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
As that is a fictional scenario, no, we are not saying that. --Knulclunk 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The fictional scenario should have suggested to you and to people that are smart enough that the meaning of the word "massacre" is completely independent from the laws that in any time there can be.--Pokipsy76 20:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Discuss God's Massacre

Where in the definition of a massacre is it that God's are excluded? Or are the references [Torah, Bible, Koran] to unreliable to accept? 65.125.138.2

The Qur'an does not accuse God of massacres.Bless sins 04:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins - The Qur'an does list the flood? 65.125.138.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.138.2 (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the addition of The Flood is disingenuous. If the editor (65.125.138.2) is faithful, he would not be accusing God of a massacre. The definition of massacre says that those killed are innocent or defenseless. Gen 6:5-7 states that the victims were "wicked". Also, the presumption is that the perpetrators of a massacre are human; not divine beings, animals or intelligent machines.
If the editor is not faithful, an agnostic or an atheist, then he should treat the entry as myth, making it unsuitable for entry on this list.
It appears then that the editor has an ax to grind with God or religion. Wikipedia mainspace is obviously not the proper place for such silliness. Perhaps his energies may be spent better on a blog or some other private forum.
--Knulclunk 11:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And being "wicked" would kill others? To the Nazis the Jews were "wicked". Does this justify the Holocaust?65.125.138.2 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Please rephrase the statement "the presumption is that the perpetrators of a massacre are human" to "MY presumption is that the perpetrators of a massacre are human". You cannot know what other people presume.65.125.138.2 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Being "not faithful, an agnostic or an atheist" does not mean one can assume the story is a myth. It may be a story of an alien race reacting to what the people were doing, and the story simply co opted by the Jewish peoples? In that case the Jewish people and those that followed accepted the aliens as God(s). Either way, God is responsible for its own actions.65.125.138.2 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No ax to grind. Just prefer the truth rather than bias and bigotry.65.125.138.2 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hunh? Who's arguing for bigotry and against truth? What are you talking about? You removed the OR tags, but now you are saying aliens might be involved.... I think you may be trying to daze me with your clever logic... :@ --Knulclunk 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not remove the or tags. Someone else did. And someone else softened the wording of the incident. And someone else put the Koran back in. And someone else changed the number of killed to a lower value.65.125.138.2 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe you need to read what I said about aliens instead of assuming I thought aliens were involved. You will notice that when I wrote about the aliens I never once mentioned if I believed aliens were involved or not. I simply stated the fact that those "not faithful, an agnostic or an atheist" MAY think aliens were involved. This comes about from the fact that most accepted stories even though they MAY turn out not to be completely true have a modicum of truth to them; which brings about the alien thing for some.
Or does this indicate that you believe I am "not faithful, an agnostic or an atheist"?65.125.138.2 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Does your response to bigotry only indicate that you are pro bias; or just missed the bias thing, or something else?65.125.138.2 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The Qur'an lists the flood. But, according to the Qur'an those who were killed deserved it. You may think of it like execution. Executions (even mass ones) aren't considered massacres.Bless sins 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm done. The guy's a troll. I'm moving on.--Knulclunk 00:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Executing innocent children and unborn babies is justifiable when not in self defense?65.125.138.2 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Who said I was male?65.125.138.2 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Banu Qurayza since there is currently a dispute, on the article's talk page, as to consider it a massacre or not.Bless sins 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial statement

In the article we read:

To be a massacre, the event must fall outside the laws of war as framed at the time of the massacre.

I find this statement groundless as the word "massacre" means

the killing of a large number of people, esp. people who are not involved in any fighting or have no way of defending themselves

and this is not linked in any way to the laws. Can someone give some explanation or otherwise can we remove it?--Pokipsy76 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the distinction is addressed in both the archives and the total war article. A lot of it relates to the concept of industrialized war as well. If your factories are making weapons, then your factories are targets. If your factories and shipyards are in cities, then your cities become targets. If your population has declared war, then your population is a target.
Most massacre examples here suggest the killing of and undefended or surrendered population. Which is not the case in air strikes. Thousands died WWII bombing in both Britain and Germany, yet those instances are not on the list either. What about the Battle of Britain? At this point it is not on the list. (and I would argue against it). If war is evil, bombing is still more evil. If your purpose is to remove the line so that we can add aerial bombings... that has certainly been discussed all over Wikipedia. I would encourage more debate before you made a change.--Knulclunk 13:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
But the point here is just the presence af a phrase that is clearly false according to the dictionary!! You could be willing to include or exclude events from the list for any reason but that phrase would still be false.--Pokipsy76 14:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So, are there other kind of objections or can we remove the false statement?--Pokipsy76 07:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary definition is probably best. How much more authoritative can you get? - Merzbow 07:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I am suggesting to remove a text because it is false according to the dictionary definition of the word "massacre". Do you agree?--Pokipsy76 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If nobody wants to discuss the topic further I think I should assume that there are no objections and proceed removing the phrase... should I?--Pokipsy76 07:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


proposal to remove uncited entries

It's about time this article was properly referenced. For every incident listed, there needs to be a cite to at least one reliable source claiming it to be a "massacre". I see this issue has been raised several times before, with no action taken. I'm proposing to give a week for this to be done, then remove all entries which still are not cited. - Merzbow 19:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A cursory examination shows that the vast majority of these entries can be properly cited simply by borrowing a reference from the main article they link to. I certainly won't delete any entries without seeing if that can be done first. - Merzbow 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's a big job. I still think the sources can be footnotes at the bottom. There is not enought room on the side. --Knulclunk 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A SOLUTION TO STUPIDITY

I have watched this example of the "worst of wiki" for a year. So, in complete disgust, I make the following statement:

SOMEONE (and I don't care who) fix 1) The definition. 2) The statistical anti Western bias.

If it doesn't happen, I will join Wiki so I can create my own articles, and duplicate this article but ORGANIZED GEOGRAPHICALLY so the complete lack of neutrality, and the inability to fix such a minor problem, and the petty casuistry of the editors becomes screamingly obvious to everybody and his sainted mother. The title will be something like: A Proof Wikipedia Doesn't Work Very Well.67.161.166.20 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop whining. First of all, I'm quite sure an article named "list of massacres geographically categorized" would be great. And second: instead of complaining, why don't you simply add the entries you believe are missing? If you "don't care who", why not yourself?
I might help to create an article like this... It would be nice if it could be automated somehow. It will certainly be as controvertial as this one, if not worse.
Why are you threatening to join Wikipedia? Why don't you simply join already, and help to build a better Wikipedia? You are proving that YOU don't work, and not Wikipedia. And what does "work" better then Wikipedia? Immutable western ancient paper publications written by christian monks that don't have "edit" links and a "discussion" tab?
What massacres do you believe are being censored on basis of an alleged anti-western bias? I'm sure they might endure here in the discussion, if not in the article...
The only statitical analysis of history I respect is that of Fomenko... -- NIC1138 01:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
We're better leaving Fomenko out of this. But to find an anti-Western bias in this list, where almost every American settler killed by Indians or by themselves, or almost every Israeli citizen killed by Arabs, is carefully referenced, while the opposite cannot be said to be the case, I think that that's a curious stretch of the imagination · Michel 18:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This fussing about anti-western bias is getting tiresome. Every entry must be sourced, documented. That tends to be much easier with a Free Press, which is the same as saying "Recent and Western".
The reason why every massacre between every minor nation and tribe throughout history lacks documentation points more to the lesson about Shutruk-Nahhunte in The Emperor's Club, if you contribute nothing, even your conquests will be forgotten. --Knulclunk 02:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's the same thing, why isn't the title "List of Recent and Western Massacres"?67.161.166.20 00:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose we change the article's name to "list of massacres as gathered by a bunch of recent western wikiepdia editors who live behind their computer monitors" -- NIC1138 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

THAT's not a bad idea.67.161.166.20 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee - I agree, fighting the bias is a worthy goal. I see some editors recently have made great strides in including older, historic events. Keep up the good work! --Knulclunk 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A labelling question

While I could create my own list of massacres that should be added/removed from this article, I would like to ask a question not related to this perennial topic: what does it mean that some of the boxes are colored in red or pink? The guide at the top of page, which explains many of the colors, either doesn't show this or there's a bug in the display which covers that part of the guide. -- llywrch 19:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

They are left over from earlier categorizing and can be removed. Go for it! --Knulclunk 01:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WHAT IS PALESTINE? WHAT IS A PALESTINIAN?

What about all the massacres that take place against defenseless jews in israel?

Where are the references to the 500 yr massacres against the huindus in india by the moslem population?

What about the masacres that took place in the soviet Union?

Shoulndt mass forced starvation also be considered a massacre?

How can a massacre be consiodered genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.128 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, they're waiting for you. Meanwhile, I've removed talk unrelated to topic. · Michel 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

Removed superfluous link to Daily Mail. Links to Independent and Daily Telegraph are a-plenty for balance, although one might easily suspect the latter of being more sympathetic to the mercenaries who should have had their balls ripped off anyway (irrelevant to this article), rather than to the inhabitants of the country. I'm not sure whether the link to afrol News should remain either, as it would just as well do under the country's own article. · Michel 13:21, 23 October 2007 (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.