Talk:List of massacres/Archive 3

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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 →

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 A politically incorrect proposal 2 Formatting tables 3 Why the My Lai massacre image? 4 Hiroshima(2) 5 American “grand finale” bombing of Japan as it was surrendering 6 Overlapping problems 7 Kent State 8 Worst of Wiki 9 Use of tenses in this article 10 We're losing 11 Birmingham pub bombings 12 Deletions 13 Massacres and alleged massacres 14 Inclusion of Fallujah 14.1 Well, well, back to Falludja 15 Concretising proposition for future editing on this article 16 Requested move / name change 17 Is the word "massacre" POV charged? 18 Unsourced content 19 Getting nowhere fast 20 What was the progenitor of this article thinking? 21 San Patricios 22 Suggested way forward 23 Protection is not acceptable in the way it was applied 24 Step 1? 25 OED 26 Proposal for a new table layout 27 Non-English References 28 Other Massacres to Add 29 Fun with Statistics 30 NKVD Prison massacres 31 Introduction 32 Kragujevac massacre 33 Massacres and minority POVs 34 Unsubtle Suggestion 35 Westroads Mall shooting 36 Some Older Edits Needed 37 Queenstown massacre 38 Where is the lockdown discussion? 39 Add the Glencoe Massacre 40 Semi-protected 41 Zapped list 42 A SUGGESTION 43 A question of sources 44 No agreement so? 45 LET THE EDIT WARS BEGIN (AGAIN)! 46 Deaths column

A politically incorrect proposal

Will one of you bright lights get off your high horse and actually propose a definition of massacre? FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE! If anyone thinks the definition is wrong, they can write their own article. You've been arguing about this for over a year and most of the problems I can see originate in a bad definition OR accepting someone's challenge to a perfectly OK definition - if you don't want to be shirty.24.7.171.139 00:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shirty? --Knulclunk 02:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the definition in Massacre ? That should be the starting point. - Kittybrewster ☎ 01:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting tables

I'm adding the "Claimants" column with the standard tag to all the tables in the article. I hope others will fill in the holes and/or move the citations/references from the other cells, where applicable. · Michel 09:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the My Lai massacre image?

My reasons are:

1. It is both recent and historic. Recent enough that many editors directly remember it as news, but old enough to have been taught as history as well. Not current events.
2. It represents an armed military attacking an innocent population. A classic example of a massacre.
3. It is NOT part of an extermination porgram that was politically motivated. A classic massacre being that of armed troops acting outside of orders on a helpless population.
4. It shows a well documented event representing two distinct parts of the world. (ie not ethnic or sectarian violence)
5. The facts are not in dispute and it is well documented.
6. Though grisly, the image is not unnecessarily horrific. It is not Wikipedia's job to be a "Never Forget" memorial.
7. The image is well known, the photograph itself sparking outrage and debate.
8. One picture will suffice. There is no way we can capture enough images to cover all of human suffering.

--Knulclunk 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

How about that Goya painting? -- NIC1138 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima(2)

NOTE The issue of whether the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski should appear in the list has been repeatedly discussed during the editing history of this article. Previous discussions have been archived here, here and here · Michel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where around 200,000 civilians were killed be listed?

Please note that I'm in no way suggesting that it should be listed, but only asking a question.Bless sins 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been added, but some people with whatever bizarre agendas are insisting upon removing it. I guess that shame has a long, long shadow. · Michel 22:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, our bizarre agenda includes requiring an actual source that labels this as a massacre. Do you have one? - Merzbow 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Michel, This has been discussed here, in the archives, and at the sourced Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Read first, refute each point clearly here and then we can procede to discuss your agenda. --Knulclunk 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any good arguments against it "here".Bless sins 16:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it you or us, you are deluding, dear friends? I had actually read the link you are sending us to, and found silly plays on words and concepts that are irrelevant to the discussion. The last nail in the coffin of that ridiculous discussion had been planted by Pokipsy76. So it is dishonnest of you to refer to that particular discussion as giving water to your mill. It also dishonnest to send us to the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as what's there doesn't prove anything either for or against a definition of the word massacre that is satisfying for your purposes. On the other hand, it is wasting my and everybody else's time.

A massacre has taken place when any number of people have (usually willfully) murdered any other number of people. Dot. Oxford or Webster will probably tell you something along the same lines. There is no need for sources or refuting or whatnot to acknowledge this. Incidentally, I am a human being and I am writing this from a computer. Maybe the next thing will be your asking to give you a source for this?

· Michel 10:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe the next thing will be your asking to give you a source for this" - umm, yes? This is Wikipedia after all. You need a source that explicitly calls it a "massacre". Whether you think it's a massacre is irrelevant because you're not a reliable source. - Merzbow 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can claim. with a straight face and with whatever warped arguments, that the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians is not a massacre, then I think your mirror would tell you that you are not a reliable source. But I'm still curious about your and your friends' agenda: is it because [1] Japanese lives don't count? [2] you are a denier of mass murder by US nuclear bombs, as others are Holocaust-deniers? [3][4][5] ?? · Michel 19:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite clear whuch kind of source is supposed to be reliable to decide if this Bombing was or not actually a massacre... a history expert? a political leader? a linguist? what kind of special information would this person have to make him "reliable" on this specific question?--Pokipsy76 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole trick, well-known in contemporary politics, which I've come across with other adepts at similar conceptual manipulations: whatever source you find (if you decide to give in to their games, that is), they will never deem acceptable. There must be a reason why of all the events listed in this article, the source of 99% of which could be "questioned" in a similar fashion if they wanted to, it's precisely this one they're obsessively after. · Michel 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Those entries will be dealt with in time. In the meantime, find a source that says this particular incident is a massacre. - Merzbow 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are tiring: I've told you to go and look in your dictionary. So, <sigh> repeat: you find a source saying that those two events are not massacres. And stop wasting our time, because you're not fooling anybody with your pseudo-arguments. · Michel 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the responsibility is on you to find a source supporting a contentious claim, that this is a massacre. This is basic Wikipedia policy. You've been reverted by multiple people now, so perhaps you should take that as a signal that you're wrong. Incivility on your part is not going to change that fact. - Merzbow 21:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Make me understand: are you requiring a source that use the exact word "massacre" or it is sufficient a source that use any other word/sentence that has the same meaning of the word "massacre"? In the first case I would require you to cite the appropriate policy that support your request because I strongly think it does not exist. In the second case I completely agree with you, but you can easily check the meaning of the word massacre here and understand that any history book is a reliable source then. So what are you requiring exactly?--Pokipsy76 08:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The arguments I have read (above, and in the archive) against including the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings on this list are intellectually insulting to the point of being simply laughable. I only regret that the editors who earlier voiced concerns about this stunning oversight have not done the spadework to silence the ridiculous demand for a source. There is a clear historical consensus that the facts of these bombings fit the definition of a massacre, and this claim is anything but contentious; indeed, it is more contentious to argue that this massacre should be excluded from the list! Regardless, here is a link [1] to a New York Times article that explicitly refers to the bombings as a "deliberate massacre" in the context of debating whether or not such a massacre was justifiable. The fact that the bombings were a massacre is a cold, hard fact - hundreds of thousands of defenseless Japanese civilians were killed in the attacks - regardless of your stance on whether or not the bombings were necessary, or justifiable, or a war crime, or what have you. Every argument I have found against their inclusion is spurious at best. This list, as presently constituted, includes the St. Valentine's Day Massacre - a gangland slaying with no truly innocent victims - and excludes the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of defenseless civilians in World War II...and I find that simply appalling. I'd restore it to the list myself, but I'm a little dicey when it comes to editing tables. Venicemenace 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is not sufficient for it to fit the definition of a massacre according to your opinion. That's original research. The fact that nobody has yet presented a source that calls it a massacre is prima facie evidence that this is not an appropriate term. - Merzbow 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I will repeat myself. Here, again, is a link [2] to a New York Times article that explicitly refers to the bombings as a "deliberate massacre." Venicemenace 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a reliable enough source to me. As far as I can tell, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki entirely meet the criteria of this list, and as such should be included. As has been argued elsewhere, the justification, morality or legality of those bombings have no relevance to whether they were massacres, which they undoubtedly were. Justified ones, perhaps; but massacres nonetheless. Terraxos 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The way this WP discussion is going defines all aerial bombardment as massacre. There is no question, the bombing of civilians is evil. Don't forget to add The Blitz (43,000 killed),as well as every other urban center bombed during the war. --Knulclunk 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally a source is provided. There you go. - Merzbow 02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the "source" is an editorial on the morality of nuclear weapons and war. Not really that strong or neutral. Traditionally, aerial bombings have been left off this list for many of the reasons described in the previously mentioned articles, including the NYT "massacre" article. Bombings were legal, defended cities are not "helpless", and, in a total war scenario, civilians are not innocent. Are naval blockades moral if the population starves? But, the argument civilian air strikes = terrorism is a pretty good one, especially as Hiroshima. I just have such a hard time with the "if you disagree with me, you must be an agenda driven racist" argument put forward by Michel, it hurts my brain.--Knulclunk 03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Klunk, this is getting serious. You who seem so keen on [ ] proper quotations or on [ ] using the English language as fits best (fill the appropriate void), find where exactly I have stated this. Otherwise, I expect your immediate apologies for this bullshit. Just get this straight: it's not because your friends got an administrator to block my editing on false evidence that you should think that you can allow yourself anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Tavir (talk • contribs) 13:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Personal feuds do not help to advance the encyclopedic dialogue. Venicemenace 15:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this has little to do with "personal feud". What is in question is the bias, the censorship, the prejudice, the manipulation, the agendas and the like, that are rampant on English Wikipedia. For anyone interested, I have posted my view of this series of episodes on my talk page: Testing how Wikipedia copes with bias and "neutrality" (stage III): a case story. —Preceding comment was added at 21:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC) by Michel

To say "it is not sufficient for it to fit the definition of a massacre according to your opinion" is not quite honest: there is a vocabulary definition that fit with the historical account of any history book (both vocabulary and history books are reliable sources of source), there is no "opinion" actually, just linguistic competence.--Pokipsy76 10:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I understand things correctly, now at last that the voices of common sense seem to have been heard through the fog at last (although one never knows these days, with certain people, if the words being pronounced are really the same as the words that are heard), maybe it's time to re-instate the lost massacres? And pray the gods that we don't have to go through this exhausting business again. · Michel 13:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt after extensive google searching that the only reference that defines these actions as a massacre is a NYT opinion piece, society in general does not regard this incident as a massacre. This has been no consensus in the past to add this in, and there is no consensus at the present. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 14:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to restore The Blitz, etc. --Knulclunk 14:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Prester John, you are wrong. Here is another source [3]. Here is yet a third source (searchable through Amazon) [4]. Beyond that, Google searching (particularly English-language Google searching, in this instance) is not the be-all end-all of scholarly research. A reliable source calling the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings a "massacre" was demanded and provided. Now the new standard is proof that "society in general" regards it as such? And if that is accomplished, what will your next demand be? We must summon the restless spirit of Harry Truman to concede that it was a massacre? Don't you realize that you are holding this particular event to a much higher standard of proof than anything else on the list?

To elide the details of this particular event by lumping it in with all other aerial campaigns is disingenuous at best. In the case of Hiroshima, a single atomic weapon was dropped on a city in a single bombing run, after the achievement of total air superiority, killing over a hundred thousand people, mostly civilians, with a single blast. In terms of mass killing of innocents, that's about as clear-cut as it gets. But don't take my word for it: unlike those who argue this was NOT a massacre, I am actually providing sources. Dropping the bomb on Japan was a morally gray decision, certainly, and legally it was permissible, sure. However, the last time I checked, the title of this article was not "List of immoral, illegal massacres." And by "total war" standards, would My Lai even qualify?

Knulclunk, if you source it, I'm all for you adding The Blitz and any other massacres that might be missing from the list. Don't construe support for the inclusion of one item as opposition to the inclusion of another. Venicemenace 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"List of immoral, illegal massacres" actually has been the standard of the list, which is why we are trotting out Laws of War treaties all the time. The argument against most bombings being called massacres is that the massacres on the list involve a surrendered population, be it civilian or military. By any "common sense" measure (to use Michel's term), Pearl Harbor would also be a massacre, as those killed were not a legal military target.--Knulclunk 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The standard must be decided by the words in the title of the article, not by its past history. If you don't want Hiroshima to be there you have to change the title. The argument to call an event massacre should be only connected with the dictionary meaning of the word.--Pokipsy76 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Then perhaps I prefer definition which includes the caveats "unnecessary and indiscriminate for persecution or revenge"? or Websters'?

But, I agree, we should include the concept of indiscriminate bombardment in the introduction if we are going to keep them on the list.--Knulclunk 18:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally, I'd stick with the OED [5], which simply defines it as "a brutal slaughter of a large number of people." Of course, we can quibble over whether the bombings were "brutal", or for that matter "necessary", forever - there is a reason that debate over the atomic bombings has raged for decades since they were dropped, there is no clear answer either way unless you have totally closed your mind to the other side of the argument. It seems to me, though, to exclude the bombings from this list, when ample sourcing has been provided, is not a neutral presentation of this material. Far better to include them, while noting that some people object to their classification as a massacre "for the following reasons..." Another possibility is to list "aerial bombing massacres" in their own section, which would include the caveats you suggest. Venicemenace 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If we want to follow what the article says then we have this criteria:

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...

nobody can deny that the bombing of hiroshima resulted in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths in a single event .--Pokipsy76 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That should really be changed since massacre is a highly POV charged term, it's original research for us editors to decide if some incident or another should be a massacre based on our opinion. One reliable source calling something a massacre should be required, and if there are other sources that claim it isn't a massacre, they should be presented also. This will make some of the entries larger, but it's the only fair way to do it. - Merzbow 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't it be more efficient to change the title of the article to something less POV-charged? Venicemenace 12:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If the term is POV charged then no reliable source would allow you to state *as a fact* that an event is a massacre. You could only say it in the attributed form ("so called...", "defined...by...") and this list shouldn't exist at all since the title implies *as a fact* that the events listed are actually massacres.--Pokipsy76 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The solution is very simple - items should only be here if they are commonly termed a massacre by reliable sources. It's not up to us to apply this term according to our opinion. This is what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) says:

"Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate. The use of particular strong words is neither universally encouraged nor discouraged. The spirit of these guidelines is to favour familiar terms used to identify the event."

That is, if massacre is not a familiar term used to identify the event, it should not be referred to as a massacre in Wikipedia, regardless of what we think the dictionary supports. Judging by the amount of edit-warring that's occurred across articles like Banu Qurayza over the word "massacre", it is most certainly a POV term in practice. - Merzbow 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) speaks only about article names: if an event is known as the "xyz massacre" then you can use this expression in the title. You are suggesting to another kind of rule: according to you we should add here events if the word "massacre" is a word that is commonly used to refer to the event in the existing literature. It could even be a solution but in this case the list shoud be dramatically shortened.--Pokipsy76 13:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Pokipsy76 and Venicemenace are on the right track. Broaden the term massacre as defined in this article to include the intentional bombing of civilian populations where the tactical or military benefits are negligible. As discussed,the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Dresden and The Blitz would all fall into this category, as well as other WWII and possibly later bombings. --Knulclunk 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to us to match the dictionary definition of a loaded term like "massacre" to particular events. It's up to reliable sources to do so. This is the cornerstone of what the original research policy says. See the quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) above. Events should only be listed here if reliable sources commonly refer to them as massacres. - Merzbow 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with with the "reliable sources" is that there is almost always a POV when applying the term massacre, except in the most obvious circumstances. (My Lai Massacre) Some may consider the Israeli assassination of Ahmed Yassin, where many bystanders where killed, a massacre. Others may consider that hiding among civilian human shields while ordering the murder of innocents a reprehensible act in itself. Or, as the conversation further down the page suggests, many people have written about the Kent State Shootings as a massacre, but usually have an agenda or at least a strong POV on the subject. I my personal opinion, Kent State fails almost every definition of massacre, barely skating in on the coattails of Boston Massacre, whose inclusion is by name alone. The "reliable source" argument may be grayer than you think. --Knulclunk 00:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

American “grand finale” bombing of Japan as it was surrendering

I see that reference to this arguably “post-war” massacre engaged in by the Americans has been removed from the massacre list on Wikipedia. It was also removed from the World War II article. At least it could make it into the World War II war crimes article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres#1939_to_1945_-_World_War_II

That “grand finale” definitely qualifies as a gratuitous massacre. As can be seen in the official Air Force history that I provided a link to (p. 732-733):

http://uwashington.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/9828710?page=frame&url=http%3a%2f%2fpurl.access.gpo.gov%2fGPO%2fLPS48354&title=&linktype=opacFtLink

not one American plane was lost in the “finale” that was launched as Japan was surrendering after being nuked twice. Napalm was also used in that finale. Japan was not able to defend against the American bombings in 1945. In the spring of 1945, Hap Arnold informed Curtis Lemay that by October 1945 there would be nothing left worth bombing in Japan, as the entire nation would be in ruins.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/war.htm#after

The Americans actually dropped leaflets announcing Japan’s surrender along with the August 14th bombs:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/03/14/18076761.php

It is becoming a cultural phenomenon regarding the gradual corruption of Wikipedia by people controlling the content with their agendas (usually right-wing, and sometimes well-paid). This is typical history engineering, as I write about:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lies.htm#more

That WWII War Crimes list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_during_World_War_II#1939-1945_World_War_II

is pathetically small regarding Allied war crimes. The napalm attack on Tokyo was worse than the Dresden attack. According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey carried out after the war, more people were killed in the six-hour span of napalming Tokyo (somewhere between 80,000 and 200,000 killed) than in any other six-hour span in history.

War is never a civilized affair. There were no “good guys” in WWII, but the winners always write the history.

To illustrate this point further, in the George Washington talk section, there is mention of Washington’s swindle of the natives with his plan of fraudulent treaties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Washington#Native_American_land_treaties

It was Washington’s greatest achievement – a plan to steal a continent from its inhabitants, but the standard biographies do not mention it, and it will likely never make it into the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has big problems, but it is far from alone in this regard.

Wade Frazier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Overlapping problems

We have developed an overlap between Massacres during armed conflicts and 1800 to 1938 | 1939 to 1945 - World War II We need to combine the massacres from the first group into the second two. Then we only need to subdivide by type after 1945. It is a big job. --Knulclunk 14:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kent State

I've reinstated the Kent State massacre that was removed in September (I just caught up here) and now have provided three reliable, neutral sources that call it a massacre and confirm that it has long been known as such. There are many, many more citations available, but I think three is more than enough to establish the point. The situation is analogous to the Boston Massacre, Bloody Sunday, and other historic events, and I know of no legitimate justification for removing it again. I note that the vast majority of other events, by the way, are not referenced at all and this calls into question the reason that this particular event was removed in the first place, but I'm willing to treat it as water under the bridge if it remains now that tonight's stated reason has been satisfied. Meanwhile, I certainly support the idea of getting citations for the other items on the list and hope that's where the energies here will be directed, rather than at POV editing. Tvoz |talk 06:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice effort, Tvoz. I admire your stamina. I hadn't thought when I added that right column throughout the whole article that one single user would be filling so many of those ("citation needed") blanks. · Michel 10:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(more moved to «Use of tenses in this article» header below (· Michel)

Worst of Wiki

I see we're still arguing over definitions without doing the work of coming up with one. If the (otherwise perfectly correct) dictionary definition proposed above is accepted, we will have to include every single act of violence (muggings, bar fights, liquor store hold ups, caravan raids, hashishan activity, berserkan suicide, etc.) that killed more than one person. Without a good definition the entire idea of the page a joke (a point that has been seriously suggested several times). It would be more accurate to list all the deaths that AREN'T massacres and simply state this page is representative of everything NOT listed. Ridiculous enough to get a little attention from some of the smarter ones?

The thing that so really ridiculous, is the fix is so simple. Change the title of the page so it agrees w what people are putting on it.67.161.166.20 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems the consensus is now to only put incidents there that reliable sources label as "massacres", not those that aren't labeled as such but we think may match the dictionary definition (which would be original research). At least my change to the wording of the intro to this effect hasn't been reverted. So there really shouldn't be any more arguments over definitions, just over what sources are reliable enough. - Merzbow 07:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is Merzbow's wishful thinking, not my opinion, and not that of many others, as the discussions above give ample evidence for. There is no consensus whatsoever as to whether an unreliable source for some might be a quite reliable one for others, nor as to what constitutes a proper dictionary definition of the word massacre or not. What is necessary is an open-minded attitude. From an "inclusionist" point of view I don't object to some people using the New York Times' articles as a source, even if the NYT IMO is a less than reliable source. · Michel 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact it's policy. We must use reliable sources to make controversial claims. That's non-negotiable. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. - Merzbow 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I had an old turd of a professor at university who profoundly regretted that slavery has been abolished. In his warped mind, contrary to what he took to be the basic tenets of natural rights, that particular non-negotiable policy had been negociated. He also was one of the contributors to the constitution of the Salazar-led fascist regime in Portugal. Poor sod, he lived to see those non-negociable policies be negociated too, even if he had tried so hard to be the authority that granted sources their reliable status. · Michel 21:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear what would be a "reliable source" in this context. If you take my claim that "xxx was a massacre" to be just my personal opinion you could think the same for such claims when they are said by journalists, linguist, or any other kind of people you could find in any "source". What would be "reliable" here and why?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of tenses in this article

(Moved from «Kent State» header above)

While you're doing this, would you object to uniformising the tenses? I don't know what's your take on this, but I've been in favor of using the present tense in all massacre summaries. Many old summaries and many new additions use the past, or worse, they mix both in the same sentence. · Michel 10:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Michel - I can't commit to filling in that entire column myself (my stamina may not be all that great, and there are an awful lot of "citation neededs"), but I don't mind working on it as backburner research. Anyone else is welcome to pitch in. As for the tenses - to tell you the truth, I hadn't noticed, but I'll try to look out for that. Actually I see now that I did notice the tense problem on some items and corrected them to present - didn't remember that. Tvoz |talk 08:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone objects to this - the use of the present tense in all summary cells, could they discuss it here, so that we get an agreement to do so? Considering how controversial some things are for some people that are not for others, better IMO to do it this way than wasting time editing back and forth. ·Michel 15:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Present tense is good.--Knulclunk 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're losing

Just found a listing (and pretty well documented) that claims Muslims ALONE are committing and average of 6 massacres a day w an average of 6 victims each time.

If even barely true, massacres are being committed faster than we are posting them.

Are we SURE we want to continue w this page? It sure seems like a loser to me.67.161.166.20 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

They can be clumped together in batches eg Basra 2007 atrocities. - Kittybrewster ☎ 00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the Muslim massacres, by my estimate the USA alone committed over 100,000 massacres in just one year, 1944. This will be one HUGE category! (Sarah777 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

Presumably that is deaths, not incidents. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidents - but that is only my calculation - a bit of WP:OR (Sarah777 (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

I would be surprised but would buy your book. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I had been wondering earlier today whether the latest estimate of 1,200,000 deaths since the US-led invasion of Iraq did or did not qualify as a massacre (no POV or OR here, just facts: John Pilger, Lest We Forget). Just a thought.

· Michel (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno what the MOS says on these matters but obviously they must be thousands of separate massacres; otherwise the activities of, say, the "security forces" and loyalists would have to be bulked up to a single massacre. (Sarah777 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

We STILL need to come up w a definition AND USE IT! The definition suggested in the article would work, but no one is following it. How do the Boston Massacre (not called a massacre by anyone except the press 250 years ago), the Third Servile War (not a massacre by any source except wikipedia amateurs) qualify? People have been trying to solve the definition problem, and everyone w an agenda or a bit of OR keep butting in and trying to add their idea of "truth". (PS I've given up trying to get the anti western bias out of this thing. Too many people trying to prove their "lack" of bias.67.161.166.20 (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a problem. I tried to list the Fallujah massacre and was repeatedly reverted by US army guys (how's THAT for NPOV!!!) despite having a citation yet numerous massacres by Muslims etc stand without any citation at all. Crearly a bit of a Wiki-crisis unless mass POV can be stopped by the rule of some "Wiki-law". (Sarah777 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Using that bright logic why not list every battle in history as a massacre. There are many examples of US actions on this list that no one argues with. Fallujah was a battle and not a massacre. Your left wing websites do not stand up as legitimate references and you shouldn't throw it out there as if they are as solid. Also, who are the Army guys you are talking about? Just because people have an interest in military history does not make them in the Army.--Looper5920 (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should stay off this page Looper? Follow your own advice, so to speak. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

You are right. That is the solution. So glad you came up with it--Looper5920 (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, by all standards except those of the agressors Falludja was a massacre. But then after battling with a bunch of negationists claiming that Hiroshima/Nagasaki weren't, I'd be prepared for anything weird. Like this person in another article demanding that only the "official" story should appear in Wikipedia. I even got pulled on me that "official" references in another language than English were not valid refs. Clearly, in this case, it'll be a cold day in hell before those who write the "official" story in English ever consider acknowledging that a conscious large-scale massacre of civilians was committed in Falludja. · Michel (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham pub bombings

I have yet again removed the alleged sources for this. Please provide a reference that states this event is "commonly labeled" as a massacre, as per the inclusion criteria. One reference doesn't even contain the word massacre. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And again. This is a children's magazine from India, and this is a Christian website for starters, and these still do not show that this incident is "commonly labeled" a massacre. The depths to which the barrel is being scraped quite clearly show that it is not "commonly labeled" a massacre. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

I have reinstated a number of items deleted tonight which had edit summaries saying they were unreferenced - as I said in my edit summaries, many items in this list are unreferenced and some of us have been working at getting references in place and cleaning up the list. To selectively remove certain ones might appear to be POV editing. Also, one item was well-referenced, with three sources calling it a massacre, and the 29 civilian deaths mostly women and children including 2 unborn - why was this deleted with an edit summary that said "Rem incudents wheren civilians were obviously not deliberately targets" ? I think we have a difficult enough task in trying to determine what our definition of massacre is, and how to maintain the list and get it properly sourced - having to manually revert these arbitrary deletions was time-consuming and enervating. Such POV editing is not at all helpful and can't be tolerated, in my opinion. That goes for both ends of the political spectrum. Tvoz |talk 10:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tnx, Tvoz, excellent. While you were publishing this I got bumped off writing this to the above:

I have a technical question of sorts. Should a user who has requested to have their account cancelled (see on User:One Night In Hackney, for whatever reason, I don't have the time to look into it) be entitled to edit at will on these contentious subjects? I mean, it's bad enough with the registered users. I don't know the admin procedure, but is there a way to make these pages editable by reg. users only? (Not saying a word about whether the claims for these particular events are valid or not) · Michel (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know specifically what you are referring to (I haven't looked) - but the general answer to your question is yes, there is "semi-protection" which would enable only registered editors who have had accounts for 4 days or more to edit here. However, there has to be a good reason for semi-protection to be granted - usually it happens when there is extensive vandalism by IP addresses and newly created accounts. There may be other reasons it's granted as well - but vandalism is the most common. A case can be made at WP:RFPP - usually done when editors on the page have reached consensus that it would be desirable and/or when an admin see extensive vandalism on his or her own. Note that semi-protection is usually given on a short-term basis. Tvoz |talk 10:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see, maybe it isn't worth bothering for now. Now, why that (ex-)user is cancelled but has an active talk page (I have corrected the link) is not for me to try and understand

Although... I now see that true and genuine vandalism does seem to have taken place last night. · ·Michel (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reported this edit war to [6]. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[unindent] If that comment was directed at all at me, I must say that I don't know anything about that arbitration action - this is the first I've seen of it. I don't know what the history on this is at all - I merely reinstated material that seemed to me to have been arbitrarily and selectively deleted. There are many more items in the list that are awaiting citations, so to cherrypick along certain thematic lines seems to be POV editing. Not all of it was related to Irish matters, by the way. As I say below - I reinstated all of them without regard to their political POV. Tvoz |talk 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless it's the Irish in-fighting, I think Kittybrewster might have been referring not to you, but to User:Looper5920 repeatedly deleting Sarah777's Falludja entry, which seems (understandably) to have made her (/?) mad. I've reinstated the entry with a ref needed, but I've tried to streamline it a bit. Generally speaking, I think entries should be limited to the point and that "peripheral" incidents or situations should be discarded if they are described in any of the links. I know, they weren't peripheral for those involved, but if for no other reason, so that we don't end up with a file several Gb large (considering the propensities of the human race) · Michel (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that streamlining will often help. Tvoz |talk 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Massacres and alleged massacres

[moving this from my talk page - I'd prefer to have this discussion here Tvoz |talk 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]

You asked me a question re Omagh: Why was it removed as an incident where "civilians were obviously not deliberately targeted". It was removed because civilians were not deliberately targeted and it says on top of the page that that is a requirement for an incident to be classed as a massacre. While I personally regard it as such I'm not here to push my POV. Your reinstatement of unreferenced incidents, however, could be interpreted as POV editing. (Sarah777 (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

1) I don't know how one definitively knows whether targeting was deliberate - and you give no evidence that it was not. What do you base that on? What I see are three sources that refer to this incident as a "massacre" in which a car bomb was planted "in the center of the religiously mixed town. The blast killed 29 people, mostly women and children, and injured hundreds" (from the IHT article). Those are civilian deaths, and planting a car bomb in the center of a town suggests a deliberate targeting of civilians to me. 2) You selectively removed items that are marked as requiring citations, picking and choosing with no indication of what your criteria were. I did not selectively reinstate them: I reinstated all of them except for one that appeared to be all military. So what POV am I pushing? (If I missed any others it was inadvertent - it's because the process was a painstaking manual one which I don't appreciate having had to do - "undo" didn't work because of other interim edits.) Tvoz |talk 12:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

“It's because the process was a painstaking manual one which I don't appreciate having had to do - "undo" didn't work because of other interim edits”. Yes, and it's draining, not to say an imperial pain in the ass, especially when one has to go and find the original table entry in some long-lost revision of this loooong page. I wish there was something more practical. I suggest tagging the top of this particular article (maybe the discsuuion page too?) to the effect that no whole entries should be deleted (unless obvious vandalism?) before the deletion has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page. Could there be an agreement on this policy? Those not aware of it or not respecting it would get reversed automatically and the talk page brought to their attention. · Michel (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Michel, agree totally with that suggestion. If "Fallujah" hadn't been instantly and repeatedly deleted (a move supported by a Senior Admin) this incident wouldn't have occurred. We discuss ALL deletions or NONE. (Unless for obvious vandalism). But not because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT or suspicions of pov (or, more accurately, pov that one doesn't share). (Sarah777 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Could we have some consistency here? My referenced additions were very selectively removed by two editors and their action subsequently endorsed User:Swatjester, a senior Admin and Arbcom candidate. Following endorsement of such selective removals it was clear that speedy deletion of unreferenced or incidents which don't meet the definition was the way to go. Then I was told that ANY edit involving anything by any editor could be a 3RR breach. Now it appears the policy is actually that only some selective removals are OK.

Frankly Omagh is a side issue; but the onus is surely on those advocating inclusion to prove the case (ie you), not those looking for supporting evidence? Or is this yet another example of "Categories where the rules don't apply"? (Sarah777 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

And Mick, I much prefer "her" to "her (/?)" :)(Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

OK, Sarah, I was not involved in the Fallujah deletions, and am not up to speed on what happened here regarding that entry, so cannot speak to it at the moment - my reinstatements had nothing whatever to do with that, and I don't think that selective retaliatory deletions are the most collegial way to respond to what you think was an incorrect action. I don't think that it makes any sense at all to say that unreferenced items are to be summarily deleted at this point - that's why there are "citation needed" tags, and we need to focus on getting those citations. I think that if someone has a pressing problem with a particular entry that has a "cite needed" tag, it should be raised here on Talk in hopes that someone will find an appropriate citation and enter it. And meanwhile I hope that others will pitch in and source this list. The alternative is to remove all of the uncited items, and I think that would be a vast waste of all of the hard work by many editors that has gone into this piece. If it comes to that, I'll surely remove it from my watchlist, because that's not what collaborative editing means to me, and I don't choose to participate in the dismantling of this article due to political differences. Oh - and by the way - about Omagh, you said "Frankly Omagh is a side issue; but the onus is surely on those advocating inclusion to prove the case (ie you), not those looking for supporting evidence?" - I'm not sure I follow that second part - advocating inclusion and looking for supporting evidence would seem to me to be the same thing. Also - did I not "prove the case" above about the word "massacre" and the civilian targeting? Tvoz |talk 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And I just saw Michel's suggestion earlier in the section, which has essentially the same effect as what I just posted - yes, we should discuss here not wholesale delete, and most preferable would be to go out and find the citations. Tvoz |talk 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to make the distinction between events where it's obvious that they do satisfy the critera (i.e. "commonly labeled as a massacre") but just don't have proper cites yet, vs. events under serious dispute, like Fallujah. The former deserve to stay until the cites are found, the latter should stay out until the editors pushing for them can prove their case on talk. - Merzbow (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, Merzbow. We need to make the distinction between events where it's obvious that they do satisfy the critera (i.e. "commonly labeled as a massacre") but just don't have proper cites yet, vs. events under serious dispute, like Armenia. The former deserve to stay until the cites are found, the latter should stay out until the editors pushing for them can prove their case on talk. - (Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Actually, upon reflection, we need to make the distinction between events where it's obvious that they do satisfy the critera (i.e. "commonly labeled as a massacre; such as Fallajuh") but just don't have proper cites yet, vs. events under serious dispute, like Hamas actions in Israel. The former deserve to stay until the cites are found, the latter should stay out until the editors pushing for them can prove their case on talk. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

I can only hope, Sarah, that you're kidding - that's one of the most one-sided comments I've seen on this page. Tvoz |talk 21:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm analogising Merzbow's comment, not kidding. And it is no more one-sided than much of the stuff here; just not the side your are used to hearing in America!(Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Heck, this is a really really good policy Merzbow! (Sarah777 (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Inclusion of Fallujah

This is what you fail to understand. The onus is not on me to prove why it should not be there. The onus is on you to prove why it should be there. You are accusing someone or some entity of mass muder. Just look at the heading of the section above this, "Alleged Massacres." Is this person serious? Is this a list of massacres or alleged massacres? Wikipedia is about facts and the use of the word "alleged" is not about being factual it is about innuendo. If you are going to say that members of the US Armed Forces, without a doubt, particip[ated in "deliberate and direct mass killing where the victims have no reasonable means of defense and pose no immediate physical threat to the assailants" then you better have sources that are airtight. Not only was the source given insufficient but in its current form it is uncited. To me that just makes it an opinion. I see articles for the 1st and 2nd Battles of Fallujah but I do not see one for the Fallujah Massacre. This means that the person trying to add it is pushing their version of the events.

While we are at it... the so called Haditha Massacre should not even be there. Not yet anyway. Last I checked it has not been adjudicated yet. But that is not good enough for the editors here. They have already made their decision. It is a massacre no matter what the circumstances. Again last I checked there is no page for the Haditha Massacre...it just links to the Haditha killings because someone realized that you cannot label something a massacre without all of the facts and while the trials are still in process. If they are found guilty then by all means add it but until then it should not be there. --Looper5920 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wiki articles about Falludja and Haditha cannot be seen as neutral, or balanced. They reflect the invaders' allegations and, most of all, their cultural approach. As a matter of fact, as always in such cases, the Resistance or just the civilians never get asked. There are some news services functioning among the Iraqi resistance (I've read them myself during one month, when some industrious souls translated them from Arabic to French), but - surprise - one hardly ver hears about them anywhere in the tongues of the rest of the world (with the possible exceptions of courageous journalists like Cockburn, Escobar or Jamair). That's what Sarah calls Wikianglocentricanarianism. Whether the occupying power on the field or in its own jurisdiction determines, legalistically or by other means, that a crime or a massacre did (or more often the rule: did not) take place, is in my opinion largely irrelevant. We're back to definitions. Did a large number of civilians in Falludja and Haditha get killed by an agressor's recklessness? The answer is yes. · Michel (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow we have suspended rationale thought and believe that civilians do not die during combat. As if this is some new type of reality only brought about by the U.S. in recent years. The distinction being that you have to prove that civilians were deliberately targeted and not just in the wrong place at the wrong time. While it sounds cruel it is a very important distinction.

As for the rest of the list. If things are uncited then they should all be removed. No one should be able to accuse any person, entity or country of mass murder without sufficient documentation. Am I the one that is going to do that ...No. I don't care enough about this page because I know it is fatally flawed. However there are subjects I do take an interest in and this is one of them. --Looper5920 (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Fallujah needs to stay out until it's commonly called a massacre by reliable sources. That's the only criteria Wikipedia policy allows. - Merzbow (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am about to commit the sin of making a nice, rational, suggestion for someone else to do the work. One of our problems is w the "citation needed" tag. What we really need is a tag that says "will be deleted if proper citation(s) not supplied by XXXXX date". My apologies to all you who are genuinely trying to do a good job w this turkey.67.161.166.20 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then register and create it. Fact tags should have a date anyway. Then you can go through wiki with a bot replacing fact with your new tag. - Kittybrewster ☎ 20:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We see the root of the problem fully exposed here! Looper: "If you are going to say that members of the US Armed Forces, without a doubt, participated in "deliberate and direct mass killing where the victims have no reasonable means of defense and pose no immediate physical threat to the assailants" then you better have sources that are airtight." But if that applies to "US Armed Forces" then it applies to everyone else! Hence, if you feel free to zap alleged US massacres instantly if you feel they don't have sources that are airtight then we can ALL delete massacres instantly if we think they have sources that aren't airtight (as I did, before being told that could breach 3RR). Heck, I know it is annoying, but that is what WP:NPOV is all about folks!

In general I'd agree with Michel and Tvov that the best approach is to wait for the citations (normal Wiki practice). But if we decide on a "shoot on sight" policy, hey! - think of me as Annie Oakley! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Based on your response I stand by everything I said and agree that we should delete massacres if the references are not "airtight." Maybe you do not realize what you are accusing people of doing. It must be nice to just throw the term massacre out there with no consequences but you are accusing many people of mass murder and you should be held to a very high degree of accountability if you are doing so. It must be so easy to do from your comfortable perch there in Eire. --Looper5920 (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This last sentence is quite misplaced, Looper5920 · Michel (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Looper; in Northern Ireland during the "troubles", 3,500 people died in 23 years. Per head of population that is the same per annum as about 28,000 people in the US; or the same as if the 3,000 victims on 9/11 had since been followed by further 200,000 killed in the US. So I won't take lectures on how comfortable Ireland is from anyone. And I imagine those statistics are totally dwarfed by the figures for Fallujah. Please argue based on the facts. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Well, well, back to Falludja

As tiring as this is getting to be, I went and found the self-evident Magical Word Reference before uploading the Falludja entry again. Now, let me anticipate your friendly negationist's arguments:

• In my English dialect, a "hidden massacre" does not answer to the true definition of a massacre
• I don't like RaiNews 24, therefore it is not a reliable source
• I've never heard of RAI, therefore it is not a reliable source
• RAI is not owned by Rupert Murdoch, therefore it is not a reliable source like Fox News
• Silvio Berlusconi is a reliable source, but he did a sloppy job when he was purging RAI of his opponents
• I've never read the Wikipedia article called Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, therefore it is not a reliable source
• I've already broken the WP:3RR rule 5 times, so I can delete this entry once again in full impunity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Tavir (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The verbiage used in this article refers to "deliberate and direct civilian deaths". The crux of the "Hidden Massacre" is on the legality of incendiary munitions used in the battle, and makes no substantive arguments for the deliberate targeting of civilians. That it rests on the testimony of a soldier that did not participate in the battle and who badly misquotes the Standing Rules of Engagement is amusing. Terrorstorm has aired on U.S. public access channels, is that an endorsement of its views by President Bush? No it is not a reliable source. --Mmx1 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The provided link (rememberfallujah.org) is not the guardian, it only cites the guardian a few times regarding civilian casualties - none of which demonstrate deliberate civilian casualties. --Mmx1 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Alex Jones is no more a reliable source than Bush or US public channels, we can easily agree on that one. But what is the point you're trying to make? If you are trying to say that RAI is not a reliable source because of your POV, I can only thank you for confirming what I've written on this page: negationists will use any (im)possible ro rewrite history. · Michel (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Concretising proposition for future editing on this article

It's not like I have a particular fancy for dwelling on this most gracious activity of mankind which consists in slaughtering its fellows beings. I landed on this article a while back, when my attention was brought to the fact that the vast majority of entries historically connected with the conquest of the Americas were those of a. poor innocent European settlers and their descendants having been treachously slaughtered by b. evil-minded natives who, stupidly, wouldn't let them take their lands away from them. After making some well-documented additions to try to restablish a semblance of balance, I found that one particular editor rather systematically introduced small sentences to the effect that when poor a. had massacred b. it had usually been in retaliation against an act b. (probably for not understanding that their destiny was to be whipped out of history anyway) and in association with bb. (some other brands of natives who had a grudge agaisnt b., proving hereby that b., bb. and their ilk had been bad guys all along)

It soon appeared to me that there are two groups of people (or attitudes, as I cannot tell whether there is anything systematic behind this) at work - at war, one might say - among the editors active on this article:

1. Those who would rather repeatedly and selectively delete anything that doesn't suit them, preferably and if possible without an inkling of explanation. If it is demanded from them that they engage in explanations, they have at their disposal a Pandora's box of requests, rules and exercises in semantic gymnastics which, strangely enough, only seem to apply when it's the (mis-) deeds of one particular world power, or those of one specific skin complexion, that get displayed in an entry in Wikipedia's public record. If that doesn't work, these, let me call them negationists, don't hesitate to engage in edit wars, and they won't hesitate to lead their opponents to a point where administrative sanctions by friendly administrators can be called upon them, as I have experienced and Sarah almost did. Curiously, this same group will not demand the blocking of one of their "members" for breaching five times the Wikipedia rule they so eagerly use against their opponents. This group also has the knack of tiring opponents into giving up altogether, as evidenced by latest statements by Tvoz or Sarah.

2. The other group, which I consider myself to be a part of, recognizes that many entries in a list like this one have a controversial character, but instead of selectively deleting those massacres committed by people who don't rank very high on their sympathy scale, their philosophy tends to consist in letting too many events rather than too few appear on the list, even if some are poorly documented or their character not yet agreed upon. In this context I have expanded the table in most sub-sections (the idea had already been applied to the first two) with an extra column inviting editors to add references. This was done only a few weeks ago, and many editors have been working hard at filling the gaps since.

Because of the loads of work involved in all of this referencing as well as in reversing the damage easily caused by gr. 1. with a couple of mouse clicks, gr. 2. is now suggesting that any destructive behaviour should be strictly limited, by having any deletion of a whole entry discussed thoroughly on this page prior to enacting it. Not surprisingly, this proposal is being rejected by gr. 1., who indulge in a new deleting spree while calling to witness their selective interpretation of Wikipedia standards.

At this point, one side of me just wants to give up and let the contents of this article experience the joys of extraordinary rendition. Another side of me, though, has always had a hard time just accepting that the truth gets bullied out of existence. This is why I'd like to concretise my suggestion that the following banner gets added to the top of both the main article and this discussion page:

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and sourced additions are welcome. Due to the controversial character os some of the events described, no entries listed here may be deleted prior to thorough discussion in view of reaching a consensus on the article's Talk page.

Let those be heard who are willing to listen and constructively cooperate in the perfecting of this article.

· Michel (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We're writing an encyclopedia here. If it's controversial and you can't source it properly, it doesn't go in until you can source it properly. - Merzbow (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there goes nearly all the so-called "massacres" by Arabs, Muslims and Irishmen then! No "airtight evidence". And to add to the above; when deleting a mixed bag of Ireland/Middle East "massacres" (the only ones I have some knowledge of) - I was accused of breaching WP:NPV by selectively deleting only some articles - by the very same folk who selectively delete, within seconds, almost all incidents of alleged US Army massacres. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Hmmm. You declare you only have knowledge of Ireland/Middle East, but you complain the "100 of thousands" (did I get that right) of massacres by the Americans are being left out. Do we have an inconsistency here?67.161.166.20 (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. No. The 100,000 refers to WW2, Vietnam and other bombing campaigns. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Actually, this article is probably worth keeping as a spectacular illustration of the complete and utter failure of the Wiki system for trying to achieve a neutral point of view while maintaining that only Western MSM are regarded unquestionably as "reliable sources". Imagine trying to claim the Guardian is a biased source compared to the NYT in any country on the planet bar the USA!! (Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Support the proposal to make the box above official policy for the management of this article. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Oppose The current language covers the controversial nature of some of the entries. We need the option of eliminating obviously stupid entries. The 3RR covers controversial entries, protecting both additions and deletions. The proposed policy box is unneeded. --Knulclunk (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment, yes Clunck, where "obviously stupid" = "American massacre". (Sarah777 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

hunh? What are you talking about? --Knulclunk (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose What about this particular article makes it warrant such an extraordinary departure from Wikipedia protocol to favor addition as opposed to deletion?--Mmx1 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy one Mm. The group of editors who conspire to avoid 3RR by acting in concert to zap any addition of a massacre by US armed forces within seconds (many of them members of said US armed forces, it would appear). That's what, Mm. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Uhh, when multiple editors act to remove content that violates Wikipedia policy, that's called "consensus", not "avoiding 3RR". - Merzbow (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow et al., could you stop for a second acting as if you believed that we can't see through the games you're playing, and explain publicly why you misused the 3RR to have an administrator corner me while you let single editors who share your world view (rather accurately described above by Sarah, in her Clunk comment) repeatedly revert edits that don't suit you, in one case no less than 5 times two days ago? Now, that would be honest for once.

For those who care about continuying this discussion honestly, the misuse of POV and NPOV policies across WP platforms are occasionally discussed on Wikimedia's Metapub. From an administrator's comments, I extract this pretty good description of negationist tactics in this article:

Blocking of NPOV authors is a difficult subject area for most admins. Policy really only works for you when the persistent offender engages in direct and overt breach of policy such as, for example, the three revert rule; and even in cases such as this as an admin you have to be continually aware that some of the most of clever and subtle offenders are smart enough to set it up such that the real victim cast as perpetrator is the person trying to restore some sort of order to proceedings..

· Michel (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move / name change

Is the word "massacre" POV charged?

I'm surprised by how people here is completely ignoring this issue. So let's make things clear: do you agree that the word "massacre" is POV charged? If you agree how do you reconcile labeling events as "massacres" *as a fact* with WP:NPOV?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why massacre should be "POV charged," especially in an encyclopedia. If to commit a massacre means satisfying X criteria then given X criteria a massacre has been committed. If there is dispute over whether X criteria has been satisfied then the controversy isn't about "calling" something a massacre (which is what all of this POV nonsense implies) but about whether something "is" or "is not" a massacre. The fact that people don't like to be associated with massacres does not and should not be the basis for a standard here regarding how to deal with the term in a supposedly objective manner. That would be like allowing the POV of a "criminal" (or the criminals loved ones) to influence our ability to label someone who has been convicted of breaking a law a "criminal." I've been watching this talk page with much interest for some time now, and what I see is a serious digression from reason. In my view this starts with the established standard that sourcing does not have to exist for the fact that a certain incident meets X criteria (which would be the reasonable thing to do), but instead for the fact that someone out there has used the term "massacre." Our sourcing conventions do not necessitate this standard btw. The insistence that the term itself (as opposed to the criteria) needs to be sourced in usage is an interpretation of our sourcing conventions. People here need to step back and realize that a massacre is an act or set of actions with a specific result--regardless of what international law says about those actions, regardless of what surrounding circumstances may or may not justify those actions, and regardless of whether or not such and such person or group is fighting tooth and nail to keep those actions from being called a massacre. The only way to gain a neutral perspective on this matter is to stop cow towing to (or simply pushing) the exact kinds of cultural politics that an encyclopedia should be doing everything in its power to distance itself from--particularly when the matter at hand is quite simple and requires very little interpretation, such as the matter of the term "massacre."PelleSmith (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like some perfectly sensible talk to me. · Michel (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome a strict definition - it is certainly preferable to debating whether something is "commonly called" a massacre. The one used in the intro seems to be a good start point, but the language "not exclusively" weakens its usefulness. --Mmx1 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What about the case when some sources refer to an event as "massacre", but others avoid the word completely?Bless sins (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is if I'm going to continue working on this article, I'm not going to go along with some kind of numerical definition (which is why it says "not exclusively") - how would we decide on that? More than 2 is a massacre? more than 20? 200? 2000? Seems to me that if reliable outside sources - the mainstream press and/or academic scholarship, not just other wiki articles - refer to an event as a massacre, then it should be here. That's where we started, I think. And that's what I and others have been working on. We could say we need two such English-language sources to qualify if that would make people more comfortable. And we should not start wholesale deleting - that's why we have the "fact" tag, and we can set a reasonable timetable for getting the citations. And if some events end up listed that some people don't think should be called massacres, but reliable sources do call them that, what harm has befallen us? Are we not then simply reflecting how the world views these events? The sad thing about this discussion is that whether or not we label something a massacre doesn't change the death count, and the political energy being exercised here would be much better spent directed at ending the killing, not stopping it from being listed in an encyclopedia. And that, again, goes as much for the militarists as for the freedom fighters. Tvoz |talk 16:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - we cannot substitute our definition for reliable sources. If they call it a massacre, so do we, if they don't, we don't. - Merzbow (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Trouble iz, what is the reliable source of an event gets trashed right away by those who do not wish that same event to be reliably sourced, as has been happening with Falludja · Michel (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If a single reliable source calls it a massacre but 100 other reliable sources don't, then it's not a massacre for the purposes of Wikipedia. - Merzbow (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest concept-warping. As we only have your definition of what is reliable or not to go after, you'll always come out as the winner. Newest thing is that a documentary is not reliable, because it's "sneakily" linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Tavir (talk • contribs) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We are going to have to require a definition. Otherwise, under the criteria of "commonly referred to as massacre", the 1978 and 2006 ALCS are going to have to be included [7], since they are commonly referenced in the media as Boston Massacres --Mmx1 (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can reliably distinguish when something is being called a massacre in jest. If at least one person is killed, then there's probably no humor involved. - Merzbow (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While the extension of massacre as a metaphor clearly should not be included in this list, the example above is not one made in "jest." Also common sense alone (which I'm assuming is what you're appealing to) does not provide an objective criteria for including or excluding various usages of a term. In fact, common sense is rather literally and essentially subjective. Besides that fact, I note a clear lack of common sense in prior discussions on this page, like arguments for excluding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of which lack basic common sense. I would say common sense, is exactly what you cannot trust here. Or at the very least you cannot trust people to use it in an even handed manner.PelleSmith (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It is an illustration not of jest, but of hyperbole. --Mmx1 (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What's lacking in common sense is calling something a massacre when the vast majority of reliable sources don't (i.e. Hiroshima). In fact, that's against policy. It is not against policy, and perfectly acceptable, to limit what we include however narrowly we want (i.e. say that an incident listed must have involved killings). - Merzbow (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth does it say that we have to source the use of exact language? If I have to say this a million times I will, but the burden of proof here is on you. Show me where it is stated in policy that we cannot source the substance of a definition but have to source the exact use of specific terminology? Nothing substantive could be said about anything if our core policies forced us only to report on how certain terms are being used a majority of the time by a greater public. All substantive definitions would be out the window. Our very ability to say anything meaningful would be completely gone. Luckily this is not the case, but why some editors have chosen to think it is the case is utterly beyond the pale of reason.PelleSmith (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If we have to speak about policy there is no policy talking about "the majority of sources". If we have to speak about common sense then it's hard to understand why Hiroshima *was not* a massacre. In either cases your arguments have some problem.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Policy directly addresses that. From WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Again, in proportion to their prominence. We are directly tasked as editors with deciding how prominent a particular view is among reliable sources. If 95% of reliable sources addressing Hiroshima do not call it a massacre, neither can we, in Wikipedia, unless we explicitly state it to be a fringe view. - Merzbow (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow; Can you confirm that 95% of Japanese sources don't call it a "massacre"? (Sarah777 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Can you confirm that 95% of French sources call it a "massacre"? Using your argument, we wouldn't be justified in saying that Creationism is more accepted among scientists than evolution because it might be the case that 100% of Chinese scientists (who we can't read) support Creationism. What I can do is for every source you show me that call Hiroshima a massacre, I can show you 10 that don't.- Merzbow (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The quoted text does not imply in any way that "If 95% of reliable sources addressing Hiroshima do not call it a massacre, neither can we, in Wikipedia, unless we explicitly state it to be a fringe view". If only 5% of sources about Einstein say that "Einstein had moustaches" it does not mean that this fact is a "minority view" and therefore cannot be added in a "List of scientists with moustaches".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Pokipsy76 is appealing to empirical observation, something Merzbow is willing to replace with percentage use of exact linguistic expression. Unfortunately, Pokipsy, there is very little tolerance here for the normal means by which human reasoning functions. You cannot, for instance, call yourself a human being unless you have the sources to back it up. In fact I think Merzbow is a clever computer program and will treat it accordingly until I see some sourcing of its humanity.PelleSmith (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A while back, I asked it something along those lines.The only reply I could get from it was that I was not a reliable source. Tough luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Tavir (talk • contribs) 18:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced content

See also Talk:List of massacres/Archive 2#Reliable sources for all claims

There is much unsourced content in this article. Because this is a list of massacres, all of this content is very contentious.Bless sins (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose a deadline of 2 weeks, after which we should begin to remove this unsourced content. Please take a look at WP:V, if you think that unsourced content should stay.Bless sins (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's too short for the size of this article - if we actually have people willing to do the work, then I would say we should focus on one section at a time, starting from the top, and have a rolling timeline. FYI, the citation tags are a recent addition to the page. Tvoz |talk 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both points, a policy of inclusiveness has allowed this list to become highly dubious. I'm not comfortable deleting entries, per se, but perhaps a concentrated drive to create articles and provide citations is in order. The daunting nature of this task will require a high degree of organization, as indicated by Tvoz, and perhaps a bit more than two weeks. Also, are citations necessary for "bluelinked" entries? In many cases, the citation column is a bit superfluous. AlphaEta 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tvoz, disagree with Bless sins. The problem at this point is not so much unsourced entries (although I have marked one as severely unsourced today - NOTE: RATHER THAN JUST DELETE IT, REALLY VIRTUOUS, AIN'T IT?), as this aspect is being worked on, but rather 1. what some people claim to be a valid (reliable, etc.) source = usually one that matches their expectations; and 2. that ::Absolutely 100% no, while the criterion may not be perfect your method is against policy. Who decides whether something "meets the commonly accepted definition of a massacre" - editors? That's 100% original research. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a very problematic leap of logic you are making, but one that clearly a lot of people here are willing to make. There is no reason at all why we cannot both source the definition and source the facts that establish inclusion. That in fact is the only responsible thing to do here if you want to avoid the pitfalls of "common usage." Determining whether or not something is commonly called a massacre is much (and i stress much, much, much) more difficult and unreliable than determining if an act meets X, Y or Z criteria for inclusion. Especially if X, Y, and Z criteria can be indisputably sourced.PelleSmith (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: In case I wasn't clear, it is the claim that using a definition in this manner is necessarily WP:OR and against policy that I was calling a problematic leap of logic. If it in fact were against policy then we'd need independent sources to establish that the Bible is in fact a religious text, or that Mr. Ed was played by a horse. In fact we would need independent sources for just about everything that we print. Perhaps we should reliably source the fact that the sun is a star or that a day is roughly 24 hours long.PelleSmith (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As Sarah777 can attest to, this has come up before under different circumstances, see for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Original research and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 engaged in original research (in fact the whole case is worth a look). The situation there was over the inclusion of the term "genocide", and ArbCom said in no uncertain terms that you can't personally take a definition of "genocide", apply that definition to a specific event and say "yes, that fits the definition so we can use that term". Now unless I'm missing something very, very obvious, if you replace the word "genocide" with the word "massacre" we're in the exact same situation here. So unless you can show me exactly how this is different, there's an ArbCom ruling that says it is against policy. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Arbcom is not like the Supreme Court of the United States in how its case specific decisions relate to general policy. In other words some members of Arbcom decided in this particular case does not translate across the board as if it were policy. To be clear, there is no actual Arbcom decision that says that what I'm proposing is against policy. Period. It is also unfortunate, however, that unlike the Supreme Court Arbom provides no succinct briefs delineating the majority view. All I see is an assessment of an editor's behavior, with reference to her arguments through links to talk pages, and no actual emphatic delineation of why she was wrong or how exactly she violated the policy in question. This whole issue, and that particular Arbcom decision, is a very slippery slope. What is evident in the case you linked to is that the very definition of genocide was being contested and that the fundamental differences were based on this disagreement. My proposal does not suggest "personally" taking a definition of massacre, but instead collectively taking a well sourced definition of massacre. From what I can see perusing various dictionaries this would not be difficult at all. There is very little debate over what a massacre is. The debate is over when to use the term, which, as I've mentioned already comes from political interests and not scholastic ones. What we are presently doing here is allowing these political interests to dictate the application of a very simple term by way of a back door provided through an throughly illogical application of our sourcing standards. Yes you can point to the Arbcom case referenced above again, but that doesn't change the fact that the common use standard is completely out of whack ... not to mention (ironically) simply unsourceable. Not to mention the fact that since it is clear that in mass culture "massacre" isn't something anyone wants to be associated with, we can pretty much be guaranteed that the culture in question wont readily refer to its own massacres as such. We are not here to report on what warm an fuzzy language groups would like to adopt about themselves. We are here to write an encyclopedia, based on fact. Whether or not a massacre occurred is a fact. If it is not possible to determine whether or not a massacre occured then we cannot determine the fact. Its really that simple. No really. It is.PelleSmith (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to make assumptions, but did you actually read the full case? Here are the two most important principles from that case (which you'll also find in many other cases), which you'll notice are both re-stating policy:

• Wikipedia:Attribution requires that information included in an article on a subject be limited to verifiable information from reliable sources.
• Wikipedia:Attribution prohibits original research; editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia documents what reliable sources state about their subjects.

You're proposing we throw secondary sources right out of the window, and make our own minds up based on the facts, and you don't see how that's against policy? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to make assumptions unless you're prepared to read what others are writing. I'm talking about a definition of massacre that is reliably sourced. The first point you make is simple nonsensical in regards to our conversation. Nothing that I propose is not reliably sourced. On the second point, I'm not suggesting we throw secondary sources out the window at all. I'm pointing out that the use of secondary sources, and the necessity for secondary sources is a slippery slope. There is no need to "make our own minds up" when we can reliably source a definition for massacre. This would be a substantive definition what would actually say something conclusive about what is and what isn't a massacre. Merriam Webster and Oxford are willing but we are not because we're not influenced by linguists or professional editors but by a bunch of POV pushing hacks. Seriously massacre can actually have a substantive meaning. Its true. Pick up a dictionary. This is getting really tired. I'd like to see the sourcing policy that refutes my suggestion. Please show it to me. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in the policies I've already linked you to, which you clearly either haven't read or didn't understand. Oh damn, there's me assuming again. Right at the top of WP:OR - "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses" - your method involves the interpretation of facts to label something a massacre, it's pretty straightforward. Plus you could actually read the entire policy in details, along with WP:V and WP:NPOV (and even a bit of WP:NOT too) and you'll realise how wrong your comments are. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Look I'm fully aware of what the policies state. I'm disturbed by your reading of them, which you clearly can't imagine any disagreement with. In your application of "interpretation" there is nothing that we can add to this encyclopedia that does not require "interpretation" by an editor first--unless of course a statement is attributed to another human being and sourced as such, in which case we are allowing for the interpretation of this non-editor human being (or group of human beings) as long as we are clear that it is his/her claim (though if you follow the logic here even this requires interpretation). At the end of this slippery slope the only thing we will accept as factual is the fact that someone has stated X, Y or Z thing. This implies the death of meaning. Words can no longer be deemed to have tangible referents, only multiple meanings based upon the particularities of various individual subjectivities. We can't say that the sun is a star, or that the earth is round, but only that a number of people believe so. In fact we can't even say they believe so, we can only repeat the fact that they have "said so." That last move is the most disturbing, because it implies that phenomena that present themselves as empirically comparable cannot be labeled with the same terminology simply because they are so comparable. By this rationale anytime someone uploads a picture of a table with the label "table" they are engaging in WP:OR, unless of course they also source the statement to a reliable source that has called this picture of "table" by that name. What you, and granted many others, are willing to do is draw an arbitrary line that you are deluded about not being arbitrary. What becomes included in the protected sanctuary of non-negotiable terms and what doesn't? It is clear that the interpretation card will get played anytime a term is less than pleasing to a large enough group of people. That is a severe disservice to a project that claims to present factual information in a neutral manner. The only neutral way of going about our business is to submit ourselves to empirical observation and reason, and not to cultural politics. A massacre is either a massacre, by our definition, just as a tree is a tree, or it isn't a massacre, but simply an interpretation just as a tree really isn't a tree, but again an interpretation.PelleSmith (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One cannot mechanically apply the dictionary definition of a loaded word like "massacre" to particular events. A consensus of reliable sources is needed. We are not talking about "trees", we are talking about applying what is pretty much universally seen as a derogative label on the actions of people and nations. If we just go by our judgment, we're never going to agree on events like Fallujah, ever. The only way out is by going by what reliable source agree on. - Merzbow (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

When we cannot agree on what happened, that is a seperate matter. When we agree on what happened but some of us don't want use certain terms because it makes us feel ashamed of being American, or being Muslim, or being Christian, or being Japanese, or whatever group it is we identify with, then again we're doing objectivity a serious disservice. Clearly murderers don't go around calling themselves murderers, but we still call them that based upon the actions that we verifiably know they have undertaken. What kind of "reliable" sourcing do you expect to find regarding what everyone arguing against me can readily admit are very unflattering terms when used in mass culture, in the media, and especially as a means of self-identification? The fact that the term is seen as derogatory is precisely an argument against expecting to find reliable sourcing, and exactly an argument for assessing the criteria for inclusion based upon "mechanical" standards. The irony is killing me.PelleSmith (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. A derogatory term by definition cannot be applied using mechanical standards because derogatory implies human disapproval. The only sort of term we could mechanically apply would be "mass killings". I hereby withdraw my objection to renaming it "List of mass killings". The resulting article will be uselessly broad (every battle in every war in history would qualify), but at least the article then stops being a dumping ground for nationalist or anti-nationalist sentiment (which is the only thing a term like "massacre" is good for). - Merzbow (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the reason why terms like massacre lose their usefulness--arguments like yours lead to the death of meaning. I'm not contradicting myself at all. My criteria are empirically observable. There is nothing contradictory about that. Your criteria are based upon opinion and common usage both of which are explicitly wrapped up in identity politics and the like. You are willing to admit that massacre is meaningless as an English term. The only meaning it has is as a derogatory term the application of which is a tug of war between warring POV factions. If that is the case then clearly we should get rid of it. You've won. Congratulations you've rubbed the meaning out of a perfectly viable English word. What's next?PelleSmith (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: By the way I must have been very unclear up till this point given what you wrote above. I don't see massacre as a "derogatory term" at all, but as a meaningful description of an event. It is the usage of massacre out there, from where you want to "source it" that enables its "derogatory" nature. It is exactly that usage I want people to understand should not dictate ours. Anyway this is clearly a futile effort. I have to admit that it is very dishartening to see this general perspective on knowledge win out on Wikipedia. If this is the majority perspective there is very little hope.PelleSmith (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Pelle, I can see that Merzbow has also succeeded in exhausting you. A very effective strategy indeed, especially when it's used selectively · Michel (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone'w going to kill me for this suggestion. The subject matter is just too big. If we use the proposed definition of "all mass killings" this listing will be bigger than the average public library. I suggest we go with something fairly restrictive and then relax the restrictions as it is agreed the limited article is pretty good (ie complete, NPOV, etc.). This would remove a LOT of the contention and actually leave poeple free to do real work.

My suggestion is "List of massacres of 10,000 or more" With a sub definiton of massacres being something like "deliberate killing of non combatants by recognized combatants in violation of the rules and ethics of the time, place, and culture".

Kinda long winded isn't it? However, it eliminates all the politically correct types who maintain the "massacre" of westerners by native americans isn't a massacre 'cause it was really self defense, it includes little things like "shining path" who are not a government or culture but recognized as as organized military, and it eliminates cultural ambiguities like the servile war where by law and custom of the time it was not a massacre, but rather an execution.

When we get this tight definition pretty good (I'm tempted to say perfect, but I'm not that dumb) we can start to relax the constraints. Drop 10,000 to 9,000, 9,000 to 8,000, etc. Start discussing the definition as people come up w (hopefully legitimate) events not covered.

As a scientist, I'm a little uneasy about relaxing TWO contraints at the same time, but this article is not hard science and with care we might get away with it.

Comments please?67.161.166.20 (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz and others. We go through and double source all existing entries, including blue linked entries. The blue links are especially easy, as they should link into articles with solid references already. All the sources need to be are reliable references for dates and numbers. There is no need to redefine the current definition, as it seems to work for 95% of the included entries. Doing this will stabilize the article and remove the red-link clutter. We can then proceed to hammer out a solution for the more debatable entries. --Knulclunk (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Knulclunk: The present definition is a good first try, but VERY vulnerable to interpretation. I won't make the change, but would like to point out:

"Below is a list of incidents that are commonly labeled as massacres. They are typically, but not exclusively, single events that resulted in large numbers of deliberate and direct civilian deaths."

1) "civilian" is a relatively new concept. Peasant levies were civilian and got/did a lot of massacre.

2) There have always been collateral "non combatant" casualties. Those who think it's a modern invention are uninformed. If a large rock was thrown it to a city and it killed the "civilian" wokers building new ramparts was it a "massacre". By some definitions - yes, others - no. But the deaths were "civilian" and the rock was thrown deliberately, and the throwers new damn well "civilians" might get killed.

3) If you want to use the "commonly labelled" phrase, the least you can do is add the explainatory caveat that you are doing it by "todays" OR "contemporary" standards. Either one is acceptable, but I believe it is bad technique to fail to spell it out.

Keep trying, but I think you don't have it yet.67.161.166.20 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How does providing "reliable references for dates and numbers" for say, Birmingham pub bombings (and I can provide you with twenty sources in for the date and number of dead), prove the event is "commonly labeled" a massacre? Unless I'm missing something here, for the vast majority of the entries the date and number of dead aren't particularly disputed, it's the number of entries that don't have the word "massacre" and sources are required to prove they are "commonly labeled" a massacre. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bless sins it is not the first time this has bee raised see Talk:List of massacres/Archive 2#Reliable sources for all claims

1. Reliable sources for all claims]] back in August. As WP:V records

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information ..."

–Jimmy Wales

If a reliable source says it is a massacre then it can stay otherwise it should be deleted. It can always be re-added if reliable sources are found later. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How does "a reliable source" show that an event is "commonly labeled" as a massacre, unless it says those exact words? I've already had to remove "sources" that don't show an event meets the inclusion criterion, for which I had various accusations thrown at me despite explaining my edits. Case in point this was being used to show an event was "commonly labeled" as a massacre, due to it including the sentence "These men had bombed and massacred innocent people in a Birmingham pub in 1975". Even ignoring that it's a children's magazine from India who can't even get the date of the event right (1974), it doesn't prove anything. I've discussed this elsewhere, and various points were raised:

• "Massacre is one of those Humpty Dumpty words that means exactly what the writer wants it to". Nail on the head. Massacre is a word that's frequently bandied about by journalists but it doesn't have any fixed meaning, in terms of some newspapers it's interchangeable with "butchery", "slaughter" etc etc. They aren't using it in an academic or scholarly context, they are using it in a sensationalist context.

• Consistency. What makes one bombing where x number of people was killed worthy of inclusion where a bombing where x-1 number of people was killed not worthy of inclusion? Because some journalist has been sensationalist and used the word "massacre" in his report? It's only going to cause problems, as people will say "well if that incident was a massacre, then this one must have been too" and so on.

In my opinion, the only hope for this article is if the majority of newspapers and the like are discarded as worthless as sources, generally due to the meaningless use of "massacre" from journalist to journalist and newspaper to newspaper. This article should only be sourced from academic and scholarly publications, and not based on the opinions of journalists. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The point about this term being bandied about in mass culture should not be taken lightly. Would it really be that difficult to settle on a criteria based upon acceptable definitions of "massacre" and sourced to reliable academic sources? Then the requirement would simply be to reliably source the facts that meet the criteria in each case as opposed to bending to the discursive politics of various interest groups (as evidenced by the way in which massacre is "bandied about" in the press). In the end, this would be a much more worthwhile and helpful enterprise if we are aspiring to objectivity and neutrality.PelleSmith (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The requirement of WP:V is "reliable sources" not "reliable academic sources". No academic source worth the name is going to use it as a descriptive term unless it is as an investigation into the use of the term in the media or some similar type of academic exercise. Personally I stopped most of my involvement with this article ages ago because I do not think that one can create a list that will be considered close to neutral by many people.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If the term "massacre" is to be considered POV (and it seems it is so, otherwise there would be no such discussion) then the mere fact that academic and scholarly publications use the word "massacre" do not allows to refer to the event as a massacre *as a fact* because it would look as if we are supporting a POV. We could just use the word "massacre" in the attributed form ("defined massacre by...") or eventually to name the event if the word has become part of the name.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. This is exactly the slippery slope that ends with this project becoming entirely meaningless. All we will have on Wikipedia are lists of things "called X, Y or Z, by person A, B or C." Your argument applies equally well across all definitions in this entire encyclopedia (and current sensationalism in the media or mass culture does not alter the nature of knowledge just because it makes only some POVs explicitly obvious as such). That said, I will try again to point out that it is not exactly the term "massacre" that has been "considered POV" it is for the most part the application of the term massacre that has been "considered POV." The history of this talk page evidences arguments over the application of the term rather than its general meaning. What I am trying to argue here, but clearly I'm hitting deaf ears, is that we can and should be attempting to do is to source the fact that something is a massacre and not the fact that something is called a massacre. Otherwise a name change is appropriate, and a name change would more accurately reflect the relativistic absurdity of all this anyway. Go ahead and change the page name to something that reflects that what is being listed are a series of expressions by people about events, and not a series of an actual type of events.PelleSmith (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting nowhere fast

This debate is getting nowhere fast! Pelle, you say "the insistence that the term itself (as opposed to the criteria) needs to be sourced in usage is [only] an interpretation of our sourcing conventions." Indeed it is. But it is an interpretation endorsed by Arbcom! They have ruled that referring to a genocide that occurred before the word was coined and defined as "genocide" was "original research". Why? Because contemporary sources didn't use the exact term (it having not been invented)! And further they decreed that WP:OR was a very serious offence. Therefore, according to Arbcom, having an objective dictionary definition of "massacre" is WP:OR unless reliable sources have described the event as such. So, basically if the Murdoch press or NYT times have not called it a massacre - it isn't!! To say it is

• (a) called a massacre in non-English language MSM and
• (b) called a massacre in English but non-MSM publications and
• (c) it meets the definition of a massacre

- IS ALL USELESS - unless a number of English language MSM sources have called it a massacre!! It would make more sense to say that it isn't a massacre unless the Pentagon says it is! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Personally, I would delete the whole article. But the lead could be improved in the mean time. The Genocides in history article states:

Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behaviour is not a clear-cut matter. In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on these subjects. (my emphasis)

I think adding something similar to this article is a good idea. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to fix the "reliable" source bias before using ill-defined words in the article title; be it genocide or massacre. Given what I've found here I shudder to think what I may find on the "list of genocides" page. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

BTW Stu, I'd agree with deleting the whole article. No doubt some of it's current defenders will adopt that position once we have eliminated the pro-American bias. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

LOL! --Knulclunk (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're actually making sense here Sarah777... but you still edit in a way diametrically opposed to what you're saying, restoring incidents that are not in fact commonly called massacres by reliable sources. And disguising the actual names of linked articles with a piped wikilink to make it look like it's called a "massacre" is fooling absolutely zero people here. - Merzbow (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am editing from a position of consistency rather than conviction. WP:NPV would allow us to be equally stupid on both sides of the argument. And I never seek to fool people; just to hold up a mirror that reflects their bias. All the better to expose breaches of WP:NPV and thus achieve the goals of our project. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

Don't worry Sarah, the Famine is included :) Arguing about the definition of "massacre" and which sources are acceptable will prolong this debate indefinitely. In my opinion, the following should happen:

1. The article name be changed to something like Incidents alleged to be massacres. As "massacre" is an ambiguous term, it would be stupid for us to try and define it ourselves.
2. The lead paragraph be edited to something like the genocides lead, as reproduced above. This makes clear the ambiguous nature of the term, as well as the partisan views involved.
3. Any incident that has been labelled a massacre by a book/newspaper/other mainstream source is included.
4. Where sources are available, a counterargument to state that the incident was not a massacre should be included.

I can't help feeling that a lot of people are editing with an agenda here, trying to get the incidents they don't personally see as massacres excised. Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but the only solution I see is that either everything is included as outlined above, or nothing is included and the article goes to AFD. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what's been suggested, if you'll spend the huge amount of energy necessary to read through this discussion page and the archives. Unfortunately, the "people with an agenda" which you have accurately spotted have that energy at their disposal to reject any attempt to reach a working consensus. As long as Merzbow and the like only will accept definitions, concepts, references etc. matching ad hoc what fits their agenda, we won't be getting anywhere. I can't remember an article where the editing work has been so consistently sabotaged, but I'm really glad that other sensible people are coming to the rescue for a while · Michel (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is an excellent solution! The primary problem with this list is that the title implies a definitive meaning for the word massacre that doesn't allow much wiggle room. To be included in the list, it must be a massacre, but obviously the concept is completely subjective. Everyone applies their own standard when deciding what should remain and what should be deleted. Ergo, the endless edit wars and inability to form a consensus on the talk page. Incidents alleged to be massacres, by contrast, is very clever because it neutralizes the need for a firm definition of massacre (which, again, does not exist). I say we rename this thing as soon as possible, because bringing it to AfD would be a real shame. The list has a lot of potential utility (redlinks to stimulate article creation, forcing people to hunt around for verifiable citations, etc...) and contains a lot of info that is nowhere else on Wikipedia. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 20:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Alpha - I'll withdraw my proposal to rename to "List of mass killings" in favour of Incidents alleged to be massacres if you put that suggestion formally to the name-change process. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

• Actualy, the title was Stu's idea.... Just want to make sure the right person gets credit. AlphaEta 21:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Alleged" is a weasel word. Putting "alleged" in the title doesn't magically relieve us of the responsibility to write a balanced encyclopedia article. If only 1% of reliable source call something a massacre, that's a tiny-minority viewpoint and it's a violation of NPOV to present it as anything else. - Merzbow (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think everyone is starting to realize the futility of this exercise. Every massacre is nothing more than allegation. The word itself is POV because it has such a soft definition. A list of massacres is a de facto list of alleged massacres. Might as well call it what it is, a list of Incidents alleged to be massacres. At this point, I think almost anything is better than what we have here, but I'm reluctant to AfD because it's a shame to let all of this work go to waste. Also, like I've said elsewhere in this wall of text, there actually is some decent material here. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Sarah777 miss understood the Arbcom ruling. If one has verifiable reliable sources one can include in Wikipedia genocides that happened before the CPPCG came into effect on 12 January 1951. We have an article stuffed with genocides and alledged genocides (genocides in history). As the preamble to the CPPCG says "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity". However before 12 January 1951 it was not a crime under international law to commit genocide (that is not to says that previous to 1951 genocides did not take place and that crimes such as mass murder and other crimes against humanity were not committed during a genocide, just that the crime of genocide did not exist). But what is not allowed is to claim without a reliable 3rd party source that any event is/was a genocide because as the genocides in history article makes clear "An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial. " and Wikipedia policy WP:PROVEIT states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation".

"but I'm reluctant to AfD because it's a shame to let all of this work go to waste" Not to mention that there is little chance of there being a consensus to delete this article so it is probably better to try to clean it up. Using the word alleged in the title of an article is a VERY bad idea. As was pointed out in Talk:Crime against humanity "The listings of "alleged" crimes against humanity are inherently POV and original research, as well, unless citations are provided. Anyone can allege anything is a crime against humanity; if my neighbor's dog craps on my lawn, I can yell "crime against humanity," which makes it an allegation, even though no objective source would say it's a valid one". There is no reason why there should not be a list of massacres providing that there are verifiable reliable third party sources to back the claims up. If they are backed up with verifiable reliable third party sources that call an event a massacre then to include such items in a list called "Incidents alleged to be massacres" probably falls foul of concepts in WP:Words to avoid. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As usual, Philip is both articulate and correct. Changing the name to "allegations" is a terrible idea. It is better instead to severely restrict inclusion on the list.--Knulclunk (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What was the progenitor of this article thinking?

I ask this question with whole-hearted honesty: What the hell was the creator of this article thinking? When composing a new article, it's probably a good idea to leave subjective terms such as "massacre" out of the title! Even the least ambiguous definition of massacre in Merriam-Webster contains the word usually, while other sources say nothing of civilians. Some say it must be indiscriminate killing, while others leave out that rather important tidbit. With this ambiguity in mind, why are we even contributing to this mess? Don't get me wrong, I see a lot of value in this list, but isn't it time we start divvying this thing up into clearly defined sub-lists? How about List of mass killings carried out against civilians in an indiscriminate manner? I'm kidding, of course, but at least you would know what you were reading while skimming through that list. Seriously, this article has had controversy since the beginning, and it's all because someone decided to throw the relative term like "massacre" in the title. Regards, AlphaEta 05:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's maybe best to AfD this... the article is quickly becoming a dumping ground whereby opponents of a particular nation or group can take potshots by deciding that whatever they think is a massacre actually is so, backed up at most by the opinion of, say, a TV documentary. Renaming it to "List of mass killings" would bring in equally ugly problems, such as how many deaths constitute a "mass"? Anything below 15 would, of course, be opposed by those insisting on including Haditha. - Merzbow (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW Stu, I'd agree with deleting the whole article. No doubt some of it's current defenders will adopt that position once we have eliminated the pro-American bias. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Now is that prophetic or what?! (Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC))

The progenitor: how it all started five years ago · Michel (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh interesting. Do you notice something in common about the names of all the articles that article links to? Do you think it tells us something about how this article should be written? - Merzbow (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

San Patricios

The reference to the San Patricios is outrageous and should be removed by an administrator immediately. These grown men were not massacred. There is no reference in any objective piece of literature to any such "massacre". They were not civilians and were executed as deserters in accordance with military law. To include them cheapens everything else and cheapens the loss of truly innocent lives lost. 216.194.1.138 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your concern raises both the advantage and disadvantage for having a "loose" definition of the term. Currently, the execution of unarmed prisoners of war IS grounds for being on the list. These men were former US soldiers guilty of treason, yes. In Mexico, they are considered "conscious fighters" on the good side of an unjust war, supporting their brothers of faith. The initial entry was heavily anti-US-POV before I made sure to include the facts that the men were executed for treason and desertion. I would hope that the brief entry I wrote is neutral enough to pique the interest of a curious reader, factual enough to respect the decision of the U.S. military and just enough to remember the executed men. --Knulclunk (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested way forward

As can be seen above, there's ample disupte over what should be in the article, what shouldn't etc etc. Now forgive me for coming late to the party, but it's pretty clear the current content of the article is causing problems. There's many alleged massacres that simply don't currently fit the inclusion criterion, and probably never will be able to be reliabily sourced to that effect. To me, the problem is that there are too many events that editors have added because there were x number of people killed, to remain consistent with similar events that are labelled massacres.

I propose this:

• This list is limited to events that actually have the word "massacre" in the name of the event. Obviously there will be some exceptions to that, but they will hopefully be in the minority. Anything that's sourced is subject to discussion.

• Anything that doesn't meet the inclusion criteria is moved to a more appropriate list (assuming it's not there already), such as list of terrorist incidents, genocides in history and so on. As above, anything that's sourced is subject to discussion.

• The current "See also" section is pruned slightly and put into a more sensible order.

We're (hopefully!) not losing any content from the encylopedia, we're just shuffling it around a bit. Now feel free to shoot this down, but I think it's a decent idea and a starting point for discussion. Any tweaks to it I don't mind, over to you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• My primary concern is retaining info that would drift to the ether if an AfD wipes out this entire thing. If that means shuffling valid info to other lists where they can be included without excessive adjudication, and including only events that have entered common parlance with the word massacre attributed to them them, I'm for it! AlphaEta 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, for example, a great many of the alleged "massacres" in the "Politically motivated non-governmental massacres" section are already in the "list of terrorist incidents", as you may expect. There's generally little dispute that they were terrorist incidents, but many of them weren't classed as "massacres" per se. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What I LIKE about the list is the ability to to go through and say "hey! I didn't know that!" and go the the main article's page and learn about some atrocity in the late 1800's that was not taught in history. I don't see this as a greatest hits list or tally sheet about who's culture is more brutal, because, as should be clear, our capacity for evil is limitless.
My first recommendation is to move all "criminal non-political massacres" to a new article. This is the school shooting, lone gunman section. It seems unrelated and can stand on its own.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's what links are for after all :) However we need some semblance of order, if the article was called the suggested "list of mass killings" that would be feasible but the list will get very big. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If by "actually have the word 'massacre' in the name of the event" you mean that the Wikipedia article about the event should have "massacre" in the title, that sounds like a reasonable standard. Those who disagree about the massacre status of a particular event can then go to the article itself and argue for the name to be changed there, instead of us trying to reclassify things here. - Merzbow (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I don't see how this will solve anything. If there are some exceptions without massacre in the title to be included in the article, then there will still be endless debate and revert warring over incidents people want included/excluded. Also, something can have been called a massacre without the actual word being in the common name for it. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you're talking about a drastic change to the established inclusion criterion. For example Remembrance Day bombing is also known as the Remembrance Day Massacre, and the Stockholm bloodbath is also known as the Stockholm massacre. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This only means one can indeed rename those articles as Stockholm massacre and Remembrance Day Massacre. I do not see any problems with such renaming (see: there are already such redirects).Biophys (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your proposal moves us forward then. There will always be an editor who insists event X is a massacre because a single TV documentary called it "the X massacre". In other words, determining the "correct" name of an event is equivalent to determining if something is "commonly called a massacre". Going by the Wikipedia article name, in contrast, removes the ability of the editors of this list to edit-war, and gives the responsibility of determining the massacre status of an event back to the editors of that event's article, where it should be. - Merzbow (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And what of all those "massacres" that don't have a Wiki article? "Not-notable" mass murders? (Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Well, we could get busy creating new articles that provide a solid case for notability. The best way to eliminate the perceived pro-Western bias in this list, and on Wikipedia in general, is to get busy crafting well-written, unbiased, extensively cited articles that detail those events. AlphaEta 22:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

whether there is a Wikipedia article should not be a criteria. Verifiable reliable sources that label an event a massacre should be the only criteria. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection is not acceptable in the way it was applied

An administrator by the name of Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has protected the List of massacres article. I have nothing in principle against having it protected, considering the vandalism that has been exercised repeatedly by Merzbow and others.

What I do object to, however, is the following:

1. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry applied protection soon after Merzbow's last vandalism, hereby de facto removing the currently most contentious items from the article. Whether this was willful or not, I cannot tell, but I request that at least the missing items get reverted before applying protection again.

1. The banner on the user pages of administrator Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry:

This user is a member of the Armed Forces of The Crown and may be away from Wikipedia for long periods of time, but will most probably return. Emails sent to this user and messages left on this user's talk page may not be replied to for a while.

}}

would tend to serve as evidence that this administrator cannot be neutral in applying protection or any other measure to an article dealing heavily in conflicts which he/she is professionally involved in. If protection has to be applied, it must be after a consensus between administrators that are not party to the issues discussed on the article.

Anything else at this point would be a mockery of the principles behind Wikipedia, and would only result in encouraging those who have consistently shown a destructive attitude in the editing of this article to continue doing so elsewhere.

· Michel (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now placed a request for unprotection · Michel (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He protected the wrong version. I would assume good faith. Admins protect the article when they first see it, regardless of the current version. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Even so, that particular administrator's stance cannot be assumed to be neutral. Anyhow, this point was not even taken into consideration when my request was bounced by another admin, and who wants to start battling with admins anyway? I've been following some threads on Wikimedia regarding the unaccountability of administrators to the community, and the specific case of one admin that was stripped of his status (un-sysop'ed, I think they call it) for having unjustly placed a permanent ban on a user. In the meanwhile, that user had to go through administrative hell to get unblocked again, but by the time the whole thing was through, he had decided to quit. Which is gradually where my feelings are leaning to. I know of another user, as scientist this time, who has done a tremendous amount of work in his field, but who is now permanently banned from Wikipedia after being submitted as we have been on this article to a constant barrage by his scientific opponents. As I'll probably post on my page one of these days, Galileo would never have had a chance on Wikipedia: the Inquisition's buddies would have all been there accusing him of POV, OR, unreliable sourcing and what not, because then as now they defined the rules of the game (and changed them when necessary, as all good rulers have always done)

There are plenty of lies, propaganda, power trips and manipulation in the real world, and I'm increasingly starting to wonder whether I'm going to get anywhere spending my energies trying to fix them in a virtual medium that, in spite of all, is dependent on harnessing what might very well turn into a historical parenthesis - electrical power, that is. I mean, the Sumerian clay tablets are still there (or rather, many were still there until the US invasion vandalized the whole place), but pull the plug as some of the ruling madmen of the globe seem intent on doing, and it'll be all gone.

Sorry for the rant, folks. If I sound disgusted, it's because I am · Michel (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm taking a side. I've never even seen this article before, and I'm not professionally involved in massacres, either - I've never been based outside the United Kingdom, and was merely responding to a report made at WP:AIV or WP:RFPP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Your automatic assumptions of bias are getting very tiresome. Rather than debating the content you and Sarah are all too eager to break WP:AGF and accuse editors of institutional bias. --Mmx1 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Cry me a river Michel. - Merzbow (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Gotta say I think Michel has you guys sussed. Also I am very disappointed that neither of you WP:AGF. Still, you protected a few massacres you didn't mean to, which is good. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

It's utterly offensive to assume that someone serving in the armed forces is automatically going to display bias when dealing with a list of massacres! It's intellectually dishonest to label Merzbow's edits vandalism simply because you disagree with them. Finally, if you think you're going to save the world through Wikipedia, you're giving yourself way too much credit. Can we cut the synthetic outrage now and get back to the real work of trying to reach a consensus? This nonsense is just a distraction. AlphaEta 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alpha - it is unclear who you are addressing. Could you try again? Ta. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

I've had enough of this. The article is now indefinitely protected per this comment, which leads me to believe that you will continue revert-warring. Now form a consensus about the article. If you have a complaint about me, take it to WP:ANI, but this page is not the place for it.. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Chase me, I had had an idea that an administrator's stance was to be unemotional, by definition. Your response to Sarah above, as well as on the article's discussion page, leads me to believe that you do not possess this quintessential quality. It find it rather flabbergasting that you could take such a drastic decision, influencing hundreds of hours of work by hundreds of people, just because you apparently have a difficulty controlling your emotions. · Michel (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You are a d%$#hebag and it has been noted. I have tried to remain silent for most of this BS discussion, I even took the page off of my watchlist, but I feel my following comments are warranted. No matter what anyone does to work with you and Sarah777 regarding why they feel the way they do, you disregard their thoughts and ideas as biased and accuse them of having hidden agendas and all sorts of other misdeeds. You are a f*^%ng joke because you sit here and accuse everyone else of bias and collusion and all sorts of other wrong doings without taking into account that other people may view thing differently than you. Sarah complains of articles being hijacked by pro US/UK army guys or their groupies ...did you ever think that maybe the rest of the world does not belong to the "Leftist, Wacko, Blame the US/UK Camp" for all of the worlds problems. Maybe American servicemen did not go into Fallujah and willingly slaughter every Iraqi they could find?

I had missed on this one. It is hereby noted that Looper5920 (talk) has honoured me with the US Army grades of shitbag and fucking joke. No wonder the US have been losing all their wars since 1945. As pointed out by British commanders in Iraq, maybe you could learn a bit of tact & tone from them (at least they knew how to keep an empire running, as long as it lasted, that is). You could start by taking lessons from our friendly Royal Navy cadet, for starters.

Oh, BTW, if you're into biographical details, I do happen to have been around when a massacre was committed. That was on 8 Jan 1981, committed on absolutely innocent civilians (I knew some of them) by the military forces of one of those dictatorial regimes your own regime was so eager to support. Guess what? I haven't introduced it on the list, for the simple reason that I have never been able to find a source on the net (and I can imagine all the POVs, ROs and other acronyms thrown at me). Like so many large-scale massacres perpetrated by puppet regimes of the US, it has been dumped into the dungeons of oblivion, a process which (rather sillily, one must admit) people like you are attempting to repeat for Falludja and the countless massacres of Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, at least, if this medium happens to survive the dungeons of time, who knows, someone will see this discussion and remember the murdered civilians of Iraq · Michel (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This all started over Fallujah and you both act like experts on the subject having never been within 1,000 miles of the place yet you are smart enough to pick and choose those articles that agree with your POV no matter what anyone else may impart on the subject. I don't see you on your high horse trying to add thing like The Blitz or the Attack on Pearl Harbor because all of those people had it coming ...right? The other thing that is not being mentioned here is that civilians die in wartime. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this is something that has occurred since history has been recorded. There is a difference between civilians who die in combat and those willingly slaughtered by the participants. Also, you will never convince me that American troops committed a massacre in Fallujah. This implies that they set out to do it. This I know is wrong and I will fight its inclusion as long as I can.--Looper5920 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Loops, some very poor language there which breaches several Wiki policies. Try and calm down. You said: "you both act like experts on the subject having never been within 1,000 miles of the place". So, you are saying people can only claim knowledge of things they have personally experienced? I guess you were in Nagasaki 1945 then? D'oh. (Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

• Hey Sarah, context is everything. If you re-read the thread, I think you'll find it obvious which remarks I'm addressing. Basically, I think everyone needs to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that an inability to assume good faith by making accusations of vandalism and impropriety indicate an overzealous attachment to this article. AlphaEta 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

accusations of vandalism - OK. The sequence of posts led me to believe you were referring to me but I don't think I made any such accusation! I am not the least bit attached to this article which, in truth, I think should be deleted (or at a minimum, as per my proposal, renamed). But I have formed the opinion that a squadron of UK/US army-guys and/or their groupies are protecting an absurd version of it. So what can I do? (Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Sarah - I agree with your proposal to rename it 100%. The current title is not really neutral! Please understand - I'm not part of a group, although such a group may exist - I'm a naval cadet, 21 years old. I've never been placed on deployment. I haven't looked at either version - I would happily switch from one to the other - but I can't, because it'd only invite insults from the other side. I'm in a difficult position as the blocking administrator. Having checked both versions, I'll agree that the first two (although possibly not the killing of four people - that's more of an 'atrocity' than a 'massacre/mass killing') are 110% required. But I can't revert, because I have to follow the admin rules. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sarah, I was responding to accusations of vandalism made by another editor. As I've said elsewhere, I agree with your efforts to rename the page. A well-crafted title will eliminate most uncertainty by firmly defining what the list should entail. Regarding the block, I've seen no evidence that indicates Cavalry exercised bias in his administrative block. Further, serving in the military does not automatically make one an apologist for indiscriminate acts of hostility perpetrated against defenseless civilians. To claim such constitutes an ad hominem judgment, not one made of the block. Regards, AlphaEta 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

AlphaEta, maybe you've arrived a bit late at this circus show. I always assume good faith until given evidence of the contrary. Now gloating Merzbow has given us plenty of reasons not to believe in his good faith. Your previous remarks about the Hiroshima nonsense and your own inclusionist attitude would lead me to believe that had you been there at the time, you would have a different view about the vandalism committed by Merzbow &all. In this case they managed to seal the deletion of the Hiroshima/nagasaki entry for a while by having me blocked for reverting their vandalism.

Now in the later case, which has led to this protection business, even if we assume good faith from a very young administrator prone to rash decisions (as per Chase me's reply to Sarah above), there are some quite disturbing facts both with regard to the sequence of events and, generally speaking, as far as the sense of responsibility and the accountability of administratorship are concerned. I went and examined the process that took place, and let me first tell you that it's a hell of a lot of work, as a BOT cleans HOURLY the Request for Protect/Unprotect page: I couldn't find any archives, so I had to browse for what seems like an eternity through the history of the Requests for Page Protection page. Here's what the result:

• 22 Nov 22:40 Merzbow deletes perfectly valid entries for the xx'th time (I can't go and count them, mots people will know what I'm talking about)
• 22 Nov 22:59 Sarah reverts Merzbow's vandalism
• 22 Nov 23:11 Merzbow deletes the entries again
• 22 Nov 22:15 Merzbow (yes, her/himself, are we surprised?) places a request for protection of the List of Massacres article
• 22 Nov 22:20 This request is granted by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry and "protection" (from whom?) is applied.
• 23 Nov 15:15 The Bot erases the entry on the RfPP page

Meanwhile:

• 23 Nov 08:59 I place a request to unprotect the List of Massacres article
• 23 Nov 10:52 This request gets dismissed by another admin. Time lapse might show that the discussion was looked into.
• 23 Nov 21:23 Sarah contests protection too, stating that the issue of Chase me's neutrality has not beeen dealt with. She gets no reply.
• 24 Nov 05:15 The Bot erases this last entry on the RfPP page

Face it: there are still some parts in the real world where judges, representatives and above all administrators can be held accountable for their acts. I know that this ideal state does not apply many places, including dictatorships, police forces in general, the UK army as most armies except that of Costa Rica, the managerial boards of such halls of fame and tips of the proverbial icebergs as Guantanámo and Abu Ghraib, those who order massacres like Falludja, or even those, I could keep on, paid to rewrite history for their political masters.

The least I had expected, though, was that the notion of accountability should also apply on Wikipedia, without users having to go through the hassle I've just been through to even figure out what is going on. But what has been going during the couple of months I've been on this article seem to tell me I'm wrong. Manipulators are having a field day · Michel (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That time line can also be construed as being perfectly legitimate. I think perhaps I may have unwittingly protected 'The Wrong Version'. I don't know if those two event you're arguing over are massacres or not. I've never been involved in a massacre. The Royal Navy hasn't either, as far as I am aware. Indeed, I have never even been to Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, or the US (except once on holiday to Disneyland). The template states that protection is not an endorsement of the current version. I will happily unprotect the article, even if the consensus is that the British Army, Royal Navy and RAF all operate secret genocide squads. I cannot unprotect the article until you reach a consensus. But when you do, me or any other administrator will happily come along and unprotect it. I stepped in to protect the article from edit-warring, not to impose any particular viewpoint. What would you have me do, in an ideal world? If I unprotected it, you would all start edit warring again. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Michel: Would you please be kind enough to specify which "perfectly valid entries" Merzbow deleted 22 Nov 22:40? Your phrasing reminds me of a politician w an agenda.67.161.166.20 (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked him that question. The Fallujah Massacre was one such. You remind me of an Anonymite with an agenda! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

And a good reason not to be bothered replying · Michel (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael, did you just use the term "order massacres like Falludja" in your argument? Because that's a pretty heavy accusation you're making. One might question your neutrality. --Knulclunk (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Step 1?

The article is locked, people have made some good suggestions, now let's start working to solve this problem once and for all. So what are the options?

1. Mediation I've never been involved in a mediation effort, so I can't speak to this option. What are the pros and cons of this approach?
2. Restriction We only include events with the word massacre in their formal title. This will exclude killings that meet all of the conventional definitions of a massacre without actually being called such. This proposal has the strength of utilizing a yes or no criterion for inclusion that removes the need for arbitration regarding what constitutes a massacre. However, some people will disagree with yielding to common vernacular as the only standard for inclusion.
3. Renaming The crux of this problem is one word in the title: massacre. Two name suggestions have been proposed: List of mass killings and List of alleged massacres. The former is currently undergoing a formal vote, and will create an omnibus list of almost every discriminant and indiscriminant mass killing of civilians and combatants throughout history. Its inclusiveness will be its weakness and its strength. It will alleviate most of the debates on this discussion page, but it could become VERY long and, dare I say, dilute. The latter title acknowledges the controversial nature of the term right at the top of the page, and if anyone has ever called something a massacre, or if it matches the definition of a massacre but falls short of calling it so, it's included. Hopefully, readers will see the word alleged in the title, and realize that the term is completely subjective.
4. Dissection and deletion A successful AfD could turn a lot of hard work into a big waste of time, and may purge Wikipedia of useful information that is unique to this list. If the material is dissected and dispersed to sub-lists, much information will be saved, but redlinked, unreferenced entries may be lost. Some probably see this as a good thing, but I believe their inclusion promotes article creation.

Thoughts? Opinions? Complaints? AlphaEta 05:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My vote is still with "Restriction", it completely removes the possibility for POV-pushing by any side on this article. Failing that rename to "List of mass killings"; renaming to "List of alleged massacres" is no improvement, as I've explained above. Ideally we could all just agree to - Merzbow (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Restriction is best. I did want to try and include some latitude when I made my suggestion above, but it's just going to cause more of the same. The name of this article is not List of incidents that journalists used the word massacre when writing about, I would venture that we'd have undue weight problems including incidents where one journalist has used "massacre" alongside events commonly known as massacres. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

AlphaEta,

a. There is no formal vote going on, as far as I am aware

b. A quite consensual proposal had also been made (15, above), which you don't seem to have taken into consideration

c. If you read carefully what has been going on on this article just over the past few weeks (it probably will take you a while), you'll realize that no amount of restricting, renaming or dissecting will keep people with an agenda from manipulating things - and leading us back to the same mess we are stuck on now.

5, Working on consensus - I'm still in favour of the proposal I made earlier, or some variety thereof:

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and sourced additions are welcome. Due to the controversial character os some of the events described, no entries listed here may be deleted prior to thorough discussion in view of reaching a consensus on the article's Talk page.

And while I'm the last one to resort to that kind of unpalatable stuff, I'm slowly awakening to the idea of applying administrative sanctions to users who "push their POVs" by vandalising what they don't like. Amazing how authoritarians can lead an anti-authoritarian to turn into one of them, huh? Michel (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Amazing how authoritarians can lead an anti-authoritarian to turn into one of them" Not really, no.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd advocate restriction too, though not in the exact manner proposed above as not every massacre has an article of its own and as such a rule would open the door for POV pushers to move articles around. However, I think we should only include those events into the list that are called "massacre" by reliable sources (not simply journalists), maybe with a note for the controversial ones or in combination with a "minimum of killed people".Str1977 ^(talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go for an image tag w/ a link to relevant section of talk page to the effect that some items are considered controversial, in addition to my proposal. Could be in a new (very thin) column to the left, or maybe more space-saving after the text in the comments cells. · Michel (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not feasible. Talk page are not part of the articles - they are for discussion among editors. Disputes should be covered here but the goal is to settle disputes in some way. Reference to the talk page cannot be a permanent part of the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag would be removed if (if, not when) a consensus is reached. I mean, the advantage of an editable encyclopedia over a paper one resides, in my eyes, primarily in the ability of saying, “We don't know, but we're trying to know” when this the case · Michel (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The reliable source issue has a lot of problems: if "massacre" is a POV charged word then labelling an event "massacre" is just opinion, not a fact. But Wikipedia cannot assume other peoples' opinions.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite... per WP:NPOV, an opinion is defined as "a matter which is subject to dispute." If almost all sources call something a massacre, it can be listed as such in Wikipedia. But if the sources are split on the issue, then it should be listed as a disputed massacre. If almost all sources call it something other than a massacre, then the pro-massacre opinion is fringe and shouldn't even be mentioned. (If somebody wants to seriously dispute my analysis here without resorting to personal attacks, please go ahead). - Merzbow (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite: an opinion is not a fact. Per WP:NPOV, you can't express opinions as facts. You have to attribute opinions or to substantiate the claim. The mere fact that "the majority" of sources express the opinion does not allow to express it as a fact in wikipedia.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Massacre" is in the murky area between strict technical definitions ("human beings are homo sapiens") and pure value judgments ("John Smith sucks at tennis"). As I stated above, if all sources agree something is a massacre, I'm fine with stating it as a fact, but if there is any serious level of disagreement, we should indicate that. - Merzbow (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The "murky area" thing is completely irrelevant: isn't massacre POV charged? Doesn't the "massacre" label imply moral judgement? You said that and WP:NPOV says that you can't assume a particular POV in wikipedia and you can't express a moral judgement, no matter how many sources share the POV or express that particular moral judgement. That's all.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no way in the renaming attempts (though I wonder where the votes referred to actually happen) as they only make things worse. Both suggestions are unwieldy and any form of "alleged" in the title already creates a POV imbalance towards those denying massacres. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as already indicated, I'd be happy to withdraw my proposed renaming to "list of mass killings" in favour of "list of alleged massacres". (Sarah777 (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

How many does it take to make a "mass", Sarah? · Michel (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current article uses 3 - certainly the term 'massacre' is often applied to as few (or less) in common parlance. Maybe for mass killing I'd go with 4; no higher. If we go any higher we will start to omit events that have been commonly called "massacres" by everyone for decades. The wiping out a small village of Plains Indians by the US cavalry often meant maybe killing a dozen people, but obviously such events were mass killings and massacres by any reasonable definition. I have gathered over a hundred of those which need to be included in any list. (Sarah777 (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

If anybody could nitpick on the semantics of the word massacre just in order to have Hiroshima removed from the list, imagine the feast the same people would have if you gave them the semantics of mass to dissecate! I think we're better off letting that corpse rest, and - if a new wording must be found - finding one without mass. Killing(s), however, vs. murder seems to me to imply a plural, semantically speaking. · Michel (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Killing also doesn't carry a weight of intent. Any battle would qualify as a mass killing, as could possibly some disasters and accidents. I must say I don't see the point of working on this article until the Massacre article is cleaned up and properly cited with some academic definitions of massacre (since the dictionary ones are equally vague and devoid of intent). If your intent is to document mass killings of civilians, opening the door to a myriad of other such events would only dampen the purpose of this list. --Mmx1 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The "purpose of the list" being....? (Sarah777 (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

You tell me; you've been editing it longer than I have. I doubt it encompasses battles or accidents, though. --Mmx1 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I never referred to it having any purpose - you did - so I made the apparently incorrect assumption that you knew what you were talking about! I'd delete the list as my preferred option if the decision was mine. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

As far as number, we should use 5, based on the definition found at massacre. The entries with less should be removed.--Knulclunk (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with the idea of "restriction." It seems clear to me that to "restrict" this list to only those events formally and literally called "massacres" in the preponderance of sources produced by English-speaking cultures will leave us with a bunch of entries like "The Fitchburg McDonalds Massacre" - relatively less significant, totally non-controversial events sensationalized by Western media - while leaving out significant and controversial events, far more befitting the true definition of a massacre, which might not be commonly called "massacres" in English-speaking cultures for political reasons. (I'm not making this last point to argue bias on the part of editors here, but simply the common-sense fact that ALL cultures and nations are loath to accuse themselves of atrocities; English-speaking cultures and nations are only in the spotlight here because this is the English-language wikipedia, and thus we must be especially careful to guard against such biases if our goal is to produce a totally factual, NPOV encyclopedia.)

Merzbow's repeated assertion that multiple sources that do not literally use the WORD "massacre", even when they describe wanton mass killings of defenseless civilians, can cancel out other sources that describe the same events in point of fact and DO use the word "massacre" - this is a particularly dangerous argument. It would be one thing to argue that when some sources say "it was a massacre" and others say, "No it was not a massacre", we must recognize which is the fringe and which the mainstream view. However, the assertion that a source which does not use the "magic word" massacre (which we all agree is a supremely loaded term) is inherently arguing AGAINST calling that event a massacre is preposterous. An author may choose to use a different word for any number of reasons, but it is WP:OR to assume that choosing a different word to characterize an event is tantamount to a rejection of the label "massacre."

Regardless, this is merely the latest argument trotted out to prevent the inclusion of certain controversial events - first it was "Source it using the magic word", now it's "source it using the magic word to a greater extent than I can out-source you with non-magic-word-utilizing sources regardless of their actual content." I shudder to think of what the next hurdle might be. As for the ArbCom's finding in the genocide case, let's remember that the ArbCom is a dispute resolution committee, not a policy-making organization. Their finding in that case applied specifically to that case.

All that said, I have come to the conclusion that, as formulated, this page is close to useless except as a cauldron of incivil argument and accusations of POV-pushing, centered around the use of the word "massacre." It doesn't really matter how much hard work may have been put in - if I decide to spend the next year creating a massive page about my non-notable dentist, it would still be in need of deletion. Just like this page. I'd vote to delete it if the opportunity arose. Venicemenace (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Applaud (sincerely) to your accurate description of the bathwater. But I'm still in favour of keeping the baby · Michel (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there should be a box with the words "Due to the controversial character os some of the events described, no entries listed here may be deleted prior to thorough discussion in view of reaching a consensus on the article's Talk page." This is an encyclopaedia article and it should be optimised for the reader not the editors. Maintenance issues should go on the talk page when they are of no benefit for the readers -- a tag like {{noreferences}} contains information useful for both readers and editors and so is in a different league from this proposed message.

IMHO the massacre article can not be used as a bases for anything as it does not cite its sources and has a "roll your own" definition. Restrictions like those proposed tend lead to none neutral points of view given the systemic bias of this project. Far better to rely on verifiable reliable sources for inclusion in this list. Also there either needs to be another column for those view from reliable sources which do not consider an event not to be a massacre or the column used to express views that an event was a massacre needs to he titled so that contrary opinions can be verified and expressed. Either solution would help with making the entries more balanced and so meet WP:NPOV considerations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

“it should be optimised for the reader” - can't you see that it does exactly that ? Remember ole Socrates? · Michel (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think should be the role of reliable source in this case? The common view here is that the attribution of the label "massacre" is an *opinion* as it implies moral judgement. Therefore the usage of this word by any "reliable" source is not enough to allow us to say it as a fact.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"but it is WP:OR to assume that choosing a different word to characterize an event is tantamount to a rejection of the label 'massacre.'" And it's equally WP:OR to assume what those sources say is compatible with the label "massacre". The American Heritage definition of massacre is "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly". "indiscriminately and cruelly" are complex, value-laden judgments that we as editors are not allowed to make on our own. We can only lean on reliable sources to do this for us. - Merzbow (talk)

Actually you are contradicting yourself. This is exactly the contention against your perspective ... to allow the sourcing of the criteria. If the criteria is "killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly," for example, then we should be able to source that and not simply the exact use of the term "massacre."PelleSmith (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither you nor I are qualified to judge what counts as indiscriminate and what counts as cruel. - Merzbow (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Computers are not qualified to make this kind of judgement · Michel (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. So if we did have this as a criteria then we would need sourcing of the criteria. Neither you nor I would judge the event as indiscriminate and cruel, but we would allow sources that count it as such to be enough validation for it having been a massacre. That's precisely one bone of contention with this none sense of only allowing for the sourcing of the use of the exact term, a term you yourself can readily admit gets bandied about in ridiculous ways. Now I'm not advocating the exact criteria above, but hypothetically I agree exactly that we don't get to judge cruelty as editors--we leave that to sources. You will undoubtedly not like what you unwittingly suggest though because pretty much any mass killing of defenseless individuals can easily be sourced as "cruel."PelleSmith (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if 90% of source source do not say "A" it does not mean that "A" is false, and the 5% of remaining source that say "A" allow us to say it in wikipedia. So your argument about majority of sources is groundless. In this particular case there is *another* greater problem with sources: the problem is that (as you said when discussing about Hiroshima) "massacre" is POV charged. Therefore to be NPOV we can't say of anything that was a massacre even if 100% of the sources say that.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If only 5% of sources say "A", then it's a borderline tiny-minority view, and this is what policy has to say about that: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." - Merzbow (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But 1) this article is not "comparing views", and 2) there are not two views: the mere fact that a source do or do not use a specific word like "massacre" do not make a view.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow the fact that 95% of sources do not explicitly claim A is not the same thing as 95% of sources claiming not-A. The latter would have to be true, and sourceable, for you to claim that the disputed view is a minority view. You are engaging faulty logic.PelleSmith (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I think that you and I agree but we are talking at cross purposes. So to clarify: As I understand it what constitutes Wikipedia Original Research has nothing to do with the method by which an editor gathers his or her research. It has everything to do with presenting that information in a way that does not contain Original Research and we do that by citing sources that substantiate anything that is written in an article. For example a common mistake one see in an article is to state that most experts in a field disagree with proposition XYZ as a counter to giving undue weight to a minority point of view. Now while that is correct aim, unless such wording is covered by a third party source, such wording falls foul of WP:SYN policy and is described in the Claims of consensus section in the reliable sources guideline. I have lost count of the number of times I have seen frustrated editors make a statement on the talk page that "it is self evident" and "a Google search proves that 'most experts ...'" but to place such a statement into the article is Original Research. However if a trawl with Google returns a reliable source that says "most experts agree ...", then that can be added to the article and is not Original Reseach. In essence the research done by an editor is the same, (they are both trawls for information using a search engine) but the result of those trawls is very different as far as the writing of a Wikipedia page is concerned.

I placed the OED definition in the section below so that we could have a discussion about the meaning of the word massacre. Not all the definitions should be on this page. For example the definition "3. Heraldry. A stag's head or antlers borne as a charge. Obs. rare" is not one that should be allowed in this list even if there is an impeccable verifiable reliable source to back up the claim that such and such was a massacre. So the lead section needs a definition of what types of massacres this list contains. I think that the meanings that should be used in this page are:

• massacre, n.
  • 1 The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this.
  • 1.b. In the names of certain massacres of history.
• massacre, v.
  • 1 trans. a. To kill (people or, less commonly, animals) in numbers, esp. brutally and indiscriminately; to make a general slaughter or carnage of. Also (occas.) used intr. Also fig.

These meanings are similar to the The American Heritage definition, but highlight the emotive use of the word and are more fine grained. If these definitions (or similar from other reliable sources) are placed at the start of the article as the only acceptable ones, it will also allow for an explanation that often -- I wrote first "usually" in place of often, but that falls foul of OR ;-) -- the word massacre is used as an emotive term to advance propaganda or as an expression in a salacious news paper story. Of course the Massacre article should be updated with the result of this conversation so that this article like the genocides in history article can cite the mother ship article for a fuller explanation that is supported with citations from reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My only point is that we don't need to have a debate about the meaning of the word massacre. If we want to put a common dictionary definition of it at the beginning of the article for the edification of the reader, that's fine. I just don't want things that are not called massacres by any reliable source added to the article because some editor thinks it matches the definition. If you agree with this, then we're fine. Note that all of the entries in Genocides_in_history seem to be referenced to some source that uses the word "genocide". - Merzbow 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OED

For those who are interested here is the OED entry for massacre:

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

  1578 R. LINDSAY Hist. & Cron. Scotl. (1899) II. 291 The xxiiij day of August..the grytt..murther and messecar of Paris wes committit. ... 1987 C. THUBRON Behind Wall iii. 89 In a massacre still vivid in memory, the Japanese decimated..citizens in such numbers that the conflicting estimates of death..grew unimaginable.

• b. In the names of certain massacres of history.

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

a1578 [see sense 1a]. c1592 MARLOWE (title) The Massacre at Paris. ... 1957 ‘H. MACDIARMID’ Battle Continues 1 Franco has made no more horrible shambles Than this poem of Campbell's, The foulest outrage his breed has to show Since the massacre of Glencoe!

• c. fig. A great destruction or downfall; an act of wholesale or ruthless destruction.
• d. Sport (orig. U.S.). In weakened sense: an event in which one contestant or team is defeated comprehensively; a complete and decisive defeat.

• 2. A cruel or atrocious murder. Obs.

  1589 R. GREENE Spanish Masquerado sig. Ev, He caused..some to be torne with horses, some to haue their handes cut off, and so many sundry Massaquers as greeueth any good minde to report. ... 1793 W. LANE (title of broadside) Massacre of the French King!

• 3. Heraldry. A stag's head or antlers borne as a charge. Obs. rare

• massacre, v. 1 trans. a. To kill (people or, less commonly, animals) in numbers, esp. brutally and indiscriminately; to make a general slaughter or carnage of. Also (occas.) used intr. Also fig.

  1581 H. SAVILE tr. Tacitus Hist. (1612) 180 The cohort was massacred by the fraude of the Agrippinenses. ... 1988 Holiday Which? Jan. 31/2 The town's entire male population was massacred in 1943.

• b. Esp. of a mob: to murder (a person) brutally or violently. Also refl.: {dag}to commit suicide (obs.). Also fig. Now U.S. regional.

  1591 Troublesome Raigne John I. sig. B4v, To mooue by loue, or massacre by death. ... 1933 T. R. WILLIAMSON Woods Colt vi. 81 I'd of massacreed him plenty, if that gun would of went off.

• 2. trans. To mutilate, mangle, batter. Also fig. Now Sc.
• 3. trans. In weakened sense. a. colloq. To ruin (a piece of music, play, etc.) by incompetent performance.
• b. Sport (orig. U.S.). To defeat (a team or opponent) decisively.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Here is the complete listing for definition 1a:

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

a1578 R. LINDSAY Hist. & Cron. Scotl. (1899) II. 291 The xxiiij day of August..the grytt..murther and messecar of Paris wes committit. 1585 R. GREENE Planetomachia sig. F3v, Yea: did not such melancholicke impressions pester his minde as hee was the cause of the most tragicall and bloodie Massacres? 1594 SHAKESPEARE Tit. A. V. i. 63, I must talke of murthers, rapes, and massakers [1623 Massacres]. 1624 J. SMITH Gen. Hist. Virginia 143 They made a massacre of Deere and Hogges. 1655 MILTON (title of Sonnet) On the late Massacher in Piemont. 1688 R. HOLME Acad. Armory III. 271/1 She went down into Egypt from Herods Bloody Massacry. a1734 R. NORTH Examen (1740) I. iii. 202 If the Leaders..had instilled into them any Manner of Mischief..in all Probability, they had gone, with all the Rage of Madmen, upon it, whatever Massacre or Destruction had followed. 1774 J. W. FLETCHER Hist. Ess. in First Pt. Equal Check 17 The..horrible massacres of..Catholics. 1792 R. HEBER Let. 14 Dec. in Heber Lett. (1950) ii. 77, I trust the Good Providence of the King of Kings..will protect us from..the bandittis led by them [sc. Democrats] to plunder and massacry. 1843 G. BORROW Bible in Spain II. xviii. 368 Plunder and massacre had been expected. 1876 E. W. HEAP Diary 7 July in Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. (1969) LII. 53 There is great excitement over a great massacree of Gen. Custer and his intire troupe. 1897 W. E. GLADSTONE E. Crisis 4 They are treading on the burning cinders of the Armenian massacres. 1920 E. C. CROSSMAN in Arms & Man 1 Nov. 3 What happened sounded like a picnic o' well soused riveters givin' a speed exhibition, an' it looked like one o' them Belgian massacrees. 1934 G. GREENE It's a Battlefield iv. 225 The peace of Sunday in Pall Mall was like the peace which follows a massacre, a war of elimination. 1967 in Dict. Amer. Regional Eng. (1996) III. 531/1 He was carrying a message to Houston when..the massacree occurred. 1987 C. THUBRON Behind Wall iii. 89 In a massacre still vivid in memory, the Japanese decimated..citizens in such numbers that the conflicting estimates of death..grew unimaginable.

PelleSmith (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"indiscriminate and brutal slaughter" - how anyone can think a definition containing such value judgments can be applied mechanically is beyond me. One man's "indiscriminate and brutal slaughter" is another man's war of liberation. To state either side as a fact in Wikipedia (which is what adding an entry to this list does) is a travesty. - Merzbow (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't see the semicolon, but you certainly didn't see what went after it. Alternately the same first definition reads in a much less value laden capacity as--"carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers." You have also pointed out exactly where the non-value laden essence (aka the NPOV we seek) of this term lies. One man's indiscriminate and brutal slaughter is another man's war of liberation. You are implying exactly that the "carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers," while remaining completely constant may be called a massacre by some and a war of liberation by others. The carnage, butchery, and slaughter in numbers do not change, only their justification does. Some claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for instance, were justified for X, Y, or Z reason, yet whatever justification one may give the carnage, butchery and slaughter in numbers remains entirely constant. You may think a massacre is justified, just as murder may be, but that doesn't change the nature of the event.PelleSmith (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"carnage, butchery" are equally as POV as "indiscriminate", "brutal", and "slaughter". Supporters of American action in Iraq will say that Fallujah was a battle against enemy combatants; others will say it was a butchery of brave oppressed civilians. And so on. You would have us, as editors, try to convince each other from first principles which of the two is correct? That will never happen in a million years because it is equivalent to getting everyone to either agree that Iraq war was justified (in which case the Fallujah redoubts were enemy soldiers) or that it wasn't (in which case they were innocent civilian freedom-fighters). The only way out is to only add items to the list that are commonly called massacres, as simple as that. Or rename the article to something antiseptic like "list of mass killings" or delete it altogether. - Merzbow (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about carnage at all nor particularly about butchery. You can keep on asking us to slide down that slippery slope but I will continue to warn against it. Also I will point out that you are actively trying to muddy neutral waters. "Brave oppressed civilians" vs. "enemy combatants" is exactly besides the point of what occurred in terms of the slaughter of human beings. Where in the definition above, btw, do you get that a massacre is only restricted to "brave oppressed civilians," or for that matter "civilians" at all (see above the example in use about Custer and his men)? Arguments that justify carnage, such as "they were enemy combatants" are entirely besides the point of whether or not carnage occurred. That said, it is not besides the question to limit a list to "civilian massacres," particularly since I've seen other similar definitions claim that "usually" the people are helpless and/or unresisting--e.g. not engaged in combat. Now, if you are hellbent on including in any viable definition things like "brutality," "cruelty," or "atrocity" then you should consider the notion that all of these things are simply facts of warfare, and/or facts of carnage, of human slaughter, of killing in numbers. Very few acts of killing could ever be considered entirely humane and certainly none of the killings anyone wants to add to this list are even arguably so. The continual attempt to throw terms that deal with human cruelty into a realm of POV is an effort to politicize them in order to downplay the possible wickedness of particular group of people or a particular person. The more sincere route is to own up to the fact that mass slaughter is always cruel, brutal and atrocious. I understand that to many people said cruelty seems heightened particularly if those being killed are non-combatants (but that is a matter of relativity and as I said there is nothing wrong with limiting the list to "civilian massacres"). Only in the guilt stricken soul of the executioner does it make sense to pretend that killing is not cruel, brutal or atrocious. But the executioners attempt to "forget" about cruelty so he/she can sleep at night, doesn't do us any services in the writing of an encyclopedia.PelleSmith (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I want to be clear that I'm not arguing for the inclusion of Fallujah per se, but for the setting of standards for inclusion that aren't so obviously tarnished by the perspectives of one group of people. The fact that this is the English speaking Wikipedia means that we should stick to English linguistic conventions but not that we are supposed to bend our epistemological wills to American forms of cultural politics.PelleSmith (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"mass slaughter is always cruel, brutal and atrocious" - Yes, since "slaughter" almost directly implies the latter; it's just another POV term. Then you basically say that killing is always cruel, brutal or atrocious. This is purely your opinion. I completely disagree, and anyone who isn't a pacifist will probably disagree also. This line of argument is a dead-end, since we will never agree on these things from first principles. The beauty of the Wikipedia way is that we don't have to agree about these things to write an article. We just have to summarize what sources say, and not draw any POV conclusions of our own. - Merzbow (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit playing games. Here's what the OED says: 3.a. The killing of large numbers of persons in war, battle, etc.; massacre, carnage." Replace mass slaughter with mass killing then. If your family were the victim of a mass killing you would entirely agree, if you witnessed strangers die in a mass killing you would also agree, and if you killed a massive amount of people you would likewise agree, and if you didn't I'm pretty sure the DSMIV has a category that would fit you. Your politicized opinion about an abstract idea of mass killing is a little besides the point here. Ask a soldier who has experienced death in combat if its the picnic you want us to believe it is. Brutality, atrocity and cruelty don't have to be sins and they don't have to be against the law, nor necessarily unethical but the removed party making judgments on their affect is entirely insincere and empirically useless. We do have to agree, my friend, on a whole lot of things here at Wikipedia. Apparently one of them is agreeing upon throwing basic aspects of human experience and an empirical basis of knowledge acquisition out the window for well sourced politicized jargon. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words these characterizations are always part of the act of mass killing (and especially to those who aren't simply sitting on their sofa and pontificating on things happening on the other side of the globe or decades ago). It is no surprise that they have found their way into definitions of massacre, because it is precisely no surprise that many or most of those looking on or directly connected to a massacre will in one way or another come to see them as cruel, brutal and atrocious. This is one of the reasons someone argued earlier that English language mentions of the term massacre as a direct categorization of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are completely meaningless. What a bunch of Americans and Brits have chosen as descriptions of a mass killing that helped our side win WWII isn't exactly the NPOV we're seeking. Why the number of times Americans, when referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, use the term massacre should effect our ability to come to terms with the nature of this event is mind boggling.PelleSmith (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Brutality, atrocity and cruelty" are not "always part of the act of mass killing". At least I don't think so. Maybe you do. Good for us. We each have different POVs. They don't belong in Wikipedia. - Merzbow (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well all the dictionary definitions of English terms that refer to the mass killing of human beings, like "massacre" disagree with your POV, so I think really what you are saying is that your POV doesn't belong on Wikipedia.PelleSmith (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Women, young and old, old men and children are freedom fighters, these days? Can't trust'em Rabs, huh? · Michel (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow we (editors) do not have to agree all we need to do is says in a comment field is that "The Mad Mulla claims the American killings Fallujah were a massacre, but in a news conference at the Pentagon General Buck Turgidson, dismissed these claims, and countered with some of his own arguing that it was a legitimate pacification exercise against heavily armed insurgents in well fortified positions." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is bizarre that our guys might say "they massacred us" (bad) or "we massacred them" (good), but it is not the word "massacre" that is POV but the attitude to it. - Kittybrewster ☎ 11:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your point couldn't be clearer, but apparently it is "attitude" towards words that should dictate our use of them here. Or so Merzbow and co. would have us believe.PelleSmith (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a new table layout

The current format is:

Date	Name	Deaths	Summary	Claimants

I suggest that this is altered to

Date	Location	Name	Deaths	Description

Not sure that the Location field should remain. Not sure if deaths should not be two columns (low estimate and hight estimate).

To be a valid entry the entry must have a valid citations for the number of "Dead" and the "Description" fields.

• For the number of dead, if there is disagreement then a range with the largest and smallest numbers.
• The Description field should contain a one sentence of so description of the event and then cited claims and counter claims that the event was a massacre. Because claiming that an event is a massacre is usually controversial the claims and counter claims should name who is making them (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and substantiating biased statements).

Thoughts? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This could only work under two conditions. First, that we rename this to "List of alleged massacres", because under its current name the article is claiming it's a fact that all these events are massacres. Second, that everyone agree we put only items in this list that at least a significant minority of reliable sources are calling "massacres". The former I don't think would be controversial, the latter still some won't agree to (which I still don't get, since it follows directly from policy). - Merzbow (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Philip's suggestion represents a nice compromise because it has built-in wiggle room that the original list lacked. It, in effect, allows editors to state a case for inclusion via citations when adding a new entry. AlphaEta 07:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow I have given my reasons why I think alleged is a very bad idea, see above #Getting nowhere fast, and I suggest that you reply in detail there. There is also the point that "alleged" implies that not one of the massacres in the list is really a massacre. The implication of which is that massacres that are universally agreed to be massacres (excluding abextremely small (or vastly limited) minority) should not be in the list, which I would be surprised if that is your intention. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My original inclusion of the intention of including "Claimants" column was discussd in the archived section Talk:List of massacres/Archive 2#Reliable sources for all claims and I implemented it for one table see the two edits 12:41, 8 August 2007. My original suggestion was that the claimants field should be Harvard style references. I still think it is the better way to go. I see that they lasted until the 10 November when User:Tvoz converted them to ref tags. I would like to hear why (s)he did this and if there is a consensus for either version. IE use footnotes or an extra column with Harvard referencing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If footnotes are to be use and not another column called "Claimants" column with Harvard referencing, Then I think the "Description" field should follow the "Xyz says it was a massacre" eg:

The Mad Mulla claims the American killings Fallujah were a massacre,^[1] but in a news conference at the Pentagon General Buck Turgidson, dismissed these claims, and countered with some of his own arguing that it was a legitimate pacification exercise against heavily armed insurgents in well fortified positions.^[2]

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Philip, for your note on my Talk page alerting me to your question (it's "she", by the way). The reason I converted the refs is that when I looked at this article in early November having not looked at it in a while - perhaps with fresher eyes than people who at the time were steeped in it - I saw a mishmash of citations in different styles and different places that made no logical sense. Some were as text in the "claimants" box (and in my opinion too crammed in there) but the claimants column also had some footnote numbers alone in the box and in other instances was blank - and it appeared to be randomly so. Had all of the appropriate references been in Harvard style in the claimants column I would have followed that style when I added the ones I had been asked for. But it appeared to me to be a bit of a mess. I tried to standardize it by leaving cites that were clearly footnotes verifying numbers of deaths, for instance, in the "deaths" column, but moving others that appeared to be more appropriate to the claimants column, and also searching out and entering additional citations to reduce the number of tags asking for cites. I understand what you were aiming for in your initial suggestion - and I don't disagree that having words in the claimants column is more useful than footnote numbers (or maybe a combination of a few words in the box with a footnote that has the details would work) - but the way it was when I looked at it didn't accomplish what you were aiming for, and was confusing and sometimes difficult to read.

An example: I cannot discern any obvious distinction in this earlier version between the items in Antiquity between the dates 614 and 1026 (to try to keep this slightly away from modern political sensitivities). 614 has 2 citations in Harvard style (I think) in the claimants box; 627 and 750 have footnote numbers in the claimants box; 782 and 1002 have "citation needed"; 1026 has nothing. No need to go over it now - and maybe I missed some subtle differences - but honestly, those differences are too subtle to be useful in an encyclopedia article. So I tried to standardize the refs.

I probably made some errors in doing so, which were unintentional and certainly not political, and I apologize if I made the situation any worse than it already was - but I don't know if that is even possible. I think there is a good faith attempt here to make the list manageable and useful on some editors' parts - and I think there are some who are more interested in their quite divergent agendas than in neutrally editing here - and I have pretty much been staying out of it for now which I plan to continue to do. But I will say this:

• I think your new proposal is an improvement over the existing layout
• I would definitely retain the location column
• I agree we should be referencing the numbers of deaths and including low/high estimates, but think it can be in one column
• I agree that we should include verifiable, reliable references making the claims and counter-claims of naming an event a massacre and both should be included - as I have said before, the worst that will happen is an event that some think of as a massacre will be included when others disagree with the characterization - but their objections can be expressed with their citations of the denials.
• I am very much against the idea of including the word "alleged" in the title as it destroys the foundation of the list
• I have to ask: what are those little doohickeys in the column headings of your proposal?

• They allow the sorting of the columns. See United States strategic bombing of Japan for an example. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Tvoz |talk 05:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope this comment helps - although in this crowd I am not sure what helps, and I'm not interested in participating in these fights. Again, sorry if my attempts at making this more useful yielded any incorrectly placed refs, but no one has challenged any specific ones as far as I recall, so maybe I got it right after all. Tvoz |talk 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the article name is, I think only one "description" box should be present, not two boxes that separate out the description and the references like today. The footnotes and the names of whoever's doing the claiming should be in-line with the description, which I think is what Philip is advocating above. See List of genocides for an example of how the text should read (although this article is not in table format). The other issue still to be solved is whether the "pro-massacre" sources presented must actually be using the word "massacre". Per the endless discussion above I think it's clear this is a controversial enough term that this must be the case. We need to form a solid consensus on this before unlocking can even be considered. - Merzbow (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate regarding English versus non-English sources is very relevant and needs to continue, but before we drift too far off topic, does anyone object to the new table layout proposed by Philip? If we can reach an agreement on re-formatting the table, I think it would represent a small victory towards reaching an overall consensus. Thoughts? AlphaEta 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine with me, the understanding being that text and cites will be intermixed in the "Description" box, allowing for more NPOV text. - Merzbow (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. What is the problem with the "claimants" column? If we all agree that the very word "massacre" is emotionally charged and inherently biased (so much so that some editors seek to exclude non-English sources) surely this is an important column? (Sarah777 00:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

The point is that we want to mix the text with the footnotes, and provide attribution in the text for controversial events, like in any other Wikipedia article. It is much more NPOV to say "Foobar Magazine claims XXXX event was a massacre.[1]", than to say in one column "XXXX event was a massacre", and in another "[1]". See the article List of genocides for an example of how the description text should read. - Merzbow 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• A dedicated "claimants" column is less utilitarian than Philip's proposed "Description" column. Claimants, claims and counter-claims can, and should, all be added to the description column. This allows more latitude than a simple "claimants" column, and will improve the neutrality of the article. AlphaEta 16:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, as I think that the word "claimants" is less neutral than the word "description". "Claimants" seems to me to go too far in the direction of challenging the entries. Some, I would hope most, of the entries will not have counter claims as to the use of the word "massacre" for this entire list to serve any function other than to demonstrate that the subject is fraught with hyperbole and multiple interpretations. Tvoz |talk 18:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

OK folks. You are making some sense on this one! I'll support the template. (Sarah777 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Non-English References

(Cannot agree with that.) The requirement that a "reliable", English language source actually use the word massacre cannot be separated from the evaluation of what passes for a reliable source; and obviously reliable sources cannot be restricted to those written in English. Otherwise we should just call the article "List of killings frequently called massacres in the Anglo-American mainstream media". Which would at least have the merit of being an accurate description of the list and would alert the reader to it's flaws, partiality and probable propaganda function. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

This is English-language Wikipedia - sources have to be verifiable, so they have to be in English so that readers can judge for themselves. Under this proposal you'd be welcome - encouraged in fact - to post sources who disagree with the characterization, but yes, they have to verifiable too, so they have to be in English. Sorry, Sarah, but I don't think your position is reasonable, given the latitude that the new proposal is giving for including counter examples to the refs.Tvoz |talk 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we really have a policy that forbid sources in languages different from english?!?!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is considered here. There is no such a policy, just this recomendation:

English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality[...]

so foreign language source are allowed in the english wikipedia.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case they would only be appropriate if a published translation is also available that uses the word "massacre", or it's not relevant to this article. - Merzbow (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for such a restriction that is not written in any policy and is not applied in any other wikipedia article as far as I know.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Such a restriction would be totally unacceptable in this context unless the article/list is renamed (as per my suggestion above) to reflect the systematic bias that will inevitably result. Tvov, not only is my position reasonable, it is the only suggestion here consistent with WP:NPV. (Sarah777 (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

I'd be curious to hear which the next "acceptable" language will be, then - Hebrew? Celtic? Russian? Færøsk?. Somebody with a similar argument recently countered to me that only material in English was acceptable on French WP if nothing in French was available. Talk of anglo-supremacism! That was in the context of a reference to a magazine article in Italian about an Italian case which has WP articles on both WP:it and WP:en, but not on WP:fr. And yes, that seems to be the norm there as elsewhere: if I don't get it, it don't exist. Sorry, tvoz, but it's not because nothing has been written in English about it that "it" can be made not to exist. And who knows, that might even incite people to learn languages, something the world is direly in need of, or just realise that other languages than English and Hispanic-American happen to be spoken on our planet · Michel (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability needs to be considered. If something commonly known as a massacre and is a notable incident would there not be an English source for the incident that calls it a massacre? If it is a notable incident for which there is not English source, I think it is a good idea if the sentence from the foreign source that uses the word massacre is included in the citation along with an English translation of the sentence if it is available. If it is too long a sentence for the citation, then it along with its translation should be recorded on the talk page. If the translation is made by a Wikipedia editor for the convinience of other Wikipedia editors, then the native sentence should be added to the citation and a copy with the editor's translation should be placed on the talk page. Such actions will allow all interested editors to evaluate if the sentence complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability particularly the section Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Although there is no specific requirement for such actions I think it is within the spirit of the policies, and is not an unreasonable requirement given the inevitable impliand bias of the use of the word 'massacre'. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2007(UTC)

The policies says other things about the words that have "inevitable impliand bias": they can only be used in the attributed form, not to express things as a fact.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say non-English sources should be treated as if they don't exist, and I didn't mean to imply that this was policy or a hard and fast rule - nor am I saying that non-English sources are not notable. What I am saying is that sources are required to be verifiable - meaning that readers can read them and determine for themselves that they say what the article claims they say - and therefore we have a problem if the sources used to, say, refute a claim that something is called a massacre are in a language that readers can't translate. I have no problem with articles that use non-English sources as part of their refeencing, if the matter being referenced is not controversial. But here the very crux of what we're talking about is whether event A was a massacre and who called it such. I'm sorry - I'm all for the concept, but I don't know that I am able to assume such good faith on the part of editors who are clearly partisan, that the sources they present will be straight-forwardly making the claim. By definition this is an impossible situation - for example, and not limited to this: most English-speaking people likely cannot read Hebrew or Arabic, yet those two languages are the ones we might find these contradictory claims in, regarding incidents in the Middle East. I suppose Pokipsy's suggestion might work, but again we have to assume good faith and that's been in short supply here. So, I don't know. Tvoz |talk 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit of irony there Tvov? The "good faith" appears to me to reside in this discussion largely with those seeking to include non-English sources. (Sarah777 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, I don't know how to take that comment. Are you questioning my good faith in this discussion? And if so, please say specifically why. Is it because I am an American? Are you therefore assuming that you know what my politics are? Is there some other reason? If you didn't mean me, then I suggest you write more precisely. And it's Tvoz, with a Z. Tvoz |talk 05:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Golly gosh, Tvoz - and there I was thinkin' you was talkin' 'bout lil ole me!! Ain't life full to the very brim of mis-communication? I put it down to cultural differences - being an WP:AGF type of gal. (Sarah777 18:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Good. Let's leave it that I didn't necessarily mean you, and you didn't necessarily mean me, and move on. Tvoz |talk 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Given that the crux of this entire dispute is which events are called massacres, allowing editors to make their own translations and have us take it on faith that "massacre" is the correct translation isn't appropriate. I'm perfectly fine with using a given foreign-language source as long as some published translation uses the word. Many reliable foreign-language sources do publish English translations of their material (like Der Spiegel). - Merzbow (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to reliably translated sources - I object to sources that are only available in a language other than English, and therefore not easily verifiable on English Wikipedia.. Tvoz |talk 05:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The possibility to make translations is part of how wikipedia works. The restriction to sources that use the exact word "A" to state that something is A is not wikipedia standard. The further exclusion of foreign sources is also not standard. You tried to justify the new special rules you wish to introduce by claiming that "massacre" is "POV charged". But we already have special rules for such situations: we just have to attribute every usage of POV charged words or phrases and never state them as facts. Once it is clear that the list do not contain "actual massacres" but nly "alleged massacres" there will be no problem with statements from foreign surces provided we attribute and cite them exactly.--Pokipsy76 14:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement that the list can contain "alleged massacres". That means some source must be provided that alleges an event is a "massacre". If it doesn't use the word "massacre", either in the original English or in a published English translation, it's not an allegation of "massacre", it's an allegation of whatever word was actually used ("battle", "mass killing", etc.). - Merzbow 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, there obviously can be an allegation of X (X=murder, massacre, hearthquake, peace, love, anything...) even without the usage of the exact word "X" and it can be made in any language different from english.--Pokipsy76 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but should it be accepted as a matter of faith that the item says what the person entering it claims it says, and that the unverifiable (to people who can't read the language) source is actually reliable? I think this is asking a lot - and it cuts both ways, meaning it is the case for any claim from any political persuasion, right, left, or middle. Again, if there's also a published English translation, it would work, but I just don't see how we can accept any source in any language, for the very matter that is under contention. On the other hand, I've said repeatedly that I have no problem with erring on the side of including events that some call massacres, as long as it's clearly identified who is making the claim (preferably more than one) and as long as independent readers of en-Wiki can verify that it says what it purports to say. And include refutations. Tvoz |talk 18:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tvoz - "it cuts both ways, meaning it is the case for any claim from any political persuasion, right, left, or middle." If it did we wouldn't need this discussion. I hold it to be self-evident that it doesn't, especially when combined with the "reliability" requirement that the English sources must be MSM. (Sarah777 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

[outdent] OK, I actually do understand what you're saying, Sarah, and maybe the reason we have a difference of opinion about this is the American press is not controlled by the government, and is not - despite what some right-wingers claim - controlled by the liberal left, or one particular ethnic group. For every Washington Post there's a Washington Times, for every NY Times there's a NY Post, for every MSNBC there's a Fox News, for every moveon.org there's a TownHall.com, for every Mother Jones there' a Lew Rockwell -- in other words, the left and right both have a great number of media outlets and lots of voices. And that's not even talking about books and academic journals. I am confident that left-leaning characterizations of an event as a massacre, in English, will be amply countered by right-leaning characterizations that it was merely a military operation. So both points of view, and characterizations, can likely be sourced in English, and they would then be verifiable. I can't speak for your country - I don't know if your English-language press and publishing is controlled or biased or what, but I believe that one can find quite a broad range of sources in English that represent very different points of view. We don't have to stick to completely traditional mainstream media, but even if we did we would likely find broad enough differences. Wikipedia reliability standards do have to apply, though, such as avoiding questionable extremist sources and undue weight given to extreme minority positions, or we will have more of a mess than we already have - if that's possible. Tvoz |talk 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already responded to AlphaEta's question above: I think Philip's chart is an improvement, and is workable, with a few tweaks. Tvoz |talk 05:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured Tvoz that the press in the old country over here is often ranked the freest in the world and the Worldwide press freedom index puts us a comfortable 20 places ahead of the UK and 40 places ahead of the USA in terms of press freedom. What is worrying is that you'd seek to give such undue weight in an article as subjective as "massacres" to the media of two states with such a dodgy record of press freedom. And note that well over 40 non-English speaking countries have a freer press than the US - those that you'd exclude! As for extremism - that depends on where you are looking from surely? If 80% of the worlds 1.5 billion Muslims view the US and Israel as the greatest threat to world peace - how can the most common viewpoint in the world be "extremist"!! Bizarre notion. All out of step except Anglo-Johnny, eh? (Sarah777 21:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

---

Copied from the #Introduction section below:

I do no think we should include in the introduction an explanation of the Wikipedia process used to select the items in the list on the article page. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Other Massacres to Add

The article is protected right now but here is another school shootings to add.

• April 26, 2002 Erfurt, Germany 16 total dead, 10 wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser age 19 at the Johann Gutenbert school. 13 teachers, 2 students, and 1 policeman killed. Steinhaeuser killed himself.BBC.

Mohummy (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. AlphaEta 19:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fun with Statistics

I downloaded the page to a spreadsheet, sorted by date, and then normalized the raw numbers. You get some interesting results.

Up to 1500: A massacre committed by "the west" is 10 times more likely to be on the page than a massacre committed by any other geographic portion of the world.

1501 to 1939: A massacre committed by "the west" is 24 times more likely to be on the page than a massacre committed by any other geographic portion of the world.

1940 to present: A massacre committed by "the west" is 17 times more likely to be on the page than a massacre committed by any other geographic portion of the world.67.161.166.20 (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really did what you claim, but your presentation of the results is incorrect. You have not determined "how likely" any type of massacre is to find its way onto the list. If your math is right then all you have determined is the percentage of massacres on the list that fit into one category or another. One also has to wonder what your determination of the "west" is.PelleSmith 14:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

West = Europe including Russia (I had other designations also, but this one really stood out). After 1776, the US was included.

I dumped the categories and went with bulk. Including things by category is a major mistake. It makes any kind of statistical analysis difficult without using a spreadsheet to do the work automatically. Besides, some of the category entries were overlapping. Not wanting to get into discussion of yet another mistake on this turkey of a page, but "list of massacres" has a LOT of problems.

And no, my presentation of the results is NOT incorrect. If you believe so, you are free to duplicate my process (wasn't difficult) and justify your own resuts. Please don't forget: Normalization is absolutely essential.67.161.166.20 15:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your statistics but your "presentation," as in the language you have chosen to express your results. In what I think is the most likely understanding of what you wrote your presentation presumes to know how many massacres have in actuality been committed by the "West" and how many have in actuality been committed by the other regional categories you are using. Take a very simple hypothetical. Lets say that every single non-Western massacre ever committed were presented on the this list--as the list now stands. If even one Western massacre were not represented on the list then it would be a fact that any given non-Western massacre is "more likely to be on the page than a massacre" committed by the West. Maybe what you were trying to say was something like: "A massacre listed here as having occurred prior to 1500 is 10 times more likely to be a massacre committed by the west." In other words your data analysis only says something about the list itself, and nothing about the likelihood of an event that happened in the real world getting onto the list. This point is not inconsequential either, though perhaps you don't see the difference.PelleSmith 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Fun 67.161.166.20: to me, it looks like it's the West (and its media) that has a LOT of problems, not the List of massacres. How awful, a statistic study that confirms our worse expectations! But as we all now, statistics are pure POV · Michel 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The "analysis" includes Russia as part of "The West"! Must be the only time in history that has happened. How about addressing the actual charge being made here - that the list is biased in favour or English-speaking countries and in particular those currently allied to the US/UK? (Sarah777 00:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Why did I include Russia as part of "the west"? Because that's what the wikipedia page "europe" said.67.161.166.20 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did you normalize the data? Did you come across any anomalies in the set? AlphaEta 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After sorting I had about 40 lines of data to be eliminated (blanks, stray symbols, etc.) or to be manually adjusted. The biggest adjustments were to get the dates all in 4 place notation so 100 wouldn't list before 30. There were NO CHANGES to the raw data. The minor fixes required a couple of sortings, but had no effect on the date/data relationship.

"Normalization" is a standard (and pretty darn simple if frequently ignored) requirement in elementary statistics. Wikipedia has an article - go to the disambiguation page and click on the link for "statistical" normalization (all the others have nothing to do w this adjustment process). What normalization does is adjust percentages for the sample size. i.e. if you have a sample of a million from one country and a sample of 10 from another, it is not surprising if the million sample shows (for example) MORE deaths, but a LOWER death rate. It is the rate (frequently expressed in terms of occurences per 1000 or other multiple) that is really of interest. The unadjusted raw numbers are meaningless except as a sound bite.67.161.166.20 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the insightful response. Regards, AlphaEta 04:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

.....and what was the probability that a massacre in Alaska would be excluded compared with one in Togo? (Sarah777 01:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I didn't (and the native data did not allow) go into that fine detail. My geographic categores were: "the west" (selected 'cause "europe" conflicted after the US came into existence), middle east (G8 definition), north america, south america, Indian sub continent (so Nepal, etc. could be included), pacificulture (Australia, New Zealand, Tahiti, etc.), Africa (what was left after G8 was assigned to middle east) and asia (what was left over including Japan, SE Asia, China, Mongolia, Siberia, both Koreas, etc.).67.161.166.20 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, the analysis didn't address at all the actual bias that myself and others claim is inherent in the list. Anyway, even if you were comparing meaningful populations (in the context of the bias problem) you'd need an estimate of the incidence of "massacres" (as commonly defined) to the incidence of "massacres" (as so described in the English language main-stream media) within each of the populations being compared. I doubt you have those data to hand! (Call me sceptical if you will) (Sarah777 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Your argument here is (in my opinion) vebal sophistry. My analysis DID address your claim of bias PRO "the west". It was a simple normalized frequency count of "the west" vs "everything else" and revealed an extreme overaccounting of massacres committed by "the west". In short, I tried to confirm your claim and got a negative result. If you want a positive result, you are free to add more entries to the table (by my estimate it will take about 8,000) and do your own analysis, which I and others will then be free to tear apart. You also forget. The analysis was of the reporting of THIS TABLE. It is not necessary to have 100% of the correct data to show this data is incorrect.67.161.166.20 16:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Verbal sophistry hardly. The nub of article bias is in the Anglo world and modern times - all the main rows here are about Iraq, Vietnam, WW2, Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine. Neither Russia nor Germany was ever part of the the modern Western Angloshpere. You are analysing a straw man that you have just created for the purpose. So even if you had sufficient data your findings would be irrelevant. We are discussing Venus and you are quoting stats from Mars. (Sarah777 19:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not agree. I still suggest you do your own analysis of the provided data. It isn't difficult.67.161.166.20 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You asked Wikipedia? Wow!! Some folk think God talks to them but this is a new concept. As for analysis I would suggest if we have no measure of error, no estimate of variability, no knowledge of relative population size - and no data that might provide some variance info - it is beyond my Leaving Cert statistics to figure out how to state any degree of confidence around any conclusion. Maybe we could design an experiment instead of trying to draw conclusions from snatches of history? Might be more fruitful. (Sarah777 22:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Pelle: Yes and no. I think you have hit on something - I didn't express myself in the best way. Yes you are right, my analysis ONLY applies to the data presented on the wikipedia page. No external data brought in. This is reasonable in that if the page were 100% complete it would be, de facto, correct, and unassailable for its veracity based on the page contents (although we could still argue definitions, did it really happen, does it belong here, etc.).

The first thing you have to realize about the methodology I used is it is not precise - it is not supposed to be precise. You get precision on with precise data, complete data, unbiased data. Something I don't think we can claim here. However, the lack of 3 decimal precision is acceptable in that the question is NOT the exact degree of bias in any direction, but rather the coarse yes/no question of IS there a bias. In this case, the coarse results give an answer of "yes, there is a bias" and the rather large magnitude of the numbers is not an absolute condemnation of the quality of the data, but rather should be interpreted as "and we're pretty darn sure the answer is correct".

One quick (I hope) example: Using the same methodology on ONLY post WWII data FROM THIS PAGE (selected because no one can claim writing hadn't been invented yet), we have raw data as follows: "the west", with 15% of the world's population, 109 massacres w 20,000 victims (yes I'm rounding). "the rest", with 85% of the world's population, 123 massacres 15,000,000 victims. This works out to about 200 victims for each western massacre, and 120,000 for each "restern" massacre.

I am not going to try to draw any conclusions. The people on this page seem to be intelligent, spreadsheets are easy to use, and if you're willing to put in a couple hours time - counting, pencil, paper, calculator - will give the same answer.

Thanks for the courtesy Pelle. I'll try to answer any more questions, but the matter is really pretty simple and I think we've just about wrung it dry.67.161.166.20 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Pelle, just for complete disclosure: I didn't know how to allocate the killings of the Algerian war of independence. If I blame the French, the "average" number of victims for each western massacre comes out closer to 5,000 (yes, from ONE massacre. This explains why statisticians consider the math to be the easy part. The skull splitting headaches come from deciding to reject something as "a flyer" and hope you haven't completely ruined the study by changing the original question by implication). All other numbers are large enough the change is not significant.67.161.166.20 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NKVD Prison massacres

Besides Poland and Lithuania, they also happened in Estonia and Latvia. So please change to "Poland, the Baltic states". H2ppyme 20:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted. AlphaEta 00:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I would like to replace the introduction with the following. It is based in part on the genocides in history introduction:

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

The motives for claiming that a massacre has occurred may be simply to create an eye catching headline for a news item, or it may be because the author of a report believes the incident to be a massacre, so determining if an event constituted a massacre is not usually a clear-cut matter. In many cases where there have been claims that a massacre has occurred, others have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. These disputes may tells the reader as much about the political affiliations of the authors of the claims and counter claims as they do about the incident. The following list of massacres and alleged massacres should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on this subject.

If anyone has strong objections to it then please suggest an alternative, but for those who will inevitably object to specific points or details I suggest that it use it to replace the current introduction and then edit those details. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is common to see disputes about wheter a massacre has really occurred or not like this introduction seems to suggest. Just someone prefer to use the word "massacre" to label an event and some other prefer other "softer" words. That's all.--Pokipsy76 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the proposed introduction suggests that a killing may not have actually occurred. It only suggests that the nature of the killing can be interpreted differently by different people. Perhaps I misunderstood the comment? AlphaEta 16:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I should explain better. The intro says "determining if an event constituted a massacre is not usually a clear-cut matter". This is misleading in my opinion, because it seems to suggest that "X was a massacre" express a fact whose truth is hard to understand. Things are not like that: we have just different choices of words motivated by subjective factors.--Pokipsy76 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is similar to WP:TERRORIST "Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore." In the case of massacre the use of the term is often used to imply that the killings were probably illegal and or needlessly brutal. In some cases this may be true but in others it may not be, often depending on the readers own world view. For example the debate over the events associated with the fall of Drogheda is a classic example of this dichotomy. On the other hand I think that the St. Valentine's Day massacre is a case of a headline "Read all about the St. Valentine's Day massacre, seven slaughtered in brutal mob killing" to catch the eye of a potential newspaper reader. However illegality and brutality are still implied in the name, if they had been killed by the FBI while resisting arrest it is unlikely that the word massacre would have been used by the popular press of the day. Google searches return

• about 155,000 English pages for "Valentine's Day massacre" -wikipedia.
• about 9,640 English pages for "Waco massacre" -wikipedia.

Which of course as a raw search includes all the wacko pages (unreliable sources) on the net about the Waco siege. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the introduction should explain how the test of verifiability used in Wiki (and more especially as it is proposed to "adapt" it in the case of this article) will of necessity distort the list, as the "verifiable" sources employed will of necessity be heavily biased in favour of the Establishment Anglo-American world-view. For example, the very fact that any notion that a concept of "legality" can be applied in discussion of Cromwellian massacres in Ireland is an indication of the myopia inherent in the UK/US cultural perspective. Accepting such manifest bias is not helping achieve WP:NPV in this article. (Sarah777 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

In my proposed introduction (above) there is no suggestion of legality or illegality. I have expressed an opinion on the talk page that I think that the word is used to imply an action that involves illegal and or needlessly brutal. But I was careful not to include that in the new introduction.

However those that object to the use of the word massacre for the actions of the New Model Army at the end of the siege at Drogheda do so by justifying it as an action within the laws of war, this makes an assumption that killings within the laws of war are not a massacre, but there is nothing in the OED definitions that make such an assumption to do so one has to argue that the actions of the New Model Army were not "indiscriminate and [within the laws of war applicable at that time not a] brutal slaughter". Equally those who use the term massacre to describe the events at Drogheda do so with the assumption that the events at the end of the siege were an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter and often object to the views put forward by others who argue against such an assessment is wrong. This suggests that in the case of the debate over the events at the end of the siege at Drogheda the protagonists on both sides do see the word massacre as presenting a specific point of view and that it is not a neutral word in that debate.

Sarah777 the whole point of my proposed introduction is that it does away with any original research into what is or is not a massacre, but leaves it up to third party sources to argue the pros and cons of each accusation. The Drogheda debate is I think a good example of this approach because the accusations of massacre can not be dismissed as giving Undue weight to a minority point of view as the balance of opinion is far more evenly balanced that that (and there may well be a majority POV that it was a massacre). Given the idea that the list will only contain those events which have been called a massacre by verifiable reliable sources (without giving undue weigh to minority views), I am not sure why you think it will lead to a list that is in favour of the "Establishment Anglo-American world-view" other than those that exist in the project because of the well know systemic bias in Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that is is because of the systemic bias that we should not use ill-defined (or unmeasurable) concepts like "massacre" or "terrorism" in the title of Wiki articles. And I think we need, especially in relation to the Middle East, to lend non-English sources equal weight to equivalent English (language) sources. (Sarah777 22:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Can we keep that discussion to the #Non-English References section above? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I am trying to engage in a couple of related discussions here, apologies. But your reference to "giving undue weight to minority views" is highly relevant in this context. I have pointed out that what are regarded as "extremist minority" views in a few (in this case, English-speaking) countries could well be the common view on a bigger stage. In fact I'd suggest the systemic bias you refer to in Wiki is in fact in many cases the extremist minority view of the American/British establishment (which just happens to own nearly all the media outlets that Wiki accepts unquestioningly). (Sarah777 23:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

I have no objection to using a reliable foreign source as a source for an accusation of "massacre" as long as we have some published English translation of it. The criteria for "reliable" are simply outlined in the WP:RS policy. The criteria for how to deal with minority and small-minority views is outlined in WP:NPOV. I think we're getting too bogged down here in what-ifs and thought experiments. Can we just let particular tangent alone until one of us actually presents such a foreign source for discussion? - Merzbow 05:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above can we please keep this section on topic and discuss this further under the #Non-English References section above? To help facilitate this I am going to copy this thread there. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(out-dent) I recommend: "The following list of massacres and alleged massacres should be understood in this context and cannot be regarded as the final word on this subject." We should not even open the door to the term "alleged massacres". --Knulclunk 09:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

good point --Philip Baird Shearer 10:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. They are all alleged massacres - what are we trying to hide here? And Merzbow, the issue is not "extremist" or even "minority" views but rather that the so-called "minority" views we are seeking to guard against are in fact no such thing. Thus in this case Wiki policy would caution that we not give undue weight to thew globally tiny minority with Anglo-American perspective. And Philip, as I have already pointed out, this is not "off topic". It is central to both the article naming and the introduction. (Sarah777 11:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

I have re-read the WP:NPV policy, specifically the part about "Anglo-American systemic bias" (is Wiki-policy anti-British Philip, for using that term?) The section most relevant to the "massacres" article is here

3. An article on the effects of globalisation that notes the views of European academics, but does not note the views of African academics, when their views differ substantially from those of their European counterparts, suffers from a POV problem that is rooted in systemic bias.

Which in this context means -

3. An article on a massacre in Iraq that notes the views of Western journalists, but does not note the views of Islamic journalists, when their views differ substantially from those of their Western counterparts, suffers from a POV problem that is rooted in systemic bias.

The policy also states that -

"Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article."

And Philip, just for you, I'll repeat yet again, this IS relevant to the introduction.

(Sarah777 12:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

BTW for anyone else like me who could not remember this text in the NPOV policy page, Sarah777 is quoting from the "Anglo-American focus and systematic bias" section in the NPOV FAQ and not directly from the WP:NPOV policy page. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are pushing at an open door because my understand of the point that Knulclunk is raising is different from yours. As I understood it the suggestion is that this is a list of massacres, but as such it is also a list of alleged massacres, because the new list will only contain events that are called massacres by third party sources (to which others may not consider the event to be a massacre). So as such it would be a non neutral statement to claim that some of those are massacres and others only alleged massacres. therefore there is no need to make that distinction in the introduction. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip, at this I will take a step back as the #@!&* introduction isn't worth getting blocked over and the differences are subtle (if critical in my opinion). Write the intro as you wish to do and we'll deal with the reference/verifiability separately - as you wish to do. (Sarah777 15:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC))

"Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." By Sarah's WP policy argument, any entry that fails either of these criterias should be removed. --Knulclunk 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kragujevac massacre

The entry for the Kragujevac massacre (1941) currently states an estimated 10,000 were killed and has no source. The Wiki article on the Kragujevac massacre lists between 2,300 and 5,000 killed. The Wiki article could then also be used as the source (it is sourced in itself).Osli73 08:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Kragujevac massacre can not be used as a source, Sources have to be verifiable third party sources. For some lists it is OK just to link to a Wikipedia article as the text as they do not carry material likely to be challenged. But "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"(WP:PROVEIT), and as all claims of a massacre are likely to be challenged so they should carry verifiable reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The two sources given for the numbers are The Massacre at Kragujevac but the author's home page "Sarah O'Keeffe's Real Home (Page)" says "undergraduate thesis" which is not a usually considered a reliable source. The second, by Carl K. Savich German Occupation of Serbia and the Kragujevac Massacre October 18, 2003, is also not published in such a way that it qualifies as a reliable source. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this coupled to this source are a better sources than the two given. Also it might be permissible to cite the sources the O'Keeffe article does for certain facts providing that it is made clear that the citations are secondary ones extracted from a source that may not be reliable. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PBS, I get you point. I've found this source from journalist Carl Savic, which states the following regarding the numbers killed:

The German military command in Serbia listed the number of executed at Kragujevac at 2,300. The Communist regime manipulated and inflated the figures to 7,000 killed after the war for propaganda purposes. A more accurate and objective number for the total number of Serbian civilians executed in Kragfujevac and in the neighboring villages and towns for the entire period is approximately 5,000.[[8]]

He —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osli73 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Massacres and minority POVs

I don't think it is a correct way to consider things to assert that there are different POVs about alleged massacres and that WP:UNDUE has a relevance about this. As a classical example of opposite POVs about the usage of the term "massacre" Siege of Drogheda has been cited. If we read the article we see that there is actually no debate about whether it was a massacre or not: the debate is just about its possible justification. I don't think there actually exist examples in the literature when the usage of the word massacre has been object of debate. Obviously one can thik something is a massacre even when he think it was justified. The choice of the word is just a literary stylistic choice to emphasize how horrible was the event. The presence of the word "massacre" in a source cannot be viewed as a position in a debate "massacre Vs not a massacre", it's just the author's choice depending on what he wanted to emphasize. So WP:UNDUE has not to be considered at all here, in my opinion.--Pokipsy76 11:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you assumptions are wrong because there are many mass killings which are not called massacres. For example those killed at the battle of Trafalgar are not considered victims of a massacre, although anyone on a wooden ship raked by another would testify to how horrible the carnage was from such a brutally efficient method of mass killing. When HMS Hood blew up killing all but three of her crew it is not usual to say that the Germans massacred the crew. If a person on a blog page claims that an incident was a massacre, that does not mean that it was, after all anyone can claim that anything was a massacre, we have to take WP:UNDUE weight into consideration. In the case of Drogheda it is clear that since September 1649 many have been called it a massacre, the debate is whether that word is a fitting description for the killings as in the view of many the killings were within the laws of war at that time. As you say "The choice of the word is just a literary stylistic choice to emphasize how horrible was the event." which is the point of the use of the word for the fall of Drogheda. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some difficulty with the notion of "the laws of war at the time". There are no laws in war. Just look at how Bush rubbished the Geneva Convention and the UN after 911? The invasion of Iraq was "illegal" and all violent actions taken in the course of committing a crime are themselves regarded as crimes - thus the killings, not only in Fallujah but all other killings caused by the invaders would thus constitute "massacres" or "crimes" - regardless of what any commentator called them. Further, if the Nuremberg Trials form part of the body of the "laws of war" then ALL killings resulting from the invasion are American War Crimes as surely as if the US army set the bombs themselves. America won't sign up to the ICC - largely because it is afraid of just such "laws" being applied. Torture was outlawed, since WW2 it was a sign of a despotic regime and NEVER acceptable - until America considered itself under grave attack. What "laws" apply in war today, in your opinion? (Sarah777 14:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777 the laws of war are well established in many areas, I suggest that a good place to start is with the Laws of war article. That you talk about "American War Crimes" shows that you too think that such a body of law exists, so all you want to do AFAICT is debate the fine print and I do not think that this is the forum to do such a thing, as much of such a debate is not directly relevant to this page. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip, would you please try to read things more carefully? I said "if the Nuremberg Trials form part of the body of the "laws of war" then ALL killings resulting from the invasion are American War Crimes." And as for reading the Laws of war article! - surely you don't think I'd consider that a reliable source?? (Sarah777 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

I read what you have written carefully, it is your opinion that all killings resulting from the invasion are American War Crimes. Without going into too much detail about the Americans, the countries that are bound by the Rome Statute were found not to have committed war crimes under the Rome Statute by the ICC chief prosecutor (Luis Moreno-Ocampo).[9] -- This of course does not include the alleged charge of crime of aggression as the ICC mandate does not yet cover this issue. So some of the killings that occurred during the invasion were not "American War Crimes" and hence AFAICT you statement that "ALL killings resulting from the invasion" are not supported by the findings of the chief prosecutor for the ICC. But this is straying a long way from this list of massacres.--Philip Baird Shearer 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"it is your opinion that all killings resulting from the invasion are American War Crimes" - have you got a reference for that claim Philip? And I note you also manage to misrepresent the facts in relation to the ICC prosecutors views re this matter. (Sarah777 19:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

I don't see that "massacre" has anything to do with the law. The article should list well known events commonly referred to as "massacres", as per reliable and verifiable sources. The list should in no way be seen as comprehensive Osli73 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I obviously agree about non-relevance of the laws but what do you mean by "commonly referred"? You mean that the word "massacre" must be part of the name commonly attributed to the event?--Pokipsy76 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Osli73, but often their are often two views on whether the word massacre is the appropriate description for an incident or whether some other description is better. In such cases both sides of the argument should be presented. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For example in which cases there was such a debate about the appropriate word (outside wikipedia talk pages)?--Pokipsy76 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google search returns 23,400 English pages for "no massacre" and 17,200 English pages for "not a massacre" so somewhere 50,000 odd people object to the use of the word massacre although it is only a fraction of the 4.4 million pages returned by Google for the word massacre. I suppose in reference to Drogheda the British Civil War website sums it up with this paragraph that highlights the difference that can exist between a massacre and atrocity:

Cromwell regarded the massacre at Drogheda as a righteous judgment on the Catholics who had slaughtered the Protestant settlers in the Irish Uprising of 1641. This view was shared by most English and Scottish Protestants. According to the conventions of 17th century warfare, a besieged city that refused a summons to surrender and was then taken by storm could expect no mercy. Despite the massacre of its defenders, Drogheda was not regarded as an atrocity at the time. However, it has lived on in Irish folk memory, making Cromwell's name into one of the most hated in Irish history. (my emphases)

----Philip Baird Shearer 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not regarded as a massacre by the people who committed it!!! Just like Fallujah then?! This utter twaddle is one reason why having a subjective, emotional, loaded and pejorative term like "massacre" is a really dumb idea. (Sarah777 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

We agree on that! So would you like me to add the template for an AfD. Personally I don't think it will pass but no harm in trying I suppose. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I'd certainly support an AfD as this type of list belongs more in the Guinness Book of Records than an encyclopedia. Sadly, I'd reckon that an article that has been around for several years will have too many folk who put too much work into it to give it a decent burial. But if you propose I'll support. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

If we do, the nom should explicitly present the option of renaming to "List of mass killings"; I doubt the result will be an outright delete. - Merzbow (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with that but I already proposed that and it failed. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC))

What is a mass killing? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Refer to the discussion. I thought 4 or more; Merzbow reckons 5. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

4 or 5! It seems to me that that entails OR or SYN. Besides the list would be unmanagably large: Just a list of wars would run into thousands -- let alone every assault during a war, and all those other incidents like bus and plane accidents where human error was in part to blame. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see any sign of a consensus on how to edit the article as titled as "List of massacres"? Aside from the table format, there is no agreement. Tavir has not dropped by in a week, PelleSmith clings to his notion that he can call anything a massacre he wants, and I can't even parse what some others are saying. At least with "mass killings" we have much more of a technical definition that we do with "massacre". Yes, 4 people or more killed at the same time would qualify, at the hands of humans or not. But the choice I see is either this or delete the article. - Merzbow (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, if this article is deleted, I will promptly recreate it using my own definition/standards. Should be fun. To all: Read my previous posts and decide if you REALLY want me to have that much power. ;)67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example, yet again, of the need for some sort of Editor registration. If a named contributor made a threat like this they would be (rightly) heading for a ban. And btw, your POV forks would last, maybe....a whole minute! (Sarah777 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

If you did that, anon, we'd just mark it for speedy deletion. If you kept doing it, the article name would be salted and you'd be blocked. - Merzbow (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsubtle Suggestion

Why doesn't someone with experience dealing with arbcom contact the administrator who protected this turkey and have it upgraded from "protected" to "RFD"? It would solve a lot of problems.67.161.166.20 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Amen! Especially with Christmas coming....(Sarah777 19:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

I wanted to add Westroads Mall shooting, but no can do... Turgidson (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This turkey is currently not receiving visitors. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

Sure, why not? It's been almost two weeks since lockdown, and at this pace a consensus will be reached sometime next decade. Despite the best efforts of some Wikipedians, I just don't think we can overcome the word "massacre" in the title. It's too subjective. Perhaps some enterprising individual can create a set of specialized sublists and put this material someplace less controversial. AlphaEta 04:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's easy to overcome the word massacre. Come up with a definition for the purposes of this page. If someone objects, they can start their own page with their own definition. They can even copy this page over to theirs to get a running start.

Several literal definitions have already been proposed and several debateable but workable defitions have also been proposed. Most of these have not failed due to objection. They have been ignored.67.161.166.20 (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Westroads Mall shooting

The Westroads Mall massacre should be added by an administrator once the number of causalities are confirmed. --Wgfcrafty (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I didn't realise this was a current event. I'd have no problem adding this; someone already edited a rather silly reference to a "failed suicide" (who died from his wounds). (Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

I note the Westroads Mall massacre has already been redirected to Westroads Mall shooting so we aren't the only people with doubts about the word. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

I'm not exactly sure what you mean since there are plenty of things titled 'shootings' on the list of masascres, such as: "Trolley Square shooting"/"Amish school shooting" ect. Maybe I'm merely misunderstanding what you're saying. Thanks! Wgfcrafty (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Heck, list of massacres is already listed in the 'See Also' setting of the Westroads Mall Shooting article, it just isn't on the list it directs too. And Westroads Mall shooting now directs to Westroads Mall Massacre... people need to make up their minds :) Wgfcrafty (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Older Edits Needed

The summary of the Hispania Pacification Campaign (1495 CE) should be edited for tone. It reads as slightly sarcastic. The summary for the Kalinga War (265 BCE) should be edited. It has more information than needed and the second sentence is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.203.128 (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Queenstown massacre

While this article has been tagged for deletion we were reminded this week by Thabo Mbeki about the Queenstown Massacre. I do not think it has made it to Wikipedia yet do not be so hasty deleting the list.Gregorydavid (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the lockdown discussion?

Where is the discussion on the lockdown? Why is the article protected? I wanted to edit the article, then saw the note that it is protected and one can comment on that on the talk page, but I can't find the discussion. Four threads up there's complaining that there is no progress in the discussion. What discussion? If there is one, it's very well hidden and therefore no wonder there is no progress. 84.41.231.64 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Add the Glencoe Massacre

A fairly obvious omission.--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems likely; but, per Arbcom, can you find any contemporary English language journalists who described it as such at the time? Otherwise I reckon it may need to be zapped.

Remember the rules of engagement we have had imposed:

• Must have references (English; mainstream) WP:RS
• Must have been called "massacre" at the time in an English mainstream reference. No WP:Synthesis (Arbcom ruling Great Irish Famine)
• Must be aggressively deleted (per Jimmy Wales) if citations/references not adequate; eg if do not meet the criteria above. (3RR obviously doesn't apply to Mr Wales decisions)
• Anything by IPs can be repeatedly (and aggressively) reverted. (Arbcom, Jimmy)

Sarah777 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 I think you misunderstand the Arbcom ruling on the Great Irish Famine and indeed if it were true then the section Suggestions of genocide would fall foul of your interpretation. As would the Genocides in history article that is full of (alleged) genocides before the word and the international convention came into existence. If a modern scholar chooses to call something a genocide, providing it is published in a verifiable reliable source and it is not given WP:Undue weight and meets WP:NOR requirements, then it can be included. The same is true for massacres, it does not have to have been called a "massacre" at the time in an English mainstream reference, although you point about WP:SYN is well made. I am not aware of (Arbcom, Jimmy), please could you supply a link to that one. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom said that reverting IPs isn't a 3RR issue (in the same Great Famine case I think, or maybe "The Troubles" workshop, can't recall. I'll have to look it up. Jimmy Wales said we were to "aggressively delete" unreferenced material rather than tag it - it's written somewhere up this very page I think. (Sarah777 (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information ..."

–Jimmy Wales

Jimbos comment in WP:PROVEIT is not a licence to violate the WP:3RR policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing "aggressive" about stopping after two reverts - of course Jimbo is licencing endless reverts of unreferenced material. (Sarah777 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Semi-protected

Now that this page has survived an AfD, I have altered the protection on this page from fully protected to semi-protected so that only established users can edit it. After a week it will become fully unprotected allowing anyone to edit it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Zapped list

I have put in the new introduction and zapped the list so that a new one can be built with only those events that are claimed to be a massacre by verifiable reliable third party sources. If a verifiable reliable third party source does not claim that an event was a massacre then it should not be in this list. (See WP:PROVEIT).

So that the information from the old list is still easily accessible I have placed a copy in User:Philip Baird Shearer/List of massacres. This will allow people to copy well sourced massacres from the old list into the new list. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That certainly improves the article Philip. I have the zapper ready and I'd just like confirmation from you that obeying Jimmy Wales's "instant aggressive delete" of unreferenced material means that 3RR does not apply in such cases (and I am taking as read the Arbcom decision that reverting IPs is not a 3RR issue). (Sarah777 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

WP:3R does apply (don't make more than three reverts or partial reverts in 24 hours,etc). There will be no IP addresses or new users for the next week because I have left the article semi-protected for a week. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree Philip, but as you are wielding the BLOCK button I must comply with your (wrong) interpretation. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

I am human, and to err is human, why not raise it on Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule and/or Village Pump and see it I am mistaken? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I'll see how folk behave here before making an issue of it. I trust you will keep good order! (Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

A SUGGESTION

Since the RfD accomplished nothing, we still have all the original problems. May I suggest an unofficial agreement to stop editing the article itself, and discuss only solving the problems for a while? If we just keep adding (a very easy thing to do) we just keep creating more points of contention.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no problem with that - so long as all sides agree. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

A question of sources

Date	Location	Name	Deaths	Description
1325	South Dakota	Crow Creek Massacre	c.500	Several hundred Initial Coalescent men, women and children were slaughtered, mutilated and scalped by the Middle Missouri villagers.(Crow Creek Massacre)

Moved from the article for further discussion.AFAICT this is a user web area and not an official University page. Got any better sources? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Date	Location	Name	Deaths	Description
1387	Persia	Massacre of Isfahan	c.70,000	In the city of Isfahan (Persia) Timur Lenk ordered the building of a pyramid of seventy thousand human skulls, from those that his army had beheaded.(Timur's history)

Moved from the article for further discussion. AFAICT this is a user web area and not an official University page. Got any better sources? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Date	Location	Name	Deaths	Description
1513	Ottoman Empire	Shiite Massacre	c.40,000	Sultan Selim I ("The Grim") ordered the massacre of forty thousand Shia Muslim "heretics".(St Thomas More Studies)

Moved from the article for further discussion. This site is not a university site. Got any better sources? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the sources given for Massacre of Novgorod (Massacre at Novgorod - Loyola University) looks like another student blog. I have not removed the table entry from the article because some of it is supported by the EB 1911 citation, but surly there must be more and better sources than that. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No agreement so?

Looks like the POV merchants are right back in business. Re the suicide bombing in Iraq - the ref is from ABC news, a media organ of the invader forces. Is that acceptable? And is ONE reference sufficient? Need to clarify. - Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny, one could say the same thing about your one source calling Fallujah a massacre. --Mmx1 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2007

(UTC)

I merely asked a question, which I note Philip has not yet answered. A single reference either is or is not sufficient. I seek clarity for parity sake. Btw; stop edit warring. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

You're hardly in a position to accuse others of edit warring. --Mmx1 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not? And the BBC "reference" was titled "Legends". Hardly qualifies? - Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It discusses the historical event, if you cared to read the source.

The total number of people killed, and the manner of their death can never be accurately documented. Although accounts of the massacres have been exaggerated: ranging from two or three thousand victims up to hundreds of thousand of deaths, there is no doubt that very many innocent people were murdered. A figure of 12,000 killed out of a protestant population of 40,000 is as close as it is possible to come; the figure includes death attributed to military activities. The most effective documents available are the work of Sir John Temple, an official in the Irish government, who published an extensive report in 1646, which are held in the library of Trinity College, Dublin.

--Mmx1 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether settlers (ie ethnic cleansers) can ever be "innocent" - there was NO "Irish Government" at the time; there was the occupying Crown forces and their "plantations" (genocide and ethnic cleansing in modern parlance). Even conceding the bizarre notion of "settler innocence" there is no evidence of a massacre of settlers - just the battles against the yeomanry. On the other hand there is voluminous evidence of the massacres done by the planters during and after the rebellion. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

You are welcome to present your citations to the contrary, but a reliable source has deemed it a massacre. --Mmx1 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You are wrong. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

LET THE EDIT WARS BEGIN (AGAIN)!

I'm tempted to claim you bozos (one in particular) are funnier than a turkey on speed. Only it is NOT funny.

Isn't anyone smart enough, honest enough, ethical enough to TRY to fix the G** D***** page?67.161.166.20 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one needs a "partner for peace". Obviously some editors are not prepared to clarify exactly WHAT constitutes sufficient and/or reliable sources. But I share your frustration. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Deaths column

Unless the Deaths column is sourced then I think the entry should be move to the talk page for further discussion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And what about move them completely out and leave them up to reader (it might be listed in the main article only). ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the sort orders can be by size of massacre. Also if there is no source for the range of dead then it is not exactly a well documented massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Size is a bad idea, date is much more better. Well in opposite it can be well documented massacre, but there can be a lot of injuries, few deaths etc. table is too small. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorts can be done on any column. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I didn't notice that until now :) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 10:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

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.