Talk:List of massacres/Archive 4

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 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

Citations

Before adding an entry to this list please read Wikipedia:Citing sources particularly the section How to cite sources

If you are citing web sources. please include a minimum of

  • Author (use "Staff" if you can not find the author,
  • The name of the article
  • The name of the website (which if there is no article on the owner of the website (eg Cambridge University) then link to their about page.
  • Date of publication. If there is no date on the article then please add when the site was accessed.

eg:

or


Very often the citation will be needed not just for the text but also for the number of dead. One can use a ref tag more than one by naming it.

Eg on first use:

  • <ref name=observer-2000-12-03> Jason Burke, Dig uncovers Boudicca's brutal streak, The Observer, December 3, 2000</ref>

then on second use:

  • <ref name=observer-2000-12-03/>

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip, you are chasing a rainbow here!! - Sarah777 (talk) 03:13, 18 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)

Date Location Name Deaths
1848 Austria-Hungary Massacre in Běchovice 100 injured[citation needed] Austrian army massacred unarmed civilians(Běchovice)

This is a foreign citation. If there is no English Language citation available is it a notable massacre? And as far as I can tell it does not meet the requirements of being a reliable source. Further a comment on the article page says "Exact number of killed is not known, but there were over 100 heavy wounded passengers." Not knowing the exact number killed frequently happens in massacres but at least a range should be available. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. I think we can include foreign language sources only if there are reliable English translations provided by the site. If we don't have that, readers of wiki-en cannot verify that the citation is valid. It isn't a question of the truth of whether the massacre actually took place, it is a question of whether readers can independently verify that it has been so designated by a reliable source. Tvoz |talk 16:39, 27 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))

It is a well known claimed massacre -- at least as well known as Drogheda (indeed revenge for the killing of Protestants was one of Cromwell's explanations for Drogheda). Not every Protestant killed was a combatant and surly any children who were killed were innocent. But this speculation is off topic because it brings in editorial POVs. Sarah777 you are quite at liberty to put in an alternative POV -- eg that the massacre never took place, or more likely that the numbers are greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, all you have to do is find a reliable source to back up the claims.

On that note surly a better source can be found than a BBC article for the claim. I'll have a look and see if I can find one --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I am glad that you agree the claim that the BBC supported "massacre" was nonsense. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:02, 18 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)
Please get REAL here folks. Sorting by number of victims when we cannot even agree whether it was a "massacre" or not? Does ANYONE else see how bizarre this is becoming? - Sarah777 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Other massacres

--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is no use just listing events that you think were massacres please supply verifiable third party reliable sources for citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that this can include the Boston Massacre (five people killed hundreds of years ago) alongside the planned and organised genocide of nearly one million people (Rwandan Genocide) 10 years ago yet again illustrates the complete idiocy of this "article"/list. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
Well, with the exception of the Great Synagogue (Białystok), all of these massacres are referenced in the articles about them; as I point out, the Katyn massacre is a previous FA. The Kitos War is referenced to Dion Cassius and Edward Gibbon (I know because I added that particular reference). I don't think that anyone is seriously suggesting that these events didn't occur.
May I make a suggestion? There were, unfortunately, a large number of massacres during the Second World War (WARNING: you can be accused of Holocaust denial here if you're not careful: [6]) and it might be sensible to create a separate list for them.
Regarding Sarah777's comment, the term 'massacre' is obviously emotive and, in that particular case, used as a term of contemporary propaganda rather than in some sort of competitive measure of atrocity. My own view (for what it's worth) is that I'm agnostic on the worth of this article/ list, but I can see the value of it as a sort of dismbiguation page: a bit like this page, for use when a reader has some vague recollection of what he's looking for but not enough detail to find it immediately. This page is designed, I imagine, to make using the encyclopaedia easier.--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The Boston case surely illustrates the problems here; "small" killings are often called massacres by newspapers for propaganda purposes and even more often for sensation - just to sell newspapers. I recall motorway pile-ups being called "massacres". Another example: Bloody Sunday (1972) probably meets any reasonable definition of a massacre but isn't commonly described using that exact word even by Irish Republicans - thus, it isn't! But Boston was; so it is. This is complete nonsense. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC))
This page is designed, I imagine, to make using the encyclopaedia easier Nope this page is not designed, some/most of the entries were added as you describe as a disambiguation page, but other entries were added (or deleted) to push specific point of view. We can not delete the page because if failed the recent AfD (which did not supprise me), so in my opinion the best way forward is only to include incidents that reliable third party sources describe as massacres, no matter how arbitrary that list is. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Answering Sarah777's point, I don't think that we should see this page as giving some sort of official Wikipedia sanction as to what is, or is not, a massacre; it's just a way of giving readers directions to what they're looking for. There must be large numbers of 'unreferenced massacres', such as Bloody Sunday (1972), or, for that matter, what the Elizabethans got up to in Ireland. Another potential problem is that of biblical massacres, such as the Battle of Jericho (incidentally, could someone please put a disambiguation to Siege of Jericho - I don't know how to go about this). I think that there's a very good argument that these biblical massacres ought to be listed: (1) God told the Jews to extirpate their enemies; (2) by and large they did; and, (3) such a list would inform the issue of those who treat the bible/ torah as a form of title-deeds in the present.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To call an event a massacre without a verifiable reliable source is original research, so it is much better only to have a list of events that are called massacres in verifiable reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, in view of the excitement caused by this list, I can see the sense in taking an overtly legalistic view of what constitutes a massacre, but what about the Sicilian Vespers? We're not going to list this as form of worship, surely! --Major Bonkers (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Petty little point

If we don't start being really meticulous right from the start, we will go back to where we started.

Point: The Crow Creek Massacre. That was hundreds of years before the westerners showed up w writing. It may be correct, but given the ambiguity of the record keeping, the source had better be a doozy - and preferably 4 or 5 real good, scholarly sources.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using all capitals in section headings. It is customary for those to mean shouting in internet discussions. But as to you point I agree. The current source for the Crow Creek Massacre is not a verifiable one. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. Will do.
The point is we are back to discussing individual entries and we still don't know what we are doing. We're fighting alligators, but we originally intended to drain the swamp.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we are totally clueless. Worse - we are pretending we aren't! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Lock this thing and resubmit for deletion - Please!

OK, we're right back to where we were in 2003. Stupid postings, and even "stupider" reliable sources. Someone is even playing games by giving "Science Magazine" reliable source status. Sorry, "Science Magazine" IS NOT "Science" (legitimate and respected publication). If we are already (what 4 days) back to a level of . . . (what's the word in english that combines stupidity/incompetence/dishonesty? Disengenuous?) . . . anyway, I hereby request Complete Protection and a redo of the RfD.

This turkey is terrible and some of the editors (arguably ALL) are even worse.67.161.166.20 (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem you run into here is that WP:V is quite clear that the standards of sources that you are demanding are not those of the policy.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

We can exclude blog sites and the like that clearly fall outside the scope of reliable sources. But newspaper article fall within the WP:V policy. However I think you are confused about "Science Magazine" (or I am):
I think that we have agreed that to appear in the list it must have a verifiable source. This means that not only must the source exist it must be reliable. Taking the Sand Creek Massacre as an example.
  1. I moved the first instance to the talk page because I was not sure that the source ([7] ) was an official university page. The person who found the page was free to discuss it on the talk page and convince other editors that it is.
  2. I tagged the second one (Staff. The Crow Creek Massacre www.nebraskastudies.org ) with {{verify credibility}} because the source may be more reliable than the first one, but if no other source was found after a day or so it should be removed.
  3. But the new source (Heather Pringle, Crow Creek's Revenge, Science, 27 March, 1998) in my opinion meets the requirements. AFAICT the article is from Science (journal) and that is a peer reviewed journal.
One other point The citation must come from a reliable third party source. A Wikipedia link is not a reliable source! So the name of wikipedia article is not sufficient to include it in the list of massacres. See also WP:PSTS, encyclopaedia articles are tertiary source, If a massacre is notable there ought to be some secondary sources that call it that. So while there is no reason why tertiary sources should not be used to provide extra details, I think the substantial claim must come from a secondary source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A Slight Problem

Do any of the editors fighting over this page know how to do arithmetic? With three sources for one massacre you are going to have 10,000 entries and 30,000 sources. This page should be locked until the editors solve the (much more difficult, but absolutely necessary) problem of designing the page.Aaaronsmith (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep - my computational skills are excellent. The potential size of this list has been mentioned by several people but is falling on deaf ears it would appear. There is no way of communicating even simple things to some folk; we'll just have to wait till they gasp with surprise when the inevitable unfolds. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

More to the talk page for further discussion

Battle of Baghdad only one tertiary source given if it is to stay in the article a secondary sources should be presented that claims it was a massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Massacre of Novgorod only one tertiary source given if it is to stay in the article a secondary sources should be presented that claims it was a massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre One of the most famous massacres in history and used by the OED, but we only have one tertiary source and one student essay. --12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian massacre of 1622 One source that AFAICT is not much more than an blog.

"Damascus massacre" only one tertiary source given if it is to stay in the article a secondary sources should be presented that claims it was a massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Two moved from the article to the talk page for further discussion.

  • Fallujah (See below)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
2007, March 7 Iraq Al Hillah bombings 114 Two suicide bombers wearing explosive vests blow themselves up in a large crowd of Shiite pilgrims in Al Hillah.(Brian Murphy of Associated Press, Bombers Massacre Shiite Pilgrims in Iraq, ABC News, March 7, 2007)verification needed-date=December 2007

Only one source, I think it needs more than one to show it is commonly/often called a massacre (WP:UNDUE). It is an agency article so it is no use piling up syndicated copies or near copies of the article, what is needed is another independent source like another agency (eg Reuters) that also calls it a massacre --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The source added since I move this article here was: Brian Murphy, Bombers Massacre Shiite Pilgrims in Iraq March 7, 2007 that is AFICT the same source reprinted in another paper. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki balance?

Right. So, numerous Plains Indian nations were exterminated and all their land taken and we have two Plains Indian related "massacres" in this great article. And guess what? The Injuns are the killers in BOTH cases. What a job is being done here for WP:NPOV - no matter HOW you rationalise it, this is bull - the complete antithesis of WP:NPOV - Sarah777 (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the Plains Indians didn't control very many mainstream newspapers written in English - did they. Bit like the Gaelic-speaking native Irish really. (Sarah777 (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Right. 19 massacres listed. 7 for the West with 15% of the population. 12 for the "rest" w 85% of the population. The list is already POV w a massacre committed by the West 3.5 times more likely to be listed and we already have someone complaining the list is biased IN FAVOR of the West. 4th grade arithmetic just isn't that difficult. Someone here has a serious problem.67.161.166.20 (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I referred to the Plains Indians; not "The West". But if you want really want to talk bull the math is that they represent 0.0001% of the population of "The West" and have 11% of the massacres; or they are overrepresented by 110,000 times. That is bias QED! (Sarah777 (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
And of course in North American massacres they have an infinite lead - as anything divided by zero = infinity. - Sarah777 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And furthermore; where are these 7 massacres by "The West"? You including alleged massacres by Irish natives - and ancient Rome?!!! That's the only way you add to seven. - Sarah777 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Where did you get that number "zero"?67.161.166.20 (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fallujah

I find it hard to believe that a bona-fide massacre would lack reliable sources from the main stream media to support it. Using fringe sources and an editorial really doesn't qualify. I've removed this section and left my reasoning in my edit summaries. They have since been reverted without explanation. As a result, it seems like I should bring up the topic here for discussion. Let's see if we can sort this out here rather than simply reverting without comment. Let me begin by saying I'm not opposed to adding a reference to Fallujah, I just think it's important that we only do so when we can cite appropriate sources. Rklawton (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem here seems to be that you only seem to find sources that agree with you "appropriate". I have asked you on your talkpage, and I repeat the question here - which of the two mainstream, out of three references provided, do you regard as inappropriate; the London "Independent" of the Italian "RAI"? (Sarah777 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
The RAI is in the habit of broadcasting outside opinion pieces, but this should not be confused with their own news stories. The Independent article refers to just one incident and does not support the claims made regarding the number of deaths. Information Clearinghouse is: "One person's effort to correct the distorted perceptions provided by commercial media".[8] This does not qualify as a reliable source. The "Buzz" source is an editorial. Rklawton (talk) 05:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow! So every source, even an MSM source, is not valid unless it agrees that Fallujah was not a massacre? And we have Philip defending utterly partisan sources for the "massacre" in 1641 in Ireland! By his standards Fallujah=massacre=slam dunk. I guess a psychologist would call the US tag-team on this article "in denial". - and btw; while I am flattered to be called "first class" I am not a troll. OK? (Sarah777 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Do you have any mainstream sources? I didn't see any. Editorials, self-published news, and POV pushing websites just don't count as reliable sources. I did not use the phase "first class" anywhere in this discussion, nor did I call you a troll, so where is that coming from? Rklawton (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Note also the RAI broadcast, Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre, relies almost entirely on statements made by people who were not involved in the fighting there, and the POV-pushing documentary has been heavily criticized. The people responsible for this documentary have also produced other unreliable works. Whatever it is, it isn't journalism of the "reliable source" kind. Rklawton (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Right. So any reference here which involves journalists who "were not involved in the fighting" are to be discounted? That means most of the "massacres" on the list must be deleted. Will do the deletion or must I? (Sarah777 (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
The documentary has been panned as non-neutral and not reliable. The fact that it relies on interviews from soldiers not involved in the fighting is but one indication of the piece's unreliability. The fact that none of the sources you provided justify the numbers you claim (where did you get those numbers from anyway), also serves as a red flag. Why not just find some nice main-stream sources? The fact that you seem to find this so difficult should serve as a very strong indication that the massacre you claim is not at all well accepted as such and so perhaps doesn't belong in this article. Rklawton (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The new source you've added is from yet another self-published, POV-pushing website[9] which does not at all resemble the reliable sources requested above. Since this edit is substantially the same as your other three reversions, it falls afoul of the 3 revert rule. I've blocked you from editing as a result (you were warned). I suggest you use this time to find some reliable (non POV-pushing) sources to support your claims (a claim not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article you sourced other than in reference to a questionable documentary listed in the "see also" section). Rklawton (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
2004 Fallujah, Iraq Fallujah Massacre 600–3,000(No source Alleged massacre of civilians in Fallujah during US Army attack on the city.(Fallujah The Hidden Massacre, What and Who is Information Clearing House cites RaiNews 24.)verify credibility|date=December 2007, verification needed|date=December 2007

No source for the number of dead and only one source, I think it needs more than one to show it is commonly/often called a massacre (WP:UNDUE). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now Philip, now that we have three sources for Fallujah I assume there will be no more POV edits from you? (Sarah777 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Fallujah 2

quality of sources

I have removed the entry again so we can all discuss these sources in more detail: The additionssources added:

We have another problem. Fallujah, source #140, "Fallujah the Hidden Massacre" is a link to "Information Clearinghouse" a news republisher. The particular article is a video (which would not play) identified as "the use of napalm". The article is also a republish of an article by RaiNews24, which is an Italian language electronic media which (apparently) broadcasts their original material in Italian and rebroadcasts from other sources in other languages. In short, we have a rebroadcast of a rebroadcast which seems to be an expose of weapon use and may not have anything to do w "massacre" as appropriate for this Wiki page.67.161.166.20 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(a) no "mistakes"; sources you don't like
(b) RAI is a reputable source
(c) I'm not wasting any more time arguing with an IP
(Sarah777 (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
What is Buzzle.com? Is this a reliable souce as defined by WP:V? --15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Source #141 (Jack Random, Buzzle.com). Jack Random is the pen name of a novelist. His non fiction is published electronically on message boards (Buzzle is an authors' message board).67.161.166.20 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...only six more to go. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
AFAICT the only use of the word ,massare is in the headline and as we have alrady discussed that may only be there for sensationalism.--15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand why do you think that the sources above do nt fit the WP:V criteria. Arguments like "may only be there for sensationalism" have nothing to do with WP:V.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The word massacre is used in headlines because it is an attention attractor and as a headline may have little to do with the content of the article.It may even have been added by a copy editor after the author of the piece had sent it to the editor. There is no reason why such an article headline should not be included, but it is hardly a stand alone reliable source that the Independent news staff considered this a massacre as the wording is not used in the text of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope. It is clear from the article the Independent writer DID consider it a massacre. You can't complain that he failed to use the exact word on one hand and then say the use of that exact word up top doesn't count. This is WP:synthesis - (and of course complete nonsense) Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not clear that the author is calling it a massacre. As I said if this fine as a support but the entry should not rely on this one. -Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotta go with Pokipsy Image:Face-grin.svg on this one. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
See below this source is about an attack on a group of demonstrators one year before the "Massacre of civilians in Fallujah by the US Marine Corps during an attack on the city" So I think it fails on two levels. (1) it is not about the attack on the city and (2) it only uses the term in its headline not in the body of the article which does not make it a very authoritative in stating that the incident was a massacre --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't know if they used the word in the title just because it is "catchy" or why other sources use e word inside articles for any other political/editorial reason. We actually don't have to make spaculations on why a word has been used or about the possibility that the "news staff" enjoy the point of view of a partcular journalist. This is not how wikipedia works. Some people here wanted to state a rule to avoid discussion, the rule was: "only entries when the word occurrs in reliable sources". This is a little arbitrary chioice but we coould accept it in order to have less neverending discussion. Now if you start to make exceptions to the rule according to speculations about why the word has been used and how representative is the writer then the rule is completely useless and we could jt reastart to discuss without such a (arbitrary) rule.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What is IndyMedia Cambridge UK? Is this a reliable source as defined by WP:V?--15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
Please explain how their editorial oversight works. It seems to me like a very small pressure group that is not representative of any large organisation. So please explain how it meets the Wikipdia reliable source criteria --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you now adding "large organisation" to 'English' and 'mainstream' and 'exact word' but 'not in a headline' as a requirement? (Sarah777 (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
Sarah777 the requirements of the Wikipedia policy is clear WP:V "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which includes "mainstream newspapers". Can you find a reliable source that states that this organisation has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Philip, that is ridiculous. Are you saying all mainstream newspapers have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Not on my planet! (Sarah777 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Sarah777 we are not discussing all mainstream newspapers here. We are discussing a specific source. Can you find a reliable source that states that "IndyMedia Cambridge UK" has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope Philip. That doesn't wash. You cannot have a higher standard of "evidence" on a selective basis. It is precisely this lack of perspective leads to the atrocious pro-Anglo-American bias we see demonstrated in this article. (Sarah777 (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
You seem to be straying into conspiracy theory type arguments here. If this was a massacre then surly there are news sources and new agencies from French, German, Russian companies that publish in English that are not under some sort of alledged Anglo-American influence (eg DPA or AFP). You still have not explained how "IndyMedia Cambridge UK" can be considered a reliable source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Philip[, I don't really "stray" anywhere - I proceed firmly and with purpose! Some conspiracies are real enough - where does coincidence of interests stop and conspiracy begin? But no, I certainly don't think the Russians and Chinese media are part of an Anglo-American conspiracy. I did find numerous references to "Fallujah Massacre" by Googling Al Jazeera but, oddly, when I click the links I get a message that says "access forbidden"! On the assumption that this isn't part of a Gulf Arab gesture to US Imperialism I am following this line of enquiry. -- Sarah777 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Source 143 (Fallujah, "Rush Hour Protest .. . " , Indymedia, is not acceptable. Indymedia (has a page in Wikipedia) by its own description is:

"The Independent Media Center (aka Indymedia or IMC) is a global network of participatory journalists that reports with a generally left-wing perspective on political and social issues. It originated in and remains closely associated with the global justice movement, which criticizes neo-liberalism, and its associated institutions. Indymedia uses an open publishing process that allows anybody to contribute".

The link provided for IndyMedia is a FAQ page and does not provide bona fides or provenance.

The link for the original article comes up w two sentences about 8 protestors handing out leaflets. The download function does not work and gets the error message "site does not exist" (at least in my browser).67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Only five remaining then, you reckon? (Not that I agree btw - when you get below two I'll return to the debate! (Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
Do you still think that this is an acceptable source Sarah777? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source as defined by WP:V?--15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Who can doubt it? (Sarah777 (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
That is not an precise enough answer can you cite a reliable source that states that Axis of Logic is a reliable source? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Philip, is there no end to how high the Fallujah bar will get? Now as well as "large organisation"; 'English'; 'mainstream'; 'exact word used' but 'not in a headline' - we must now also cite a reliable source that states that the source is reliable!! What next? If US troops massacre some Iraqis it isn't so unless God Himself appears over Time Square and announces it?! (Sarah777 (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
If you do not have a reliable source to state that Axis of Logic then why do you write "Who can doubt it?". How do you, Sarah777, judge if Axis of Logic is a Wikipedia reliable source? BTW if "God Himself appears over Time Square and announces it", it would depend on the reliability of the source that it was reported in (as explained in WP:V) as to whether it could appear in Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
OK - "God Himself appeared over Time Square and said it was a massacre and Fox News reported it"? (Sarah777 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
For this article I would suggest that at least two mainstream media outlets would be needed, both of which used the word massacre in the body of the article so that it was not a UNDUE view. This is the justification I used for removing the Al Hillah bombings, (see above) and one that you seem reasonably sanguine about. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sanguine is my middle name Phil. But I can't focus on all the items; that's your job. I'm just here to fix the few errors you leave after you. You are not suggesting that the multiple massacres/one long slaughter at Fallujah could fall foul of UNDUE even if it meets your eight other special conditions for verification? (Sarah777 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Why is the nlumber of dead for fallujah given as 600? The article that says 600 clearly says thats the total number in all the fighting for a year.

The link for that article goes to the web site for the Democracy Now political movement.69.62.148.217 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

USA Today, a decidedly less biased source of news compared with Democracy Now, also notes that the Iraqi death toll was greater than 600 for the first week of fighting in Fallujah. Hope this helps, AlphaEta 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
USA Today, a decidedly less biased source of news compared with Democracy Now. Is it? How do you reach that conclusion? Any MSM reference that says that? (Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
As someone who listens to Amy Goodman two or three times a week, I don't need a MSM source to tell me that the show is biased! Don't get me wrong, Demo Now covers stories that everyone else ignores (which is why I'm a fan), but let's be honest, they have a strong liberal slant. The point, as evidenced by the initial challenge which started this thread, is that you will undoubtedly find less resistance if the USA Today article is used to note the death toll. AlphaEta 05:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Just curiosity, did has any bright light here bothered to fire up one of those incredible inventions? Paper and pencil? Turns out in a city the size of Fallujah, the expected dead from simple old age is almost 80 a week. If the residents couldn't get to the regular cemetary, that one described soccer field would just about handle 2 months of normal attrition. Add in a few hundred genuine fighting deaths, and the soccer field description becomes a little less horrific.67.161.166.20 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
First, it's impossible to calculate the death rate of any city based solely on population size. Population is one of many variables which must be fitted within a model to make that sort of prediction. Pen, paper and even a calculator won't cut it.... Second, your scenario with people dumping their non-combat dead off at a soccur field is pure speculation and not worthy of consideration. Third, the USA Today article explicitly mentions that the reported death toll was for one week of fighting. Ergo, this analysis is meaningless without further information and an accurate depiction of the events which occurred. I'm withholding judgment on the whole massacre debate because I think it's irrelevant, but let's at least keep the wild ass guesses to a minimum. Regards, AlphaEta 06:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can't get to the cemetary, what's the difference between "non combat" dead and "combat" dead. Just a minor point.
However, if you want the expected deaths for Fallujah, just take the population (declared to be 200,000) and pull the total deaths due to natural causes for all of Iraq. Since this will include cities w better sanitation and medical, it puts an upper limit on deaths and gives a best case scenario (NOT necessarily correct). With amazingly little effort, you come up w 77 deaths per week for Fallujah. Now, 50 or 150, it's all the same. If the people can't get to the regular cemetary, they're going to fill up a lot of soccer fields in short order. And if they CAN get to the regular cemetary, why are they using the soccer fields for ANY of their dead?
The whole point is that descriptions of soccer field cemetaries say NOTHING about the legitemacy of the sources used for the Fallujah massacre.67.161.166.20 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


See above in #Fallujah 2 subsection #More than one massacre?. This is a number of the Second Battle of Fallujah not for the total dead over four different incidents. I think it is much better if we discuss the issue of quality of sources and what was the massacre they refer to in separate sections above and keep this section for a general discussion of sources for all the entries, because at the moment this is becoming a ramble which does not advance the general conversation and does not drill down on the specific problems with the Fallujah. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

More than one massacre?

Also is this talking about the same incident as the article by Phil Reeves in the Independent? One seems to be about shooting on a crowd the other the assualt on the town. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The massacre lasted several weeks - many individual killings - all count. If not then the so-called massacres of 1641 in Ireland wouldn't count; they happened over six months in totally different places but are described by Wiki as a single massacre. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
See the article and section United States occupation of Fallujah I think your assumptions are wrong the articles do not describe the same incidents.
  • April 2003 killing of demonstrators is described in the Independent article.
  • 31 March 2004 the attack on the USA Black Water vehicle.
  • April 2004 the full on assault by the US on the town. descried in the Axis of Logic article.
One was an attack on demonstrators the other was a full on assault on the city and they happened about a year apart with a hiatus between them. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah777 would you like to comment on the above, or should we just remove the Independent citation as it is nothing to do with the "Massacre of civilians in Fallujah by the US Marine Corps during an attack on the city" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Good Lord! Remove nothing. We are talking about several massacres obviously. Maybe we should list them all separately? But how? The massacres went on over a year peaking in April and again in November 2004. Each episode lasted weeks - do we refer to them all as a single massacre (see 1641 in Ireland; unlike Fallujah it wasn't even in a single location) or break them into discreet blocks of murder? We need to establish the ground-rules here and then apply them absolutely to all the other massacres, rather than allow pov-pushers pick them off one by one, applying different standards of evidence and incident-type in each case. For example, the temporal objection you raise here would rid the article of the so-called "massacre" of 1641. (Sarah777 (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Sarah777, None of the sources you have cited claim that both incidents were part of the same massacre. To put them together and claim that they are all supporting the assertion that both the incidents in April 2003 and April 2004 are part of the same massacre is WP:SYN. If you wish to list them separately then please find another reliable source to support the Indy accusation. Also IMHO you will need to find reliable sources that the assault was a massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
According to this reference (since removed) the November 2004 massacre was actually codenamed the Thanksgiving Massacre by the US military. That would be an admission - no synthesis involved? (btw - this is the sixth reference provided so far). -- Sarah777 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
And on the November Massacre, see [US massacres civilians in Fallujah] supports the other one; though no doubt this seventh reference will be rejected because the writers describe themselves as "socialist" though all their quotes seem to come from the MSM. (Sarah777 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
The source for the name "Thanksgiving Massacre" was the Daily Telegraph which states that it was a provisional code name for an operation renamed to "Phantom Fury". [10] This now means that you are talking about three different incidents. Which one was the massacre? If all three were massacres then list them separately with separate reliable sources for each one unless you can find reliable sources that call all three incidents a massacre, if not it is a violation of WP:SYN. At the moment you seem to be trying to use source that cover three separate incidents under the line "Massacre of civilians in Fallujah by the US Marine Corps during an attack on the city." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking for some more sources for the massacre in Fallujah and here are two more:

It seems to me that the sources provided to date of whatever quality are talking about different events. These are:

  • April 2003 killing of demonstrators is described in the Independent article.
  • Septemer 2004 Killing of policemen Aljazeera Sep 13, 2003
  • 31 March 2004 the attack on the USA Black Water vehicle. -- Not a massacre but a watershed
  • April 2004 the full on assault by the US on the town (First Battle of Fallujah). descried in the Axis of Logic article.
  • November 2004 an even bigger assault on the town (Second Battle of Fallujah) described in the Asian Times and the WSWS

Now it seems to me that any one of these incidents, if two or more sources can be found could be included. But to try to lump them all these events into one massacre is WP:SYN unless two or more reliable sources can be found that do just that. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


  • April 2003
  • April 2004
  • November 2004

All of these are obviously massacres by any common definition. Arguably the latter two are part of a continuous massacre. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

If reliable sources support the statement "that the latter two are part of a continuous massacre" then all well and good. But to date it seems to me that we may have several sources that call the "Second Battle of Fallujah" a massacre, but the other sources are either not reliable or are reporting on different events that took place in Fallujah. I would suggest that we concentrate on the second battle and see if we can construct an entry which can be placed in the article space without sparking an edit war. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
OK Philip, I'll go with that. But that doesn't preclude adding the others either separately (or preferably as an addendum/integrated) later if we find reliable sources. My problem with splitting it up is logistical really; referring again to Ireland 1641 - you could probably make a dozen massacres out of that (it has already produced two). Which, IMO, would make a dire article even worse. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC))
See below #Fallujah 3 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1862 Minnesota, USA Minnesota Massacre c.800(Kunnen-Jones, Marianne (2002-08-21). Anniversary Volume Gives New Voice To Pioneer Accounts of Sioux Uprising. University of Cincinnati. Retrieved on 2007-06-06.) White settlers massacred throughout Minnesota as part of the Sioux Uprising.( Douglas O. Linder. The Dakota Conflict (Sioux Uprsing) Trials of 1862, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Accessed 23 December 2007.)[unreliable source?][verification needed]

Philip Shearer, as a neutral upholder of WP:NPOV and as an Admin could you explain to the community why you felt no compulsion to delete this alleged massacre of white American settlers which is currently supported by one dodgy reference - but you were moved to remove the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US Marines at Fallujah despite it being supported by five refs including two from the MSM? Looking forward to a coherent reply; though more in hope than expectation - Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 when you add citations please read the section at the top of this page and add the author and site/publisher and if necessary the page number.
Sarah777 if you think that one or more of the other entries table are not supported by adequate sources then please discuss the issue on this talk page. But whether or not some other entry is or is not supported by adequate references should not effect the issue of the reliability of these source. Please can we stick to the the current concerns? Can you meet my concerns over the reliability of the above citations or find some which better fit the WP:V criteria. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Philip, I need some reassurance that you can administer this article from a WP:NPOV perspective. Your edits to Fallujah and Ireland 1641 cause me to doubt it. Add your failure to remove items such as Minnesota Massacre. Also I have called for you to make several edits in the past few days (both here and on your page) and you have neither replied nor made the edits. That leaves me only the option of making the changes myself. (Sarah777 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
<rant on> In the section above called #More to the talk page for further discussion where I originally placed this Fallujah entry, I also deleted another entry (Al Hillah bombings) and listed a number of others. Yet you fail to mention the other delete and those I highlighted preferring to concentrate on just one entry and I don't understand why you implying bias and bad faith by asking why I did not delete even more. Instead why not make constructive suggestions, or at the very least suggest that I should have included the above along with such things as the Indian massacre of 1622?<rant off> So given the problems I have highlighted with the Fallujah entry and the others how do you suggest that we fix them? Notice that I have not yet deleted the Fallujah entry again, but have been waiting for you to answer constructively or to add reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Refer to reply above. I was very specific re the Ireland 1641 article and the problem with the name - an item you actually edited leaving the reverted bad name in place! (New version by original author is still wrong, btw). I don't see any appropriate engagement from you to merit the effort involved in trying to convince you. (Sarah777 (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
Sarah777, you have still not engaged in discussing the individual sources listed for the Fallujah entry please do so. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm. You ignore my questions and requests - and I ignore yours! I'd call that a stand-off. OK. I give in. Not good at stand-offs. I have engaged. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
I just noticed your "Notice that I have not yet deleted the Fallujah entry again". That's good Philip. Because if you did that would be WP:Edit warring. Not something Admins are supposed to do. Why do you seek such a much higher level of verifiability for the Fallujah slaughter perpetrated by US Marines than for the others Philip? Could you maybe have a shot as answering that question before making silly demands for more good references for Fallujah? Happy Christmas, btw. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

The new standard of verifiability

Philip, to help you pick articles to remove and mindful of your implied criticism that I was only interested in a few items I have clearly marked three "massacres" that need removal as they lack two MSM references. I have tagged them with "***" for your convenience so that you can rapidly remove them. (Sarah777 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777 to stay away from this page weekend before Christmas 2007

After she was blocked for edit warring by User:Rklawton, I have unblocked Sarah777 on condition that she avoid editing this article until such time as the block he placed on her would have expired, roughly in the middle of the UTC day on December 23, 2007, per this discussion. Any edits by her to the article or this page prior to then are grounds for a resumption of the block by any admin. Daniel Case (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And that goes for Rklawton too. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse that for both these involved parties - Alison ❤ 02:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: - this has now expired - Alison ❤ 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ali - some trigger-happy Admin-warriors around here! (Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Missing massacres

Sabra and Shatila massacre

The article seems to be missing Sabra and Shatila massacre. Badagnani (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My Lai Massacre

The list seems to be missing My Lai Massacre. Badagnani (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing: massacres of Native Americans

Missing: massacres of Native Americans. Badagnani (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, you are encouraged to add back in any massacres that are sourced. We are making an effort to limit to accurate, news or academic sources, to keep the list from becoming out of hand like before. We want have at least two independent sources, as well a source for the numbers killed, as well as sources that refer to the event by the term "massacre". Certainly My Lai has all of that available from it's own article. If you want to see the old list, I have archived it at User:Knulclunk/massacre
Personally I would encourage the addition of most famous, non-contentious and easily sourced events first. Please refrain from using POV or inflammatory language in you descriptions, like "terrorist", "butchered" etc.--Knulclunk (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Minor problem, someone fix

Reference 15 has nothing to do w the event it is claimed to source.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As the citation numbers change please be more specific. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Major problem, someone fix

The list of references vanished after I added one single new one - I can't see why. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

Done. You missed a </ref> at the end of the citation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Massacre of Irish Catholics and Protestants (1641)

While this is better than the previous name it is still wrong. "Massacre of Irish Protestants" does not describe the events; "Massacre of Scottish and English Settlers" would be better as the planters in 1640 would never have described themselves, or been described by others, as Irish. And we need a matching article to cover the massacres of the Irish by the colonial armies and the yeomenry during the rebellion. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

It is not what they describe themselves as that matters it is what the people killed are usually described as in current histories that should be our guide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be "British planters" then - though the "British" didn't exist back then. Should I change it to "British occupiers massacred by dispossessed Irish? I'd be very happy to go with that name if we all agree.(Sarah777 (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
May I assume that the absence of any objections here Philip means that you agree that "British occupiers massacred by dispossessed Irish" would be a better title. Note, as you might say yourself, that I have not made the change while waiting for your reply. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
See Talk:English Civil War/Archive 1#British Civil Wars British is confusing as the Act of Union was not until ~50 years later. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree it is confusing - but YOU are the one who said "It is not what they describe themselves as that matters it is what the people killed are usually described as in current histories that should be our guide". Currently they are usually described as "British". They would have not described themselves as such - but that was MY point. And the very LAST thing they would have described themselves as, then or now, is Irish!!! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

Gukurahundi

I suggest that the massacres in Zimbabwe called Gukurahundi in which 10-30,000 Ndebele are estimated to have been killed, be added to the list of massacres, unfortunatly I don't have the references in front of me, perhaps someone will be good enough to track down an acceptable reference for this list and add it in the correct format. Thanks.Seth J. Frantzman (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are some references: www.genocidewatch.org/ZimbabweFacingMassMurder12August2005.htm "an estimated 20,000 people were murdered"

Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe: A Report into the Disturbances in Matabeleland and the Midlands 1980 - 1988 (Paperback), Jacana Media (31 Oct 2006), ISBN-10: 1770092072 ISBN-13: 978-1770092075

www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/download/-/id/549/file/10518_040907zimbabwe.pdf

Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe: A Report on the Disturbances in ...www.unireps.com.au/isbn/9781850658900.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfrantzman (talk • contribs) 14:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fun with Statistics

OK, we've got 48 incidents (as of this writing) and 22 (46%)are committed by "the West" (15%). Normalizing, this shows the current list is already skewed by "the West" being 20 times more likely to be listed.

I don't expect perfection, and the list is still pretty short, but TWENTY TIMES!???? (someone has been skewing other statistics as well).

We are just asking for raging trouble. Can't Wiki editors read? Or do they all have an agenda?67.161.166.20 (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You still including Nazi Germany, ancient Rome and Russia as "The West"? And obviously the Native Americans too; they were from the Wild West! (Sarah777 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
The American Indians, Muslims, etc. were part of "the rest". Since the list is so short now, why don't you take the trouble (should take about 5 minutes) to do your own count and your own statistics? Afraid of the result?67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
There are about 22 items which could be characterised as West v Rest; of these 17 are massacres perpetrated by "The Rest" and 5 are massacres by "The West". Are you sure you can read??! (Sarah777 (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
There are now (the list keeps growing) 24 incidents which I count as "the West". However, why don't we use YOUR definition of bias and change everything to "anglo/american" vs "the rest"? You're now down to 10 incidents, but wait, the normalization denominator for "anglo/american" is now 4% instead ot 15% (you know, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, middle europe, etc. are now part of "the rest". Make you happy?). Hmmm. Gets interesting. Now after normalizing the situation is improved. Instead of an over count by a factor of 20, "anglo/americans" are ONLY over counted by a factor of six. I really understand why you refuse to do your own math no matter how simple it is.67.161.166.20 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong as usual my innumerate statistician. Firstly, there are 5 "West" massacres, not 10. Secondly, while I can understand the need for gross over-simplification in your case, Germany is now clearly part of the modern "West"; allied to the Anglo-American world; Nazi Germany and earlier was not. France 1800 was not; France 1900 was. Palestine 1900 was not; Israel today is. Japan 1940 was not, Japan today is. Ireland 1600 was not; Ireland today is. Arguably Russia under Czar Nick was; Russia today is not. India and Africa and the Middle East were all ruled by "the West" in 1940; today they are not. Etcetera. So how do you come up with your risible pop stats? -- (Sarah777 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
I've figured out the problem. A while ago you posted you had marked 3 events with ***. I counted 11 ***s. Draw your own conclusions.67.161.166.20 (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep. When I said three there were three; - to innumeracy and illiteracy we must now add that you don't know how to tell the time! Image:Face-grin.svg Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the increasing edit warring, I have protected this article for two weeks and am seriously contemplating protecting this talk page, too. We need to go over to WP:RS/N and discuss the issue that is leading to this ... are Sarah's sources for Fallujah reliable? Can the The Independent's use of the word "massacre" in a headline but not the article text qualify the event for inclusion here?

Let's cool off for a bit and try to resolve this, please. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Quality of Sources

We will never get rid of the controversy until we raise our standards. Just found out one of the sources given (Beth Moore Henry, Fallujah, #146) is a retail checkout clerk who writes as a hobby.67.161.166.20 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Why all the focus on Fallujah I wonder? Half these massacres are hardly referenced at all. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC))
'cause Fallujah is the only one with mistakes.67.161.166.20 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I moved questions and answers about specific Fallujah sources up to the subsection #quality of sources of the #Fallujah 2 section. So that these problems can be resolved in one place. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have this discussion on RS/N, as I suggested, where it would get some more impartial review. Everyone on this talk page has a point of view; we need to hear from someone who doesn't (And anon, do you have sources to back up your allegations about Sarah's sources? Also, if other massacres are uncited, we cannot say Fallujah is the only one with mistakes because we don't know.

I reserve the right, while the page is protected, to just go in there and remove every unsourced allegation and make it get built back up again with a reliable source for every single thing. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, I hope you do it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Daniel, I'm not really arguing here as this is just a rehash of the earlier process; all my references must be defended endlessly while most of the rest of the article just expands without comments or references (not in all cases of course). What we need is a standard set of rules that can't be tightened up and loosened based on who the alleged perpetrators/victims are. (Sarah777 (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

Daniel, I went through the article and did not find one single massacre that was uncited. I found two that lacked citations in the "comments" column, but both of those had citations in the "deaths" column. One of those (A quick sampling check, I won't do an exhaustive check unless you request it) was Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Also, the point of contention here (IMO) is not the Fallujah Massacre, but the fact that with 8 sources sited, no one has been able to come up with anything better than tabloid quality - and not much of that. This does not mean the entry is wrong, but the evidence is incredibly weak. Under the same principal of law of "innocent until proven guilty" we may be letting the guilty off here, but we will accept that 'cause our "evidence of guilt" is pathetic.67.161.166.20 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put three asterisks against those articles that don't have the minimum two citations demanded by Philip Baird. The were deleted, without explanation and I replaced them. Doubtless had the article not been protected they would have quickly disappeared again. The rule was two citations, not one - an improvisation I suspect to get around the perfectly good RAI reference for Fallujah. (Sarah777 (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
Regarding the second reference appearing beside the number of victims, I was told that meant nothing if it just gave the number of casualties without specifically stating in the same article that the people were massacred (using that precise word; and not in a headline). In other words if one ref calls something a massacre and another gives the number of victims then saying x folk were killed in y massacre and giving both references is WP:Synthesis. Note: that isn't my rule and I don't even agree with it; but it was what I was told in my attempts to add Fallujah to the list. If that isn't a rule then fine - don't ask for it re Fallujah. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
I my opinion there is no problem with using more than one source about a massacre that contains different information and citing both sources. A couple of reliable sources calling an incident a massacre and another that calls it something else for the number of dead. What I have problems with is when two articles call different events that take different places or at different times and calling the separate events one massacre as that falls foul of WP:SYN, because neither of the two articles made such an assertion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah777 I really have a hard time understanding your stance on some things. At times you can seem to be quite reasonable, especially when you are considering contributions to a page that you have not made, but it seems to me that your reason seems to be wanting when you are considering edits made by yourself. I infer from your statement above "The rule was two citations, not one - an improvisation I suspect to get around the perfectly good RAI reference for Fallujah", that you think I suggested a measure for undue weight only because I don't like Fallujah being mentioned on this page. Yet you must have read the section "#More to the talk page for further discussion" where I explicitly state that one tertiary source is not enough for some of the entries and for the "Fallujah Massacre" I wrote "No source for the number of dead and only one source, I think it needs more than one to show it is commonly/often called a massacre (WP:UNDUE)." but during the same edit I also added for the Al Hillah bombings "Only one source, I think it needs more than one to show it is commonly/often called a massacre (WP:UNDUE). It is an agency article so it is no use piling up syndicated copies or near copies of the article, what is needed is another independent source like another agency (eg Reuters) that also calls it a massacre". Since then I have deleted Al Hillah bombings entry again when the same article was presented as a second source, So why do you think this was an idea brought in specifically to stifle a "perfectly good RAI reference for Fallujah"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Philip - I think maybe Al Hillah may be merely cannon fodder. Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well it was not. I deleted it because there was only one source for the alleged massacre. How about addressing the issues about the Fallujah massacres (poor sources and WP:SYN) in the sections above were they have been raised rather than trying to suggest that editors have anything but good faith reasons for questioning sources in this section? Such questioning is confrontational and not is not helpful in the editors of this page reaching a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Philip - I am running out of words and ways to make my position clear. I am 'not prepared to accept a higher verification threshold for Fallujah than any other article. Period. So with several unchallenged references there is no argument to engage. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC))
Sarah777 See above #quality of sources and #More than one massacre which unchallenged references are you referring to and in what way do you think is the "higher verification threshold" being applied here?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So it seems that now the discussion is moving to the interpretation given the unchallenged sources and whether calling it a massacre based on them is an improper synthesis. Can we at least come to a stipulation here on, if Fallujah is to be on this list, which cited sources would be considered reliable apart from the synthesis issue? Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, see discussion with Philip above. We think focusing on the single best-referenced incident of the three potential "massacres" is best way to proceed. My own view is that if, in time, we unearth refs for all three then they should be included as one rather than "Fallujah Massacre April 2003"; "Fallujah Massacre April 2004"; etc - there seems to be one ref which suggests a massacre in October 2004 (a 4th "massacre"). Obviously. I'll be keeping an eye out to make sure treating all these as different events isn't simply a technique for separating refs and them claiming WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Btw, came across some eye-witness accounts that testify to the April 2004 massacre; "Massacres of Civilians: Eyewitness Accounts from Faluja". How do these shape up v. your requirements for verification? (Sarah777 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
I'd believe the source better if they knew how to spell. Isn't globali(s)ation spelled w a "Z"?
Also, the article is not an "eyewitness" account. It is a third party repeat of someone who describes graves, repeats horror stories (fourth party), and claims of the attack "to come". Accurate? Maybe. Convincing? No.67.161.166.20 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, on this side of the pond we spell "isation" with an "s" rather than a "z" (zed, not zee, btw). Sarah777 (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
globalization can be spelt with a "z" or an "s". British spelling favours "s" as it does for all these types of words (see American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise, -ize)
  • Google: about 340,000 for globalization site:uk
  • Google: about 938,000 for globalisation site:uk
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 the source is a primary one and as such it is of little use here (see WP:PSTS for primary source limitations). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Philip, what do you mean "primary"? You mean if John Doe says "I saw it" that is less reliable than if John Doe says "a man told me he saw it"? !!!! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC))
I also like this one because Walter Cronkite (100% MSM) has endorsed the source. (Sarah777 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
This is Project Censored. It republishes. The original story was by a republisher in the UK. I have been unable to confirm the existence of the author. FWIW, ANY source that has an article linked, and then headlined about children being used as guinea pigs in aids drug research AND 30 LINES INTO THE TEXT admits a hospital was trying to help children THAT ALREADY HAD AIDS is not my idea of a source w high veracity. The article about "chatter among US officials" just before the Bhutto assassination also reeks of yellow press. (Just curiosity, would a "lack" of chatter also imply something sinister?)
Also, I tried and was unable to find an endorsement of Project Censored by Walter Cronkite. Please provide better provenance.67.161.166.20 (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Correction, found the Walter Cronkite endorsement of the site.67.161.166.20 (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
So, anonymous IP, you "have been unable to confirm the existence of the author". You are suggesting the text materialised (or ized if you prefer) through some supernatural means? When I claimed you folk would go to any extreme to diss sources for Fallujah=massacre I hadn't fully envisaged just how extreme! (Sarah777 (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC))
Sarah777 the source contains verifiably false information "Evidenced by the mass slaughtering of Iraqis and the use of illegal weapons such as cluster bombs, napalm, uranium munitions ..." Take for example "uranium munitions" See DU Legal status in weapons Quoting Carla Del Ponte, the former chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia:
There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present
The same is true for cluster bombs and (I think) napalm -- fire has been a weapon since time immemorial -- so if the source makes categorical statements like "the use of illegal weapons such as" that can easily be proven to be false how can we rely anything the source says? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Philip - you are grasping at straws here. Anyway, in the case of an illegal invasion all the weapons used were illegal. Obviously. I have a legally licenced shotgun (in Ireland). I bring it to England and shoot someone it is an illegal weapon. Simple enough concept. (Sarah777 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC))
if all weapons are illegal why does the author single out specific weapon systems? I leave it to others to decide whether my interpretation of the paragraph is correct -- that the author meant those specific weapons mentioned by the author are illegal (under the laws of war) -- or whether your interpretation is correct -- that the author meant that the use of all weapons was illegal because the invasion was illegal. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Philip; the invasion was illegal. You really want ref for that statement! So all the weapons used by the invaders were illegal. This is where you interpretation of "synthesis" becomes bizarre. (Sarah777 (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC))

Both of you are getting away from the topic at hand here: whether a source is sufficiently reliable to include the event described or alleged in this list, and if so whether it can be used to justify calling those events a massacre. We have a week to straighten things out; let's make good use of it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

List of atrocities is essentially the same idea as this list. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fallujah 3

Date Location Name Deaths Description
2004 November Fallujah, Iraq Second Battle of Fallujah 600–3,000[citation needed] In Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre Sigfrido Ranucci and Maurizio Torrealta allege that in the Fallujah Offensive of November 2004 the disproportionate use of force including the use of white phosphorus, caused the death of many civilians.[1][2] Others have also called the alleged indiscriminate use of force a massacre,[3][4] however Peter Pace, the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while not denying that the United States military used white phosphorous (as the United States military consider it to be a legitimate military munition), did deny that the U.S. military used indiscriminate force stating "No armed force in the world goes to greater effort than your armed force to protect civilians and to be very precise in the way we apply our power"[5]
  1. ^ Staff. US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq, BBC, 8 November 2005
  2. ^ * RAI documentary English Version:
  3. ^ Escobar, Pepe. Counterinsurgency run amok, Asian Times Online 18 November, 2004)
  4. ^ Kay, Joseph. US massacres civilians in Fallujah World Socialist Web Site 10 November 2004.
  5. ^ Donna Miles. Chairman Calls White Phosphorous Legitimate Military Tool American Forces Press Service, November 30, 2005

Does anyone have any major changes to suggest to the above or is it OK as a template for a replacement for the current Fallujah entry? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. the United States intentionally burned 3,000 civilians alive with white phosphorus. You would think it would be better reported.--Knulclunk (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to disproportionate is that better? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Intentionally targeted 3,000 civilians. Like, soccer stadium style? Just want to be sure I understand Wikipedia's definition of massacre here.... --Knulclunk (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The word intentionally does not appear in the text. One can take the view that the US uses disproportionate along with not enough distinction that can cause a massacre without necessarily considering it deliberate targeting. It is a judgement of whether the collateral damage for the military gain is justified by military necessity. This ultimately comes down to a personal point of view. At one extreme a pacifist will consider any military action resulting in loss of life to be the use of disproportionate force even though under the laws of war no crime was committed. In this case I think that there are just enough sources cited to justify the inclusion of the above, but I am open to persuasion that it is not so.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Object totally. "Massacre" is well referenced and should appear in the title. If we are going to write a mini article for Fallujah 3; then we must be allowed have all thew qualifications and counter-views equally represented in all the other incidents. In my experience previous attempts to temper extreme pov in "Ireland 1941" have resulted in trench warfare and had to be fought over word by word. (Sarah777 (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
Reading the comments above - it matters not a whit what a US Army chap claimed; no way is a combatant a reliable source. We have multiple reliable MSM sources calling it a massacre. Therefore, by the rules of this daft list, it is. Period. Slam dunk guys. And something codenamed "Thanksgiving massacre" (even if cooler heads later changed the name) indicates clear murderous intend as the use of indiscriminate weapons. If we want to take this line then no explosion, bombing or other "terrorist" action where the perpetrators don't actually admit they deliberately targeted innocent civilians will qualify. So, there goes all the attacks on Israel 'cos Hamas regard ALL settlers as active participants. The same could be said for any alleged massacre of white settlers in America; or indeed, for the Irish Rebels of 1641. Apply these rules folks and you delete nearly every "massacre" on the list using the same rules. (Sarah777 (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
NPOV means that all views other than those given undue weight should be represented. A US military statement in a press conference is a reliable source (under WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." We are stating that the US military claims not that it is true). Your point about other massacres is not directly relevant to this entry, but in principle "then we must be allowed have all thew qualifications and counter-views equally represented in all the other incidents." is quite correct (see WP:NPOV) and "In my experience previous attempts to temper extreme pov in "Ireland 19641" have resulted in trench warfare and had to be fought over word by word." just as some will do over Ireland in 1649 :-( . As to what you describe as the title, it is not a title it is the name to the most detailed Wikipedia article on the issue extracting a few to make the point see Battle of Baghdad, American Revolutionary War and Revolt in the Vendée. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
One further point Sarah777 you wrote "If we want to take this line then no explosion, bombing or other "terrorist" action where the perpetrators don't actually admit they deliberately targeted innocent civilians will qualify." If some have called such an attack a massacre and others (without giving undue weight to either side) have justified the attack then that should be mentioned because of the WP:NPOV requirement. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Philip. It's an awfully long comment for a "list". It opens up other points of contention. I don't understand the [citation needed] notation. Nice try. You're trying to be reasonable, but I don't think it's the solution. We just plain need some sources that are more reliable.

Just a point for eveyone. The professional media (and the amateur if they want any claim to standards) consider a personal attack (and that includes claims of attrocities committed by military/police units, etc. that could be traced back to real human beings) to be unethical to the point of criminality IF MADE UNDER A PEN NAME OR ANY OTHER BYLINE THAT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY IDENTIFY THE ACCUSER! Think about that and I think you will agree.67.161.166.20 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See the use of the word "alleged" and the citations, that covers this problem that you are concerned about. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Not even remotely interested in the internal functioning of the US media or legal system. Coming from a country where Free Speech is taken very seriously the prospect of facing criminal charges for stating that the US Army massacred people during the illegal invasion is zero. Thus I guess I could regard that as a kind of threat were I not WP:AGF. Some Army guy could always try a civil suit in Ireland I guess - but these are tried by jury...if you know what I mean! (Sarah777 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
In fact, the notion is so preposterous that every newspaper website with comment threads in Europe would contain thousands of potential criminals every day. Read the London Guardian "Comment is Free" site for a small sample!
What you seem to be suggesting here is that because of legal considerations, there must be a higher bar of evidence/"verifiability" for crimes committed by Americans than by non-Westerners! If that is the case then let's adopt it and put it up-front as a policy. Then we can put up a banner over the "list" saying "Warning: This list is politically biased due to legal reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia". Then see Wikicredibility in any field drain down the plughole.(Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC))
"..in the case of an illegal invasion"? Sarah, your POV slip is showing again.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah. Facts is facts. Claiming it wasn't illegal would be lettin' yer POV show. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC))
Date Location Name Deaths Description
2004 November Fallujah, Iraq Fallujah massacre 600–3,000[citation needed] Massacre of civilians in Fallujah by the US Marine Corps during an attack on the city.[1].

[2][unreliable source?] [3] [4][unreliable source?] [5][unreliable source?] [6] [7]
  1. ^ Fallujah The Hidden Massacre, [1] cites RaiNews 24.
  2. ^ Jack Random. The Fallujah Massacre, Buzzle.com
  3. ^ Phil Reeves. Iraqi rage grows after Fallujah massacre, The Independent, 4 May 2003
  4. ^ Rush-hour protest in Cambridge against Fallujah massacre, IndyMedia Cambridge UK, 8 November, 2004
  5. ^ Beth Moore Henry. Massacre in Fallujah, Axis of Logic November 15, 2004
  6. ^ Aaron Glantz. Massacre in Fallujah over 600 dead Accessed 24 December 2007
  7. ^ Giuliana Sgrena. Flight from a Falluja massacred by bombs Accessed 26 December 2007

From my talk page:

Not sure what you are at here Philip as virtually all the edit warring was by registered and established users (some very long established and obviously accustomed to having their way here). And as you can see the vandalism re-started immediately; mass deletion of all the Fallujah massacre references. Which, of course, I have now restored. Sarah777 (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarah I do not understand why you think that this edit by Knulclunk deleted " all the Fallujah massacre references." because it quite clearly did not. Further the guidelines are quite clear on this issue if there is a controversial entry in Wikipedia, the entry should be handled by stating who is making the controversial statement in the text of the article and a balanced POV should be given. AFAICT your version does neither. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"if there is a controversial entry in Wikipedia, the entry should be handled by stating who is making the controversial statement in the text of the article and a balanced POV should be given." So, you are saying:
  • that every verified fact that an editor disputes thus becomes controversial
  • that having thus become controversial we should state who is making the controversial statement in the text of the article and a balanced POV should be given.
Is this the case? And does it apply to all wiki-articles, not just this one? (Pretty profound implications for the project if it does) - Just a 'yes' or 'no' in the case of both questions will do Sarah777 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As the barrister said "Do you still beat your wife?" - 'yes' or 'no'?". Please see WP:NPOV andAttributing and substantiating biased statements --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
So now that you have read the Wikipeida policy in this area, will you now accept a compromise version? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to go on about WP policy a bit more, Sarah... In your blind pursuit of wp:bias, you are ignoring equally important WP guidelines like WP:SOAP, WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You even fail to grasp the concept of wp:bias. The Bias guidelines are to widen WP's reach into non-techie, non-western, non-fanboy areas. (like plumbing). You seem to think it is an excuse the offer up ridiculous, poorly sourced allegations to further grind your ax about Bush's war.
If there aren't enough Western atrocities on the list, than WP's showing U.S. bias? You're behaving like these nutjobs over here who want Creationism to have "equal footing" as evolution in science class. About the only thing you have contributed over here is forcing the issue of sources on the rest of us lazy editors, which would be a blessing, except that you refuse to play along with that as well.--Knulclunk (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed 18 January for further discussion

Sarah777 you or others marked (***) these entries as a problem on the article page. Please could people add an entry under each one describing what problem with them is and lets discuss and reach a consensus for each one before it is put back into the list. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1771***, July 17 Kugluktuk, Nunavut Bloody Falls Massacre 20[1] Just after midnight on July 17, the Chipewyan warriors set upon the Inuit camp and killed approximately 20 men, women and children.[2][3]


Date Location Name Deaths Description
1778***, July 3 Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania American Revolutionary War 360[4] Loyalist and Iroquois raiders killed American settlers in the Wyoming Valley of Pennsylvania.
Only a single reference and that is from an encyclopedia; if we can't use Wiki as a ref why use unreferenced material in another encyclopedia?Sarah777 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1838*** South Africa Massacre of Voortrekkers c.600[5] Zulu warriors killed 600 Boer men, women and children escaping northwards from British rule, many at a spot near where the town of Weenen now stands.[6]
Only a single reference; though it appears as if it were two separate refs. Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1862*** Minnesota, USA Minnesota Massacre c.800[7] White settlers are killed throughout Minnesota as part of the Sioux Uprising.[8][9][unreliable source?][verification needed]

Only a single reliable source describes the events as a massacre. Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1876*** Ottoman Empire Batak massacre c.15,000[10] Ottoman army irregulars killed Bulgarian men, women and children as reprisal for the April Uprising.[11]
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1941*** Soviet Union NKVD prisoner massacres c.100,000[12] The Soviet NKVD massacres tens of thousands of political prisoners at the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.[13]
Date Location Name Deaths Description
1941***, September 29-30 Ukraine Babi Yar more than 30,000[14] Jewish population of Kiev was marched in small groups to a pit at Babi Yar and machine-gunned.[14]
Here are some more citations calling the Babi Yar massacre a massacre. There are dozens more. Please reinstate this entry with as many of these as you wish.
  • Victoria Khiterer (2004). "Babi Yar: The tragedy of Kiev's Jews". Brandeis Graduate Journal 2: 1-16. 
  • A survivor of the Babi Yar massacre. Heritage:Civilization and the Jews. Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Retrieved on 2008-01-20.
  • Wolfram Wette (2006). The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality, 112. “The massacre at Babi Yar, near Kiev, which claimed the lives of more than thirty thousand Jewish victims on September 29 and 30, 1941, was the largest single mass killing for which the German army was responsible during its campaign against the Soviet Union.”  - there are several other references to this massacre as such in this book
  • Jill Dougherty and Jim Bittermann. "Pope visits Jewish massacre site", CNN, 2001-06-25. Retrieved on 2008-01-20. 
Agree; Babi Yar now has sufficient reliable references and nobody seems to dispute the "massacre" tag. Sarah777 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


Date Location Name Deaths Description
1946*** Jerusalem King David Hotel bombing 92[15] July 22 bombing conducted by the Zionist paramilitary Irgun in agreement with the Jewish Agency and its head, David Ben-Gurion, resulted in the deaths of 92 Britons, Arabs and Jews. [16]

Only one of the referenced articles uses the term "massacre". Sarah777 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Date Location Name Deaths Description
2001***, June 1 Tel Aviv, Israel Dolphinarium massacre 22[17] Suicide bombing carried out by a Hamas member in a discotheque in which 22 Israelis, mostly teenagers with backgrounds from the former Soviet Union, were killed and more than 100 were injured.[18]
Date Location Name Deaths Description
2001***, August 9 Jerusalem, Israel Sbarro restaurant massacre 15[19] Hamas suicide bomber attacked the Sbarro pizzeria in downtown Jerusalem at lunchtime. 15 people (including 8 children) were killed, and 130 wounded. Both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad initially claimed responsibility.[20]

In relation to the two Hamas attacks should we not give the counter view that there are no innocent civilians in occupied land (which they seem to say is all of Israel, more or less)? After the style of the justifications some editors are trying to insert for Fallujah massacre (by the US) and Qana (by Israel). In all three instances the perpetrators (and probably a majority in the societies they spring from) don't regard the mass deaths as massacres, merely acts carried out in a defensive war. Let's be consistent here. Sarah777 (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that makes such an assertion that "there are no innocent civilians in occupied land"? Would anyone claim that all civilians are not innocent? For example would they say that a babe in arms is a legitimate target or would they say that an infant who dies was regrettable collateral damage? If so, have they explained at what age civilians in occupied territories become legitimate targets? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As suicide bombings were carried out by Hamas who not only therefore approved of them they regarded the "martyrs" as heroes (and opinion polls showed most Palestinians and indeed Arabs agreed). This is very well documented and if I decide to add "balance" to the disco bombing I'll find the necessary references, have no doubt. I would certainly hope we don't need to go down that route as I find attempts to excuse mass murder revolting, from whatever source. But if you insist in allowing statements by US Government and Army sources to provide balance in relation to massacres they perpetrated I guess we'll have to allow Hamas the same for the sake of consistency and WP:NPOV. I assume, btw, that a Hamas spokesperson would be regarded by you as being as "reliable" as a US Army spokesman? Otherwise we'd have yet another problem with your POV. Sarah777 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I would encourage a neutral point of view to be given for all the entries to this article. If you find reliable sources for any of the massacres that provides reliable source that implies that the massacres was not an "indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" then for compliance with WP:NPOV it should be added providing it is from a reliable source. So for example a Hamas spokesman quoted by a reliable source such as Reuters would do. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The major problem which one will run into is that the deliberate targeting non-combatants is a war crime, while people accidentally killed in the cross fire is not. If a paramilitary targets soldiers with a bombs and non-combatants are killed accidentally then that is very different from targeting civilians. To take an example closer to home: Placing a relatively small bomb in a bin near a McDonald's in Warrington and killing children was seen as more heinous by the Irish people[11][12] than the planting of a much larger bomb placed in Bishopsgate in London just a month later where the target was the British economy, and those killed and maimed were seen as collateral damage. Just as in conventional wars attacks are governed by distinction and proportionality so it seems that people draw the same conclusions for paramilitary attacks.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk)
Philip, you are 100% correct. Your stamina is inspiring. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again chaps. Warrington wasn't intended to kill; plan was to warn of a bomb and then blast the security forces searching for it after the area was cleared of shoppers. Bomb exploded early. Morally and logically the same as a US jet wiping out a wedding feast with a bomb aimed at a gunman. As I pointed out already, a majority of opinion in the Arab world seems to share the Hamas view that settlers (which to Hamas includes all Israelis) are not innocent by definition. None of us have to agree with that. All I am saying is that the implication of your defence of including the "excuses" re Qana or Fallujah is that we should equally give Hamas's rationale for bombing the disco. (And remember few people outside America would accept the "lack of intent" to kill Iraqi civilians; something that your POV lets you accept a priori). Sarah777 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not write that the IRA targeted children. That is your interpretation of what I wrote and I think it shows you did not read what I wrote very carefully. It was not that the ASU targeted children but that putting a bomb in a place where children are known to congregate was seen as an act lacking "distinction" while the Bishopsgate bomb although far larger was not condemned in the same way (no large demonstrations in Dublin over Bishopsgate), and to underline this moral point I included a link to an interview with McGuinness "I do not justify targeting children and I never have. I recently travelled to Warrington and met with the families of those killed on that terrible day."
As to your comment "Morally and logically the same as a US jet wiping out a wedding feast with a bomb aimed at a gunman." Yes it is exactly the same thing it comes down to a question of distinction and proportionality. Of which many will hold different opinions. That is why such entries in this table should carry a balance. If someone calls an event an massacres and a reliable source can be found that explains that the action was an accident, then we should put in that explanation, as well as the initial claim (with the proviso that they both pass the undue weight and verifiability requirements) and then let the facts speak for themselves. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have re-protected this again until the principle editors can come to an agreement on this page 'without revert-warring. This is not an endorsement of the page as is. If agreement is not forthcomint, then I suggest going down the dispute mediation path. Please do not change the protection status of this page if you intend to then add or remove disputed content, as that may be seen as a misuse of admin tools. If consensus is reached, please feel free to ask myself or another uninvolved admin to unprotect. Thanks. Rockpocket 20:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I'm gone two weeks and already you have the page protected again.67.161.166.20 (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You weren't really the problem! Sarah777 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

White History

Finally, a group of white people deciding which event resulting in destruction of human-life is worth mentioning (1984 Sikh riots, Nanoor massacre) and which are not (Jallianwala Bagh massacre). Who gave you the authority to decide and publish what constitutes "The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this" and publish this information in a facade of "open content,free encyclopedia". That's what the History Channel is for. Good work. Keep it up. F*** free speech. I will wait and watch as to when this entry disappears.

Hi Anon. White person here. I fear this article isn't going away any time soon, which is a disgrace, frankly. We know it isn't possible to be objective about these "massacres" so we have decided:
  • Truth is irrelevant; verifiability is all that counts.
  • We will assume that it is factual if it meets our verification tests (thus we can say stuff like "let the facts speak for themselves").
  • To do this an incident must be called a "massacre" in a reliable source.
  • A reliable source is basically the, yes, basically white Western Establishment media, also known as MSM for short (mainstream media). You see, they have lawyers - who are noted for their honesty.
  • But we don't give equal status to just any mainstream media; it must be in English, so we are restricting the notion of "reliability" to English-speaking white folk (couldn't have the Russians with their unfree press and BAD foreign policy contesting our notion of reality)
  • Now 90% of the English-speaking MSM is produced by Americans, British, Canadians and Australians. Who are allies and have a shared history, culture and common foreign policy.
  • Surprisingly, under the rules we have created which insists that claims must be endorsed by the MSM of this handful of countries we find that they don't actually commit many massacres.
Sarah777 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are these not massacres

1. Jallianwala Bagh massacre

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Retaliation_.E2.80.94_.22The_Devil.27s_Wind.22

This is hijacking history.

Refer to my comments above. Surely it is obvious why Amritsar isn't a massacre? Sarah777 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Greysteel

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1993, 30 October Greysteel, County Londonderry, Northern Ireland Greysteel massacre 8 Ulster Freedom Fighters open fire in a crowded bar using an AK-47 and automatic pistol[21][22][23][24]

Can I possibly get a consensus for addition? More refs available if needed, I didn't want to go overboard. One Night In Hackney303 01:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes ONIH; agree. Clear case. Article is protected because we cannot agree on a consistent set of criteria for verifiability or for reliable sources. So you'll have to wait I guess. Who removed Greysteel and why, btw? Sarah777 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New posters questioning additions

Please, this article has problems under discussion which have nothing to do with missed massacres. We have at least four major points which must be settled before the article will really be available for normal editing. The problems have proven to be surprising untractable and even subtle. If you wish to join in and help solve the problems, please ask for a summary (or just take the time ((a lot)) to read the discussion history) and I'll supply one. Otherwise, please wait for the article to be unprotected after a consensus is reached on the problems and then you will be able to add any missing items yourselves.67.161.166.20 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm going to to insist on {{totallydisputed}} being added to the article. And by the way, I'm not a "new poster", I'm objecting to the removal of an incident which is almost universally recognised as a massacre, while ones that aren't remain. I couldn't care less about Fallujah or similar, I want Greysteel back on the list and I don't have time to wait for unrelated arguments to be settled. One Night In Hackney303 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As someone who probably shares your views on Greysteel I DO care about Fallujah and the problem is that every time the article is unprotected first thing on the agenda is to delete Fallujah. This is a bigger issue than any single massacre; see the Anon comments about Amritsar which was perpetrated by the same state force as that which facilitated Greysteel. Sarah777 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The first thing on the list is to get a compromise over Fallujah and for that to happen it would be better if disinterested editors like User:One Night In Hackney became involved in the discussion as the more editors involved the more likely a consensus can be found. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.