Talk:List of massacres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 I'm finding more mistakes . . . . 2 Added some details about the slaughter of Christians at Antioch in 1268 3 Archives 4 Missing Massacres 5 Port Arthor Massacre 6 First Crusade massacre 7 Restoring lost lists 8 Iraqi royalists 9 Bangladesh Liberation War 10 Holocaust 11 Pacific War 12 Deir Yassin 13 Serious omission! 14 Definition of Massacre 15 Stalin's USSR 16 Recent addition 17 where in the list? 18 Samar Massacre 19 Tibet 20 9/11 21 No Gun Ri 22 Stalingrad 23 World war II bombings 24 China under Mao Tse Tung 25 Beige background 26 Bold items, Date format 27 Badajoz a massacre outside of rules of war? don't think so 28 Defining "massacre" 28.1 Numbers 28.2 Timeframe, location 28.3 Alternative layout 29 Bromberg 30 12 31 Nanking Massacre 32 Waco 33 Hiroshima and Nagasaki 34 POV questions re westerners - Feb 2007 35 We need to source these! 36 Iraq War 37 Fact citation 38 Criteria for inclusion 39 Should this page be deleteed? 40 Restructuring 41 Inclusion of Waco? 42 Proposed removals from the list 43 Stricter Inclusion Policy = BAD 44 The Wichita Massacre

[edit] I'm finding more mistakes . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since this article is obviously ridden with left-wing anti-Western-Civilization nonsense, I went ahead and elaborated on the very scant treatment of Baybars brutal annihilation of the city of Antioch in the 13th Century. I also removed the false information about the Crusaders killing Jews and Christians during the First Crusade. That's sensationalism and has nothing to do with history.

^Actually Jews were often killed. Revert the changes Einstein.

[edit] Archives

• Talk:List of massacres/Archive 1

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

[edit] Missing Massacres

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

This is really a bad page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Port Arthor Massacre

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

[edit] First Crusade massacre

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

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

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

The most I can find is this...

From Guibert of Nogent, Historia Hierosolymitana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Restoring lost lists

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

[edit] Iraqi royalists

I removed these two:

Iraqi royalists massacre hundreds of minorities in tehy 1930s,

1943 Iraqi royalists massacre hundreds of Jews in 1942,

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

[edit] Bangladesh Liberation War

I removed this entry:

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

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

[edit] Holocaust

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

I have clarified appropriately. / Ezeu 02:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Pacific War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which part of "the Japanese don't keep meticulous records on who they massacre" can you not understand? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, the 9 million figure is well documented. How they derived it I do not know. But it is the figure quoted for most sources out there. Just because individual massacres may not be named does not mean they did not happen. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Deir Yassin

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

[edit] Serious omission!

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

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

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

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

[edit] Definition of Massacre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Stalin's USSR

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

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

[edit] Recent addition

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

[edit] where in the list?

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

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

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

[edit] Samar Massacre

This is described as:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tibet

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

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

[edit] 9/11

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

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

[edit] No Gun Ri

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

[edit] Stalingrad

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

[edit] World war II bombings

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

[edit] China under Mao Tse Tung

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

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

Hmm, possibly because famines can't meet the definition of "massacre". -- Миборовский 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the deaths attributable to Mao were brought about by starvation. In fact, in the early 1950's several hundred thousand people were executed before large crowds during what was called the "suppression of counterrevolutionaries." And there were many instances of mass killing during the so-called "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" (e.g. the Daxing Massacre, etc.) This site has some interesting info on such atrocities: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-23/25124.html --C.J. Griffin 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why "Deaths due to man-made famine" should be excluded. If not on this page, than we should create a special page for it. Stalin and Mao both killed more people than Hitler. --Uncle Ed 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere else. Not here. Famines don't meet the definition of "massacre". Besides, nobody other than Jung Chang gives that large figure and attribute it squarely on Mao. -- Миборовский 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beige background

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

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

[edit] Bold items, Date format

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

I have removed the month-day information, because it only clutters the table and can be found on the article for the particular event. I have also removed the use of header rows (starting line with "!" instead of "|") some editors incorrectly used for emphasis. --Deon Steyn 12:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Deon!

1. Re small font-size across entire table, I was thinking it might be preferable to restrict this to the "Summary" column (which, after all, acts as a preview for each massacre's article linked); what do you reckon...?
2. I was also thinking of inserting all the various types currently dividing the list ("Massacres during armed conflicts", "State-sponsored or state-condoned massacres during peacetime", etc) into the main Ancient/Modern lists, then using other background colo/urs to indicate those of particular types... I don't think it will turn the list into some kind of psychedelic rainbow as I query many of the present characteriz/sations; what do you think...?

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, large (wide or long) tables look best with a slightly reduced font size for the entire table. We could bump it up to 95% if it looks too small. For the description column the <small> tag is perhaps more appropriate, but definitely easier and neater than the span/font-size tags... it results in a font size of about 70% (guessing).

I would also remove the two tables you mention, but I don't know if I would even bother distinguishing from the other entries, because the criteria ("during armed conflict", "political", "government") are a bit too subjective. --Deon Steyn 07:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Defining "massacre"

From #Archives above:

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

Rudi Rummel? No, thank you. I know his methods.

Xx236 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

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

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

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

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

...How about:

List of massacres involving thousands of people

List of massacres involving hundreds of people

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

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

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

[edit] Timeframe, location

Two other aspects are:

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

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

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

– article ¶3

[edit] Alternative layout

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

[edit] Bromberg

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

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

[edit] 12

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

[edit] Nanking Massacre

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

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

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

[edit] Waco

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

• I agree. Per discussion on tightening the level of evidence required for the article, I am removing the section. (Please see the discussion below on Haditha concerning level of evidence for events.) Djma12 17:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. 89 people died in a police action. No blame is assigned in this entry and we can link to the main article. Whether one feels that they were killed by an overly agressive FBI or a suicidal cult leader, families died through the incompetence of the athorities. It deserves to be on the list as much as many other things. There is no harm of it being on the list. --Knulclunk 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshima and Nagasaki

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] POV questions re westerners - Feb 2007

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

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

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

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

Possibly this is a point. I don't know enough. But one suggestion is that westerners are good at documenting massacres by other westerners. Just a thought. --Merbabu 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the title of this page should be "List of Massacres as Recorded by Literate Societies Honest Enough to Admit It".24.10.102.199 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the very nature of this article invites POV which is not what an encyclopedia is about. It's not a human rights advocacy page, nor should it be political in any way. But, it's clearly a topic that invites subjectivity. Merbabu 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] We need to source these!

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the list is incomplete and flawed, but since users refer to it, we should make it as accurate and complete as possible. Besides making sure all entries are cited, we should be careful about NPOV, weasel and peacock words. Go to the massacre's main WP entry and make sure all the facts are there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knulclunk (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Let me add that these sources should have a high level of reliability - newspaper headlines (and most websites) aren't enough. Respected historians should be used as the basis for most of them. CovenantD 09:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq War

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

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

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

Djma12 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, of course. But we should really add Haditha back in. I didn't catch when that was pulled out.--Knulclunk 00:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Haditha should totally go back in. My apologies if I removed it by accident. Djma12 01:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No it should not. How can you call it a massacre until you know all the facts? Why so quick to condemn? Wait a few months and when the truth is out then add it if it needs to be added--Looper5920 08:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. But as the list contains only time | place | number of victims | perpatrators, is there any dispute on these facts? --Knulclunk 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Does every somewhat large number of civilians killed during a war constitute a massacre? What if these guys followed every procedure in the book and still those people died? Is there not some aspect of intent to a massacre? Unfortunately civilians die during war. If added for that reason alone then any large number of deaths (say +20) ever would need to be included--Looper5920 19:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole issue about Haditha is that there seemed to be intent. Armed forces moved from house to house, killing women and children. This was not collateral damage or even a "human sheild" problem. The victims were not mistaken by identity or by target. By all appearances, Haditha was a brutal reprisal killing and the troops involved are being charged with dereliction of duty and murder. --Knulclunk 00:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Agreed. Let's leave the bottom link tho. --Knulclunk 05:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact citation

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

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

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

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

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

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

[edit] Should this page be deleteed?

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

We should keep the article. Many of the events I had never heard of (San Patricios), or had heard of, but didn't recall the name (Tulsa Race Riot). It is important to have a central area to locate and link these events. The user can then follow to the full article. The only way for the list to improve is to keep it posted, honest, and have those who feel it is incomplete, add more.

We can improve the article by:

• Making sure entries on the list are consistent with the full, linked article.
• Trimming the descriptions down to the minimum, allowing the article to give the full scope.
• Removing POV words from descriptions.
• Requiring a source for all entries that do not have a corresponding article.
• Organizationally, the list might be improved a number of ways, but I was going to lurk for a few more months before I made a proposal.

The massacre entry in WP has a human rights definition that works nicely. "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." [1]. So, I agree, less than 5 victims could be deleted, though there are some famous incidents that have the "massacre" title by tradition and might as well stay.

As far as Western centric, you will note that there was some discussion earlier this month about there being too many "western committed" massacres on the list. I think that is unavoidable, but again, this can be an evolving list, as more omissions are added.

--Knulclunk 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Restructuring

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

[edit] Inclusion of Waco?

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

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

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

Regards,

Djma12 00:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put it back. It should be on the list, but I agree, I'm not sure where. As we discussed before, the categories need some work. I would consider Waco a "botched police action" similar to Kent State and most of the Labor Conflicts. Waco has elements of State-sponsored or state-condoned massacres during peacetime as well as Jonestown, y'know? --Knulclunk 00:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually see a difference between Kent State and Waco. Kent State (IMHO) involved direct and deliberate fire from the National Guardsmen into a crowd of students. In Waco, the civilian deaths occured as a result of a fire that had no evidence of intentionality. I think this should be the criterion used to seperate "massacre" from "botched police action." Djma12 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if all the responsibility was on Koresh and the Davidians themselves, it would still qualify by the loose rules of this list. It wasn't an accidental space-heater fire. Koresh was responsible for the safety of his people as much as the FBI. --Knulclunk 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the deal :-) I'm trying to tighten the rules on this list, even if its a slow and tedious process. As it stands now, this list is way too loose.

And I agree. In my opinion (which does NOT qualify per WP:V...), the government probably did accidentally set the fire. But the key word here is ACCIDENTLY. I think that a level of intentionality should be used to define what is a massacre. Otherwise the freakin' Titanic qualifies as a massacre.

Djma12 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Echoing Djma12, the biggest problem with this list is the lack of clear and unambiguous criteria. That leads to discussions like the above and opens the door to all kinds of Original Research. It's not up to the editors of Wiki to decide if something is a massacre - we are simply supposed to assemble what has been reported elsewhere, by reliable sources.

Looking at the article on Waco, I can see only two references that actually call it a "massacre." Both are book titles, which is suspect itself (titles are crafted to catch the eye and not for accuracy). Based on what has been included in the companion article, Waco doesn't qualify for this list. CovenantD 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed removals from the list

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

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

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

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

Well, perhaps we should change the definition at the begining from civilians to unarmed or helpless. I see no reson why the murder of POWs wouldn't be a massacre. --Knulclunk 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Perhaps this page needs to be divided then? A page for list of massacres and a list of warcrimes? At ~85 kb, this list is getting really bulky... Djma12 ^(talk) 00:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Stricter Inclusion Policy = BAD

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Wichita Massacre

It makes no sense that this was deleted.

Definition of massacre (bolded those which apply):

Main Entry: [1]mas·sa·cre

Pronunciation: 'ma-si-k&r

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French

Date: circa 1578

1 : the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty

2 : a cruel or wanton murder

3 : a wholesale slaughter of animals

4 : an act of complete destruction <the author's massacre of traditional federalist presuppositions —R. G. McCloskey>

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

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

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

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

My goodness. It's always such a thrill to come across somebody who knows me even better than I know myself! Clearly, you have a direct pipeline into the most inner recesses of my mind. I sure hope you'll permit me to consult with you when I'm in need of assistance in sorting out personal confusion. :) LOL!!

Seriously now, I won't even dignify this drivel with a point-by-point response. I will address one issue, however.

I invite all interested parties to look at my original edit of the article The Wichita Massacre. As I said in my edit summary, I "took steps re POV issues: moved all text regarding rightwing backlash to "invisible text" at end pending further consideration". Note that I could have simply deleted all of that text and made it vanish. I left it as "invisible text" for possible use as a starting point for creating a NPOV section at the end discussing the "right-wing backlash".

When I first came upon the article, it was written in a very sensationalistic, tabloidesque manner, inappropriate for Wikipedia. The material about the "right-wing backlash" was given hugely undue prominence right in the intro to the article. In short, it was a mess. Rather than tag if for deletion, I chose to spend a fair amount of time working on it, getting it into some approximation of a Wikipedia-style article.

As for 70.23.199.239, he evidently has a long history of this sort of thing. I guess I am in good company. Cgingold 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Cgingold says of the text he censored, that he "could have simply ... made it vanish." But he did make it vanish! He himself calls it "invisible text." And he has made it vanish, in order to prevent readers from learning the truth about one of the most heinous racial massacres in American history. His claim that the information in question had "undue prominence" before he disappeared it, is a variation on a Wikisophistry tack that I have only previously seen used by Wikicensor Lquilter, who once used the strategem of claiming that a brief mention of the robbery/assault on Nadine Gordimer by four black men would give the episode "undue weight" within the article. (Of course, that particular Wikicensor had previously confessed that, as far as he is concerned, only a racist would mention the robbery/assault at all.)

The real problem with the censored passage in the Wichita Massacre article is its obsession with white nationalists, in order to seek to tar anyone outraged at the crime, and not suppressing the racial identity of the perpetrators and victims as a racist. Any decent person would be outraged at the crime, and would note its irreducibly racial character. Thus, it is the preoccupation with "white nationalists" that is the problem with the censored passage, not the mention of the Carr brothers' and their victims' respective races.

All that my having previously been blocked testifies to, is that I am not a Marxist. But I've never tried to pass as a Marxist. User:Cgingold, on the other hand, seeks to pass as an "NPOV" encyclopedia editor. The following example from the cybertrail of his politicking, however, proves otherwise.

"Serial Copyvio problem

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

User_talk:Will_Beback

Discover the Network's articles on political figures and organizations are invariably much richer in information, more reliable, and better sourced than Wikipedia's. And therein, for Cgingold & Co., lies the problem. Were someone to quote the passages in question or otherwise resolve the copyright violation "problem," Cgingold would censor him, all the same. He'd claim that they were "POV," but he doesn't censor references and quotes from dishonest Marxist (if you'll pardon the redundancy) WP articles, and indeed, the WP:NPOV rule (one of the rules most commonly misrepresented by Wikicensors) never requires that one only use "NPOV" material, only that WP articles not be "POV."

Where on earth would one find "NPOV" material on political topics? The "POV" charge regarding source material is nothing but a scam used by Wikicensors, in order to impose their own POV, and to suppress information that contradicts it. That grain won't grow, Comrade.

70.23.199.239 09:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-reading The Wichita Massacre now, the main article seems fairly good. It appears that race was not really a factor. If there was a "right-wing backlash" in Wichita, or if this crime is brought up regularly by white extremists, then it should be mentioned in the aftermath section of the article.

In many Masscre List entries, race (or religion) IS a factor, and it should be mentioned. In the Long Island Railroad Shootings, white victims were seperated by race before being executed. In the Tulsa race riots, the black neighborhood bore the brunt of the violence.

The Witchita Massacre is not considered a "race crime" in the mainstream media.--Knulclunk 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't mind it being on the Massacre List, but unless the killers were charged with a "hate crime", race should not be mentioned on the list. --Knulclunk 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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