The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: an awful lot of electrons given far too much work to do as a lot of words were exchanged at cross purposes, with far too many comments from editors who clearly had not read either the previous AfD debate or the highlky-relevant discussions on the article's talk page. (Please folks, it's great to have more people joining these debates, but it is not at all helpful in reaching a conclusion if you haven't made some effort to catch up a little on the background of a complex issue like this).

One of the points of confusion on both sides of the debate was around the title "list of massacres". Many "keep" commentators noted that there have indeed been many notable massacres, and that these are real and verifiable; the "delete" arguments countered that this was too simplistic. The "delete" arguments were very persuasive: that definitions of a massacre vary, and are inherently POV. The term "massacre" is rarely applied by the perpetrators, and looking at some of the incidents in the list, I suspect that the "verb" massacre fits neatly in the only game of conjugation: I conduct measured security operations, you cause excessive civilian casualties, he massacres.

However, there was a persuasive response from the "keep" commentators that the list had already been restructured to cope with that POV issue, by relying on WP:V and WP:NOR, and including only those events which are named as a "massacre" in reliable sources and/or where "massacre" is the accepted name. That is not accepted by the delete commentators as a satisfactory solution, because many events are known by different names in different contexts, and a "reliable source" (per wikipedia's definition) may still be a minority point of view.

It was suggested that the article be renamed to reflect the fact that the inclusion criteria are based solely on the name, to List of events named massacres, and no persuasive reasons were offered to oppose that renaming, which accords with WP:LIST#List_naming's requirement that "A list's title should be as clear and unambiguous as possible" — so the choice, is narowed to renaming or deletion.

Favouring deletion, Folantin pointed out that such a list is both partial and arbitrary, while others pointed to precedents for abitrary lists such as List of bands named after places. Subsiduary arguments were raised about concerns that a list such as this will inevitably be a POV-magnet, that its scope could be huge, and others pointed to an imbalance between the developed world and developing nations, with events in latter tending to be included only if they were much bigger than than in the West. Those concerns are serious, but are not grounds for deletion: the George W. Bush article is a POV-magnet, but we don't delete that, and WP:LISTS explicitly acknowledges that some list may never be complete.

So the deciding issue is whether the arbitrary nature of a list justifies its deletion rather than its renaming. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS suggests the existence of other arbitrary lists is no grounds for keeping this one, but nonetheless there is no consensus in this debate that the list under discussion here is so uselessly arbitrary as to require its deletion .... so the result is rename to List of events named massacres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completing unfinished nom for User:Ledenierhomme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See previous AFD request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (8 December 2007)

Is this an invitation to a poll?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 04:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Exactly WHY is this being nominated? This is a well sourced and presented list. I see it was nominated only 8 weeks ago for AFD and was kept (albeit by no consensus). What has changed since the last nomination to make it a sure fire deletion? Or is the nom trying to prove a point? Lugnuts (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  AFAICT no one who recommended keeping this page in the last AFD has been constructively engaged in trying to make something of this train wreck. No that you have suggested keeping it are you going to be actively engaged it editing it and discussing the POV problems inherent in the word massacre? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has recently undergone a period of instability. Having just agreed criteria after long and patient discussion, we are now starting to make it into a useful resource. Like many list articles on Wikipedia it will likely never be complete, but so what? If it can remain stable and well-referenced, there is no reason to delete. I hate to say it but the nomination comes after the nominator tried three times to add an event which falls outside the criteria we agreed. This makes the nomination look rather pointy. Next time, try a post on the discussion page rather than going straight to AfD, especially as it is so soon after a much poorer version of the article survived a previous nomination. --John (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• John you are trying to impose a definition on the page which a number of editors have voiced their disagreement. When you write "recently undergone a period of instability" this page has been unstable for months in not years and none of the issues I bought up in the last AFD have been addressed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John in response to your question on my talk page here is a list of editors who have objected to using massacre in the lead of another article since Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 5#Definition. Myself PBS As I have repeatedly stated inclusion should use Wikipedia content policies and guide lines (like WP:V), also Sarah777, Flying tiger|, Knulclunk. Those who have expressed positive support for it are Yourself, Tyrenius, CarbonLifeForm, One Night In Hackney. Passively accepted: Modernist, Passively rejected - because did not comment on the talk page but did so by page edits and placing the AFD Ledenierhomme. 4+1 to 4+1 does not seem like a consensus to me. Basically despite all the postings to the talk page very few people have in the last few weeks been involved in the talk page debate. John unless you intend to police this page indefinitely then I suggest you change you opinion because I think this page is a rock you are setting you self up as Sisyphus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, for an admin you seem to have a rather strange view of how a consensus is built. First of all I do not recall you stating clearly prior to this that you were against the compromise we adopted, although you have had many opportunities. The only dissenting voice I was aware of was Sarah's, although she did not have a viable alternative to suggest. Secondly, declining to take part in a discussion then editing against the outcome of the discussion is not "passive rejection". Thirdly, I was unsure myself that it constituted a consensus to go forward. I asked for advice, and Rockpocket said on my talk that he too supported the course of action we took. Consensus is not a head count, and I felt at that point that we had enough support to implement the compromise. With proper verifiable criteria for inclusion such as we have now, and which can always be amended in light of future discussions, the page will be less likely to need "policing" going forward, assuming it survives this deletion debate. It might be best to continue this if necessary at the article talk page but I felt it deserved an answer here. --John (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete for all the reasons I gave in the last AFD request (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres)--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no affiliation with the nominator here; all I did was complete the nomination. I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — After reading the previous deletion discussion, I agree that this article should be kept. The criteria needs to be worked on so that it will include other massacres that don't included the word "massacre" in their title, but the article works in the meantime. — Val42 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Of what worth is an article that merely lists events on the grounds that a certain noun from Old French is used in the title? (It's worth pointing out that there are several events that are not commonly referred to with the term "massacre", that are nevertheless included) Why not create an article of events that use the term "Bloody" (Sunday) or "Rape" (of Nanking) or "Assault" or "The" in the title? How is this in any way encyclopedic? How is it helpful? How is it educational? What does ANYONE stand to gain from the existence of such a list??? Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's easy. This list is a navigation & reference aid. Highly encyclopedic. For example: you want to look up a particular massacre, but you can't remember the name of it. You remember the place (France) and even the date (1792), just not its name. This list would help you immensely, and would speed up your search because you wouldn't be forced to look through dozens of articles to ascertain which one was the one you were looking for. Another example: you are a student and your teacher has given the class the assignment to write a paper on a massacre of your choice. This list would help you select one. Another example: you are a journalist in a town where a massacre has just taken place and you have been given the assignment to compare it to similar massacres. This list would help you find them. Another example: You are studying atrocities and crimes against humanity throughout history, and are looking for some major ones. This list makes their scope immediately apparent. The Transhumanist    12:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your glib response ignores the central concern, and I'm sure you're aware of that. By only including events with the term "massacre" in their popular title, the list will leave out many significant massacres, and include many historically insignificant "massacres". Highly misleading for a student, journalist, etc. You'd be much better off using Google. You know the inherent POV problems with such a arbitray list, and these problems will NEVER dissipate, as is demonstrated AGAIN and AGAIN when someone tries to add/delete a controversial event. No serious, academic publication in the world would ever consider compiling and publishing a list of events simply because they feature the term "massacre" in their most popular title. It's patently ludicrous. Ledenierhomme (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find the Transhumanist’s response not glib, but entirely correct. In contrast, I find your response emotive and extreme. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Never going to be a viable article. The number of potential entries is ridiculously large. Just cataloguing all the car-bombings in Iraq and the mass killings in Algeria in the 90s is going to be a nightmare. You might as well try compiling a List of murders. Then, of course, the very culture of Wikipedia makes this kind of article impossible. It's a POV-magnet. There'll be archives and archives of edit wars between soapboxers and others over whether an incident was a massacre or not - plus plenty of WP:POINT violations guaranteed. A complete black hole for everybody's time and effort. (PS: I see there's been an attempt to limit this: "This is a list of events which are known by the word "massacre" in their name". That's really very arbitrary and it won't fly, per Ledenierhomme). --Folantin (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article was a train wreck, but has now achieved an objective criterion, which is working well, namely that the event should be known with the word "massacre" in its name, if it is to be included. There are obviously various reasons, whether social, political, historical or other, why certain events have come to be called that, and not others. It's a useful resource of notable events named in that way, and is properly referenced. Length is not an issue, as the article can be divided into separate ones, if needs be. We don't delete articles because they are POV magnets, but because they fail other criteria, which this one doesn't. The "List of" format is in widespread use on wiki.[1] Tyrenius (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's not an objective criterion, it's original research and it's completely arbitrary. Our article entitled Nanking massacre even states it's commonly known as the "Rape of Nanking" (that's certainly what I've always known it as), so if we moved it to that heading it would cease to be a massacre? Likewise the Stockholm Bloodbath could easily be put under the title "Stockholm Massacre", its alternative name, and so make the list. The selection is purely random and tells us nothing encyclopaedic. And an article never being capable of having an NPOV version is a good reason to delete it. --Folantin (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Exactly. Well said Folantin. The use or absence of the word "massacre" is a mere linguistic convention. the Rape of Nanking, Bloody Sunday in St. Petersberg 1905, the Bloody Sundays in Ireland - these are all massacres, by definition, they are simply known by various differing names. To decide whether an event should be included or not based on such an arbitrary criterion is, to be frank, quite hilarious. Or at least it would be if it weren't so offensive. Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)You are conflating two entirely different considerations. One is the objective criterion for inclusion: on your evaluation many article titles are WP:OR, in as much as editors choose a topic. The other consideration is whether any specific event meets that criterion. That is something that needs to be established within the article on that event, where the issues can be examined properly. Some events are widely known by two or more names, and if one of them is includes "massacre", either in the article title or in bold in the lead as an alternative name, then the event is eligible, but this needs to be validated in the article with sound references. If Stockholm Bloodbath meets this criterion, then it is eligible. I have removed Massacre of Novgorod from the list and questioned it on the article talk page, as the reference does not seem sufficient. WP:NPOV is being followed here, as it is up to the sources, not an editor's choice]], whether "massacre" features in an acknowledged name for an event. Tyrenius (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Tyrenius, that may very well be your own personal perception of the article, but that is not how the article has proceeded, over here in reality. You've just invented your own "eligibility test". "This is a list of events which are known by the word "massacre" in their name." Also, look at the hidden talk "This article is a list of events which Wikipedia calls a massacre, either in the article title or in bold in the lead." Only those events which have "massacre" in the title merit inclusion, according to the numerous editors that monitor this page. "which wikipedia calls a massacre" - since when is referring to Wikipedia an acceptable authority for Wikipedia articles???? Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The names of such articles are decided by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), therefore it's an acceptable authority. You could have taken part in the lengthy discussion about the future direction of the article, you chose not to, and now you've done this because you can't have your pet "massacre" on the list. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The names of such articles are decided by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), therefore it's an acceptable authority" bahahahahahahaha! circular reasoning, perchance? There's literally an infinite number of massacres that will not be able to be included under the present criterion (that the event has "massacre" in it's most well-known title, i.e. "common parlance"). Bloody Sunday '72 is merely an explication of the ludicrousness of this "article". Do you want Wikipedia to be informative or disinformative? As it stands, this list is totally arbitrary - anyone who hasn't happily got their own "pet massacres" listed would no doubt admit to this. Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, those show how reliable sources are used to determine the name of an event. Then when the name is determined, we go from there. The list becomes totally arbitrary if we include any event that someone has used the word "massacre" to describe, which is what you're in favour of. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To my great surprise, this deletionist finds the criterion to be clearcut and effective. Any event that merits an agreed-upon name is going to be notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What? No events "merit an agreed-upon name". Events have names, yes. Some "massacres" are known by the word "massacre" in their title. Some aren't. Including only the ones that are, is pure arbitrariness. Do you have any comment on what should be done with regards to massacres that took place that aren't commonly referred to in their title (Bloody Sunday, Rape of Nanking, etc) as massacres? Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per John. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to me this reads like an overly detailed disambiguation page. Although it will never be complete and some content will be questioned it seems that it could be useful to some degree for people searching for this type of information. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Gtstricky, I believe you are mistaken. How is it useful, if it only refers to events which, in common parlance, employ the particular noun "massacre" in their title? Surely "people searching for this type of information" would wish to know of all possible events that could be termed "massacres", even if some other noun or adjective is typically used when referring to said events. e.g. Bloody Sunday, 1905, St. Petersburg, and countless others. No? Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not what this article is doing. It is listing events which are named "massacres", which is essentially applied subjectively (not in "common parlance" but by reliable sources—certainly not what wiki editors think something should be called—hence conforming to WP:NPOV). There is a certain social-political-historical implication in such a name. You may wish to start another list, or perhaps a fuller article, with a different definition to document the events you mention, such as Demonstrations where civilians have been killed by soldiers or whatever. Tyrenius (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Demonstrations where civilians have been killed by soldiers "eh? What, like the Taksim Square Massacre? Oh no, that must be included because it has the word "massacre" in its title! oh dear!" Get it yet? Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the page makes it clear that the list is generated by the word "massacre" and is not a complete list. If people were doing research and typed in massacre this page would be a fine start for them. However, based on another AFD that I was commenting on I am changing to Delete. This type of listings of existing pages should be handled by the catagory system so that individual pages do not need to be created and maintained. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That rationale contravenes the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, which makes it clear these systems operate in parallel and are not alternatives to each other. Tyrenius (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

arggg. good point. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason to delete is provided in the nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this "article" is total bull. It is actually a compilation of "things that are called massacres in Wiki articles"; not an actual list of massacres. It should be called what it is. Sarah777 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After December 2007, when the article was previously nominated, there were some major revisions. This is a much smaller article than the 200K all-inclusive monster that was there before, with the old list being blanked "so that a new one can be built with only verifiable sources that claim an event was a massacre". One of the persons who urges a delete in this discussion was the principal architect of those revisions, but I think that the revisions were a great improvement. Mandsford (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction-- make that two of the persons were working on revisions and now want to delete the article. Mandsford (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No reason given for deletion (at time of this vote). --Bryson 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - I had to revert to my last edit to restore two votes deleted by User:Ledenierhomme‎ Diff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryson109 (talk • contribs)

  Two "keeps" were deleted.[2] Tyrenius (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete The present criteria are simple enough and effective enough. Unfortunately, it also produces an article about as useful as "List of buildings taller than the Chicago Sears Roebuck and shorter than the Los Angeles City Hall". The original was more useful than this.Aaaronsmith (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Tyrenius (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The list can be limited as Mandsford says to those incidents which have reliable sources which state that they are considered "massacres." I count over 130 distinct references so far, which places this article in the top few percentile for the presence of references. It trivializes mass killings which will be an enduring part of human history (witness the ones remembered from a millinium ago) to say they are as trivial as buildings of a specified height range. It is a useful adjunct to the main article on Massacres. Edison (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. The list is not a list of "mass killings", it is a list of events with the word "massacre" in their title. As such, it proscribes most "mass killings" in history from inclusion. Ledenierhomme (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point.Tyrenius (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Edison, to which article on Massacres do you refer? This link appears to be a dab page, and, as far as I can tell, there is no general article on Massacres at all to be helped. Can anyone else assist here? ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been improved, it still has problems, and it needs work. That the potential is a compelling compilation of brutality bespeaks a harsh brand of human truth. Modernist (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is now a list based on the presence of the word "massacre" in the name arbitrary given by some to events from different periods. I would have supported a broader view based on at least, common sense (found in dictionary) synonyms such as «slaughter, carnage, annhilation etc». There is no scientific basic to such a restrictive interpretation. On this basis, two editors have argued against the addition of the Operation Sankō, during which 2,7 millions people died, because historians used the word "annihilation"... The same could be true of events which were called "massacres" by Wikipedia but "slaughter" by historians. This artificial distinction between words covering the same reality may make editing more easy by keeping away troublesome edits, but is it really useful ? Anyone can use google with the words "wikipedia" and "massacre" and find those events...--Flying tiger (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is as scientific as WP:NPOV. What Wikipedia calls an event should be what is derived from reliable sources. If that isn't the case, then the name on wiki needs to be changed. Re. Operation Sankō, the article doesn't mention the word "annihilation": it says "slave labour", and I would have thought therefore more suitable to List of mass deaths through slave labour. Tyrenius (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You prove exaclty what I argued earlier... Operation Sankō is a good example as Wikipedia article does not uses the word "massacre" but "destruction", but here is an excerpt from Herbert Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, page 365 : «...Hirohito also knew of and approved the "annihilation" campaigns in China. These military operations caused death and suffering on a scale incomparably greater than the totally unplanned orgy of killing in Nanking (...) These operations targeted for destruction "enemies pretending to be local people" and "all males between the ages of fifteen and sixty whom we suspect to be enemies."» And Mitsuyoshi Himeta claims that "more than 2,7 millions civilians died" during the operation. Is it different than a "massacre" ? --Flying tiger (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking this to Talk:Three Alls Policy. If you can get the article changed it can be incorporated at List of massacres. If you cannot, that will also tell you something. Good luck. --John (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAn admin encouraging an editor to perform original research, in order to change the title of an historic event, in order to get said event included in this list. Nice. What is happening to this place?!?? Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, an admin encouraging an editor to research more deeply into the name of an event to establish through reliable sources whether a name for it has been omitted which should be included in the the article. This helps to sharpen naming criteria. Tyrenius (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article has become silly, as a consequence of using this arbitrary guide for inclusion. Any parameter that includes Kent State Massacre where 4 students died and 9 were injured but excludes the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where several hundred/thousand died, because of the name of the event, is of little real use, except, perhaps, as an exercise in how underlying biases distort an historical record. (I think that Tiananmen Square article needs to be revisited; it has been written as if to please the Chinese government. Tyresuis has a point; hist to the pounding of thousands of Wikipedian feet , racing off to rename their favourite article of a "death of more than one". What fun those talk pages will be!) The List of massacres now has the feel of a bad compromise made merely to justify its continuing existence. (And, yes, I have read all the talk, and the prior AFD, and several earlier versions of the article.) It will remain, definition notwithstanding, an outrageous bone of contention, with, in the end, no real value because of the pure subjectivity of the underlying rationale. Many eitors have tried very hard to come up with a rationale for keeping this list, though I am not sure why; however, there has been not solution that was meaningful, historically accurate and amenable to a consensus that these two conditions had been met. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiananmen Square Massacre" shows up on google 108,000 times. The Transhumanist    12:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What absurdity, we don't like a word so lets throw it all out, we don't agree - so lets dump the lot, - lets not negotiate an intelligent and reasonable solution, and create a worthwhile and historical article, lets just get rid of it, because the word isn't what we want it to be, lets not have another article or two other articles or three other articles, lets just can this one. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT seems the message of the day. Modernist (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bielle makes an important point. Inclusion is entirely subject to the vagaries of Wikipedia titling. It's obvious that "Tiananmen Square massacre" is the most common English name for the incident, yet the article has been placed at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 (in violation of WP:COMMONNAME). I predict that other editors will simply follow this lead and rename "massacre" articles to keep them off the list, further increasing its uselessness. --Folantin (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is at that location per WP:NPOV apparently, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). However the alternate name should be in bold in the lead, and therfore it should be on this list. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's not actually a policy page and very few editors have contributed to it. It's also self-contradictory: "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view". Well, there is a "particular common name" for this incident even though it "implies a controversial point of view", namely "Tiananmen Square massacre". The later "reasoning" against using this is entirely specious (and appears to have been added by a single user, Rfc1394 last October) . I would expect to see much more of this sophistry occurring across Wikipedia should this list be kept. --Folantin (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's a guideline page which has consensus, and according to the talk page discussion for it took place on the main naming conventions talk page. "Tiananmen Square massacre" doesn't even adequately describe the contents of the article or the majority of the protest anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nope, as I said, the particular reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre in the "guideline" was only added last October by a single user with no evidence of any prior talk page discussion. Policy and guidelines should not be created by lone editors, especially when the result contradicts itself. But this just illustrates my general point that there is little purpose in creating a List of massacres called massacres in their Wikipedia page titles when the whole process is arbitrary and any user (or group of users) can come along and change things to the way they like. --Folantin (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry, but anything can be edited, and the mere fact it hasn't been removed (until you removed it in an attempt to distort this debate) shows it has consensus per policy. In fact take a look at the article in question, it's never been called Tiananmen Square massacre. So if the guideline is wrong, why has the article never been at the place you think it should be? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Right, so any individual can edit obscure guideline pages (I was completely unaware of the existence of this one) and that's a binding consensus on the rest of us, is it? What idiocy. No wonder Wikipedia is failing. A single guy adds a passage [3] that contradicts the very first point of the existing guideline ("If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view") and this is supposed to be acceptable? I don't think so. --Folantin (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article represents a single resource for reference in historical examples of massed atrocities. It represents and important centralised repository of reference and sources for anyone researching into abuse of human rights in the extreme and is likely to be recreated because of the continued interest in the research within this area.

The article has significant scope for greater definition, clarification, expansion, and contributing to other articles in the field, and within the project. Not an insignificant effort has been put into its development, and it would be a waste to discard what it a noteworthy contribution to Wikipedia in an area that invites readership in understanding how these atrocities were perpetrated through comparative research to identify means of mitigating their causes in future. The article contributes to human knowledge in real ways as a possible avenue of atrocity prevention.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I can synthesize of the thousands of talk-space words, Modernist, that is the very point: every solution you mention has been "negotiated", argued over, tried and reverted and, and, and. The current solution is the result. This is not a new article, after all, and it has seen a lot of very good editors trying to work things out. I have no ojection to the word "massacre". It is useful, in English, to demonstrate a strength of emotional response to events, but one newspaper's "massacre" is another's "appropriate armed response". We can certainly make a list of every event that, in Wikipedia, is called a "massacre". That's a straightforward exercise, though it would leave out, for example, almost everything that is listed under Category:Massacres in India, where the definition appears to be somewhat less stringent. Does Wikipedia require complete internal consistency? Probably not; however, I would expect there to be, as a user of Wikipedia, some connection among the articles that deal with Massacres, even if it is to be only that word. However, once we go beyond the historical use of the specific word, there remains no definition of the word "massacre" that also suits both the emotions of all the contributors and the facts of all the possible events. That is the source of this controversy, and it is only superficially resolved, in my view, by the current restriction. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OT: You're right about that category, incidentally, I've started cleaning it up a bit. Relata refero (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and discuss contents on the talk page (not that this is all that likely to definitively solve the problems, but its the only way to deal with it & seems to be making progress). Some opposition now as before seems possibly due to disagreement over specific inclusions or omissions. We can't give up on the problem articles if we're to deal with human problems. DGG (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice a distinct tendency of well meaning "newcomers" to suggest the reasonable (usually) tactic of "discussing it on the talk page". This has been done and done and done, repeatedly and repeatedly for THE LAST FIVE YEARS. Please, everyone, if your only suggestion is "let's try to fix it", you have missed the point. I request that if you want to KEEP the page, please make a substantive suggestion (that hasn't already been tried/discussed/dissected and include it with your vote. That is what we need. That is what we do not have.

The preceding was intended to be polite, but it's difficult to not sound personal when discussing other peoples' opinions.Aaaronsmith (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Tyrenius (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Because the reasons to delete are absurd. Massacres exist. This list helps find them. It may not help find all of them, but Wikipedia is no place for all or nothing reasoning. Our mission is to help people find the information they are looking for. Deleting the list does not help that mission. Partial help is better than no help at all. The Transhumanist    12:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Have you actually read any of the reasons to delete? I think everybody who's commented here is quite aware that "Massacres exist". "Wikipedia is no place for all or nothing reasoning". Funny, I thought we had WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Besides, attempting to keep this list manageable by limiting it to "massacres Wikipedians have designated by the title 'massacre'" is ridiculous. Omitting some famous massacres in history just because they went under different titles is hardly encyclopaedic. (And in spite of months of effort, many historically significant massacres still aren't on the page, e.g. Adana massacre, Hue massacre, 1973 Ezeiza massacre and the "Philippeville massacre" - which doesn't even have an article yet. Plus, I know from experience you're going to attract plenty of attention when you add the Khojaly massacre and not the Sumgait pogrom. I look forward to seeing how you cope with that). --Folantin (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly at the end of this....the inclusions have to be expanded beyond the particular use of the word Massacre. Awhile back I proposed including the Saturday Night Massacre (somewhat in jest) because in strict interpretation - its called a massacre. I think at this point secondary articles or expansion into other interpretations of massacre is called for; as this is an attempt at recording human slaughter, genocide, pogroms, and other official atrocities; the application of WP:UCS is going to need to be applied to the article. Quitting and failure is not an option. Modernist (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Use common sense" leads to the conclusion that starting this list was an incredibly bad idea. It's obvious to anybody with any experience of Wikipedia that this was never going to work. We already have a super-category ("Massacres by country" [4]) with loads and loads of entries and I suspect even that is fraught with problems. Putting them all on one page as a "list" is insane. "Quitting and failure is not an option". Yes it is. After months of pointless endeavour the sensible option is to quit and do something more productive. "Don't throw good money after bad", as they say. --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "And in spite of months of effort, many historically significant massacres still aren't on the page, e.g. Adana massacre, Hue massacre, 1973 Ezeiza massacre" - have you checked the talk page of the article lately? "Plus, I know from experience you're going to attract plenty of attention when you add the Khojaly massacre and not the Sumgait pogrom. I look forward to seeing how you cope with that" - quite simple, they both get added, as you'd be more than aware if you'd actually read the talk page. Now please familiarise yourself with the article talk page, including the latest archives, before making any further totally incorrect statements that only serve to confuse this discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "have you checked the talk page of the article lately?" Erm yes. Didn't see any reference to those massacres though. "They both get added"...but that won't stop your page being subject to endless Armenian-Azeri edit wars. "Now please familiarise yourself with the article talk page, including the latest archives, before making any further totally incorrect statements that only serve to confuse this discussion". Your accusation of "totally incorrect statements" is itself totally incorrect. I'm quite aware of the contents of the talk page which show continuing confusion over what this page should include. Please stop clutching at straws to save this dog's dinner of an article (especially when there are already several categories devoted to massacres). --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You assume I'm trying to keep this article, when I haven't commented one way or the other. Right now, I'm just correcting the bullshit you're coming out with. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No you aren't. You're just being offensive as your last comment clearly demonstrates. Any more such obnoxiousness and you'll be appearing on WP:ANI. --Folantin (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No reason for deletion given. Besides, it's well-sourced. One interesting distinction in types of massacres is between ones for political, religious or terrorist reasons (7/7), or ones for personal reasons (Virginia Tech massacre). This list only includes the former, although both types are often carried out by disturbed young men who can't get laid - maybe that's the real reason. But to not recognise this distinction here as the media see it would be original research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep - well-sourced list of notable events - but if we are going to be selective and not include the likes of the Tiananmen Massacre this article should be deleted as irredeemably POV . EJF (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. No reason for deletion given. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my vote is on formal grounds. I think that a [[Category:Massacre]] could do the same job better Jasy jatere (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Folantin mostly Will ^(talk) 20:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - This is celarly encyclopaedic, but some criteria need to be agreed as to what should appear. I would suggest:
  • that the event is commonly referred to as a massacre
  • that at least 50 people were killed.

Accordingly, I would suggest that the following should not appear, save as cross-references:

• • several schools killings though referred to as massacres.
  • the sack of a city after a seige is a category of its own. These were horrific events, but the accepted rules of war of the period allowed rape and murder. The end of siege is a nasty business
  • terrorist outrages resulting in multiple deaths. These too are horrible events but rarely lead to that many deaths.
  • conversely the results of Israeli retaliation against what suicide bombers have done.
  • at the opposite extreme, events widely recognised as genocide. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Peterkingiron what about WP:OR or do you have a verifiable reliable source for massacres meaning "At leas 50 people" and "events widely recognised as genocide"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well done Peterkingiron, those criteria are clearly objective and uncontroversial and will lead to a useful article. (note: sarcasm) - Ledenierhomme (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a new article structure and suggested definition of a massacre. Please contribute to discussion there.

It seems to me that the reason this article failed in the first place is because lists are hard to define and justify, and lists that are controversial even more so.

Now, consider this - WAY more effort has been spent on debating over keeping of deleting, then actually editing the article!

It is an important article that deals with a unique, notable and rather horrific part of the human experience. It is a global scope article for a large number of other existing articles which focus on their subjects and can not address the phenomena of "massacre" or whatever they have been called in a more analytical manner. Analysis by Wikipedia editors is not POV, but the EXPECTED ability of contributing experts and researchers to assist the user in understandning the subject.

I am honestly surprised that so may well meaning and experienced editors were unable to come up with the list scope based on a reasonable definition.

I am going to suggest that all lists in Wikipedia must have, like all other articles, an introduction, a definition, a statement of scope and one of the reason why it should exist, the purpose. A list has no place in an ecyclopaedia unless it actually conveys information other then its entries. Without the standard encyclopaedic entry, a list is called a catalogue. I will also suggest that the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page is amended accordingly.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that is a very interesting suggestion. I suggest you take it to the relevant MoS discussion page where I might be inclined to support an appropriately worded proposal along the lines you suggest. It does not seem like a valid deletion rationale though, given our current guidelines. --John (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, Its on the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page. I thought that was the policy page to post it to, although it may have been the Wikipedia:Village Pump? In any case, I thank you for being inclined to support. Can you suggest the MoS page?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting an article that could benefit from improvement seems silly. Write the objective definition for inclusion in the lead section, apply it consistently, and move on to other, more productive endeavors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I understand why this topic seems encyclopedic, the very word massacre makes the whole notion of the article hopelessly PoV and unlikely to ever stabilize. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete it because you can't arrive at a NPOV title?! Can't use "indiscriminate killing" because most are highly discriminate. "Unresisted group killing" is not something the average reader would look for, so redirects would still be required. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is called List of massacres but this topic by whatever name is far too PoV for a stable article. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"far too PoV for a stable article"? This subject is currently dealt with by international law. And there is not one massacre on this list --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 12:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this mysterious bit of international law applies in this case. And the list you claim includes such gems as "Israel-Palestine" and "India - politics and history" which means its at a somewhat more rarefied level than individual massacres. Relata refero (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reasonable criteria for inclusion. Categories exist. Also WP:WTA. Relata refero (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article inclusion rejected proposal was that "articles that fail to reference sufficient written sources published over a course of time may be scrutinized as being inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia". It therefore seems that unreasonable is also good ;O) The WPA only applies if the word is (AFAIK) clichéd. Almost any event can be and have been called massacres. In fact many are known to history under these terms. This is a fact of history, and can not be changed. The bias is source-embedded. The editor would be adulterating the source by expunging the word massacre from it when citing it in the article! IMHO it is better to use the word, but objectively contextualise it in Wikipedia, then completely ban it from the encyclopedia because our modern PC can't cope with history. --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not banned from the encyclopaedia. We're deleting a useless list. Please don't over-react. Relata refero (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional keep If we can get the criteria set, than I see no reason not to keep. If things are still troublesome in a few months, we can revisit this then. I just don't think e should delete an article because it is a magnet for POV. Instead, we should work together, estavlish consensus about what type of massacres do and do not qualify for this list, and go from there. Consensus isn't always easy to achieve and I think there are more avenues to pursue here before this is deleted. AniMate 11:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided, just like in fact most are, albeit without realising it because they forgot or refused to properly offset their respective POV. (What a generally awful AfDiscussion.) I personally think the inclusion criterion is silly. Perhaps not totally invalid, but silly nevertheless. That's my main concern, and in a perfect world (i.e. if I ruled everything) the article would be nuked (by me). Alas, the world is not perfect and compromises have to be made. Speaking of which, couldn't better criteria be found e.g. via further clarifying the semantic relation between the expressions "mass killing", "mass murder" and "massacre"? Incidentally, I just added mass murder to the massacre disambig, mainly because the former lists the latter expression as a synonym, in bold letters. Dorftrottel (ask) 15:36, February 24, 2008
  • I believe the primary reason why I think the criterion is silly is because particularly the word "massacre" is a typical tabloid expression. Dorftrottel (complain) 15:45, February 24, 2008
• Keep -- The nomination only says "Completing unfinished nom for" ?? what does this mean, there is not even a reason given. --SSman07 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Massacre" is an obviously POV-loaded tabloid term. Unless we can adopt an firm criteria here, something like "List of incidents where N or more non-combatants were slain" (seriously, you try to think of something better), these lists will forever be unmaintainable. Anyone familiar with me knows I don't yell "delete" very often, but there is clearly a time and a place for it, and think I've found it. Unless we can restructure this according to actual death toll (upon the victims) rather than emotional impact (upon us), we might very well be better off without it. — CharlotteWebb 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not an encyclopedic article. RogueNinja_talk 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. And use categories instead. This thing is unencyclopaedic and simply attracts POV pushing, and if the proposal to include or exclude on the basis of the word "massacre" being in the title were really acted upon, it will lead to a lot more POV pushing on titles, where now there is none, because people who object to the event being termed a "massacre" now accept the title simply because that is how it is called in academia or on google. "Nemmersdorf massacre" is a good example. And will the future article "MassacreS at Treuenbrietzen" (plural, because the first killings were by Nazi German troops) qualify? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I hadn't mentioned before, I can't understand why this can't be handled with categories if its helpfulness is based mostly on navigation. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:AN/I#Philip Baird Shearer disruption of AfD. Two disinterested editors who have commented on Tyrenius's complaint that I should not have posted reasons for deletion to the top of this article, have suggested speedy close and reopen with reasons. As this will mean more work for those that have already contributed here, please voice your objections if you have any to Wikipedia:AN/I#Philip Baird Shearer disruption of AfD if you do not think it needs to be done. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point - it'll just end up as a no consensus, just like the current debate. Lugnuts (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start another debate here instead reply to Wikipedia:AN/I#Philip Baird Shearer disruption of AfD if you think it is unnecessary --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin stepping in here... Rather then closing and reopening the entire debate, I suggest Philip moves his argument to the proper place, because they are just that: your arguments. Putting your arguments on top of the debate and calling them "reasons" is a mirepresentation of your arguments, since you are not the nominator. Having to close the debate, only to have you re-open it with your arguments at the top again is not an option; I view that as gaming the system. So if this AfD is to be closed, Philip may not restart it, as it basically does not change the situation. — Edokter • Talk • 15:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

who are you, "uninvolved admin"? Ten Pound Hammer and Philip Baird Shearer were both merely doing me a favor, as I am rather a novice at Wikipedia and didn't carry out the nomination fully. If I say that I agree with the reasons PBS has posited, will that be enough to forget about this petty formalism? And get on with the business of deciding whether this is ever going to be a workable article? No? - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As some entries have said keep because no reasons are given for deletion here are some:

• The primary Oxford Dictionary entry for massacre is "The indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people or (less commonly) animals; carnage, butchery, slaughter in numbers; an instance of this". This is a very loose definition and no one has come up with a more precise one. The motives for claiming that a massacre has occurred may be simply to create an eye catching headline for a news item, or it may be because the author of a report believes the incident to be a massacre, so determining if an event constituted a massacre is not usually a clear-cut matter.

• If we have a list of massacres why not also a list of carnage, butcheries and slaughters?

• Like terrorism (see WP:TERRORIST) it is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to the actions one's enemies and opponents. For example it was Protestants and not Catholics that labelled the the killing of Huguenots the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre -- One of the first recorded usages of the word.

• The recent heated debate on the talk page of the article over the inclusion or exclusion of the Second Battle of Fallujah is an example of how difficult editors of the page find it to agree on the contents of the list. Currently the entry has been deleted [5] because it is not mentioned in the lead of Second Battle of Fallujah despite the fact that Wikipedia has an article on the accusation under the name Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre] and when it was in the list carried full citations. [6].

• If the list is restricted to those which the English language media call massacres, the word has no formal legal definition the creation of a list of massacres tends to fall foul of the Wikipedia systemic bias that words with a formal legal definition like genocide do not.

• The current suggestion that only massacres listed else where in Wikipedia in the lead of an article should be included is a good faith attempt to build a list. But if suffers from the flaws that massacre can also be used as a verb and that not all events that reliable third party sources describe a massacre as occurring are necessarily called massacres. Also it is an arbitrary definition no supported by the three content policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and if someone includes a massacre such as Drogheda which comply with the three content policies, the reasons for deleting it seem arbitary and not covered by the content policies. However if we go back to only with third pary sources using the term we end up with an arbitary list based on third party usage of a word with several synonims (an article my use the word massacre to describe one instance and in the next paragraph use "bnrutal slaughter" for another just as a matter of style . And if we go back to editors decide then potentally every mass killing of two or more people in any insident can be include....

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Response

1. determining if an event constituted a massacre is not usually a clear-cut matter. That is not what we are determining. We are determining whether it is named a massacre by reliable sources. Per WP:NPOV it is not our job to determine motivations of sources.
2. a list of carnage, butcheries and slaughters? Events do not get named as such. Other lists may be viable, as I suggest below. See Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century for a list with a different definition.
3. St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. It now seems to be a widely accepted name, however.
4. Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre. This is the name of a book, not of the event. If the name "Fallujah massacre" or "Massacre of Fallujah" is the accepted name for the event, it meets inclusion criteria. This needs to be first established in the relevant article.
5. restricted to those which the English language media call massacres. Other language media can be discussed on the talk page. It is not a point that has arisen as yet. But that objection applies to over 99% of sources used on the English wikipedia.
6. not all events that reliable third party sources describe a massacre as occurring are necessarily called massacres. Quite, and as this is a list of events named massacres—not those described as massacres—those which do not meet the criterion are not included.

Tyrenius (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I hereby confirm in unequivocal terms that I agree with Philip Baird Shearer's stated reasons for deletion that I mistakenly omitted in my initial nomination, and would like them placed at the top of this discussion. Ledenierhomme (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not your decision. You have nom'd but you don't control the ensuing debate. There is an established procedure for AfDs and this suggestion is completely counter to it. Statements are made and then responded to. If this goes at the top, responses to it will go under it. Then we have a new debate started at the top of the page, which is preceded by the debate lower down the page. Some people will continue to post at the bottom; some will post under the new debate at the top to answer those points. Some people will look at the bottom of the debate to see new posts and will miss it altogether. This is chaotic and makes the development of argument impossible to follow. It is a disruptive move and should not be done. Tyrenius (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some delete reasons are based on misapprehensions.

1. That this article is based on what wikipedia articles happen to be named (i.e. with "massacre" in the title). It is not. It is based on that name being in accepted usage for an event, as established by reliable sources. It has been decided to devolve that usage or lack thereof to the individual article, where it can be discussed in depth.
2. That this article fails because it does not include certain mass killings which do not happen to be named a "massacre". It does not attempt (with its present rationale) to include every mass killing, only those which are named "massacre". This is a viable way or organising certain information. Other related articles can be created which organise related information that this one does not include. There are already a number that exist: Atrocity, Indian massacre, Mass deaths and atrocities of the 20th century, Mass grave, Mass murder, Spree killer and War crime, for example. As I have suggested above, others can easily cover areas such as Demonstrations where civilians have been killed by soldiers, List of mass deaths through slave labour etc.
3. In the light of the above, I propose naming this article List of events named massacres.

Tyrenius (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Clearly this list cannot encompass all and everything. Equally clear is the inadvisability of deleting the already compiled information there. A name change, and a number of other new articles that covers more related territory seems like a reasonable proposal. Modernist (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should deleting already complied information be inadvisable? By that criteria we would never delete any article! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...named massacres" by whom? Us? For any incident with a plural death toll there will be sources which describe it as a "massacre", sources which describe it as a "N-tuple homicide", and sources which describe it as a "fair fight with lopsided results". I don't want this to become any more "List of events named massacres (by editors of the English Wikipedia articles about said events, specifically whoever most recently moved each page)" than it already is. Anyone who wants that list probably knows where to find it. It is ridiculous to suggest that the article's POV issues would be solved making its inheritance of bias (from other articles) explicit rather than implicit. — CharlotteWebb 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some editorial about "massacres", potential articles like List of demonstrations where civilians have been killed by soldiers would have clear and objective criteria for inclusion. Sounds like a good step in the right direction, but we still need some place to file the remainder of the events which we currently have alleged to be "massacres". Obviously I can't comment on "Mass deaths of slave labor" without knowing, number-wise, what constitutes critical mass of dead slaves. — CharlotteWebb 15:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and we might need a separate List of demonstrations where retired soldiers have been killed by active duty soldiers... or is this not "massacre" enough for our taste? — CharlotteWebb 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly what purpose does a "List of events named massacres" (as is now being proposed) serve? Does it have any encyclopaedic value or are you just trying to create a criterion which will allow you to have a manageable Wikipedia page? Every piece of historical literature I've read on the Sicilian Vespers refers to a "massacre", yet simply because the word "massacre" doesn't appear in the title it won't be included on the Wikipedia list. This is completely arbitrary. It's like excluding "switchblade" and "bayonet" from a "List of knives" because they don't contain the word "knife". We already have plenty of categories for massacres which serve readers far better. --Folantin (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of lists on wikipedia that are partial, based on the given name, and exclude other elements which would otherwise belong in the same group,[7], e.g. List of bands named after places, List of asteroids named after people, List of named ethnic enclaves in North American cities. They perform a specific function and do not claim to cover the whole subject. This is "List of killings named massacres". Tyrenius (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this move is necessary Tyrenius then if it does not happen would you support deletion of the current list? If not why not? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, but I think helpful. The lead defines it as such anyway. You suggestion of List of named massacres is succinct. Tyrenius (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am opposed to deleting or renaming. Consensus has achieved stability. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus are you talking about? Did you not see my posting on this higher up the page? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal

1. This article has had 23,128 views in January.[8] It clearly serves a purpose for many readers.
2. There are in excess of 600 named massacres as wiki articles.[9] The current format is not suitable to accommodate them all (it contains just over 50 at the moment). I propose instead a list format along the lines of List of American artists (see two linked lists), giving abbreviated details.
3. This list should work in combination with other lists, as I've suggested previously on this page.

Tyrenius (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, I suspect almost 100% of those 23,128 views is for comic relief. Do a search on the web. This page is something of a joke - WORLDWIDE.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Aaaronsmith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Tyrenius (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. I used to be IP 67.161.166.20. This address never changed so I didn't bother to create a handle. As a joke I created IP67,161,166,20 (barely used it). When Philib Baird Shearer (admin) requested, I started using a regular handle like everybody else.Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same observation applies to User:67.161.166.20.[10] User:IP67,161,166,20 has no edits. That's probably enough jokes for now. Tyrenius (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius, this is not the page to get into a disagreement, but I did not include commas in that address by accident. I suggest (politely) you try the correct address: In fact try User talk:IP,67,161,166,20 for the whole story (not really worth the time, but it's there). Hoping this is the worst disagreement we ever have.Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. I owe you an apology. You did get it right. I left the comma out between IP and 67. Sorry about that.Aaaronsmith (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits for the correct address, just for the record.[11] Tyrenius (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to unencyclopedic Wikipedia article name restriction. Categories can do the job. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you read the page, you will see at the top of this section: "Some delete reasons are based on misapprehensions. 1) That this article is based on what wikipedia articles happen to be named (i.e. with "massacre" in the title). It is not. It is based on that name being in accepted usage for an event, as established by reliable sources." Your judgement is based on a misunderstanding. Tyrenius (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An excellent resource. An important navigation aid. Categories are good but not sufficient. Valid issues have been raised, but deletion is not the answer to any of them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you answers to the valid issues? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article talk page. File an RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid question on an afd. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All questions should be welcomed and presumed valid. Many questions are not appropriate for AfD because they are off the point. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not a valid question? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also raised valid issues which deleters have not answered. Tyrenius (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any valid issues raised. could you point them out? Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valid issues questions of whether all the entries meet the same criteria. There has been criticism of collecting entries based upon the mere use of a word. However, apparently the criterion is a description in a secondary source. But do different secondary sources use different definitions. Is it original research to catalogue the contents of wikipedia? Is it original research to discriminate between mass murder and a massacre, or is it original research to group these two things together? Is the title appropriate? Is the subject inherently POV? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this "article" is more appropriate to the Guinness Book of Records than Wiki. What we have is a "List of Wiki Articles with 'massacre' in the title"; not a "List of massacres". If this is a 'navigation aid' it should be dealt with by categorisation, not an "article". Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the first pillar, if it is appropriate to the Guinness Book of Records, it is appropriate to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; this is Sarah's second delete !vote in this discussion. --John (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Inadvertent. I have been unavoidably away from Wiki for reasons John is aware of. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and lists and other things can be complementary, individually are inadequate, and should be allowed to evolve. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason to delete provided; in any event: sourced, notable. Why is this nominated? Lawrence § t/e 14:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.