Talk:List of rampage killers

This list will contain

every case with one or both of the following features:

• Cases with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
• Cases with a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)

As long as there isn't any complaint by a significant number of people about this restriction, every mass murder which does no comply to these criteria will be deleted, without exception, without remorse. This list is already getting very long with this limit so I don't see any need to include every minor act of mass murder that occures. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

0 Death Incidents?

I agree that any incidents listed that do not comply to the article's stated criteria should be removed. With that in mind, along with the article's title of, "List of rampage killers", why are there numerous incidents listed that do not include any fatalities? (see Vehicular manslaughter & Grenade amok sections) Even if a given assailant intended to kill many people, if they didn't, they shouldn't be listed in an article titled "... rampage killers"

I will not delete such incidents from the list just yet, because I would like to know if I'm missing something, and that 0 death (or even 1-3 deaths) incidents are appropriate for this article. Dav-FL-IN-AZ-id (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First, all entries in the list comply with the article's criteria. As criterion number 3 says the list shall contain every case "with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)" So, if there are reliable sources stating that at least a dozen people were wounded, the case is included.

Second, I don't see any reason why attempted mass murders should be omitted, just because the intended goal of killing someone was not achieved. If two people go on a shooting spree, the one being a lucky shot, killing all of his six victims, while the other is aiming badly and kills none, but wounds dozens, the act remains the same, doesn't it? The outcome was different, for the victims at least, but that does not necessarily affect the crime's notability.

About the title, well, if you think it is inappropriate for the cases listed, what is your suggestion for a better one?

Finally, here is a discussion with a similar topic and a more detailed answer.(Lord Gøn (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, I have to agree. "Killer" implies death, not intent. The criteria listed are flawed by definition. All entries that don't have a minimum 4 deaths should be removed.Go4thAndDie (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As soon as anybody comes up with a term that adequately and unambiguously describes an armed person, who's running through the streets with the intent to murder as many people as possible, but, while injuring dozens, fails to kill a single one of them, I'll go ahead and change the title accordingly. But in the meantime rampage killer seems to be the best (in the meaning of 'least problematic') alternative. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

You are missing the point: no one thinks the title "Rampage Killers" is the problem. The problem is including anybody in the list that did NOT actually KILL somebody. It is irrelevant what a given perpetrator's intent was, if they do not actually do what the list is listing. In this case, "Rampage Killers". Just being on a rampage, does NOT make one a "Killer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.69.66 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You could as well turn it around and say the term "rampage killer" is the problem, because it does not adequately describe what this list is about. You see, the term this whole list is based on is the German word "Amokläufer", which is a person who wreaks havoc, in all probability with the intent to harm or kill a lot of people, but it does not imply that anybody was actually killed. So, just because the English language lacks a corresponding word, meaning exactly the same, I will not mold the list around its best, but still insufficient alternative.

Over the years I've had similar discussions numerous times, and the problem was and still is the lack of a word to describe the people this list is about; and it is a problem many "experts" must be aware of, at least subconsciously. For a more detailed explanation, read this discussion. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Carnation massacre

I believe this should be listed in family slaughters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Massacre Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

John Kenneth Peel

Howdy. I just saw the recent edits and thanks for adding DeWitt Charles. I also saw that you've added an unknown who killed 8 in Craig, Alaska back in 1982 on a boat. Well, he's unknown no longer. Here's an article on him (and with a picture no less.) Also, I noticed on your talk page you have few lists with people with a low kill count (5 or less). I have about 20 or so articles pilfered off of the google news archives that are mainly people who killed 5 or less, some of which are pretty early on (1930s or so). If you would like to add some of these people, I can post a list here if you like, and the articles as well.Longevitymonger (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[1]

The thing with Peel is that he was acquitted of all charges, so to name him as the perpetrator doesn't seem right. He was found not guilty and I think we should keep it that way, everything else would be mere speculation.
About the lists on my user-page, well, they are remnants of the days when I started to compile this list and didn't know how many mass murder-cases I would find. I realised pretty soon though, that I would have to draw a line somewhere and should not include all the minor incidents. They are simply too many and, even worse, including them would create an even more severe bias towards cases occurring in the United States, than is already present.
Anyway, here's something interesting. (Lord Gøn (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

John's name should be removed from this list!!! To have it remained is nothing less than slander. This IS America, and he was acquitted!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.63.223 (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you would've bothered to actually take a look at the list you would've seen that Peel's name is mentioned nowhere. The respective entry says Perpetrator - Unknown. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC))

Oops..Well, if I had done another search on Peel I probably would have seen that. As penance for my unintended mistake, here are three other cases that I don't believe you have listed here, and most of them are pretty early on. Hopefully you can use these.

Ralph Gragg (34) (May 2, 1951): Killed 8 of his children in Collettesville, N.C. [2]

Lillie Mae Curtis (38) (March 16, 1938): Killed 6 of her children by gunshot in Center, Texas. [3]

And my personal favorite of these finds....Salvador Rublico (age unknown) (November 13, 1952) used a bolo knife to hack 12 people to death in Manila, Philippines. [4]

And now a question. By looking at the list you've made here, what is it exactly about the Philippines that makes people go off? There's countless persons on here (Domingo Salazar, Florentine Basobas, Danny Guades, Jonathan Moreno, the homicidal baker you mentioned above and the aforementioned Salvador Rublico) and some have killed into the double digits. Why? Was it because of the Marcos regime that dominated the country for so many years, is it the availability of weaponry or is the native population totally batshit insane? I've pondered this myself while adding most of these crazy Filipinos to my own list, and I've yet to figure out exactly why.Longevitymonger (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I really can't answer that question (one that could be asked for the USA as well, btw), though I assume that it has something to do with culture, mentality or heritage. Either that, or the bias in the list is too severe to allow any definite judgement. Looking only at those countries, where we can assume a minimum of completeness of the data, it does seem though that some countries do have a higher occurrence of rampage killings per capita than others. Great Britain, for example, seems to be a lot less affected than France or Germany. Why this is the case, I don't know. Though in the case of the Philippines I'm sure Marcos has nothing to do with it, nor has the availability of weapons, as the weapons most likely used by Filipino mass murderers seem to be knives and machetes, which can be found in pretty much every household around the world.(Lord Gøn (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Is ranking by numbers really necessary?

Do we really want to organize this page like a record book of some sort? Doing so would reward, or give the appearance of rewarding, perpetrators in proportion to the heinousness of their acts. Second, it could encourage, or give the appearance of encouraging, people to get to the top in some kind of effort to immortalize themselves (cf. professional baseball records or a high-score list on an arcade game).

How about alphabetical order by surname instead?

I understand your concerns, though I think that sorting the list by death toll is the only logic solution, regarding the reporting standards of the international media. It's pretty much an irrefutable fact that the chances for such an incident to be reported on an international scale increase with the number of victims, so the best way to reduce bias is by setting a victims-limit and sort it accordingly. And then, let's be honest just once, and admit that the more horrible something is, the more interest it attracts and the more likely it is that it is regarded as an important event in history. I guess, we simply have to accept it that people engaging in mass slaughter and annihilation will be rewarded with attention, and the bigger the bloodbath, the more attention they will get, no matter if this list is sorted by name, country or death toll.

Regarding point two, well, I don't think that this list encourages anyone to "get to the top", or even if it does, I don't think that it's absence would make any difference. Many newspapers provide lists like this with their report about the latest mass shooting, so if anyone is looking for some inspiration reading that, or an article about the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11, would do it as well. And it's really not that difficult nowadays to find out about the greatest mass murderers of all time. Most of them even have their own articles here on Wikipedia. The only thing that makes this list different from all the others is its length, and if anybody thinks he could immortalize himself by killing lots of people, well, he should take some time, look at it and see how many of those names are long forgotten and buried in oblivion. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Sort by year for cryin out loud, as one would expect it for any other historically significant 'events'. This is not tabloid press, Wikipedia tries to be a bit scientific and neutral, you even say, that you understand the concerns. Even if manually sorted by year, there is still the ordinal number to the left and that very much ressembles a highscore list, get rid of that. of course there are worse things to be concerned about, but what speaks against sorting by the year by default? 94.134.205.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

If you want to provide a quick overview with a minimum of bias and a maximum of notable cases, sorting by death toll is the only way to go, because we live in a world where an increasing number of dead people automatically means increasing notability, and therefore reduced bias.

That the numbers on the left make the lists look like a highscore is irrelevant, as long as they are helpful, which is the case, because you can put the tables back into their original order without having to reload the page (definitely a plus, if your internet connection is slow) and they are kinda useful, if you are searching for a certain case in the edit page. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

ctrl+f and remembering the name makes finding it easier, too.

well, that's just like your opinion. lets list the changes of an article in "view history" by notability, too, to make it more comprehensible. imho, the whole list is not worthwhile. 94.134.192.246 (talk)

also, see the same decision in the spree killings article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.192.246 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is only my opinion, and I've never implied anything different. But whose opinion it is doesn't matter anyway, as long as the argument remains valid.

You cannot change how the edits are listed in the article history, they are always listed by date, which is the only reasonable way. Who should determinate the notability of an edit and how? This is a totally impractical and impossible idea, with no apparent value for improving the article.

If you think the list is not worthwhile, so be it, even though I don't quite understand why. After all, we do live in a world where this kind of random violence regularly makes headlines and sparks public outrange. So I find it just natural that there should be a place where you can go to get a quick overview, just to be able to put all the new mass murders into historical perspective. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

The number killed is not significant, and it's strictly a matter chance anyway. The significant thing is the frequency with which it happens, which is why a list that isn't ranked by year is essentially worthless. TheScotch (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, to say the number of people killed is not significant is simply ridiculous. It's like saying the number of people killed in a war is not significant. Of course it is. It's the most significant point of them all, or do you honestly think WWII would have the same significance as it has today, if there had been only a couple of hundred casualties? Do you think anybody would care more than a few days about a mass shooting with only three people injured? The number of casualties, and especially the death toll, is the only useable fact, if you don't want to end up with a list that is facing severe bias, or recentism, and lists the most notable incidents first. Frequency doesn't matter, especially not in regards of notability, and anybody who needs a list by year can have it with a single mouseclick - all the lists are sortable. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC))

Gender

Looking through the list, I didn't see any female names. Is every single person on this list male?

Also, what is the 'W' field? I think it's supposed to be for 'weapon' and 'F' equals Firearm, but I can't figure out anything else. Definitely could use some explanation - completely cryptic. --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 14 July 2011 (GMT)

Well, there are a couple of women listed. Most of them are actually in the familicides section, but there are a few exceptions, like Jennifer San Marco, Olga Hepnarova or Sabine Radmacher.

About the W-column: Look here. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Yes, the W field is explained early on, before the first list, but I think many people will come here and go to a specific list, and then be stymied. Also, the lists are now sortable by column value, but there is no indication that that is so: one has to chance on it or for some reason guess or know it.Kdammers (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an abbreviations and footnotes-section at the end of every list, and since it is a rather common approach to put such things at the bottom I don't think it is too much to expect that people scroll down to look for it. But if it makes you and others happy, I'll put a little note at the beginning that they are explained down there. Regarding the sortability feature, it's broken since somebody has tinkered with it many months ago. Well, in fact it does still work, but in any table with changed background colours those arrows indicating the features existence simply vanish. If you want somebody to fix it this is the wrong place to ask. You may have more luck here. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Merge with the list at Spree killer

See the proposal at the Spree killer talk page. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

what's up with listing the death of an unborn child

specifically the fort hood shootings. says the shooter killed an unborn child, although the kill count doesn't include that and the shooter of that crime was never charged with that death. i'm sure there's political implications in that and whatnot, of which i don't associate myself with; i just find it inconsistent with other articles of this nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.202.228 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What does "W" mean? (column heading)

The 8th column in each table has the heading "W". What does "W" mean? Wideangle (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

W is for Weapons. For more details read the annotations. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Is it possible to change W to weapons? And possibly write the name of the weapon in the table? I know I would not look the annotations if i was looking at this page, and I doutb the average user would either.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the column heading should be, at a minimum, "Weapon", and not just "W". However, for now, I just added a line near the beginning of the article explaining the "W" column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav-FL-IN-AZ-id (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of abbreviations in lists is not unusual on Wikipedia (see e.g. here and here) and overall it should not be a problem, as long as an explanation is provided somewhere on the page. Every dictionary utilizes them extensively, and if the reader is unable or unwilling to search for the list of abbreviations, well, I dare to say it's his own fault. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

No, it's your fault for using abbreviations where none are necessary. TheScotch (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And who determines when abbreviations are necessary? I think it is quite obvious that it is much more economic to replace a word that is used repeatedly by an abbreviation, especially in a table that already contains a lot of information. Just imagine how cluttered it would look, if we'd write out every 'firearm, melee weapon, arson', especially for those whose only window to the internet is a 15" monitor. And anybody who has difficulties working with abbreviations, even though an explanation is given what they mean, must also have severe problems to cope with the world outside of Wikipedia, because every time he opens a dictionary, a scientific book or takes a look at a statistics table he has to face entire hordes of them.

Besides that, the weapons culomn has always been a compromise. On the one hand some information has to be present about the weapons used, so people can differentiate between shootings and stabbings, but on the other hand it shouldn't take up too much space, because the main focus of the list is a different one. Under these circumstances the taken path is probably the only logic one. You can't please everyone. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC))

The annotation explaining the codes in the W (weapons used) column ought to be in a template so that this text can be repeated accurately (and thus standardized as to interpretation) in related lists such as List of rampage killers: School massacres. 75.210.231.55 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What about war crimes?

It seems like some of the biggest rampages occur in genocide situations like in Rwanda in the 1990s. You might specifically say that they are not to be included. 68.197.234.170 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it does say in the very first line "perpetrated by individuals", which excludes, at least in my eyes, any mass murders committed in the context of war or a greater conflict, as well as every rampage that was committed by a group, organization, or an entire population. (Lord Gøn (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC))

Oceania section

As Oceania is generally considered not to include the area of "maritime southeast Asia", I've renamed the section "Oceania and Maritime Southeast Asia". The Wikipedia page on Oceania highlights the general view of the term to include only the following countries, notably lacking the Philipines, Malaysia and Indonesia:

Australia Fiji Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia Nauru New Zealand Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu

Therefore, it's inaccurate to have a heading stating "Oceania" as the region, listing killing that mostly took place outside of Oceania.

Charles Whitman?

Curious if omitting Charles Whitman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman ) was an oversight or if there was some reason. Scottcmcdonald (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it always quite astonishing when people don't find what they are looking for here, asking "Where is X?" or "Why is Mr. Y not included?" I don't know why this is the case, maybe the list is too complex, too convoluted, or simpy too long, for some, even though I have really tried very hard to make as clear as possible where you can find what. But then some people don't even realize that most of the time only the first 15 entries are shown on the main page, and that there are links to the longer lists in A) the table at the very start of the page, and b) in every section after the note "For the entire list see". But to cut a long story short, Charles Whitman has committed most of his shooting in, or from a building belonging to the University of Texas, which means that he can be found among all the other school and university shooters at the List of rampage killers: School massacres. So he's there, you just didn't find him. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Oops. RTFM. You've done an excellent job; maybe it's because I'm ADD but I have a tendency to overlook the obvious. mea culpa. Scottcmcdonald (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Flags in Country-column

If you mind taking a look, you can see that somebody has added flags in the country-columns and I'd like to hear some opinions about this. Overall I am pretty much indifferent on this matter, but the job has not been finished, and I am sure in the end it will be me who will have to complete it, so I wanted to ask if people think the little flags are an improvement, or not. If not, adding them to the rest of the list probably won't be worth the effort, in which case I'd simply revert. So anybody having an opinion? (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

I'm a fan of flags in general, but they really don't add anything here, I don't think. So I don't think they're worth adding.. Mlm42 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Amelia Dyer?

Responsible for over 400 deaths. It's a huge number which would put her on the top of the list in europe, so it seems like a pretty dramatic edit, but I can't see why she shouldn't be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.122.253 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dyer is a serial killer, not a rampage killer, and nobody knows how many babies she really killed. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

no conviction and no irrefutable proof

I am floating for comment a proposal from User:Lukeno94 that all person's names should be deleted from these lists unless there is irrefutable evidence that they committed the crime(s) of which they are accused. 75.210.30.167 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

James Holmes' listing

I was just questioning why it's here since he hasn't been convicted. The last column does call him a suspect, but he is also listed as the perpetrator. Psalm84 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• What if he is found not guilty by reason of insanity? 75.210.30.167 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

James Holmes was caught at the crime scene red handed, the evidence incriminating him is more than just circumstantial, after more than a year he still is the only suspect, and by going for an insanity defense basically admits that he is the one who shot those people. To assume that he did not commit the shooting would be mere speculation that is not backed by any reliable source. And should he be found not guilty by reason of insanity it would be an offical acknowledgement that he is the perpetrator, with the little side note that due to his mental state could not be held liable for his crime. (Thusz (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

Bath school disaster?

On the page notice it says, "This list only includes individuals who are directly responsible for each death, meaning targeting every single person separately. This excludes arsons, bombings, poisonings or other forms of mass murder where the perpetrator has no direct control on who will fall victim to his crime." According to the guidelines, then wouldn't the Bath school disaster not fit the list? All of the killings were due to bombings except one gunshot which used to detonate the car bomb, so it seems that it should be removed for not fitting the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.181.238 (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Bath school disaster is one of those cases that is a little bit difficult to assess, since you could say that Kehoe was actually on a rampage, but instead of using guns or knives he used bombs. Anyway, if ir were that alone, I'd put Kehoe into the other notable incidents-section, wher he was before someone put him among the other school killers, but it seems that Kehoe beat his wife to death before destroying his farm and bombing the school, and since I've put other cases into the rampage killers-lists even though bombs or vehicles were the weapons mostly utilized, while only one or two were stabbed or shot, I think he may remain where he is now. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

Domestic violence

Under the "Domestic violence" heading, it says: This section contains cases that could be considered non-public, which means mass murders perpetrated in a domestic environment. The section is divided into two sub-categories, the first containing all incidents where most of the victims were relatives of the perpetrator and the second all incidents where the targeted families were not related to the perpetrator.

However, there is nothing on this page that indicates which incidents fall into which subcategory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry for that, but so far I've treated the domestic violence-section a little bit stepmotherly. I'll try to fix it later. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC))

Made some changes. Is it clearer now? (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

2012 Seattle shooting

I added the shooting in Seattle in may when 6 people were killed. I felt it was a fairly significant shooting this year. Also, the shooting at the mall in Oregon a week ago should be added. --Benbuff91 (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2012

Both cases do not meet the lists terms of inclusion. Since the perps death is not counted among those killed, and Ian Stawicki only killed five people and wounded one more, he won't be added, nor would the Oregon mall shooting, where the gunman afaik killed 2, wounded one. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC))

Pinyan name should be on same line as Latinized version

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) clearly shows the pinyin version on the same line. This should be the standard across all related lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.173.163 (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see why the way it is handled now is such an important issue for you. What's the big deal? And just because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) shows a table where the Chinese and the transliterated version are on the same line doesn't mean it has to be done that way in every other table. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

Upstairs Lounge Fire, 32 dead, is missing from the lists

The worst fire in New Orleans history, June 24 1973 is missing from the list. This is also believed to be the worst mass murder of gays in US history. Refer to Wikipedia article: "UpStairs Lounge arson attack"97.116.17.109 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure, if this should be added, or not, since Nunez never was prosecuted, nor confessed to police, nor, as it seems, was the fire officially ruled an arson. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

Why are, for instance, school shootings not included in regional lists?

What sense does it make to have a list of regional shootings with broad exceptions?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that school shootings, workplace killings, familicides, and hate crimes are treated as special forms of violence in the scientific literature I think it does make sense to put them in separate lists. On the other hand it wouldn't make sense to me to add them to the regional lists also, since I don't see any good reasons why they should be listed twice. The regional lists are very clear about what is not included, so there shouldn't be any problems to find what you are looking for, especially since the other lists are only one click away, no matter if you are looking at the main list, or one of the sub-lists. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

That seems to defeat the purpose of regional listings. Having duplicate listings is an unavoidable consequence of listing data in more than one way, not a flaw. If we added new lists, like rampage killings by ethnicity, or economic status, or mental condition, would we have an indecipherable patchwork of randomly placed entries to avoid duplicate listings?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Are you saying that if it is on a main list then it does not go on a regional list? The good reason is so that those of the region can be found grouped into one place. If any are missing, then the list is incomplete. 75.210.30.167 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What? No, I think you completely misunderstood. The main list is "List of rampage killers", and all the others are the sub-lists. If you look through the history of this list you will see that a couple of years ago the layout was a bit different and the regional lists did not exist at all. But the former breakup by "mass murders" and "spree killings", being basically the trash bins for everything that did not fit into one of the other categories, was fraught with problems. Additionally these two sub-lists got too long making a split necessary, so I took all entries therein and re-sorted them by region. School massacres etc. already were in separate lists, and I think should remain so, because they are seen as distinct forms of crime. Also, I am of the opinion that there shouldn't be any double entries, because all of them already are part of "List of rampage killers", and were the list divided by letters, like A-M and N-Z, there wouldn't be any double entries either. At best you would leave a note, saying: "for entry X please look here" and that is what is being done here.

Again, to make this clear, the regional lists are only for those entries that do not fit into one of the more specific categories. Due to their great number these entries have to be divided somehow, the old separation by spree and mass murder was fraught with problems, while separation by region is rather clear in most cases, so it is definitely an improvement. There may be other possible ways to deal with this, but that was the best one I could come up with. I see absolutely no need for double entries, maybe because to me the lists by region are merely part of a bigger whole.

@TeeTylerToe: No, I don't think the purpose of the regional lists is defeated by omitting cases that are already included in other parts of the "List of rampage killers", instead they are exactly doing what they are supposed to do, being a dump for all the stuff that can't be put elsewhere. And the categories you are giving as examples are completely impractical, even a division by ethnicity would make sense at best for the United States, because in all other countries it is a safe bet that the ethnicity of the perpetrator is the same as his nationality. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC))

What sense does it make to only have lists of oddball killers by region, not making the same regional lists for other classes of killings? Why are they treated differently, uniquely? What about oddball killers makes it appropriate to have lists of them by region but not have lists of any other type by region? You could have one central list of oddball killings.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

By oddball killings, do you mean those cases that do not fit into one of the more specific categories like school massacres? If yes, then having a central list for them would create a pretty long article that would have to be split. And how would we split? By region probably, so you would likely end up with the same layout you see now, given the fact that you do not want to say that we should take the "oddball killings" and oursource them into a "List of rampage killings that are not school massacres, workplace killings, familicides etc." which would generally be pretty stupid.

The reason that the unspecific cases are sorted by region, while the others are not, is their sheer number. As I said you have to sort them somehow, and sorting them by region seems not too bad a choice in my eyes. On the other hand, there aren't that many school massacres and workplace killings listed to necessitate a split by region. Not to say that I would not do just that should article size ever require it, as was the case with the List of familicides. So, should the school massacres section ever reach 150kb-200kb I will consider making sub-lists by region, but right now it wouldn't make any sense. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC))

Suggested title change

I herewith suggest to change the title of this list to "List of rampage attacks". (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

From Mass murder: "According to the FBI, for individuals, mass murder is defined as the person murdering four or more persons during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more. With exceptions, many acts of mass murder end with the death of the perpetrator(s), whether by direct suicide or being killed by law enforcement". This seems to cover what you are calling "rampage killings". Why not rename this list to List of mass murders? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)