Talk:List of events named massacres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bit of a bias here.[edit]

I realize history is complicated, and researching past "incidents" is difficult outside of a free press nation,however: We have a lot if individually identified events committed by the South Koreans. Only a few committed by the North Koreans.

North Korean soldiers committed so many atrocities their own military changed the official "rules of engagement" for the North Korean troops to try to end the killing of prisoners, wounded, helpless, civilians.

Maybe someone who can be trusted (because they LIKE North Korea) could do a better job of getting "the whole truth" into this article?

Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

We still don't have Luigi's Massacre and it's been hanging in limbo for a couple of years.[edit]

We sure we want to keep this incomplete turkey?


Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable case changes being made (massacre to lower case)[edit]

There have been a number of recent edits of the list and moves made of related articles to lower case "m" with what appears to be only a cursory look at the current usage of the name. Examples I've examined so far are Lawrence and Fort Pillow which are capitalized by modern authors from what I can find. That doesn't mean that the cites in this list necessarily does the same...depends on the nature of the citation and that might be the reason for some of the edits. Editors might want to take a close look at each of these recent changes. Red Harvest (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The above user brought to my intention the good faith edits of User:Dicklyon in changing several page namings to the lower case. I understand the points made by both users but am not sure how I feel about resolution. I notice in this list article a very inconsistent use of the MOS as described by Dicklyon here. Strangely, I don't see a discussion of this MOS subject in the talk page archives here. Is there a generalized discussion on this subject I've missed? BusterD (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There have been several recent largish multiple-move discussions that have generally affirmed the consensus to use lower case for articles like "X riot" and "X massacre" when case usage in sources is mixed. For a few articles that have made-up names (not descriptive) that are uniformly upper case in sources, I have left them that way. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Villatina massacre#Requested moves, Talk:Rock Springs massacre#Requested moves, Talk:Potato riots#Requested moves. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those links. Appreciate your efforts. BusterD (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, but I'm in disagreement with a conclusion that differs from common practice by recent historians of specific events. Claiming something is "mixed" when that does not appear to be the case looking at the treatment by leading authorities, is a questionable criteria. Changes based on a claim of "mixed" but not consensus historian use can quickly become a circular argument by such criteria. (For example: I've noticed some instances of erroneous good faith name changes/quotes/etc. in Wikipedia being echoed in external articles later. I recall at least one where the net result was a circular reference in Wikipedia.) If the moves were toward current naming by the authors, then I would agree, but from what I've seen of Lawrence and Fort Pillow, the two largest examples of the Civil War, the move is counter to their usage--at least what I've seen of it so far. If some historians come along to point out that this has changed for these specific events by their own consensus, then I will gladly withdraw my objections. Until then, I oppose such changes. Red Harvest (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you mean by "recent historians" and "leading authorities". We generally prefer to go by common terms in writing for a general, as opposed to specialist, audience, and to style according to our own WP:MOS, not the style of other specialist areas. I think you can see from reliable sources (books) that these terms are not nearly consistently capitalized in sources, meaning that we regard caps as unnecessary and hence avoid them, per MOS:CAPS. The discussions that I linked pretty well reaffirm this. If you believe I got this wrong on one or more of them, please point those out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I addressed the Lawrence massacre on my talk page already. On the Fort Pillow massacre, same deal; some books like this 2011 book contain dozens of occurrences of the term capitalized, because they are in headings and titles, but they use lower case when mentioning the event in text. In spite of such bias toward upper case, the n-gram counts show lower case is still more common. So the idea the upper case is standard, or necessary, has no support in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll stick with what appears to be the consensus established by reliable sources, and actual historians writing for the general public carry more weight on this than a Wikipedia editor. When I've done the searches it still comes down to two conventions: primary accounts were lowercase in text body, while nearly all of those by twentieth century historians (secondary sources) were upper case in the body of the text (thanks for the Leslie link that is one exception I had not found in search through my own bookshelf and online.) No, this isn't just headers, I specifically searched for their form in the body and rejected headers and such.
I can accept that this doesn't apply to all historical events, so I'm not arguing that most should be caps. But I am going by the best information at hand. If Wikipedia is going 100% lowercase on these, and the Boston Massacre is changed, then I'll accept this even if it appears to be at odds with current sources. Red Harvest (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point about some such as Boston Massacre being consistently upper case in sources. Nobody is likely to propose changing that on WP. But the Lawrence massacre is nowhere close to that category, as the n-gram links shows. It shows that in spite of the large numbers of title citations and headings, still half of all occurrences are lower case. You seem to be suggesting that we should give more weight to those specialists who like to emphasize by capitalization those things that they are specialists in (see WP:SSF); but that's not what we do. See MOS:CAPS again. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem I have on this is the authors have quoted the name as such in their popular works and on average are more careful with such things. Some of the specialists include the Civil War Battlefield Guide which is an edited work, along with NPS descriptions. If they are changing to match MOS style we should start seeing more evidence of that and my objection will be gone. The multiple listings of lower caps I've found for Lawrence still come from the primary sources of the period and quotations of them. I was surprised to find that around the start of the twentieth century the form changed, but I noticed that in my searches before seeing the n-gram.
Why would they change to be more like WP:MOS style? They have their own style, and we have ours. Look at the n-grams again; they are plotted by date, so you can easily pay attention to whatever time period you want, and ignore the primary sources that way. I haven't seen many that are quotations of primary sources, but I'm sure there are a few. Dicklyon (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I have not examined the Fort Pillow sources as closely as they didn't involve a page move. I came across the name on page 6 of Hurst's 1993 bio of Forrest and was otherwise accustomed to seeing it capitalized. I originally didn't find it named in text in Ward's River Run Red except in primary accounts which used lowercase as I had seen for Lawrence. Since then I have found him using lowercase for his own text in at least two places. Note that the copyright of this hardcover is 2005, same as the one you gave above (2005 HB, 2011 paperback.) So I'll concede on Pillow, but not on Lawrence with what I've seen so far Red Harvest (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Fundamental misunderstandings abound concerning proper names vs proper nouns, and whether a title is merely descriptive and could be substituted (one of the tests). I agree with Dicklyon's argument here. Tony (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The misunderstandings would be less if MOS:CAPS directly addressed how this is being handled for historical names/events (as in a short section.) Pointing editors to a style guide that doesn't clearly address this concern might be part of the problem. Red Harvest (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
MOSCAPS is certainly not perfect, but it already covers this and gives a ruling adequate to the present set of titles. Tony (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Based on the questions and comments that have arisen that does not appear to be the case. Editors are looking at it and not seeing the criteria as over ruling what appear to be accepted names in these cases. Nobody expects the guideline to be perfect, but when some additional clarification is requested, and folks give suggestions about how to improve it rather than simply rejecting it, that just might be the time to do something about the misunderstanding, rather than trying to brush off constructive criticism. It seems a simple matter to write a section/paragraph about handling "historic events" to explain why it is relevant. It's not my area of expertise and it wouldn't bother me to leave the names in present form, so I'm not going to write it for you. Lacking clarification, I'm inclined to oppose the moves rather than accept them. Red Harvest (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

foibe[edit]

for years I always wondered why there is no mention of the foibe where 250,000 italians were killed from 1945 to 1948 by the Yugoslavs army and partisan Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). google foibekilling

9/11 and Murrah building bombing not titled massacres in reliable sources[edit]

The criteria at the top of this talk page clearly precludes the inclusion of incidents like the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing on this list. Those incidents may well be considered massacres by some and might conceivably be described as such, but are rarely titled as such. This prevents their inclusion on this list which, as the title indicates is a list of incidents called massacres. Those two are not. This post is not in any way intended to minimize those two tragedies; as it happens I'm personally connected to both. BusterD (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on List of events named massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sudden massive insertion of many incidents NOT commonly referred to as massacres[edit]

Several ip accounts have been on a multi-day spree of inserting links of many mass killings, almost all of which don't meet the criteria clearly described at the top of this talk page.

While it's true that the events inserted by this (likely single unregistered) user are each tragic and could reasonably be argued to be described as a massacre, and while that unregistered user or users put a great deal of effort into assembling and formatting the material for insertion here, the overwhelming majority of sources in the added cases don't normally refer to the incident as a massacre. Further, it appears that the only events added seem to be mass shootings, leading to the reasonable conclusion that the user or users wish to see all mass shootings be classified as massacres, even though the sources don't seem to line up behind that desire. List of rampage killers is thataway. I'll concede the pedia doesn't have a pagespace for List of mass shootings. I'll confess I'm a bit baffled at that omission.

For these reasons, I'm restoring to the last clear version here. I'd be glad to discuss this, but virtually none of the insertions meet the criteria listed at the top of the talk page. Many of these incidents have been inserted before and rejected by other editors for the same reasons I've put forth: mostly because the overwhelming majority of sources in each case call the event an incident, or shooting, not a massacre. In almost every case, the Wikipedia pagespace associated with each event correctly entitles the event as do the sources, per WP:NAMING. BusterD (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Today, ip User:2606:a000:ef26:7e00:f9a8:3d89:7b1d:a62 reverted my change with no discussion, then added another non-massacre, a mass shooting again. Would anyone care to discuss these changes which are clearly in violation of the criteria used for such insertions in this pagespace? BusterD (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the added material link to articles described as "... shooting" suggests they are not massacres per the definition. I have reverted. Hamish59 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the reversion. If there is not a reliable reference showing the event called a "massacre", which I doubt exists due to the names used for the events by the person adding them, then they do not belong on this page. To restyle them as "massacre" is original research and forbidden on Wikipedia. I say get rid of them. Additionally, you may want to consider some page protection. TheBlinkster (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The consensus we reached several years ago is that the standard for inclusion in this list is actually stronger than being "called" a massacre... the event must be NAMED using the word "massacre". So... to be included on the list, we need sources that refer to the event as "The X Massacre" or "The Massacre of Y" (etc). Even a source that states: "It was the greatest massacre in human history" won't meet that standard. That would be a description of the event, and does not establish that the word "Massacre" is used in the context of a NAME for the event.
I have not examined each of the additions, but if the sources that discuss them don't NAME the event using the word "Massacre", they should be removed. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That is actually what I meant because the first line of the article refers to "one of the commonly accepted names includ[ing] the word massacre". I didn't express it very well though. Thank you, Blueboar, for being more clear. I do wonder, if consensus was already reached on this several years ago, and given that the lede of the article is very clear on the criteria for inclusion (basically what Blueboar said), is there really any further need for discussion here? Seems like a case of unregistered user(s) disregarding the requirements for inclusion stated in the article (or not bothering to read it carefully at all), and adding mass killings that clearly don't fit. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the clarification. Since the ip users have chosen not to engage, and since the consensus here is clear, then I suggest such insertions might be removed at will, and repeated insertions of such material would be considered vandalism. Agreed? BusterD (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. It would be nice to look at every addition on a case-by-case basis, but I think the onus is on the IP to show that the additions meet the definition / criteria given in the lede and at the top of this talk page. 10:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This continues to be a problem, I have removed a chunk of them but there are still plenty in the list. Bakilas (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 45 external links on List of events named massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of events named massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What about the Paris and Brussels attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.29.122 (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of events named massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of events named massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Housekeeping note:[edit]

While working on an article I checked "what links here" and came across Talk:List of massacres/Unlisted articles, begun in May 2010 (and left mostly untouched since) containing "a list of articles that are currently not included in the article, but that satisfy the inclusion criterion". While possibly not proper "according to Hoyle," I've added that list of articles to the original talk page conversation started by User:Lambiam about the list – now at Talk:List of events named massacres/Archive 8, and redirected the talk page there. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of events named massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of events named massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of events named massacres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated entries, again[edit]

It should be made clear that the interest of this list is the inconsistent (propagandistic) use of the term "massacre" and not the severity/importance of the events listed. Use of the term is an intellectual fashion, and there are many other terms for "mass killing", such as atrocity, slaughter, "Vespers", Blutgericht, "attack", or ... "mass killing".

Therefore, instead of listing the events by date, people should be encouraged to research the origin of the name "massacre" given in the list and cite the date of that name, and ideally who coined it and in what context.

This is mostly of interest for historical events, not current-day ones, because you can be sure that everything involving more than one death will be called a "massacre" by somebody. But it is interesting to trace the use of the term in historiography, at least prior to 1800 or so. E.g. Boston Massacre, which was almost immediately called a "massacre" for purely propagandistic reason, including "celebration" of a "Massacre Day", even though the total number of deaths was five, the killing was arguably in self-defense, the perpetrators were immediately put to trial, with the result that six were acquitted and two were convicted of manslaughter. Thus, the event as judged legally should be termed "Boston manslaughter" and treated as the unjustified manslaughter by two individuals. But it is, of course, known as the "Boston Massacre" in US history for perfectly good reason, it's just that these reasons are entirely propagandistic. The perfect subjectivity of the propagation of such names should be the explicit topic of this list, which would require a column dedicated to the date and authority coining the name.

I cannot perform this at the moment, but I am going through the list and will at least mark those which are not, in fact, named "massacre" in any cited reference. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

since the purpose of the list is entirely one of the English lexeme used in historiography, it may even be more relevant to sort entries by the date of the name rather than the date of the event. I think it will turn out that Gibbon popularized the term in historiography, and that use after 1800 becomes increasingly gratuitous. It may make sense to restrict the scope of the list to 1600 to 1800 or so because this seems to be the period of interest in the development of the English term. --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Articles like this are always going to be a magnet for nationalism, politicised idealists, disruptive edits and polarised conflicts. Personally, I think they should all be semi-protected or require pending edits, as this saves registered editors having to review and edit every IP contribution for accuracy and bias. It's hard enough just keeping the table functioning, without even considering what "massacres" are being added and removed on a near-daily basis by IPs, socks and single-purpose accounts. There has been lot of focus on Israeli–Palestine "massacres" in recent weeks, I've reported some obvious socks, but it doesn't really help. To be honest, this article is such a mess, it's encyclopedic value is questionable. It's little more than a list of other articles, with no analysis on conclusions. That makes it an easier target for POV-pushers. Should probably be listed on AfD to see it can hold up to scrutiny. If it passes, it should be given a proper unerhaul. — Marcus(talk) 11:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It my purpose here to avoid "disruptive" or "polarised" edits by requiring citation of the origin of the specific name used. The entire purpose of my suggestin is to restore encyclopedic value to the page. It is clear that anything is being named a "massacre" these days, and keeping a list of this is pointless. The relevant part of the list concerns events named prior to 1900 (or possibly prior to 1945 or so). Also, I agree with your call for semi-protection and am implementing it now.
it is clear that any encyclopedic use of this page is concerned with the semantic evolution of the term, ca. 1600-1900, and not with serving as a platform for people to indulge in outrage porn. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Since there are already 89 "massacres by country" lists found in Category:Lists of massacres by country, why is there any need for this list? Is it not just a WP:COATRACK for those pages, dumped into one list in a haphazardous format? I mean, the list here isn't that long, and yet there are 568 references. Seems like overkill, and I wonder if all of those citations are to unbiased links or often the result of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; I know I won't be checking them all. I don't think you could easily try to prevent many of the questionable edits this list receives without appearing WP:OWNEY, to some editors. Wouldn't it better to admit that this article is too broad and too high-maintenance and that it would be easier to focus on the 89 country-based lists which provide a narrow perspective and scrub this one? I mean, do we really need an international list when it is so unmanageable and full of subjective entries that will just keep creeping back in? As I said before, I'm considering AfD'ing it and seeing if many other feel it's too much of a burden when there are so many other lists. — Marcus(talk) 17:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible cut-off (historiography vs. journalism)[edit]

There is a clear trend of "massacre" being used in historiography, many years after the event, to journalistic use of "massacre" almost immediately after the event. Use of the term was always partisan, of course, even in historiography. Looking for the point in time when journalists began to use "massacre" in the immediate aftermath of the event, I found the Columbine Mine massacre of November 1927.

Time magazine in 1928 cites its own edition of 5 Dec. [1927] with "Columbine Mine 'massacre'", i.e. using scare quotes, showing awareness that the application of the term is hyperbolic use of a term used in historiography of events of genocidal scale. It seems likely from this that indiscriminate, journalistic use of massacre originates in American journalism in the 1920s to 1930s. This would seem like a good cut-off date for the list, as it becomes pretty much arbitrary after that (anything from minor shootings to major ethnic cleansing is called "massacre", causing the term to lose all distinctive meaning). To avoid an arbitrary cut-off like "1928" why not use 1945. Ideally, only cite events named "massacre" before 1945 (as opposed to pre-1945 events named "massacre" only after 1945). --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2018[edit]

I have created an interactive visualization of this list, and it can be found here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eliasdabbas/wikipedia_list_of_massacres/master/massacres_plot.html

The suggestion is to embed it in the page.

Thanks Beauty not Love (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Link is not functioning. Spintendo      19:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


Sorry for that. Here is a live interactive dashboard:

https://massacres.herokuapp.com/

and I have added a screen shot on the GitHub repository:

https://github.com/eliasdabbas/wikipedia_list_of_massacres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasdabbas (talkcontribs) 08:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Jonestown aka People's Temple Massacre[edit]

Simple question,

Why is it not listed and discussed?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.227.230 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)