Talk:Massacre

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Niccotrone.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Massacres can be difficult to investigate"

"Massacres can be difficult to investigate"... I think that this word is already by too many people when more than 10(?) people are killed for the same reason. What is happening in Libya... Massacre. --Justana (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)justana. I think wiki is good but also bad because people get n and destroy good information. massacre for example.

Confused

The entry contained bizarre and entirely pov statements and wording. I have removed them. Obvious falsehoods in the introduction were that a massacre CAN be considered a necessary slaughter (otherwise why would anyone bother to commit a massacre), a massacre CAN be inflicted on a more powerful group by a less powerful one, and a battle CAN include a massacre. The wording of the first two sentences in the Etymology section was so confusing that I don't know what it was meant to mean. The content of the Investigation section was especially bizarre, and all of it is now gone. All we have left is a dictionary reference. Unless acceptable content is added, this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Meowy 22:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Response:I wrote the last version of the introduction. The description was meant to be as comprehensive as possible, and answered concerns voiced in the discussion for deletion. I believe you'll find it has been remarkably stable since then, despite your characterization of "bizarre". How to explain:

• "unnecessary", because the killing in battles, legal executions, and the butchery of animals are generally considered "necessary" in order to achieve an objective; moreover, they are all generally sanctioned by some body of rules. A "massacre" is unnecessary in the sense that the massacring side does not need to kill the victims in order to gain its objective (ie, the battle is won, or the civilians aren't combatants).
• "can be inflicted on a more powerful group by a less powerful one": I did not write this. You misread, or misquoted. A massacre is inflicted by members of a more powerful group, which does not mean numerically superior. There are plenty of examples of minority groups perpetrating massacres.
• "battle can include a massacre": That's true. It can. It generally doesn't. Some editors were confusing the two. Especially when an event like "Massacre of someplace" enters the popular media, and two sides are arguing over whether it was a battle or a massacre.
• "can" - yes, I included can, because there is almost no situation when a massacre must occur, or when one always occurs.
• "Indiscriminate" and other adjectives: Part of the first two sentences. Editors kept including the term "indiscriminate", as well as "wholesale" (whatever that was supposed to mean), and "brutal" (is there a gentle massacre?), and persistently kept using these terms. I cut out some but left "indiscriminate" (like a medieval "sacking"), though many massacres are highly methodical, such as The Holocaust.
• Last - I might add that Lead section do not usually have references if they can be backed up. The only problem is that this article was never fleshed out by interested editors.

This is the first complaint that the introduction is "confusing", since it was added back on 19 September 2011, and I might add that the article is viewed about 14,000 times per month. Consider my reasons once more, and let's proceed with a discussion.Boneyard90 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Addenda to Response: Reading over the initial complaint once more, I realize how confused as User:Meowy characterized the description of a massacre as "necessary", when the original wording was opposite, it is un-necessary. This is in addition to the mistaken quotation that a massacre "inflicted on a more powerful group by a less powerful one", when the exact opposite was written. In addition, the introduction was accused of POV, but I contend that it was written expressly to avoid POV. If there was a point of view or bias included in the introduction, User:Meowy has not identified it. I await a reply.Boneyard90 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You've misread what I wrote. I wasn't re-quoting the content of the article, I was explaining that the claims in the article were false and was giving examples that were the exact opposite of the article's claims to show they were false.

The article claimed a "massacre is the general and unnecessary slaughter". That is both POV and OR given that a massacre could easily be considered a necessary slaughter by those undertaking it. I need only quote the numerous historical examples of prisoners captured after a battle who are then massacred because their large numbers make them a risk to their captors (in normal circumstances they would be ransomed). Your "does not need to kill the victims in order to gain its objective" point is your personal POV, and one that is contrary to the example that I've just given. The article claimed that a massacre is committed "by one or more members of another more powerful group". Again, that is clear OR and POV: a less powerful group could easily commit a massacre: they need only to be in the majority at the location of ther massacre, or be better armed than the majority. Your explanation of what "powerful" could mean is completely subjective.

The article claimed "a massacre is separate from a battle" - again OR and POV, a battle can include a massacre on the actual battlefield while conflict is ongoing. A massacre "being the term used to describe a mass-killing for the prosecutor's or prosecutors' personal gain." again, OR and POV. The whole "Investigation" section is OR and POV, and more importantly, off-topic given that "massacre" is not a definition of a crime. The photographic evidence section is always going to be heavily selective, so cannot escape accusations of POV and undue weight towards one incident or another. Meowy 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

First, the "personal gain" line and the investigation sections I can't vouch for. I didn't write them, and on the "personal gain" I agree with you, it does not belong.

The whole concept of a massacre is subjective from all sides; but I thought the introduction encompassed as many views and circumstances. However, let us take this one step at a time. First, I find your discussion of "powerful" is flawed: if a group is in a majority, and using those numbers to commit a massacre, then they are the more powerful; if the minority group is better armed and committing the massacre, they are the "more powerful". My use of the word "powerful" is not subjective. The group that can inflict its will on another, through whatever means (numbers, arms, etc) is therefore the more powerful. Do you concur with this? Boneyard90 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole subject is so riddled with POV which is why the article List of massacres was moved to List of events named massacres after several failed AfDs this page was a dab page until it was unilaterally moved and an article created. I think is is probably a good idea if there was anther AFD on this article and the Dab page restored, as I do not see how this article can be developed beyond a dictionary entry, and while it exists it is a POV magnate.-- PBS (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's just cutting off the head to cure the headache.Boneyard90 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

With the edits that Meowy made (which I approve of), all that is left is a close paraphrase of the OED entry. -- PBS (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So let's work to improve the article, not delete it because it's too much trouble.Boneyard90 (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given that we have an article called List of events named massacres what exactly do you think should be in this article other than the dictionary definition? -- PBS (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe you're asking me this. You're not new to writing. Why have any article separate from a list? To define, describe, expound on the concept, yes? There is a List of U.S. states that does not negate the need for the article United States; there is a List of battles (and numerous sub-lists) which does not preclude the need for the article Battle. Do I really need to go on?Boneyard90 (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Massacre was born as a propaganda term as such its usage carries POV connotations, and, unlike for example mass murder which is a crime against humanity and has a precise legal definition (Rome Statute 7.1.a), there is no precise definition for massacre. You have not explained what, other than a dictionary entry you think ought to be in this article. -- PBS (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would hope a more in-depth explanation than a simple dictionary definition. You say it was "born as a propaganda term". If so, how is it used for propaganda? Are there historical examples? Were they effective? Are there massacres that are not propaganda? Is there a historically accurate use of the term? What is the motivation for a massacre? One editor wrote that it was "usually soldiers" who committed massacres; is that a common view, and if so is it accurate? Is there an international investigative body? When have massacre perpetrators been prosecuted? When was the first massacre? I am not telling you anything you can't figure out for yourself. And only the fact that I've seen your name around, and the idea that I should assume good faith, prevent me from seriously considering whether you're mocking or trolling me. This topic has the potential to be turned into a feature-length article. If it is used as a "propaganda term", and it's not just a mass murder as found in dictionary definitions, then "massacre" is a complex and multifaceted sociological concept, and judging from the number of events called massacre, it is a phenomenon with deep historic roots that transcends cultures. Boneyard90 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the "born as a propaganda term" thing is true. However, any list of events called massacres - like the equivalent genocides list - would throw up plenty of examples of the term being used for propaganda uses. I wonder why the "Genocides in history" article is not called "List of events named as genocide"? What legitimate content is there that can be added beyond a dictionary-style explanation of the origin and meaning of the word massacre? If there isn't any, if it is always going to be OR / POV material, then I don't think this article should exist. I didn't notice the previous deletion request discussion when I began making my posts here. Meowy 23:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See the first sentence of the article. It was used by an English Protestant to describe the mass killings of French Protestants by French Catholics, something all "correct thinking" Elizabethans considered abhorrent. -- PBS (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Simply by asserting that the article will always be POV is your POV. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained why the content I removed was POV and OR. And you mostly either agreed, or excused yourself by saying someone else put it there. Meowy 01:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion was never finished. You never answered my last question to you.Boneyard90 (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The first day of the battle of the Somme has been described as a massacre, it was caused by incompetence not power.[1] -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

True. The massacre was incidental to the battle, indirectly caused by the commanders that were supposed to be on the same side, rather than, or of a more decisive position than the opposing force who perpetrated the actual killing. BUT, the officers were the ones with the power to order the soldiers forward, yes? And the British soldiers charged into German machine guns. So there is still the concept of a victim and a more powerful entity, but in that case, there were actually two forces of power, and the British soldier was powerless to avoid death. One can also remove the German machine guns as a variable, since there was less choice, they were definitely going to fire, and had to fire to defend their position. The British officers had Agency, the power to decide. The German machine guns were like a cliff, they were there and going to fire. The British officer ordered the soldier off the cliff. So yes, there is still the dichotomy of the agent with power, and the victim without.
Look, if we can identify more than one type of "massacre", than there needs to be an article to explain the separate concepts; a list is just not self-evident. Let's start with what a massacre is supposed to be, in its non-POV, non-propaganda, objective form. Basically, one side killing lots of people on another side, yes? How can an incident be identified as such? If the victimized side calls it a massacre, and the "victorious" side calls it a battle or something, then yes, we have a POV issue there. Even a third-party is not always reliable, as often even a third-party has a stake in supporting one side or the other. Consider this: What if BOTH victim and perpetrator call the event a "massacre". Is it a massacre then? Boneyard90 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed in depth in the AfDs for "list of massacres", there is no objective/legal definition of massacre and so it is not possible to to come up with an "objective form", and even if it were it would be a just one point of view. There is at least one definition,[2] it was put forward by the Guatemalan Historical Clarification Commission but that is the exception to the rule. Journalists and authors often pick words like massacre, slaughter or butchery depending on what sounds best in pros, for example the "St Valentines day massacre" is easier to say than "St Valentines day slaughter" (to many 'S'es), but both terms are equally accurate. See for example "Slaughter of the innocents" and "Massacre of the innocents" care to decide which is the technically correct term (BTW Slaughter is a dab page -- as was this page until fairly recently). -- PBS (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in a discussion with two editors, neither of which will give me a straight answer to a question. Is it a "massacre" if both sides (perpetrator/victim) agree that it is a massacre? Boneyard90 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that on Wikipedia it is a massacre if credible sources say it is a massacre. But this is nothing really to do with this article - it is about the word massacre, not about specific incidents of massacre. I think everything has been said before in the old deletion request. Meowy 22:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok....Boneyard90 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD at Definitions of Pogrom

Hi everyone, we'd be grateful for your thoughts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of Pogrom. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin

German Wikipedia mentions the French word "maçacre" as the origin of the word massacre. Does anyone know it exactly and certainly? --95.116.236.208 (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we remove "group"

In the definition of Massacre we are saying that it is committed by a group. Yet there are many massacres that have been committed by one individual. Do you guys think we could remove "group" from the definition of massacre? or say that it is also done by individuals? I think that would make it clearer to the reader. What do other think? JackGann (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The use of 'military' or 'mob' is, in itself, not supported by any reliable sources. As you can see, it's been proposed that it be merged with List of events named massacres which is, in itself predominantly original research. If you're interested in merging and/or improving this entry, all hands on deck! It would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Difference between WP:OR and WP:SYNTHNOT

@WWGB: Rather than avoiding this talk page, please discuss your elimination of requests for citations by employing WP:SYNTH and please carefully read WP:SYNTHNOT. Edit summaries such as this are nonsensical where there are no sources provided for any of the pre-existing content. Reworking the content in order to bypass valid requests for citations (as you've done here) is not an acceptable editing practice as it clearly demonstrates a desire to conceal disputed definitions by obfuscating them in unencyclopaedic oversimplification.

If you are concerned with issues surrounding the content, please follow WP:BRD. Up to this point, you've not initiated or engaged in any attempts at discussion. Thank you, in advance, for attempting to work collaboratively with other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Usually??

and is usually considered to be morally unacceptable. Can be provided an example where is morally acceptable?177.192.13.37 (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)