1179:. It may not be clear what fits into this definition sometimes, but no matter how you look at it, Battle of Chanping, for instance, falls into this definition. If you are uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't have sources in its article, that discussion should go in the article - we should be deleting that article, not this list. Furthermore, for the stuff that happened hundreds of years ago they're not contested events. This junk is in the history books, it should be trivial to verify or deny it. Like I was saying, modern events are more difficult to handle. Still not impossible. -
1024:
deletion because of the inherent POV problems with the word massacre. This is well documented in the edit history of the article and on the talk page and archives. If after you have considered the POV problem, then please either consider changing your opinion from splitting the article to deleting it, or tell us how to solve the POV problem, or explain that you do not consider POV to be a problem, because at the moment it seems to me that you recognise the POV problem but have not suggested a way we can solve it.--
242:: the page as it is now tries to include ever large scale killing and this will make the article unusable and unmaintainable, just because of the number of such events. The current structuring uses recent media jargon with the "state sponsored massacre". Most of the {{fact}} requests were applied mechanically - where the relevant article exists the references and details should not get duplicated over several places. Whole wars (e.g. Spanish Civil War) were inserted into the list.
882:- Absolutely unmanageable. There's no absolute authority on what the inclusion criteria for "massacre" is and the lines blur between mass killings, massacres and other terms which makes it totally unpractical. Each individual editor may have a different idea of what massacre means to them and in the end we'll have a gigantic list full of every killing involving more than 3 people. Delete.
1436:
does not fit the definition? There are not the same problems with definitions for things like "war crimes" and "genocide" as these are legally defined terms as are many other terms used to create lists. But the meaning of a word like massacre is so loose as to be almost meaningless and is used in an arbitrary way in third party sources. --
1111:
intention if this fails to only to include in the list those events which are called a massacre by a reliable third party source, so this list that exists will be a list of events that third party sources have called massacres. This will mean that many of the current entries will be deleted because they are only in there through editorial
1377:. If this article goes, then those should too. A solution might be to order the list not chronologically, but by the number of casualties. Then there might be one main article with the biggest massacres (which people will be most interested in) and then maybe even several more aricles for the different 'size' massacres.
1518:
I think comments from non-involved editors are vital for these discussions. Various policies strongly caution editors to read and understand the history of an article before changing a great deal of things, but there are also policies that discourage "ownership" of articles. Proposing solutions may
1405:
84.41.231.64 justifying the keeping of a list because there are others that you consider "even harder to define" is not in my opinion a very useful argument. If this list is to be kept then a definition is needed. So 84.41.231.64 if we are to keep this list please provide a definition that we can use
1142:
is controversial in terms of being defined as a massacre or not, or that we don't have a death count reported in good faith. Or would you be claiming that the ] wasn't a massacre because we don't have a cite? I mean come on. Clean up is one thing, AfD is another. Obvious criteria for inclusion is
978:
One can not ignore the POV questions that is the fundamental problem! What do you think a massacre is? ie how would you describe it in the introduction so that the lists are not a random collection of events? -- What about the point I made in the introduction to this AFD about air raids? Did you know
875:
Well nobody can agree upon a massacre I would have to say that what ever has been labeled a Mass
Killing/Spree/Murder be put in its own category and those we know to be called a Massacre be left. Example something like the Tulle Murders doesn't really count as a massacre as it was never really called
302:
The reason why I think school shooting should not be included here - disregarding inflation of the term by current media, these are plain murders on somewhat larger scale. Remove the shooter and nothing will happen. A "proper massacre", IMHO, has some context and does not depend only on the behaviour
189:
article, or are just an arbitrary collection of events which editors with various POVs have added to the article. For example the air forces of the belligerents in World War II launched scores and scores of strategic and tactical bomber raids every week of the war many of which which killed scores of
1420:
A single, continuous event in which large numbers of people were deliberately killed. Note that this includes sieges and battles, but not wars. Of course, that's just my definition and another might just as well be chosen (preferably with as little as possible OR). Admittedly, there are difficulties
1206:
I'm still confused by what is accomplished by refuting the definition of massacre. There's not much in dispute about any entry, and that's the only thing that matters for PROVEIT. What the article is saying is "x number where killed in this event, y were killed in this event..." That's verifiable
1008:
I didn't mean ignoring the POV questions as to discard them- only that I was not going to address them. If this article is kept, it needs to be split into managable sections. There also needs to be an objective standard for inclusion, maybe by number of deaths. Something that can be divorced from
742:
With a definition that makes everyone happy, you will include every killing of two or more for the entire history of the human race. Any definition that limits the list to a manageable size will be challenged by someone w POV for eliminating their favorite act of cruelty. If you post by continent,
657:
I think the article is way too long for an article, so splitting it up sounds like a very good idea. Each section should be a page of its own, but the main page should remain, with links to each of the subpages. All of the concerns voiced by editors who voted to delete are well-founded, but deletion
478:
So "Quoth nevermore" which dictionary did you use? How does one judge if the killings were unnecessary or necessary? Does this mean that mass discriminate killings are never a massacre? What happens if a reliable source calls an event a massacre, but the killings were not indiscriminate but targeted
672:
The edit history, and the talk archives, shows that I spent a lot of effort on this list over the years -- including the proposing and implementing the splits into separate tables from one long one -- but I don't consider that a justification for keeping the article. If we do not use the suggested
158:
Currently the page list of massacres is protected due to protracted edit wars. There have been meaningful discussions about how the introduction to the page could be altered so that only entries supported by reliable third party sources were used. But the problem is that the word massacre has no
1292:
We have been that way of excluding events within the laws of war at the time, but some editors argue that this is a biased POV (because no source that specifies this), and if an event is called a massacre in a reliable source, then whether it is within the laws of war or not it should be included.
1110:
Theanphibian please read Sara's point to DGG and then explain what you think a massacre is and what the criteria should be used for including an incident in the list. If you can not do this do you think keeping this list is a workable solution? As to your point about 18th century and earlier, the
942:
Using ONLY post WWII data FROM THIS PAGE (selected because no one can claim writing hadn't been invented yet), we have raw data as follows: "the west" (Knowledge definition - Europe, Russia, and US), with 15% of the world's population, 109 massacres w 20,000 victims. "the rest of the world", with
565:
of the information, and here at
Knowledge, we tend to like sourcing. Nor is it unmanageable, unless you're worried about new massacres being added every day. The only valid complaint I see here is that there's no clear definition of what's a massacre. Good well-sourced material that could stand
1435:
What is a large number of people? Is not such a definition OR or do you have a source for it? Such a definition would create a list of many hundreds of thousands of entries. What happens if a reliable third party source claims that an event is a massacre, do you keep it out of the list because it
760:
Will you delete every article that is "controversial"? Or are some killings less important/tragic than others? Or does it not conform to the widely accepted list victims or perpetrators? This is a place where (somewhat) accurate history of human suffering is documented without the usual bias that
543:, as much as I hate to say it. This is an indiscriminate and unmanageable list. The information on its own is helpful, but not in a format like this. Splitting into smaller, much more focused and well-sourced articles (a lot of which already exist) is much more meaningful and less arbitrary. --
266:
Why by continent? You say without attaching further labels to war, state or religion, but then immediately suggest that schools, workplace and gang wars should be labelled. Why those three and not others? Have you read the talk page? Because it is suggested that the current introduction should be
1023:
Bradjamesbrown the advice to split a large list into smaller sections is quite reasonable, but that is not really the issue under discussion, because I would not not put a list up for deletion if size was the only problem (I would simply agree on the talk page to split it). I put the list up for
1098:
moving this list to other articles like going postal and stuff is going to make it more POV and harder to navigate. I think a split into multiple articles would be acceptable by all means, and I think the best approach would be to section off 19th century and later. I find the more historical
1494:
With all due respect, we seem to have a lot of people making arguments who were NOT part of the years long arguments on the original page. I am sorry, but I do not believe one single suggestion or argument has been made by any of these "non involved" persons that has not already been made and
560:
The word indiscriminate does not apply here, as any review of WP:LIST will show. A list of blue-links is "indiscriminate" because there is no information provided that shows a distinction between the items on the list. This one, on the other hand, provides information about time and place, a
185:, and the two sub-lists from this article that could be salvaged are "massacres during labour conflicts", and "Criminal and non-political massacres". Much of the rest of the article are either covered in other articles eg "State-sponsored genocides" are covered much better in the
1152:
The reason for the AfD is because no one has come up with a viable third party definition for massacre that can be used to create a list. Further those events that have reliable third party sources claiming that an individual event is a massacre, seem to be arbitrary and often
247:
If the contents is kept it should be broken into parts: first geographically by continent or subcontinent, then by date, without attaching further labels as war, state or religion. School shooting, workplace violence and gang wars should be separated into standalone lists.
1369:), so for educational purposes it should be kept. If people want to know about it it should be dealt with. If the definition is problematic then that is no reason to not deal with the subject. For comparison, terrorism is even harder to define, yet we have the artcles
979:
that in
Northern Ireland between 1970 and 1992 there were about 10,000 "terrorist" incidents. Now not all those involved multiple loss of life, but that was a very small conflict in a very small place so can you imagen how many mass killings occur in a typical year? --
193:
This leads to one final point. The list is as it is currently structured is far from complete, for example if all aerial bombardments from all wars that result deaths are included then it will many times larger and it is already has an edit size of 196K .
1541:- normally that wouldn't be worth mentioning, but based on the name and edit summary it appears they may intend to use the Sandbox's history as "hosting space" for the article, and 'preserving' it in this way violates the GFDL. so... oversight, maybe? —
705:? All the pages I see that have controversies make some effort at defining, with mention of alternative points of view. I can't claim to have read all 1-million-plus articles, but I have worked on pages that generate a lot of controversy, such as
159:
agreed definition that can be attached to a category of offences and it is used in a by third party sources in an arbitrary way. One incident may be described as a massacre in a third party source, while another very similar incident is not.
73:. There are far too many issues here to be decided in the AFD format and timeframe. I understand that no decision has been reached in literally years of discussion, but except in rare cases, lack of consensus is not a reason to delete.
1450:
I don't think there would be a problem with renaming it, making a list of serial massacres as per the
Ireland example above, or imposing criteria for inclusion. But as far as I can see, Knowledge has no other equivalent list.
1143:
that some other source called it a massacre, or that just a large number of people were killed not fighting back. So yes, I do think keeping the list is a workable solution and splitting into multiple articles could help. -
1075:
definition of "massacre" which will acheive consensus here will lead to a list of near infinite length. To illustrate this - you state what you believe are the "criteria" - and I'll show you what fits your criteria!
1153:
politically/religiously/culturally biased. If the Battle of
Chanping has no reliable third party source that states it was a massacre it should not be in the list of massacres, this is within Knowledge policies of
28:
1137:
If you're saying that we're going to delete all the old entries in the list because they don't have references, that's just BS. Most of them have links to a main article, you can't possibly argue that the
587:: There are literally thousands of mass killings that would qualify as "massacres"; this list will expand exponentially. As someone said, every bomb dropped in the past 90 years is potentially a massacre. (
673:
definition of a massacre is a massacre when a reliable third party source calls it a massacre, (with all the arbitrary inclusions and exclusions that entails), then AFAICT any other definition is either
1366:
618:
516:). Second, how long into history will we go back. Third, even if we go back in history only 300 years, there are so many massacres that this list will never be completed, and won't be helpful.
354:
for the reasons stated by the proposer who provides a good summary of the problems with the article. I also think that "non-political" massacres such as the recent school shootings in
Finland and
614:
1322:
658:
isn't the right way to deal with this. There is a lot of hard work behind each one of those tables. It should not be thrown away because of what amounts to no more than formatting errors.
487:, do they get into the list or not? If the do then what is the definition we are using and if they do not then it is not a list of massacres as defined by reliable 3rd party sources. --
825:
This list deserves to be on
Knowledge. It directs you to the articles making it alot easier. This was the main source in my politics essay in college and this is how i go my sources.
325:
I have tried in vain to find reliable, academic or otherwise non-casual use of the term massacre. What constitutes a "proper massacre" versus something that is simply labeled one? Is
1504:
FWIW Please do not be offended if your "perfectly reasonable solutions anyone can see" are not too well received by the "regulars". The matter is not nearly as simple as it appears.
1099:
entries to be quite education and well in line with the purpose of
Knowledge and qualms about the inclusion of certain events shouldn't have any bearing on a delete/keep decision. -
450:
Some people say that the word is "POV charged", in this case we cannot imply that a fact is a massacre without assuming a POV, and a "list of massacres" cannot exist in wikipedia.--
1188:
What does savage mean and who judges if it is excessive? The use of links to
Knowledge articles is not acceptable for any information that is challenged or likely to be challenged
1421:
with any definition, but that goes for any definiton of any word (outside mathematics). If problems are a reason not to do something, then you end up never doing anything at all.
943:
85% of the world's population, 123 massacres 15,000,000 victims. This works out to about 200 victims for each western massacre, and 120,000 for each "rest of the world" massacre.
151:
933:
For those of us who haven't been reading all of the original arguments going back to 2002, I repeat the following observation to expand on "Kenel
Saunters" comment on POV:
993:
Good point - and it wasn't just "terrorists" did a bit of massacring - so not only a very very long list for tiny NI alone; but endless triggers for massive edit wars. (
190:
people, yet the list of raids classified as massacres runs to four with no reason given as to why those four are selected as the only four raids that were massacres.
1067:
No - massacre isn't just controversial; it is controversial because it is so poorly defined - and we can't just invent a definition for the purpose of this article;
743:
it will be painfully obvious the list is POV biased. If you post by year, the concealment of the bias will be only partial and give legitemate cause for complaint.
214:
721:
the page is an attempt to bring structure and order to the topic. Flat-out deletion is counterproductive, sort of an "I'm taking my ball and going home" solution.
761:
accompanies this subject. Some events listed here document the killings which, in numbers at least, rival the holocaust, but they are not as widely mentioned.
1192:
says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". --
464:
Now define a "large number". Is 10 a massacre, or would you reserve such a term for anything over 500? It's an extremely subjective and ill-defined term. --
1283:
as well. I don't see what the big deal is, they'll call it whatever they can. Just say we're not including bombings in the article and leave it at that. -
409:
1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
964:
Ignoring the POV questions, this list is too large to use. Split it into centuries, with decades for the 20th and 21st centuries being a possibility.
876:
a Massacre like the Malmedy Massacre. I would also like to suggest that all red links be removed if you are so concerned about controlling the article.
1051:
the term is widely used and does have criteria. If we remove articles because of POV problems, we will have no articles on any controversial subject.
177:
There are some sections of the article that can be salvaged and placed into new articles which are not contentious, two such articles already exist
839:
Would a collection of smaller separated lists be still useful for your work? Some pragmatic solution is needed, the page cannot grow w/o limits.
768:
610:
124:
119:
40:
128:
609:. Perhaps this article may be recreated as sub articles (like "massacres of the Holocaust") etc. Please also note the following precedent:
174:
interpretations than the current name. This is also considered to be a problem with all the other names to date that have been suggested.
1505:
1329:
weak, and I think consensus was built on it. It might sound silly, but can't we just ask for a vote/consensus for every disputed one? -
944:
792:
744:
1422:
1392:
1378:
111:
528:
1374:
1307:
We cannot resolve POV issues about possible entries just by deciding each time to remove the category of event from the list.--
1223:
267:
replaced with a new one, and only massacres described as such will be included in the list in future if it survives this AFD --
17:
898:
is too subjective to keep this list manageable. Split material into smaller lists with more defined criteria for inclusion.
289:
By continent or by some well defined and established historical region - the smaller chance for potential disputes the better.
1441:
1411:
1298:
1249:
1197:
1166:
1128:
1029:
984:
686:
492:
397:
272:
199:
178:
1240:"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge should not have an article on it." and
1370:
480:
1406:
for defining the word massacre and what do you think should the criteria be for including an incident in the list? --
830:
307:
better psychiatric treatment (or better parents) and eight people will live, switch the soldiers or organizers at
1563:
1437:
1407:
1294:
1245:
1232:"nor use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using the information out of context."
1193:
1162:
1124:
1025:
980:
844:
811:
682:
488:
393:
316:
268:
253:
195:
61:
36:
1226:
is. Should incidents that have no third party source claiming an event like the Loughgall Ambush be included? "
329:
a real massacre or just a proper one? It may be obvious to you but that is merely your own original research.--
1562:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1545:
1523:
1513:
1455:
1445:
1430:
1415:
1400:
1386:
1333:
1323:
Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 13#Usage of the word terrorism to describe these attacks
1316:
1302:
1287:
1274:
1253:
1211:
1201:
1183:
1170:
1147:
1132:
1103:
1085:
1062:
1033:
1018:
1002:
988:
973:
952:
921:
917:
904:
886:
867:
848:
834:
815:
800:
776:
772:
752:
730:
690:
667:
649:
630:
596:
575:
552:
533:
496:
473:
459:
433:
429:
401:
387:
383:
367:
338:
320:
276:
257:
231:
203:
93:
60:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
45:
1014:
969:
170:
because, AFAICT, the list would be very large and most thought it even more of a vague title and open to more
796:
1509:
1426:
1396:
1382:
948:
748:
355:
167:
115:
717:
can craft a disclaimer that will head off edit wars. (Maybe you? Maybe me?) What I see in the proposals to
913:
645:
425:
379:
1010:
965:
826:
522:
484:
701:
other Knowledge pages that have been deleted because a group of editors could not reach consensus on a
107:
99:
840:
807:
788:
764:
626:
312:
249:
32:
863:
334:
1542:
1312:
1270:
1139:
726:
663:
571:
455:
1265:
and people unhappy about labelling the event as "massacre" said that the term was "POV charged".--
1207:
and within Knowledge policy. Under what policy are you suggesting the article be deleted under? -
1081:
998:
899:
592:
363:
326:
228:
81:
859:
330:
1520:
1452:
1330:
1284:
1262:
1208:
1189:
1180:
1154:
1144:
1100:
641:
304:
54:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1321:
Still, the argument for inclusion of the atomic bomb here seems only slightly stronger than
1219:
518:
706:
622:
412:
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
912:- Split into lists with tight crieria for inclusion. Looks and feels v.POV as it stands
1391:
Btw, the number of people responding here is an indication of how popular the page is.
1308:
1266:
883:
785:
No list can ever be completely exhaustive and this is a useful resource. --djkinsella
722:
678:
659:
567:
451:
1479:
1241:
1233:
1229:
1116:
1077:
1058:
994:
588:
548:
469:
359:
221:
171:
75:
1158:
1112:
1068:
674:
513:
182:
163:
145:
1279:
Well, you can look at the history for those bombings articles, people called it
1237:
1120:
421:
4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
1519:
be going to far in this discussion, but adding an opinion is still welcome. -
1280:
1539:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Sandbox&oldid=177731634
378:: there are no rules against incomplete lists. This one is also useful. --
1053:
544:
479:
killings, such as the killing at the end of the siege of Drogheda or the
465:
186:
308:
1234:
WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position
1242:
WP:NOT#Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information
1365:. There's a strong enough interest in the article (as an example,
29:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination)
1556:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1261:
For example there were disputes about the suggested addition of
619:
List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada
311:
and maybe some other village will be destroyed. My opinion.
615:
List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada
713:
because it provides links to further information. Surely
1538:
611:
List of massacres committed during the al-Aqsa Intifada
141:
137:
133:
406:
mas·sa·cre /ˈmæsəkər/ noun, verb, -cred, -cring. –noun
424:
5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.--
64:). No further edits should be made to this page.
27:See also a further discussion in February 2008 at
1566:). No further edits should be made to this page.
858:Unmanageably indistinct criteria of "massacre"--
806:Many lists on Knowledge have fixed upper limit.
1177:the savage and excessive killing of many people
415:3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.
8:
1222:is not normally seen as a massacre, but the
1495:discussed repeatedly in the previous years.
517:
613:was split into smaller and more specific
392:"Quoth nevermore" what is a massacre? --
358:can be compiled with a wide consensus. (
213:: This debate has been included in the
1472:
681:. So what you think is a massacre? --
303:of single individual. Get the crazed
7:
1537:Someone has pasted the content into
1228:Under what polic...'" Take you pick
215:list of Military-related deletions
24:
873:Comment/Keep & Split Article
640:Could never be inclusive enough
1375:List of terrorist organisations
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1224:Saint Valentine's Day massacre
179:List of school-related attacks
1:
1546:21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
1524:20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1514:20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1456:20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1446:19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1431:14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1416:13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1401:08:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1387:08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1334:14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
1317:13:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
1303:11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
1288:04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
1275:21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1254:11:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
1212:20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1202:20:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1184:19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1171:19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1148:18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1133:13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1104:08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1086:03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1063:01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1034:13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1019:03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
1003:01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
989:19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
974:05:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
953:17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
922:16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
905:16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
887:11:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
731:14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
497:00:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
94:07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
46:04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
1367:this reference desk question
868:20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
849:20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
835:17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
816:20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
801:15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
777:10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
753:07:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
691:09:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
668:05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
650:05:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
631:01:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
597:02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
576:01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
553:01:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
534:00:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
474:23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
460:21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
434:18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
402:00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
388:00:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
368:21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
339:20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
321:20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
277:00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
258:21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
232:16:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
204:13:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
168:failed less than a month ago
166:to "List of mass killings"
1371:List of terrorist incidents
481:Massacre of Lvov professors
1583:
512:. First define Massacre (
1009:politics or nationalism.
1559:Please do not modify it.
418:–verb (used with object)
57:Please do not modify it.
1238:WP:V#Burden of evidence
1123:third party sources. --
356:Westroads Mall massacre
1325:, which I thought was
566:better organization.
679:neutral point of view
485:Banka Island massacre
1480:WordNet Search - 3.0
1438:Philip Baird Shearer
1408:Philip Baird Shearer
1295:Philip Baird Shearer
1246:Philip Baird Shearer
1194:Philip Baird Shearer
1163:Philip Baird Shearer
1159:no original research
1125:Philip Baird Shearer
1026:Philip Baird Shearer
981:Philip Baird Shearer
683:Philip Baird Shearer
489:Philip Baird Shearer
394:Philip Baird Shearer
269:Philip Baird Shearer
196:Philip Baird Shearer
1140:Battle of Changping
532:
327:Columbine Massacre
1263:Hiroshima bombing
1113:original research
1071:, synthesis etc.
803:
791:comment added by
779:
767:comment added by
697:Are you aware of
675:original research
561:summary, and the
527:
234:
230:
218:
108:List of massacres
100:List of massacres
44:
1574:
1561:
1482:
1477:
1220:Loughgall Ambush
1119:and not through
902:
827:Chandlerjoeyross
786:
762:
525:
227:
224:
219:
209:
149:
131:
92:
89:
86:
78:
59:
35:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1564:deletion review
1557:
1486:
1485:
1478:
1474:
914:Kernel Saunters
900:
841:Pavel Vozenilek
808:Pavel Vozenilek
769:128.205.248.117
709:. This list is
707:Arabic language
426:Quoth nevermore
380:Quoth nevermore
313:Pavel Vozenilek
250:Pavel Vozenilek
222:
122:
106:
103:
87:
82:
76:
74:
69:The result was
62:deletion review
55:
33:BrownHairedGirl
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1580:
1578:
1569:
1568:
1551:
1549:
1548:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1484:
1483:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1305:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1230:WP:NOR#Sources
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1011:Bradjamesbrown
966:Bradjamesbrown
958:
957:
956:
955:
937:
936:
935:
934:
925:
924:
907:
889:
877:
870:
853:
852:
851:
820:
819:
818:
780:
755:
736:
735:
734:
733:
694:
693:
652:
634:
633:
603:
602:
601:
600:
579:
578:
555:
537:
536:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
476:
462:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
372:
371:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
305:Olga Hepnarová
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
282:
281:
280:
279:
261:
260:
244:
243:
236:
235:
164:requested move
156:
155:
102:
97:
67:
66:
50:
49:
48:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1579:
1567:
1565:
1560:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1532:
1525:
1522:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1506:67.161.166.20
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1493:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1481:
1476:
1473:
1457:
1454:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1210:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1146:
1141:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
990:
986:
982:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
963:
960:
959:
954:
950:
946:
945:67.161.166.20
941:
940:
939:
938:
932:
929:
928:
927:
926:
923:
919:
915:
911:
908:
906:
903:
897:
893:
890:
888:
885:
881:
878:
874:
871:
869:
865:
861:
857:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
837:
836:
832:
828:
824:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
804:
802:
798:
794:
793:217.186.75.73
790:
784:
781:
778:
774:
770:
766:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
745:67.161.166.20
741:
738:
737:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:and/or a non
676:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:
635:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:
604:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:
582:
581:
580:
577:
573:
569:
564:
559:
556:
554:
550:
546:
542:
539:
538:
535:
530:
524:
520:
515:
511:
508:
507:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
477:
475:
471:
467:
463:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:
417:
414:
411:
408:
405:
404:
403:
399:
395:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
350:
349:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
278:
274:
270:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
255:
251:
246:
245:
241:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
191:
188:
184:
180:
175:
173:
169:
165:
160:
153:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
126:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
104:
101:
98:
96:
95:
91:
90:
85:
79:
72:
65:
63:
58:
52:
51:
47:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
25:
19:
1558:
1555:
1550:
1534:
1521:Theanphibian
1491:
1475:
1453:Theanphibian
1423:84.41.231.64
1393:84.41.231.64
1379:84.41.231.64
1362:
1331:Theanphibian
1326:
1285:Theanphibian
1227:
1209:Theanphibian
1181:Theanphibian
1176:
1145:Theanphibian
1101:Theanphibian
1095:
1072:
1052:
1048:
961:
930:
909:
895:
891:
879:
872:
855:
822:
782:
757:
739:
718:
714:
710:
702:
698:
654:
637:
606:
584:
562:
557:
540:
509:
375:
351:
239:
210:
192:
183:Going postal
176:
161:
157:
83:
80:
71:no consensus
70:
68:
56:
53:
894:- The term
823:Strong Keep
787:—Preceding
783:Strong Keep
763:—Preceding
758:Strong keep
655:Strong keep
519:Malinaccier
240:Weak delete
1190:WP:PROVEIT
1175:How about
1155:WP:PROVEIT
1121:verifiable
703:definition
623:Bless sins
1543:Random832
1309:Pokipsy76
1281:terrorism
1267:Pokipsy76
884:Spawn Man
723:Cbdorsett
660:Cbdorsett
568:Mandsford
452:Pokipsy76
1078:Sarah777
995:Sarah777
901:AlphaEta
896:massacre
789:unsigned
765:unsigned
589:Sarah777
529:contribs
360:Sarah777
223:FayssalF
187:Genocide
152:View log
41:contribs
1535:comment
1492:COMMENT
931:Comment
715:someone
642:JPotter
585:Comment
483:or the
125:protect
120:history
1117:WP:SYN
892:Delete
880:Delete
856:Delete
740:Delete
711:useful
638:Delete
607:Delete
563:source
541:Delete
510:Delete
352:Delete
309:Lidice
172:WP:POV
129:delete
37:(talk)
1069:WP:OR
962:Split
910:Split
719:split
514:WP:OR
146:views
138:watch
134:links
16:<
1510:talk
1442:talk
1427:talk
1412:talk
1397:talk
1383:talk
1373:and
1363:Keep
1327:very
1313:talk
1299:talk
1271:talk
1250:talk
1218:The
1198:talk
1167:talk
1161:. --
1157:and
1129:talk
1115:and
1096:Keep
1082:talk
1059:talk
1049:Keep
1030:talk
1015:talk
999:talk
985:talk
970:talk
949:talk
918:talk
864:talk
860:Mmx1
845:talk
831:talk
812:talk
797:talk
773:talk
749:talk
727:talk
687:talk
664:talk
646:talk
627:talk
617:and
593:talk
572:talk
558:Keep
549:talk
523:talk
493:talk
470:talk
456:talk
430:talk
398:talk
384:talk
376:Keep
364:talk
335:talk
331:Mmx1
317:talk
273:talk
254:talk
211:Note
200:talk
181:and
142:logs
116:talk
112:edit
31:. --
1244:.--
1073:Any
1054:DGG
699:any
545:Czj
466:Czj
217:.
150:– (
88:man
77:Mr.
39:• (
1512:)
1444:)
1429:)
1414:)
1399:)
1385:)
1315:)
1301:)
1293:--
1273:)
1252:)
1236:,
1200:)
1169:)
1131:)
1084:)
1061:)
1032:)
1017:)
1005:)
1001:)
987:)
972:)
951:)
920:)
866:)
847:)
833:)
814:)
799:)
775:)
751:)
729:)
689:)
666:)
648:)
629:)
595:)
574:)
551:)
495:)
472:)
458:)
432:)
400:)
386:)
366:)
337:)
319:)
275:)
256:)
226:-
202:)
162:A
144:|
140:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
84:Z-
1508:(
1451:-
1440:(
1425:(
1410:(
1395:(
1381:(
1311:(
1297:(
1269:(
1248:(
1196:(
1165:(
1127:(
1088:)
1080:(
1076:(
1057:(
1028:(
1013:(
997:(
983:(
968:(
947:(
916:(
862:(
843:(
829:(
810:(
795:(
771:(
747:(
725:(
685:(
662:(
644:(
625:(
621:.
599:)
591:(
570:(
547:(
531:)
526:•
521:(
491:(
468:(
454:(
428:(
396:(
382:(
370:)
362:(
333:(
315:(
271:(
252:(
220:—
198:(
154:)
148:)
110:(
43:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.