Talk:List of mass murderers by number of victims

school
Why doesn't this page include school killings? A mass killing is a mass killing. This seems like a "parent" type article that should include all "sub articles" beneath it, i.e. killings of X,Y,Z subtype —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.142.104 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, this is not a parent article (reading the lead paragraph would've clarified that). The main article is List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims where you can also find a section about school massacres. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

selections
I'm trying to follow the logic behind the selections. For example, why is Martin Bryant absent from the list? Manning (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Try looking here. Sometimes I really have to wonder. It seems that some people are uncapable of using the index or scrolling beyond the first section of the list. There's no other way to explain questions like "Where's Cho" or "Why isn't Bryant on here". (Lord Gøn (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Sometimes I have to wonder! Lord Gøn, you did not answer Manning's question. You were just quite rude. Yes, martin Bryant is in the other list, but why isn't he in this list? It's a perfectly good question. HiLo48 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this part is only one section of a much bigger list. I guess the title, as well as the intro make that quite clear, and the latter also explains which cases are included here. Martin Bryant obviously doesn't fit the criteria of inclusion for this section, because he did not stick to one location. One click and a little bit of reading would have clarified everything a lot faster than asking a question and hoping that someone might bother to provide an answer. So, if my answer was a little bit rude, then simply because Manning Bartlett could've answered his question himself with a minimum of effort. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
 * I read the title and intro before thinking exactly the same question as Manning Bartlett. That's why I looked at this discussion. How far do you think Martin Bryant travelled? To most Australians the whole incident occured in one place. You and I have interpreted the definition differently, with Manning Bartlett seeing it more the way I did, in which case it either needs clarification or merging into the larger list. It does not mean that any of us is wrong, nor deserving of sarcasm. It does seem a very arbitrary distinction. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, what is your interpretation of one "rather confined place"? The text provides several examples to show what is meant in this context, and according to that definition the Broad Arrow Cafe alone would certainly qualify as one rather confined place, but then Bryant didn't stop his killing spree there. Now, also included are cases that ocurred in "somehow separate places that form some kind of compound". You could argue that the Port Arthur Historical Site is one big area that belongs together, but even there Bryant didn't stop. So, as long as you don't go so far to say that the Seascape cottage and the Port Arthur Historical Site, which are several kilometres apart, either are one confined place or form a compound, there's no way to put Martin Bryant here. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Rename
Any reason why this article could not be renamed List of mass murderers by number of victims? (Ditto for the killing sprees list.)--Father Goose (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Pages Moved  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims: Mass murders → List of mass murderers by number of victims — It is unnecessary to have subarticles (or sublists) contain the entire name of the "main list" plus a modifier after a colon. Especially in this case -- c'mon, list of spree killers, list of mass murderers. Done. To establish the relationship between the lists, use links between them, not an ungainly naming style.


 * List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims: Killing sprees → List of spree killers by number of victims
 * List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims: Workplace killings → List of workplace killings by number of victims
 * List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims: Family slaughters → List of family slaughters by number of victims


 * Support as proposer.--Father Goose (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Redundancy in the title.  I am concerned by what looks like Original Research, and inclusion of "mass murderers" who only killed 0 or 1 person.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Opposed for a very pragmatic reason. I'm certain that, if we change the titles, one day someone with absolutely no knowledge at all about the subject will come along and think something like: OK, there's a 'List of spree killers' and a 'List of mass murderers', so why the heck do we need a 'List of mass murderers and spree killers', then start an AfD where more people with no knowledge about the subject will join in, saying "He's right", ending in the deletion of the main page. It all belongs together, and knowing that there are a lot of people out there, who are often acting without a lot of forethought, I'd really suggest to keep it as it is, to make it clear even for the less gifted that the mass murderers and spree killers lists are merely part of the main article. About the "mass murderers" who killed 0 or 1 people, well, I'll simply quote from "Flash Point: The American Mass Murderer" by Michael Kelleher:  "Many mass murderers injure far more victims than they kill; however, they must certainly be considered mass murderers by the obvious intention of their actions. For example, if an individual randomly attacks children in a school yard with an AK-47 assault rifle or indiscriminately assaults coworkers with a powerful handgun, yet only manages to kill two individuals while wounding dozens, is he less an intended mass murderer than the perpetrator whose aim was better or whose victims were less fortunate? Certainly he is not."  That is, why they are included. Concerning OR, there is none. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC))


 * The passage you quote doesn't make any mention of people "who killed 0 or 1 people". It's use is therefore improper synthesis. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, this passage does not explicitly mention people who killed none or just one person, but with a little bit of fantasy you can imagine that someone shooting dozens of people and killing nobody isn't any different from someone who shot dozens of people and killed two. The intention is the same, which is what the quote is about. Then there's also the fact that Kelleher goes on to mention the case of Larry Shoemake in connection with what he describes as "mass murder by intention", and Shoemake killed one and wounded ten others in his shooting rampage. And, btw, where's the synthesis here, when it's all quoted from one source? (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC))


 * But if someone doesn't kill anybody then they are definitely not guilty of murder. Sure, maybe he intended to be a mass murderer, but he failed and doesn't get to go in this list. The synthesis is the "little bit of fantasy" that turns this source into "attempted murder = murder" and "one = more than one". OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind that the list(s) include a handful of mass shooters who didn't actually kill anyone, though a note in the lead should be added to address that. I see that the main list does explain the criteria for inclusion; that should be copied to each sub-list.  I think it's sensible to have mass shooters on the list regardless of whether the victims died, but to retain the simple titles "mass murderer"/"spree killer" rather than have to include all the technicalities in the title itself ("mass shooters/knifers/grenaders who killed or at least wounded a lot of people").  If it involves deadly force and many victims, I'm personally willing to accept that it's a comparable crime, regardless of how many died.--Father Goose (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, even though we might not be allowed to use our fantasy here on Wikipedia, I hope there's no problem with common sense. It is obvious, at least for me, that Kelleher says that there is no real difference between someone who attempted to commit mass murder by randomly shooting people and succeeded by killing three, four or more people, and someone who's act and intentions were in no way different, but failed to kill the number of people required to classify his deed as a mass murder. Maybe it becomes easier to understand, if you read the passage yourself, here Read "Defining Mass Murder" in Chapter 1, starting on page 2. I hope this clarifies everything.(Lord Gøn (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Comment OK, there's a 'List of spree killers' and a 'List of mass murderers', so why the heck do we need a 'List of mass murderers and spree killers'? Seriously though, why can't they all go in the same list, or at least the same article? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we would end up with a page of about 400-500 KB.(Lord Gøn (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
 * But how do you judge the membership of each list without using original research? Is there some global legal definition where mass murder and killing spree are mutually exclusive? If the list would be too long, splitting by number of victims would be a better idea. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading the articles' source on what the distinction is, there does seem to be a gray area between the two -- not a big gray area, but there are some cases where a judgment call is needed as to whether something belongs on one list or the other. Perhaps those "gray cases" could be on both lists, with a note signifying as much.
 * Lord Gøn failed to answer your initial question well -- scrutinizing the main list, I see that it covers eight different types of "mass killing" crimes, with several subarticles containing a lengthier list of each subcategory. I don't have a problem with that approach; I just think it's unnecessary to have the title of the "main article" in the title of each subarticle (I note that one of the sublists, List of school-related attacks, has a straightforward title).  The relationship between each list should be established through text and wikilinks, in the lead of each article.--Father Goose (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume that gray zones can be found in every scientific field, not only concerning mass murderers. It is true that in some cases it is rather complicated to make a definite assessment, but I think at one point you have to make a decision and put them somewhere. The List of school-related attacks, btw, isn't part of the mass murderer list. It is a list of its own, covering a broad spectrum of murders and attacks that occured on school ground, ranging from assaults that were clearly directed against a single person, over school shootings, to military and terrorist attacks. For the reason cited above I still think that we should keep the titles as they are. This also seems to be in accordance with the naming conventions for long lists, which I used as a guideline when splitting the main page. (Lord Gøn (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I see. I believe that advice is meant to apply to sublists that are arbitrarily split, i.e., they still form exactly one list split across multiple pages.  The "mass murder"/"family slaughter"/etc. lists are all self-contained; they're all related topics but each can stand alone as an individual list.  This is why I'd prefer simpler naming for each.  The very naming scheme chosen here highlights that the lists could be named individually: "List of x, y, and z: x" could just be "List of x".  Meanwhile there's a master list "List of x, y, and z" that gives an overview of each of the sublists.--Father Goose (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another problem I see is, what if, sometime in the future, the "Other notable incidents" or the "hate crimes" sections become long enough to make creating a sub-page necessary? We can't just call them "List of other notable incidents by number of victims" or "List of hate crimes by number of victims". Somehow it would be inconsequent to have some parts of the lists bearing the whole title, while the others do not. Then there's also the fact that the unwieldy title of the main page simply was a choice of necessity, because in English no word exists that adequatly describes what it is about. If there weren't any conflicts with the widely used, though not undisputed, definition of amok as a culture-bound syndrome I would've called the whole thing "List of amok cases by number of victims". So, if I use the words mass murderer and spree killer in the title, it's just an attempt to paraphrase something bigger, where mass murder and spree killing are only part of. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't see a problem with List of hate crimes by number of victims as a title. If the "other incidents" list really gets that big, it could be spun off one subtype at a time: List of arsons, List of poisonings, etc.  As Labattblueboy suggests below, it might even be worthwhile to simplify the main list to "List of murderers by number of victims".  (What is the difference between that list and the mass murder/spree killer list?)--Father Goose (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe I have been immersed a little bit too much in the whole matter, which might make it difficult at times to relate to someone who has not read numerous articles and books about the topic. You see, I'm facing a real dilemma when choosing a title for this list, because the English language is lacking a precise word to describe what it is about. I am sure you have heard about incidents where a person has taken a gun, knife, or some other weapon, made his way into a public place with lots of people and, for no apparent reason, started killing people at random, before either committing suicide, or getting killed or overpowered by police. I hope you agree with me when I say that this type of crime, which often gets a lot of media attention, because of its apparent senselessness, is quite special and differs significantly from other forms of murder. During the late 1980s, after a spate of of high profile mass shootings in the USA, and following the defining of serial murder as a special form of homicide, several attempts were made to flesh out the definition of these random killings, which were simply called mass murder most of the time. Even though the term "mass murder" was more and more applied exclusively to these random killings it still remains a term that includes a wide variety of crimes that can include felony related murders, contract killings, terrorist attacks, or arsons by a pyromaniac, who just wanted to set a fire but didn't intend to kill anyone. Besides "mass murder" several other terms exist in the English language that describe certain forms of these random killings, like "shooting/stabbing spree" or "school shooting", and expressions like "going berserk/postal" and "running amok" are used in colloquial language, but so far there is no overarching word for this kind of murder, even though there's quite a bit of literature about it out there. Because of this lacking of a word there were a few attempts to create a descriptory term, like "sudden mass assault by a single individual" or "mass public attack", but as far as I know none of them really was able to established itself. The word "amok" would be quite useful and describes these attacks very well, and it is btw the one used in the German language to describe exactly that form of mass murder this list is about, but it remains per definition a culture bound syndrome, even though quite a few studies found that there actually isn't a lot of difference between a Malay individual running amok and an American committing a mass shooting. Due to this lack of an appropriate word I chose the term "mass murderer" for the title, as it is the one most commonly used, but to make sure people understand that the list is actually only about a certain form of mass murder I added "spree killer", which is also often associated with random mass killings, but originally described some in-between of mass and serial killer, though has changed its meaning more and more into describing a murderer who randomly killed people at several locations in short succession. I hope you agree with me that overall it doesn't make that much difference, if someone tries to kill as many people as possible in one, two, three, or more locations, as the intention is the same in each case. Actually, in one of the first mass murder-typologies created by Park Dietz there wasn't even a differentiation between them. He combined them all in what he called the "pseudo-commando". To cut it short, the mass murderer, the spree killer and the whole rest are just slightly different shapes of the same. It happens that in the English language you can make a distinction between them, which comes in handy to split the list, but by no means implies that they should be seen as independent from each other. The main page is needed to explain the whole matter, to keep the lists together, and to prevent any confusion from arising, while the different sections are there to keep the length of the lists within reasonable bounds. I know that the explanatory part on the main list isn't really that good. It was written when I started the page and is long due for a complete overhaul, but writing a new one is quite a bit of a task for a single person, as it needs a lot of reading and reference checking. And having to work with a concept that can not be nailed down on a single, precise term doesn't help that much either. Finally, simplifying the main list to a mere "list of murderers" would be kinda devastating, like simplifying lists of chemists, physicists, botanists, etc. into a list of scientists. The "List of murderers by number of victims" mixes mass murderers and serial killers, which essenetially don't have more in common than the killing of people. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Support The current titles seem unnecessarily long. The proposed list titles seems far more appropriate. I don't believe a fear of merger between mass murdered and spree killers is likely given that each have their own lead article; Spree killer and Mass murder. In terms of the lead list, I think a list of list is more appropriate than the current layout of List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims (See: Lists of Victoria Cross recipients or Category:Lists of lists for examples. I personally see List of murderers by number of victims as the list lead but that is a whole other matter (potential merger?). --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I first came to this set of lists just the other day and was quite confused. I note that the major contributor has been Lord Gøn, who told us above "I'd really suggest to keep it as it is, to make it clear even for the less gifted". With all due respect to someone who has done so much work in this area, and so is very familiar with the title, it is for precisely that reason that I think we probably need to listen to those not so used to the name about what is clear and what is  not.. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I didn't expect an abrupt implementation of the move like that, Lord Gon -- sorry. I still have to address the various points raised so far.

The fact that we have two main lists of "killings by number of victims" -- one that mixes all types of killings and one that separates by different acts -- might be taken as a content fork by some editors. I know this might not be a welcome suggestion to you, but maybe we shouldn't have the list that covers all types separated by type, i.e., List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims. Maybe we should stick to List of murderers by number of victims, with no distinction made between one type of killing and another, and reply upon individual sublists for tallies sorted by type of killing. This isn't the organizational schema you've been using so far, but I'd like you to consider it.--Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to thank you in general for the work you've been doing on these lists, since I haven't done so already.--Father Goose (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I am not really happy with moving the pages, because I suspect this will make it a lot more difficult to maintain them.


 * I don't see any problem with content forking, as a list containing serial and mass killers would get too long, making a split necessary anyway. Then, to have a List of murderers by number of victims mixing all types of murder would be pretty much against scientific consensus. True, a lot of studies covering mass murders also briefly discuss serial murder, but only to show the distinction between them. Putting these two types of murder together is overall pretty pointless, because the differences between them aren't marginal. They are considered two totally separate subjects in literature, and rarely is it the case that you find more than a side note about a mass murderer in a book about serial killers, or the other way round, so why they should be mixed together in the Wikipedia eludes me. And actually there once was a List of serial killers by number of victims, until it was senselessly merged into the List of murderers by number of victims. If anything, the List of murderers should be reduced to a list of lists, and the list of serial killers revived.
 * Finally, the separation of different types of mass murder isn't something I have invented, but is used regularly in literature, so it seems natural to use that approach. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC))


 * I agree that the separation is fine, which I why I lobbied for independently named lists: list of this type of murder, list of that type, etc. But rather than have the "master list" be a repeat of the top 25 rows of each sublist, I think it'd be most useful to have one list that is sorted by number of deaths regardless of murder type, and then a set of lists each limited to a specific type of killing.


 * I agree with you that the "serial killer" list should be revived. List of murderers by number of victims, meanwhile, should be reworked as 100 or so entries of the highest death counts found within any of the sublists.  Why should they be mixed together?  To have one list that focuses on body counts only.  You seem to be asserting that to do such a thing would be "unscientific", but long as one accepts that they are all forms of murder, then the list should be okay.


 * I can see why you're wary of the current list of murderers by number of victims, however, as it is really just "list of serial killers and spree killers intermixed". Serial killers needs to be split out, and the top body counts from each sublist brought in.--Father Goose (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, "separation" maybe wasn't the right word choice, "differentiation" would have been better, just as you'd do with different breeds of cats. Maybe I should clarify a few things, so you might understand a little bit better why I am against separate lists of different types of this certain kind of mass murderer.


 * Overall, I think the American approach of creating these mass murderer typologies is not very helpful, as they often tear apart what belongs together, while on the other hand sometimes mix cases that don't have a lot in common. I assume it is quite obvious that generally there isn't a lot of difference between someone randomly shooting people at his workplace, his school, or a restaurant. They all are merely branches of the same tree, and I think they should be handled that way.


 * As Grant Duwe has noted in one of his books, until the 80s mass murder was a "catchall phrase to refer to all incidents in which a number of persons were killed", and actually this still holds true today. Nonetheless in public opinion the mass murderers most prominent manifestation is the guy who randomly kills people in a public place for no apparent reason, even though this actually is one of the rarest forms of mass murder. And although a lot of researchers have also made the mistake of reducing the mass murderer to the image of the lone gunman, nobody bothered to coin a term exclusively for that kind of killer, while on the other hand they dissected it into several subtypes.


 * Btw, spree killer, in the sense it is used here on Wikipedia, is something I have not found anywhere in literature. Holmes and Holmes describe spree murder as "the killing of three or more people within a 30-day period, ... usually accompanied by the commission of another felony". There might be some confusion due to the fact that mass murder is defined as the killing of a number of people at one place at one time, but it seems that this little add "one place, one time" must not be seen too strictly. As Holmes and Holmes wrote: "However, it is prudent to recognize that mass murders may be carried out over a longer period - minutes or even a few hours - and also at more than one geographic location - perhaps only a few blocks apart." So you see, mass murderer and spree killer, as used here, aren't two separate types of killer. The split is totally arbitrary, and only useful to keep the page size managable.


 * The concept I actually used for this list is one that is very well known in Germany, and therefore I wouldn't face the same problems as here on the German Wikipedia. All those cases where a person set out to randomly kill as many people as possible, be it at school, his workplace, a mall or simply by cruising through town shooting or stabbing anyone he encounters, are summarized there in a single word: "Amoklauf", or "running amok" in English, and when I used "mass murderers and spree killers" in the list title all I tried was to circumscribe the person running amok (in German: Amokläufer), something Americans talk and write a lot about, due to the frequent mass shootings there, but they actually don't have a precise word for it. The most commonly used words in English to describe an "Amokläufer" are mass murderer, which actually covers many crimes that can not be considered amok, nor are all cases of amok acts of mass murder, spree killer, although the original definition has nothing to do with amok, lone gunman, which is too narrow, because often knives and other weapons are used, or rampage killer, a word that seems to be used only in colloquial language. That the whole lot belongs to one and the same, even though they are divided into several types, can be seen by those many lists about mass murderers (in the sense this list is about) that are printed in newspapers after every bigger mass shooting. There's never a differentiation between workplace homicides or spree killings in the news, nor is there in German literature about amok, it's all mixed together. So, making lists that apparently are totally independent from each other, and additionally might shift the scope to something unintended, simply seems very wrong and threatens to destroy the whole layout. In the end different types of rampage killers still all remain rampage killers, just as different kinds of serial killers remain serial killers, or different breeds of dogs remain dogs. Dividing them by traits they have in common doesn't change that basic fact.


 * I hope this explains somehow why the sublists should never go beyond their satellite state. If something's still unclear, just ask and I'll try my best to explain it. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC))