Talk:List of massacres in Germany

Am I missing something here? What about the thousands of SS killings of anyone deemed unworthy during the years 1933-1945. Any listing of massacres surely should include Nazi attrocities. Easily 500,000 total inside Germany. Many of these killings occurred more than several at a time, ie. massacres.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nazi_concentration_camps


 * German language WP has a large list of massacres committed by the Nazis near the end of WW2 1944/45: de:Endphasenverbrechen ('end phase crimes'). In the denied request for deletion (requested by me) a user wrote : "instead of lifting a finger to actually improve it (or ask people to do it on some relevant Wikiproject) prefers to just erase it?" - while I agree that improvement is better than deletion, I have to say that I somewhat resent the way in which the argument is presented: this article is not improved by "lifting a finger". - I could put hours and hours of work in this, which I don't have at the moment, and the article would still be woefully incomplete. Considering that this article under its very broad title lists not even 1% of Nazi war crimes, I consider it so incomplete that it obscures more facts than it conveys. I'm not trying to cover anything up here, I'm just worried about misrepresentation of facts, that is not solved even within a full day of work. -- Seelefant (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Stumbling across this small page, I gave it a once over and tried to confirm one of the events named 'Massacre of Lippach'. Some searching failed to yield any reputable sources beyond a small Newspaper in German, Facebook postings, and a Stormfront posting. As such, it does not appear to meet the guidelines for a reputable, cited source--rather another possible point of propaganda against the allies in WW2. For now, I'll remove it until more information surfaces. Bemoreinformed (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Notablility tag
This article needs to be tagged with Template:Notability. There are no sources, so notability cannot be established. Just because the items in the list are notable doesn't make the list itself notable. User:Cyclopia was wrong to remove the tag without first adding sources p  b  p  15:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Notability does not depend on what sources are in the article, but on the existence of sources in general. Cfr. . 2.This article is a clear, discriminate list of already notable topics, so to put a notability tag on the list is ridicolous. Lists are (also) navigational aids, like categories and navboxes. 3. The article already passed AfD with almost unanimous "keep" and notability consensusual, thus invalidating the need for the tag. -- cyclopia speak! 15:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It still needs sources, bud. p  b  p  16:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you tried looking in the individual articles listed, dude? -- cyclopia speak! 16:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because the notability of an individual article doesn't prove the notability of the list p  b  p  16:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We had an AfD about it. Consensus was that it is notable (among other things). If you disagree with categorizing articles about massacres by country, you can start a RfC about it. -- cyclopia speak! 17:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of "notability requires sources, and a notability tag is perfectly acceptable for an article for sources" don't you seem to get? This is tagged for notability because it has no sources, not because of its subject matter (but, yes, the AfD was inherently flawed, as the closer gave too much weight to OTHERSTUFF exists arguments).  An AfD vote doesn't override the principle of articles being sourced.  An article can still be tagged with the notability tag even if it has been kept at AfD  p  b  p  18:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again: Notability has nothing to do with sources actually being in the article. Notability has to do with sources existing in general, somewhere. Now, consensus is that lists of massacres by country are a reasonable navigational aid to help readers navigate the topic. Consensus at AfD was also that the article had no notability issues - this means there is also no consensus for including a notability tag. Most of the articles linked are massively notable. If you look for "massacres in Germany" or "German massacres" on Google Books you find plenty of sources discussing massacres in Germany collectively, and I linked it above. Sources for the individual data listed along the entries in the list, while surely welcome, are not strictly necessary as long as such information is in the main articles, and in any case they can be quickly added by looking at the individual articles. A "notability" tag has simply no sense whatsoever here. -- cyclopia speak! 21:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither an AfD occurring (and I think you've misinterpreted the consensus) nor the individual items being notablie doesn't give you a free pass to not have sources. You seem to forget that passing an AfD doesn't mean an article is fine as it is.  This article is still a disgrace.  If they can be quickly added, stop telling me that the notability tag is nonsense (which it isn't, it's always acceptable for an unsourced article to be tagged with it) and put sources in that attest to the notability of the list (not any individual entries).  p  b  p  21:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a list index of articles, so the "notability disputed" tag doesn't make sense here any more than it would on a category page. postdlf (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a list index per se, at least not the way it's laid out at the present time as a table. More to the point, I do think it needs sources.  p  b  p  00:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that annotations in a list should generally have direct sourcing, though that doesn't have anything to do with notability or with whether this list indexes articles. So I welcome you to copy sources here from the individual articles or tag as needing citations any annotated facts here that lack sources in any article. postdlf (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)