Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Massacre


Massacre is a dictionary word, not an article name.

The article has been created by moving Massacre to Massacre (disambiguation) and copying the lead from List of events named massacres. The evidence from the two AfD's and many archived pages under talk:List of events named massacres that is word is hopelessly open to POV and the agreement from the last two AfDs was that the name List of massacres shoudd be moved to List of events named massacres and since that time massacre has been a disambiguation page.

See
 * Articles for deletion/List of massacres, 8 December 2007
 * Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) 22 February 2008

So I propose we delete this new page (as it is a copy from the lead in List of events named massacres nothing is lost), move the dab page back, and leave the definition of massacre to wiktionary PBS (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The move of "Massacre" was to Massacre (Disambiguation) instead of to Massacre (disambiguation). This has now been cleaned up at 04:03, 18 February 2011 LadyofShalott deleted "Massacre (disambiguation)" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) and at 04:45, 18 February 2011 Geniac (moved Massacre (Disambiguation) to Massacre (disambiguation); but the article "Massacre (disambiguation)" that was deleted had a history of 32 edits. So if the new article at massacre is deleted, the content of "Massacre (disambiguation)" should be moved back to "Massacre" and the history of "Massacre (disambiguation)" should then be restored. --PBS (talk)


 * Comment some text that was added to the text copied from the lead of List of events named massacres was a "See also" section which demonstrates what a POV nightmare this word is, as it demonstrates that the creation of the article has introduced a bias. Who says that a massacre is a "disaster" or a "tragedy (event)" it depends on ones point of view. For example the very first use of the term as mentioned in the OED (its coining in English) was the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, for Protestant Europe it was a "Disaster" and a "Tragedy", but for the supporters of Catholic France it was neither. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article, as it currently stands, is about the word "massacre" (its meaning, first usage, etc.). It should be deleted per Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  I might change my opinion if it can be shown that the article has a realistic potential be turned into a neutral article about the concept of  "a massacre".  However, I do not know if there are sources to support such an restructured article.  Unfortunately, what I expect will happen to this article is that it will turn into another POV slug fest... as various POV editors attempt to add OR "alternative definitions" in an attempt to justify using the label "massacre" to describe events discussed in other articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a stub, not a dictionary entry. It contains information that would not be found in a dictionary. Wikipedia can indeed have encyclopedic-quality articles about words describing they way they are used in society. This article has a lot of potential for expansion too. Also, there are hundreds are pages in different namespaces that link to this one, referring to the concept of a massacre, so deleting it would create a lot of red links in places where currently, there are lots of blue links of the term leading to this meaning. Shaliya waya (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" (Mandy Rice-Davies), because you moved the old article history to a new page and created the new article! Deleting this new article It will not create any red links because the dab page you moved will be moved back. BTW There are hundreds of links "in different namespaces" but the vast majority of them are talk page links. There are at the moment only 48 articles linked to the Massacre page, which would have been delt with in the usual way that dab page links are dealt with, but to speed up the process I will run AWB over those so that they link to the massacre article. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In anticipation that this becomes the dab page it was, there are now no article links to Massacre. -- PBS (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly a dictionary item. There is nothing wrong with that but it belongs in Wiktionary not Wikipedia by policy.  Note that the article is about the word "massacre" not about incidents when large numbers of people are unjustly killed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and the trouble is that unjustly is in itself a POV perspective. As far a Cromwell and his adherents were concerned killing those in Drogheda were justified (Cromwell letter to William Lenthall) this is an ongoing and now nationalistic and also academic argument about 350 years old. The problem we had with list of massacres was that it was too subjective. The solution was to create a List of events named massacres, named in two or more reliable sources. It is still far from perfect, because if someone calls it the slaughter of the innocents or the Dresden holocaust the it does not make the list so the list is very arbitrary if one is looking for a list of massacres. My real concern with this article is that it is the seed for a new POV list of massacres which we know are not possible to create without endless arguments. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The amount of some of the massacres that have happened, makes it all too tragically necessary for there to be some sort of page here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about articles on each incident, articles on the wars and conflicts in which they were involved, murder, mass murder, civilian deaths in war, state murder, genocide and a few more? Then they will be documented here and discussions about the meaning of the word "massacre" will be avoided. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kitfoxxe, FYI we have civilian casualty ratio. Anthony aside from the dictionary definition, what do you think can be added to this article that is not in List of events named massacres? -- PBS (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as a dictionary definition, and one that is essentially duplicated on List of events named massacres. I'm not seeing the potential for expansion, but maybe someone could make explicit what potential they see? Cnilep (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden has effectively deleted the article I suggested should be deleted. His new article seems appropriate for Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We do not improve a topic of this kind by reaching for the dictionary or the delete button. Nor should we just compile a catalog of examples.  The best approach, for our purposes, is to find sources which address the topic in a general, scholarly and analytical way.  Such sources exist for this topic and I have started a rewrite, citing two of them: The massacre in history and Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide.  We have no dictionary content or sources now and so we should hear no more of WP:DICDEF please.  That policy clearly explains that we may have short articles as stubs which we may expand and develop over time.  Deletion would be disruptive to this and contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But what you put together was a complete synthesise, the three authors are not using the same definition for massacre. And it is likely to remain a sysnthatis without a precise definition for massacre. It is difficult enough with a term like genocide which has a precise definition to write an article that does not have too much synthesis in it, but with massacre there is no agreed definition (as your first citations shows). The first citation does not support that definition it is supposed to support. Jacques Semelin writes that "massacres can be difficult to investigate because they are often done secretly" were Cromwell's massacres done secretly? Was Peterloo a secret massacre? Massacres are done for many reasons and secrecy is not a common factor. I am not sure what the point of the Ronald A. Francisco citation was meant to prove about massacres. --PBS (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many or most topics have some natural variation. For example, see Death which explains some of the difficulties of defining that topic.  This is no bar to our having an article upon the topic.  In such cases, we should use a corresponding variety of sources and present a balanced summary of their positions.  WP:SYN states, "... this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view". Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron. Snotty Wong   chat 14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - So many reasons to delete. Firstly, and most obviously, WP:DICDEF.  Colonel Warden's additions of irrelevant sentences haven't changed the fact that this article attempts to define what a massacre is, in my opinion.  Secondly, this article is a content fork of various articles.  I don't believe it's possible to create an article here that includes information that isn't already available at Mass murder, Genocide, List of events named massacres, and so on.  The problem is that "massacre" doesn't have a clear definition distinct from "mass murder", they are synonyms.  "Massacre" is just a POV term that people apply to an event when they want to describe it in a more emotionally charged way than "mass murder".  My suggestion would be to delete this article, move the dab page back here where it was, and add a link to Mass murder and List of events named massacres to it.  Snotty Wong   chat 14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DICDEF states that "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions". WP:MOSBEGIN states that "The first paragraph should define the topic".  The provision of a definition is therefore to be expected and is therefore no reason to delete.  Secondly, WP:CFORK states, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.".  The supposed content forking is therefore no reason to delete either.  Note also that other topics such as Mass murder or Genocide are not quite the same because massacre includes animals while they do not and so there is not a clear fork here.  Thirdly, the sentences added were not irrelevant because they address the topic directly and are supported by sources which address also the topic directly and in detail.  It is our policy to keep such content, not to delete it.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with nom, fix the fork.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and DICDEF--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If kept, this article is likely to be the source of endless disputes and edit wars. Others have given plenty of reasons to delete. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article could even provoke an edit massacre. Snotty Wong   gab 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't forbid articles or destroy existing ones simply because some might have disputes over them. Any article involving Israel or Palestine has endless disputes, as do other things, but we don't eliminate them.   D r e a m Focus  18:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - at the moment, yes, this article is a bit of a WP:DICDEF. However, it does have some information besides the definition, and the fact that books have been written on the subject suggests that it could be expanded into a longer article. (Compare, e.g., Mass suicide.) But I'm sympathetic to those who say such an article would probably end up duplicating Mass murder and List of events named massacres, and if this article can't be expanded it should be merged into one or both of those. Robofish (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like it is now sourced now and more than just a dictionary definition. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * KeepIts a notable concept, books written about it. What causes it to happen, what the United Nations tries to do to prevent it, etc.  A lot of information could be added.   D r e a m Focus  09:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of these points, at all, is ever trying to argue that this should be deleted because no one has written about massacres. No one's that dumb. Please don't bring that stock argument into every AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Click the Google Book search at the top of this AFD.  It finds "About 2,030,000 results".  Many books are published about different massacres, what lead up to them, and their aftermath.  I'm certain the United Nations and various nations do study these things, to understand them better and help prevent them.  Economic embargoes and even military actions have been done as a result of massacres.   D r e a m Focus  17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misinterpreted my point. No one here is saying that there are no books being written about massacres.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, misread that. Anyway, I'm pointing out it has gotten ample coverage in reliable sources.  That's how you prove its notable.  Coverage in the news or books or scholar, etc, thus the reason we have those search items at the top of the AFD.   D r e a m Focus  17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. But this isn't a delete based on notability or lack thereof, it's on whether this should be a standalone article, a section of another article, a redirect, or whatever. No one would ever try to argue that the concept of a massacre isn't notability, just that having an article would always be too POV or have too murky of a definition and coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition is rather clear. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". And if reliable sources call it a massacre, then information can be placed in the article from those sources. I don't see as how this would be a problem.  If the article meets verifiability and other policies, and it clearly passes the notability guidelines, then there is no reason to delete it.   D r e a m Focus  18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How is a massacre sufficiently different from a mass murder that it requires a entirely separate article devoted to the subject? Yes, there are a plethora of books written about various massacres, all of which already are (or should be) discussed at List of events named massacres and/or an article on the event itself.  Snotty Wong   chatter 19:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article at Mass Murder list other things, such as serial killers, people blowing up trains full of people for fun, terrorist bombings, etc. The word massacre is used in the media for school shootings, killing of peaceful political protesters, as well as genocide. Basically its the same thing, so I agree, best to just have that information there then.   D r e a m Focus  19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on what the article is now, I'm back in favor of keeping it instead of a redirect. There is can be content in each article which doesn't overlap.   D r e a m Focus  00:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see it has been improved since the nomination (not that that makes a difference -- we !vote based on what support exists for the notability of the article, not on the basis of whether it is as of yet reflected in the article).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is your argument for retention seriously "Keep. Massacres are notable?" Bull dog123  09:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There are multiple reliable sources covering the effects and history of massacres, such as The Massacre in History, Massacres: An Account of Crimes Against Humanity, From Massacres to Genocide: The Media, Public Policy, and Humanitarian Crises, and Massacres: A Historical Perspective; this does not include the myriad of books covering specific massacres as well. In addition, such a basic topic is necessary to include in an encyclopedia—even if it is currently a definition only, we are expected to include such a key topic. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the most delete !votes are correct in that the article currently looks similiar to a WP:DICDEF and if expanded it will face issues with WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS. Arguing for deletion of these ground is a little bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water, saying that it's impossible to write an encyclopedic article with the title 'massacre'. Since there's no problem with the notability of the subject, why not give this stub a chance to develop and deal with the problem as they arise? jonkerz♠ 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the above votes. I could see this being recreated anyway within a week if it was turned into a redirect as people would wonder what the heck was going on with us. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a dab page for many years so there is no reason think that it will be turned into an article again any time soon. -- PBS (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's currently a stub but there is the potential for FA content and length. Even before the word was made there were numerous massacres in history, and in the fields of psychology and anthropology, it's an under-appreciated aspect of human behavior. A big problem will be finding someone to volunteer to write it devoid of POV. But how can we have a List of events named massacres without exploring the concept of a massacre? Boneyard90 (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a massacre? The term was born a a propaganda tool by Protestant Europe and it is still used as a propaganda word that way (there are many more precise words and phrases that can he used in its stead). At the top of List of events named massacres we have a dictionary definition of what a massacre is at the top of (which was copied into this new article). But one does not have to have a definition to add an entry, all one has to have are two reliable sources that call an event is named a massacre. That was the whole point of the name change from list of massacres to "list of events named massacres" so that we did not have to have to use a definition because it proved impossible to agree in general what a massacre is. -- PBS (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope that all those who are arguing for keep, will place Massacre on their watch list and participate in the endless talk page disputes over what is suitable content for this page and are not irresponsible vote Keep and then leave it to others to try to keep the page encyclopaedic and within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. -- PBS (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Knowing these types of AfDs, it's going to be the latter. Bull dog123  09:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Phillip and Snottywong. Though I don't think there really needs to be a parent article for this, if we were to have one it should be called Historical massacres or Massacres in history or perhaps even Massacres (plural). Amazing how all these !keeps are making points like "massacres are notable." Yeah, we know. That's not what this article is about. All it does is "define" massacre and add little factoids here and there about the origin of the word.  Bull dog123  09:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep See WP:BEFORE #2. "Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered." There are entire books, works of scholarship, etc. written on the idea of a massacre. In time, as this article is given a chance for more editing and discussion, all of this should show up. Apparently, since the nomination, some information that could not be found simply in a dictionary entry has been added with sources. How much more can you expect in the future? If this article is deleted, it would have to be recreated completely from scratch. But if it is kept, it can be improved using the information and sources already in it, and this is valuable information for the article's future. You can't forget the purpose of Wikipedia. Is it to provide useful information to the public? Or is it to bicker about what belongs and what doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.107.171 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you normally edit as another user? I only ask because, while I do want to assume good faith, it's always a bit odd when an IP !votes in an AfD as one of its first few edits. But hopefully my suspicions are wrong.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but I edit under various many IPs in the Charleston, SC area, mostly public hotspots, coffee shops, libraries, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.107.171 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's the same user who !voted here: . The IPs are sort of similar. Bull dog123  09:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a notable topic supported by multiple reliable references. This article is currently a stub and needs lots of work, but improvements can be made. This is not a good candidate for deletion under the nom's reasoning. Even a further discussion of the word's etymology would go beyond wikitionary's limited capabilities and add beneficial information to wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, a further discussion of etymology would certainly be something for Wiktionary. It's just that most wiktionary entries aren't as in depth as they could be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.