Talk:Kandahar massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

How many soldiers?

The entry attributed the massacre to one single soldier, which is in line with most reports coming out right now. After initially reporting that the killings were the work of one soldier, Reuters now says more were involved; it has interviewed Afghans describing the rogue soldiers as laughing and looking drunk during the rampage. 177.17.68.211 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the Reuters article is the out of date source. All other RS and relevant authorities on both sides, say one soldier. Additionally, the Reuters article is not saying multiple were involved but rather just that some eyewitnesses say they thought multiple people were involved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

At first Reuters reported that the killings were the work of a single man; afterwards, it changed the text to allow the suggestion that more were directly involved in the murders. Eyewitness accounts reported by Reuters strongly imply that was the case. So it's not a question of being out of date.

Father at window shot in face, Afghan witness says

Afghan officials say Western forces shot dead 16 civilians including nine children in southern Kandahar province on Sunday in a rampage that witnesses said was carried out by American soldiers who were laughing and appeared drunk.

Only one U.S. soldier appeared to have been involved in the shootings, a U.S. official in Washington said, but that is not what witnesses were saying.

Agha, 20, said American soldiers who had opened fire in the early hours entered the family home and waited in silence for what seemed an eternity. He lay on the floor, pretending to be dead.

"The Americans stayed in our house for a while. I was very scared," he told Reuters.

"My mother was shot in her eye and her face. She was unrecognizable. My brother was shot in the head and chest and my sister was killed, too."

'Agha's account of multiple American soldiers shooting villagers could not be immediately verified. NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said it had detained one of its soldiers and that an investigation was under way. It said the soldier reportedly went to more than one village near his base. President Hamid Karzai's office, however, said in a statement he had spoken by telephone to a young boy who was wounded in the shootings who described how American soldiers had entered his house and opened fire on his family.

US or Afghan authorities don't have a monopoly over truth, specially when considering how much NATO lied about events surrounding previous massacres perpetrated by its soldiers in the Middle East. I will be changing the article to accommodate eyewitness' version of the facts. 177.17.68.211 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User ThaddeusB should explain where did he see that some eyewitnesses saw only one perpetrator. What appears to be the case, instead, is that eyewitnesses and officials are offering conflicting accounts, not that there's disagreement among the witnesses themselves. For instance, the sentence about the reportedly drunk and laughing soldiers points to a source that uses the plural to describe perpetrators:

Neighbors said they had awoken to crackling gunfire from American soldiers, who they described as laughing and drunk. "They were all drunk and shooting all over the place," said neighbor Agha Lala, who visited one of the homes where killings took place. (Reuteurs)

The article will be changed accordingly. 177.17.68.211 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Reuters story originally asked about here was out of date at the time. The one you have cited is a different one. As often happens with breaking news stories, information changes rapidly - often leading to conflicting sources, sometimes, even causing a source to reverse itself multiple times.

As to the question, The NYT article cited as ref for the fact says some witnesses reported multiple soldiers, while other reported one. The explanation for the discrepancy which has been removed from the text here is also covered in that article, and not my own personal opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved down the paragraph on multiple soldier involvement, as it is (1) unverified (2) breaking news. But I agree it shouldn't be deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Potorochin, thanks for creating a section on the number of attackers. It's been bothering me since I started working on the article. It has a bearing on whether US forces conducted an attack or whether a crazed loner went off. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You seriously believe that the U.S. military would plan and execute a spree killing? Let's keep things out of the realm of Bigfoot and flying saucers here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, Uncle Ed, this section was deleted pretty soon by those who believe in the lone gunman theory --Potorochin (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on PRESS TV(Iranian News channel)

Why there is soo much emphasis on Press Tv as source that bodies were burnt even though other sources such as NYT also quote witnesses?.One reason is that Muslims sees western media as biased against muslims. This is reason why muslims search for other media networks. 182.178.194.34 (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Protect?

I do not know the protocol for protecting an article, but there are several recent vandalisms.129.2.129.220 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is because the article is currently linked from the front page. That may mean more vandalism than usual, but the vandalism should get reverted quickly. We don't usually protect in that circumsatnce unless it becomes a major problem. We would be stopping people from helping to improve the article, which would be worse. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not true at all - many articles are semi-protected to avoid vandalism from non-established editors. Some are on almost permanent semi-protection - those that deal with very controversial subject matter. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Shooting spree

Is 'shooting spree' an appropriate title for such a serious and tragic matter? The words have a rather lighthearted feel to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine. I fail to see the brevity in the words "shooting spree". Viciouspiggy (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Shooting (or killing) spree is the most accurrate term. A spree killing is multiple murders in a very short time frame. A massacre is traditionally the slaughter of one group by another. Yes, the term massacre is thrown around by the media to describe a wide variety of killings, but that doesn't mean we have to be equally careless, esp. given that massacre would tend to implicate the U.S. military/IASF at large by the connotation of the word. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As always we reflect what RS says and there are more than enough highly reliable sources that call it massacre. Common practice in all other article on Wikipedia. E.G. Haditha killings 79.101.37.131 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including the word massacre in the text where appropriate and indeed have done so myself. The title, however, should be the most accurate term available (note your own example is "killings" not "massacre") unless RS decide to give the event a specific name (as opposed to mere description). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not talking about the title. It should be mentioned in the lead sentence as per policy and common practice. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No it is not the right word - a massacre is not a "shooting spree". This should be moved to Panjwai massacre.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word "spree" in the title of the article seems to be an editorial opinion and should be dropped. We should use the same convention as the Giffords shooting and the Fort Hood Shooting. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The event is, by definition, a spree killing. However, as I said before, simply "shootings" would be OK as well. Google hits are not the main factor in determining an article title (esp, considering we are using a descriptive title). However, for comparison: "killing/shooting spree" currently come in at 32k, "shootings" at 39k, which tells me both are equally good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a WP:ENGVAR issue here. It appears that the terms "spree killing" and "shooting spree" are conventionally and officially used within the US to describe this sort of attack. But, in the UK, the word "spree" is almost always, in my experience, used to describe a frivolous event like a "shopping spree". Hence, to UK ears, using the word "spree" to describe this attack appears wholly inappropriate. It would be better to use a term like "shootings", "killings" or even "massacre". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Websters defines "Spree" as "an unrestrained indulgence in or outburst of an activity". The title, regardless of any interpretation of the word "spree" does not accurately present what transpired on that day. Foxhoundz (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI - three news print stories and ABC and CBS are calling it a "massacre" - for what it's worth. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

hard to find...let's rename

I was looking for Kandahar massacre or Kandahar shootings. Few people will look up Panjwai.

Why not call it 2012 Kandahar Shootings. This is the same naming convention as Gabrielle Giffords' shootings which are called the 2011 Tucson shooting Bellis78 (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll create redirects from those terms for now. The article was actually originally named after one of the villages and I generalized to the district. It could be generalized further to the province, but I don't see a pressing need to do so. If others dislike "shooting spree" I am certainly fine with changing it to "shootings". Disambiguating to "2012" is unnecessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss that first and find consensus. This name here might not be the final one but so far i can live with it until we find consensus for a new one. Please do not move it until a discussion has taken place. Thank you. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone just created a new page and copied and pasted the content without caring about the history. I reverted that. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Good work. Copy and page moves are a major no-no. (I've fixed the history.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal action

It's too early to speculate on whether the soldier who confessed will be thrown in a mental institution or tried for murder. What's pretty clear at this point is that he won't be tried in a local court of any kind.

There's a status of forces agreement (SOFA) involved, according to which Afghanistan agreed in advance that in cases like this the U.S. courtmartials him. They don't get to try him. I wonder how many gentlemen in the press were aware of this when they blithely reported the demands for a local trial. Which leads one to ask whether local or national Afghan official were aware of the SOFA (or how seriously the US takes it).

• Currently, American service members in Afghanistan are subject to U.S. military law and proceedings. But the parliamentarians said they want this changed in the document under negotiation. The U.S. is unlikely to agree to that issue, pulling out of Iraq when Baghdad demanded the right to prosecute U.S. forces. (AP)

This crazy act could make US-Afghanistan relations difficult for quite some time. Have any diplomatists ventured an opinion? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• The SOFA agreements between the US and other countries usually allow the US to retain legal jurisdiction over its government employees and military members, but it also gives the US the option of turning them over to the local criminal justice system if it chooses to do so. Does the US-Afghan SOFA have this provision? Cla68 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

1. Did anyone see more than 1 soldier?
   • Are there eyewitnesses to the shootings, or did villagers merely report seeing the man "walk to the next village"? Did anyone see him walk from his base?
2. Did he turn himself in?
   • Or was he "taken into custody"?
   • Did anyone contact the base to report the shootings?
3. Were any bodies found burned? (Or reported missing?)
   • One news story said that local showed the 15 bodies to an AP photographer

Can someone help me research these questions? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Just some thoughts about 3). Yes bodies have been found burned. Lot's of references report that and photos show that - and there are sources that say the photos show burned corpses. In my opinion verified enough. I added a sentence to the lede that the soldier is accused of burning corpses what is verified in the source that i have attached. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

2a) US military says "he basically turned himself in" but details on how that happend are sketchy to me.[1]

Many details seems to be still hidden under the fog of war propaganda. We might be surprised once they release the identity of the soldier. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's quite easy to answer the first question in a matter of days. You just collect some bullets. There must be a great number of rounds scattered around the massacre scene without hitting anyone. Any reasonably good forensic lab can determine how many rifles were involved in the shootings. Then you put ALL soldiers in custody and check their fingernails for residual materials. Then check their rifles. It can be done by any city's police department in a few days or less. I just don't know if the US Army is going to hide something. -- Toytoy (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing of references and discussion about a complete rewrite of the lede

(moved here from my talk page because i feel scared of this user and want involve other editors into this content dispute. Let's discuss in a calm way.) As per WP:BRD please stop reverting and find consensus for your complete rewrite of the lede. --79.101.37.131 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not blind revert, as this does not help build consensus. The rewrite was done to comply with WP:LEAD, not "remove info." If you object to something specific, please edit the text instead of reverting. Note that I have worked the term massacre into the lead in a more natural fashion, so it is not a case of me trying to suppress the term. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Discuss these kind of large scale changes on the talk page and seek consensus for it and please do not delete references. That is bad. See you on the talk page. Let's talk it out there. 79.101.37.131 (talk)

The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. You are reverting summarization which not not materially change anything for a mistake about policy. The references are in the text. I am not removing them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all the references are in the text and your large scale change should be discussed first on the article talk page after you have been reverted. Your behavior is a bit disruptive see you on the articles talk page. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text originally posted onto my talk page and remove by ThaddeusB

Further Discussion

As per WP:BRD please stop reverting and find consensus for your complete rewrite of the lede. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be much more productive if you actually tried to work towards a consensus version by editing whatever it is that you object to rather than just reverting to restore your preferred wording. The actual content of the lead hasn't changed (except to add some things that were missing), but the wordiness and a few details were removed. That is what a summary is - the main details about all aspects, not every detail about some aspect and none about others. And yes, references do not have to be included in the lead when it is serving its proper purpose of summarizing the article. And yes, we don't need five references to support one sentence, let alone five references to support a sentence in the lead. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be more productive if you would follow WP:BRD and not reverting your preferred version many times without discussing them. BRD you were bold i reverted next step articles talk page. Period. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your accusations are false and trouble could have been avoided if you would have followed WP:BRD 79.101.37.131 (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I did follow BRD, by 1) attempting to discuss it at your talk page; and 2) attempting to edit the changes to your satisfaction. BRD does not give you unlimited license to revert over and over again. The easiest and fastest way to achieve consensus is through editing. So far, I have been the only one attempting to edit towards consensus, while you have just reverted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well you did not. Period. "I have been the only one attempting to edit towards consensus" you are kidding me. Please also note that i have added a lot of information and references to the article. How you see the things are absolutely wrong in my view. Anyway no reason for further discussion about that. I just hope you will follow BRD next time. That would be helpful. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I have been the only one attempting to edit towards consensus" - I meant on this issue, not in general. I changed the text several time to try to please you (and eventually found an acceptable version). It would have gone quicker if you just changed the part you objected to instead of reverting to whole thing. That is all I am trying to say. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well you have been called on several times to discuss this on the talk page but you did not, that is the point. WP has WP:BRD for a reason. Discussion, civility and consensus is far more important than speed. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I was discussing it at your talk page (and I brought it up there instead of just reverting, for the record). You were the one the disagreement was with, so this made the most sense to me. To say I wasn't discussing because the venue could of been here instead of there is wikilawyering. But, the issue as it relates to the article is settled so let's just drop it and return to productive editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Those wishing to edit articles on wikipedia should create a user name and stop hiding behind IPaddresses. --RichardMills65 (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"he was involved in a Humvee rollover which was not caused by an Improvised Explosive Device."

It was probably not caused by many other things, why just mention IEDs? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain further and possible provide a source? Thank you. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I found it now. Will have a look at it. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re Well, when a 5,000 Humvee rolls over in Afghanistan, the first thing people would assume was that an IED was the cause. Just my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.186.231 (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Humvee rollover makes people automatically think it was an IED ambush. They probably wanted to clarify that this was not a combat situation which caused the Humvee rollover. —Ed!^(talk) 16:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If the rollover was not caused by an IED, would calling it a 'Road Traffic Accident' be more fitting? As discussed, rollover has certain connotations in this context.134.83.1.243 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's seems a bit too vague, but the question I'm starting to get is should this topic be of such degree? We can just leave as is, it informs the reader and effectively counteracts any quick assumption that it was an IED attack/ambush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.186.231 (talk) 06:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

edits

please refrain from making edits to this article until more facts are sourced --RichardMills65 (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I encourage sourced valid information, but engaging in edit wars and vandalism is not permitted. users will be warned and may be blocked. --RichardMills65 (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Balance

Given that a civilian relative said nobody is allowed in any religion in the world to kill children and women and that the Taliban has carried out terrorists acts killing children and women, should we mention (or at least link to) atrocities carried out by the Taliban?

• the Taliban killed eight boys who laughed at soldiers, burned an entire family alive, and killed 100 Afghans and hung their bodies from lamp posts [2]

What does Wikipedia policy on "undue weight" say about this? Do we have to balance the claims that "Americans are so bad" with counterclaims that "the Taliban is so bad"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course this information has a place on Wikipedia, but not in this article. This is an article about a specific incident, not an article about the happenings and politics of Afghanistan in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I was quite suprised to see that an experienced editor signed that comment. Wikipedia would look like an ideologic battlefield if such an action was allowed. Imagine that after everytime a US politician stated that the US seeks to bring democracy to foreign lands that another editor adds a paragraph listing the dozens of legitimite democracies the US have overthrown in the last half century. We should not allow editors to insert their little essays into articles. Canadian Spring (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned it is that we are quoting the Taliban as a source - while they are also a party the conflict (see "Background" section). I'm not asking for a little essay of mine to be inserted, as I am not a WP:RS; sorry if I gave you that impression inadvertently.

My question was more along the lines of, what do we do when someone who is involved in a controversy is commenting on the actions of other parties in the controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

We could quote an editorial I just read:

• Of course, Taliban umbrage must be kept in context. Killing noncombatants is a matter of policy for them. When civilians die because of actions taken by NATO forces, it prompts sincere apologies, official investigations and possible disciplinary actions. In this case, what the United States undoubtedly will prosecute as a crime the Taliban under other circumstances would consider a good day at the office.

Would this by itself be enough balance for the Taliban thing? Or do we need another Western source with a different viewpoint? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is a RS which discusses this incident in context with other atrocities committed in the Afghan war, by any of the sides, it may be ok to have a summary of it in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. How about a comparison with the 1968 My Lai Massacre?

• This weekend’s bloody attack represents the highest civilian death toll at the hands of an American soldier or Marine since the infamous My Lai massacre in Vietnam. To be sure, My Lai involved dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Vietnamese casualties--as well as a far-reaching U.S. attempt to cover it up--so it would be wrong to draw too strong of a comparison. Yochi J. Dreazen, National Journal

I just deleted a "See also" link to My Lai, but then I did some googling. Whether it *is* related or not, if a WP:RS make a "compare and contrast" mention, could this go in the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So far, I have seen one source compare this with My Lai. I think you could write a paragraph on the comparison if you wanted to. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You could, as in it is physically possible, but it shouldn't go in the article as that would be giving undue weight to one reporter's silly comparison. Same goes for summarizing an editorial. Two sentences (one in each direction) is about the max that should be devoted to citing random opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Photographs

I understand that the Taliban have posted some photos of the massacre on one of their websites. From what I understand, Taliban/Afghan photographs are not copyrighted. So, perhaps we can find these photos and post them in the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You have a source for that? Won't be easy. I suggest we should use one of the available photos under fair use. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2012 (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: moved. It is clear that the current title is unacceptable, for several reasons, so the question is where to move it. There has been a lot of debate about whether "shootings" or "massacre" is the term most used by reliable sources. On balance, it seems that "massacre" is more used. It has been argued that this title is less neutral, but it is clear that the majority of editors do not find it so, even after discounting those editors whose only contribution was to the straw poll. Aervanath (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Panjwai shooting spree → Kandahar massacre – Article name is not notable and could be improved as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA Recognizability, Naturalness. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The article name is not notable. "Panjwai shooting" brings up 168,000 hits on Google, while "Kandahar Shooting" brings up 4,480,000 hits. "Panjwai" is not only inaccurate, it's confusing. Also, the word "spree" seems inappropriate. The other shooting articles don't use this. The Fort Hood Shooting could be so characterized but it is not. Same with the Gabby Giffords shooting. It comes across as an editorial comment, as if this were a light-hearted event, like a shopping spree. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, irregardless of the name people appear to be finding the article ok. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad math, there could be double the amount if the article would have the prover name. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• move to Kandahar massacre 79.101.37.131 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree, move to Kandahar massacre [3] Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• The event is, by definition, a killing spree. The term has been commonly used, roughly on the same level as "shooting". (The above Google #s are inaccurate, apparently down without quotes. The actual numbers are "Kandahar Shooting" 25k, "Kandahar Shootings" 39k, "Kandahar Killing Spree" 32k." Note, however, that GHITS are not a criteria for deciding article name) For example, the BBC uses it here. That said, there may to a dialectic difference that causes some people to think spree is inappropriate, so a move may be in order.

I would much prefer Kandahar shootings to massacre. The vast majority of similar articles are named "X shooting" or "X shootings". The term massacre has traditionally been used to describe slaying of huge numbers of people, usually by an army or other authority group. Thus the term could be considered somewhat POV as it can imply the US Army did the killings as opposed to a member of the army. It is true that in recent times it has been used more causally to describe multiple simultaneous murders by individuals. However, I still think shootings is more accurate and less POV.

However, I do agree that the RS have settled on "Kandahar" as opposed to "Panjwai". Thus, I suggest Kandahar shootings as the best article title.

Incidentally, finding the article is a non-issue. Redirects exists from most, if not all, plausible article titles already. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment To call a massacre "shooting" is in my opinion POV. And in my opinion there is nothing POV to call a massacre a massacre and the sources have done so after the facts have become clear. Are you disputing that there are a large number of reliable sources that call it massacre? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a notable percentage of the sources are using the word "massacre". Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I never denied that a large number of sources have used the term massacre. Are you denying that a large number have used the term "shootings" instead? I doubt it. Thus, the question is which is more neutral and accurate. I have made my argument as to why shootings is the most neutral and accurate term; you have not attempted one as to why massacre is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments are lame. Other articles of massacres are named massacre. You write:

"The term massacre has traditionally been used to describe slaying of huge numbers of people, usually by an army or other authority group." according to the definition 5 can be already a massacre. Here we have 16 including 8 children as young as 2 years old shot in the head and burned. What source did you use for what is a massacre and what not?

"The vast majority of similar articles are named "X shooting" or "X shootings". Please give us examples.

"...somewhat POV as it can imply the US Army did the killings as opposed to a member of the army." How?

Your POV argument does not stick. Massacre is better in terms of 1) Recognizability and 2) Naturalness WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and it is reflected in the sources. Did i address all your arguments? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In the sources about this event, the usage is pretty darn close to 50/50 between "shooting(s)" and "massacre". I have explained why is my dialect of English, massacre is less accurate. Please do not call me "lame" and accuse me of "POV pushing" because you disagree. That is not helpful or appropriate. Yes, there are other articles named "massacre" with a similar number of deaths. However, they are not the norm - see below. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed your arguments in detail and shown that they are "lame". That is not POV pushing. I would have looked forward to discuss them further with you but you did not address my reply in detail and you did not answer all my questions. Your "analysis" down there is also lame. It misses logic and common sense to an extent that i wonder who is POV pushing. Sorry when i have hurt you in any way. That was not my intention. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In reply to ThaddeusB comment about the renaming of the article ... Is this the only known Panjwai shooting? If it is, then Panjwai Shooting sounds right, if some people are trying to avoid the word "massacre". Adamdaley (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please check out the Wikipedia List of events named massacres. The definition of the massacre from the Oxford English Dictionary which is provided in that article is "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" which is an accurate description of the events in Kandahar on March 11. And regarding the number of victims check out the articles Boston massacre with 6 deaths, Loughinisland massacre with 6 deaths, Bat Mitzvah massacre with 6 deaths, Brown's Chicken massacre with 7 deaths, Saint Valentine's Day massacre with 7 deaths, etc. Some of the massacres, for e.g. Capitol Hill massacre with 6 deaths, Aramoana massacre with 13 deaths, École Polytechnique massacre (Montreal massacre) with 14 deaths and other, were conducted by the lone gunmans. To call a murder of 7 American mob associates in Chicago in 1929 a "massacre" but to insist that the murder of 16 innocent Afghan civilians, including 9 children, who slept in their beds shouldn't be named as "massacre" because it is not a "slaying of huge numbers of people" sounds very strange for me and definitely not neutral. So I agree, move it to Kandahar massacre. --Potorochin (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Potorochin message, I guess it does fit in the "massacre" naming because I also looked at the statistics as well, and given the statistics and it being a shooting of civilians, it would be Panjwai massacre. Also going on the statistics and recent years including Fort Hood and Virginia Tech as well as Columbine High School to at name 3 in the past 12 - 15 years. There also seems to be a redirect from Panjwai massacre to Panjwai shooting spree. I suppose the decision has been made. Adamdaley (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Kandahar massacre returns 20 200 000 results from Google and Panjwai massacre only 237 000 results, that is 84 times less. With the exact search, "Kandahar massacre" is mentioned 57 000 times and "Panjwai massacre" only 1 200 times, so it is 47 times less. I hope it is clear enough that Kandahar association with this massacre is much stronger than that of Panjwai. And, according with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Naturalness and Recognizability) I suggest we proceed with the original idea of renaming this article to Kandahar massacre, but creating a redirect from Panjwai massacre or any other synonyms, which deemed necessary. --Potorochin (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The question is now, should this be called Kandahar massacre than "Panjwai massacre"? Adamdaley (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Adamdaley, would you be so kind to provide any reference to the guidelines in the article title policy which would support the Panjwai option rather than Kandahar? --Potorochin (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of "shooting(s)" vs. "massacre": Wikipedia articles in Category mass murders between 2008-2012:

Descriptive (lists cause of death):

Bombing(s) - 46

Bomb blast - 1

Fire - 1

Shooting(s) - 25

Shooting attack - 1

Total - 74

Non-descriptive:

Attack(s) - 19

Brawl - 1

Killings - 1

Massacre - 15

Mass graves - 3

Mass murder(s) - 2

Rampage - 1

Total - 42

Analysis: descriptive titles are more common than non-descriptive ones. Shootings is much more common than massacre. Some "massacre" articles involved less deaths than here, some "shootings" articles involved way more deaths. The Wikipedia precedent favors "shootings".

Web hits:

Shooting(s) - 59400

Massacre - 53900

Analysis: web hits do not strongly favor either title

Lexis Nexis major publications search

Word in title, filtering duplicate stories (i.e. AP story published in 20 different newspapers=1 hit)

Shootings - 107

Massacre - 91

Anywhere in story:

Shootings - 314

Massacre - 173

Analysis: top publications favor "shootings", although not overwhelmingly so

Article history:

The article creator (as two-line stub) used "massacre"

The article's first significant contributor choose "shooting spree" and has been the title for the majority of the article's (short) history

Analysis: The term "shooting spree" has proven to be bad to some English speakers. Of the two terms on the table, shootings is the closer to the term the article has been primarily found under.

Other:

"Shootings" is clearly a correct description of the event. To most English speakers, "massacre" is probably also correct. To me, and presumably some other speakers, massacre has a different connotation and thus is not completely correct.

"Shootings" may downplay the events significant in some people's minds.

Analysis: This is the crux of the disagreement, as the different terms have different connotations in different people's minds.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The convention used for other shootings has been to call them shootings. "Massacre" sounds like the extreme opposite of "spree." They are both editorial. "Shooting" is neutral. Kandahar Shooting is neutral and has the most hits on Google. And whoever renamed this section, Wikipedia policy says you can't refactor what another editor has written. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No relative evidence on Wikipedia from me for name change. It's only that I see from past articles for example Columbine High School, Virgina Tech, etc are more specific location. Then you have the Boston article which is the name of a city. I assume Kandahar is the bigger area that covers Panjwai is within. As I've stated in past comments on the request move, is only a couple of names for the article. Adamdaley (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB your miss to provide any diffs for your "analysis". Could you please do so? That would be helpful. Just for the start i also suggest to base arguments on policy and not cherry picked examples. P.S. please do not feel hurt by my words. It is not my intention to hurt you in any way. Let's discuss the arguments in detail. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• The original title of this article used the term "massacre", but ThaddeusB renamed it to "shooting spree" without any discussions on the talk page, thus breaking the WP:REQMOVE Wikipedia policy. The explanation which he provided was that "massacre" "is not being used by RS and is normally used to describe armies slaughtering hundreds of people". As you see from the media reports the term massacre has been widely used by RS and from my comment above you'll find the dictionary description of the term "massacre" as the "indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" as well as the examples when the term "massacre" is officialy used to describe the slaughter of only 6 people. So, there were no justifiable reasons to change the name of this article from "massacre" to "shooting spree". As regarding the web hits, check out yourself, the exact search "Kandahar massacre" returns 56 600 results from Google and "Kandahar shooting" only 25 500 results. According with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Naturalness and Recognizability) I suggest to proceed with the idea of renaming this article to Kandahar massacre. In accordance with WP:POVTITLE the article name could include non-neutral English words (the word "massacre" specifically exemplified in this rule), when the majority of English sources describe the subject of the article using this word, which is the case with the Kandahar massacre. Please be guided by the Wikipedia guidelines in making decision on this article name, and not by your emotions or something else. --Potorochin (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Don't think this will go down in history as "The Kandahar massacre". Sadly, it's far from being the most deadly violent attack in Kandahar in recent years ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] etc etc) In fact, it's not even the most deadly attack to have occurred in Panjwai. FormerIP (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting but as far as i can see the sources do not call your incidents Kandahar massacre but over 56.000 call this articles topic Kandahar massacre. Let's stick to the sources instead of original research, see also WP:NAMINGCRITERIA 79.101.37.131 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. What you just showed is that 55,100 pages indexed on Google contain the string "Kandahar massacre". I get 41K sources using the same term prior to this event occurring ([12]). FormerIP (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked out these links. They lead to the articles about the Kandahar massacre on 11 March 2012. FormerIP, why do you try to mislead us? --Potorochin (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So we have proofed now that 14.100 pages written just in the last few days refer to the topic of this article here as the Kandahar massacre. Is there any other article on Wikipedia that is called Kandahar massacre? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, because the date-specific search will strip out not only any more recently-dated pages but also any undated pages. The search also doesn't distinguish in the first place between pages that refer to an event by the title "the Kandahar massacre" and pages which just use those two words in juxtaposition (e.g. "the most recent Kandahar massacre has claimed 16 lives). --FormerIP (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The date-specific search does not strip out any undated pages, to the opposite, it includes all the undated pages, so the 41K pages about the "Kandahar massacre" from the date-specific search before the event provided by you are just undated pages about the Kandahar massacre on 11 March 2012. And there is no a single webpage in the internet with the phrase "the most recent Kandahar massacre", which you provided as an example. FormerIP, why do you try to mislead us again? (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. I'm just trying to teach you to think like a grown-up. If you look at the top news results for the recent event on Google, you find that references to "Kandahar massacre" are contained in headlines such as "Afghans 'out of patience' after Kandahar massacre". This doesn't tell us that the event has any particular name according to the BBC, only that it is a massacre which has occurred in Kandahar. FormerIP (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The Afghans in this article are out of patience because of the massacre on 11 March 2012. So this is just one more proof that the events of 11 March 2012 are referred to as Kandahar massacre.--Potorochin (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Strip out undated pages. I do not think that is correct. I think they use the time when they are indexed. You have any ref for your claim? I just did a check and all results i checked indeed refer to this incident here as "Kandahar massacre" and how about WP:NAMINGCRITERIA? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you might be right about that. The dated search would remove all pages created after the date given, including pages which are regularly updated or dynamically generated. But, still, it doesn't give us two numbers where we can subtract one from another. FormerIP (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you finally admitted that we are right. There was no other event which was referred to as Kandahar massacre. So, this title is indeed the most accurate and widely accepted title for the events of 11 March 2012. That is why we would like the article about these events to bear this title.--Potorochin (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shooting spree" and "massacre" is somewhat inaccurate / OR / non-enclyclopedic. I think Kandahar is a much more common name than Panjwai. "Killing" is a little vague (could be friendly fire) "shootings" or "murders" is more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should "massacre" be inaccurate? And why should "massacre" in the title be non-enclyclopedic? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "massacre" from the Oxford English Dictionary is "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people", so it very accurately describes the events of 11 March 2012. And what did you mean by "somewhat non-enclyclopedic"? There are more than 2000 articles in the English Wikipedia with a word "massacre" in the title.--Potorochin (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the suggestion to name this article "Kandahar massacre (March 2012)", "2012 Kandahar shootings", etc. According with the Wikipedia policy WP:PRECISION, the article's title should be concise and should be precise only as necessary, so that not to confuse this article with a similar article. There are no other articles about the "Kandahar massacre" that is why, in accordance with WP:PRECISION the use of the time period "March 2012" or "2012" in the article's title is excessive and should be avoided.--Potorochin (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, a date is not needed in the title of this article. VQuakr (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A date is needed in order to distinguish this event from the many other events that have taken place in recent years which would also fit the description "Kandahar massacre". Since the number of dead in this incident is not particularly high (comparatively speaking), it cannot even be considered a primary topic for the term. --FormerIP (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A date is not needed, as there was no other event which was widely described by the media as the Kandahar massacre. --Potorochin (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, date not needed there seems to be no other Wikipedia article that is also called Kandahar massacre. As per the Wikipedia naming policy. Titles should be concise, and not overly long. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I object very strongly to the use of the word '"spree"' in this context.

The context is taken most specifically from the point of view of the perpetrator. For the Perpetrator, it was, no doubt, a "spree". A spree is something that one does for pleasure. Being "out on the spree" is something associated with "having a good time".

This doesn't feel like a spree to the victims or their families.

It is a horribly insensitive use of the word.

I don't really give one hoot about the so-called "correct definition". It is a revolting way to describe something of this nature.

How can you be so insensitive as to leave it there for days offending people once the problem has been pointed out.

Why hasn't it been fixed?

Background

The term notable in Wikipedia guideline discussions refers to including a topic as a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. The discussion could have been helped by referring from the start to the correct policy on titles and the applicable section, precision.

Generally speaking, Wikipedia editors don't choose titles for news event articles, they are collectively chosen for us by the news media sources we use, and adapted to the usage of the Wikipedia. Panjwai is not common enough in the media accounts to have usability as an article title. It can be a redirect.

Helpful to making the distinction between shooting and massacre, and localities in media accounts are discussions articles like Talk:Hartford Distributors shooting, Talk:Wendy's massacre, and also Category:Massacres in the United States, Category:Massacres by country, Category:Spree shootings by country. Date references are useful in the cases where an event has been repeated. patsw (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• move to Kandahar massacre - media is not calling it Panjwai shooting spree, and this is yet another instance of Wikipedians trying to invent a name for an event that the media does not generally use. In addition "shooting spree" as the title minimizes or rather hides the fact that 16 people were massacred. 208.78.67.43 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• The original title of this article used the term "massacre", but then one U.S. Wikipedian renamed it to a "shooting spree" without any discussions on the talk page, thus breaking the WP:REQMOVE. We just try to restore the original and more accurate, per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Naturalness and Recognizability), term to describe this event.--Potorochin (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll

note: several people below were canvassed by User:Potorochin to participate. He contacted several people who he believed preferred the term massacre, while not contacting anyone who had expressed that shootings was fine. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that by inviting several other users to participate in this discussion I was breaking any rules. I just informed about this discussion the following users, who expressed earlier their dissatisfaction with a renaming of this article by User:ThaddeusB from "massacre" to "shooting spree" without any discussion with the other editors (WP:REQMOVE). Here is a full list of people whom I contacted: Martin Hogbin, Ghmyrtle, Maunus, Reader1987 and 79.101.37.131. Reader1987 ignored my message, 79.101.37.131 replied me that he was "already on the way to that talk page discussion", Ghmyrtle as you see from the vote didn't mention my chosen title at all, and the other two participants mentioned two different titles. So, as you see, my notifications actually might have added some variety to this discussion, adding some other options, besides the option chosen by me and the vast majority of other users. I just would like to point out that this is a straw poll and not an official vote. The decision in this discussion would be made on the basis of the Wikipedia policies, and so far we didn't see a single reference to these policies from those who belive that "shootings was fine", as you put it. --Potorochin (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And you didn't contact any of the half dozen or so people who had expressed that the current title was fine. By definition, you canvassed because you only contacted people who shared your viewpoint. As to your second point, it is beyond laughable to suggest people saying "Kandahar massacre" and then signing their name are somehow citing policy while my page long analysis of why "shootings" is the better title doesn't reflect policy in any way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"of the half dozen or so people"? Who is that? I can only see two and that is you ThaddeusB and FormerIP. Please also note that Adamdaley voiced "Kandahar massacre" in the Poll. I think you are exaggerating because it did not go your way. You might stop beating a WP:DEADHORSE. I also agree that the arguments for Kandahar massacre that have been discussed are better rooted in policy. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And what policy is that exactly? You only think the "reasons" are better, because it is your preferred title. RS slightly favor "shootings" (suggesting the more common name is shootings) and far more Wikipedia articles are named "shootings" (suggesting the precedent is for shootings). Then there is the grammar point... It if perfectly fine to think "massacre" is the better title, but to say that others are pushing a POV because they disagree (as you have done in the past) or saying there is no policy reason to favor shootings is nonsense. Also, it is ridiculous to claim only myself and FormerIP have supported "shootings" - a ten second glance at the various conversations on this page will show many other people who were either indifferent or explicitly supported shootings. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

? The Kandahar massacre supporters have based their arguments on WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Naturalness and Recognizability) and WP:PRECISION as you can see in various parts of the discussion. It makes me wonder you do not know. Accusing me of POV is a nice Ad hominem and by best a waste of time. For the rest have a look at Darouet's summary and statistic. There seems to be a large gap between your claims and the facts. Policy supports "Kandahar massacre" and there is a large majority of people for "Kandahar massacre". Your POV pushing is now beyond silly. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly shown that "shootings" is slightly more common than "massacre" and stated that COMMONNAME favors "shootings" as such; "shooting spree" is indeed uncommon and is not being argued for by anyone. Additionally, you may want to re-read what I wrote. I did not accuse you of pushing a POV - I said you made blatantly false statements about my argument (for example, that I've made no attempt to site policy) and accused me of supporting "shootings" for POV reasons. In fact, I have quite clearly supported my arguments with policy based reasons. And here again, you accuse me of POV pushing while chiding me for supposedly saying you are POV pushing, which I didn't even claim. Unreal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It has repeatedly been shown that "massacre" is the COMMONNAME. Periot. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please state your preferred title and sign below:

• Kandahar massacre Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre Potorochin (talk) 01:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre Adamdaley (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre or 'Kandahar shootings' Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Panjwai massacre or Panjwai shootings Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre 79.101.37.131 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre or Panjwai murders ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• March 2012 Kandahar shootings or March 2012 Kandahar murders North8000 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• March 2012 Kandahar shootings or March 2012 Kandahar murders FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre VQuakr (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre or Kandahar massacre (March 2012) -Darouet (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre Kiwipat (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre or Kandahar spree shooting or 2012 Kandahar shootings. Speciate (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre Slhoymonz (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre patsw (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre 208.78.67.43 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre though Kandahar shooting spree is more accurate, it doesnt sound right and isnt used by any but usMercurywoodrose (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Panjwai massacre as much more specific than 'Kandahar massacre'. Do the people proposing that one realise how big Kandahar Province is? It's about the same size as Croatia; but we wouldn't call an article 'Croatia massacre', we'd use a smaller geographical unit, and should do the same here. Robofish (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The event happened on the outskirts of the city of Kandahar, which happens to be in Kandahar Province. The name refers to the city, not the province. Speciate (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• 2012 Kandahar shootings --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kandahar massacre Amandajm (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• March 2012 Kandahar Killings. After thinking about this for a week and seeing many heated comments going back and forth over the issue here on the Talk page, it seems to me that both "Kandahar Shootings" and "Kandahar Massacre" carry with them a slight bias towards trying to either de-personalize or over-sensationalize the killings respectively, likely influenced by individual points of view. Perhaps it would be better to use a very NPOV but specific article title like "March 2012 Kandahar Killings" until such time all the facts are borne out. If Robert Bales committed all the killings as some authorities allege, it appears to be more of a Spree Killing incident (see article). If a group of U.S. soldiers orchestrated the killings as other authorities allege, it fits more closely with the definition of a Massacre (see article). In the interim, redirects can be salted for the entries "Kandahar Shootings," "Kandahar Massacre", "Kandahar Murders", etc., so that readers of Wikipedia who come searching for those names come straight to this article. Individual editors can disagree over exactly what these killings were, but no one can take issue with the basic fact that they were indeed "killings". Eventually, in due time, it will become apparent as to whether or not there is a better title for the article to be renamed from "Killings" to a "Massacre", "Spree Killings", "Murders", etc. Just my two cents... I do not have any passionate feelings on this subject that make me favor any of the titles proposed so far, and would like to see an interim article title settle on something neutral that everyone can reasonably live with as opposed to a battleground title that one group favors and other groups object to. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the OED, massacre is "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people", which is the most accurate description of this event. To deny a massacre a right to be named "massacre" is a breach of WP:NPOV, unless you question the fact these murders were indeed "indiscriminate and brutal". Many massacres (Capitol Hill massacre, Aramoana massacre, Montreal massacre, Virginia Tech massacre and others) were conducted by the lone gunmans. --Potorochin (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"To deny a massacre a right to be named massacre is a breach of NPOV" illustrates very nicely the point I'm making; it seems obvious to me that the only neutral way to describe the killings are to call them "killings" until the facts fully come to light. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The facts already came to light, as this event was not initially described as "massacre", as was pointed out by ThaddeusB, and only later on, when the real outcome of this event became clear, it was widely described as a "massacre". --Potorochin (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's too soon to say that all the facts have come to light and that all the issues are settled. In any event, the best way to maintain NPOV would be to use the term "killings" which does not convey any subjective point of view (unlike "shootings" or "massacre", etc). AzureCitizen (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlike March 2012 Kandahar Killings, the title Kandahar massacre is supported by the consenus, as well as the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISION and other Wikipedia policies. I think, there is no point in repeating of all these arguments again. 7 day waiting period has passed. Let's just wait for some uninvolved admin to finally resolve this debate. --Potorochin (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Has a consensus emerged at the straw poll above?

I think the poll above shows a consensus for moving the article to Kandahar massacre. Does anyone disagree? VQuakr (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but don't we have to wait for 7 days (per WP:RMCI) since the start of this discussion to actually proceed with the renaming? --Potorochin (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement to wait 7 days if the consensus is clear, and given the highly visible nature of the subject I think it is better not to wait. The closer should be an uninvolved admin or experienced editor. VQuakr (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Could anybody find such uninvolved admin to formally close this discussion and proceed with the renaming? --Potorochin (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will request for someone to have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by numbers, but rather weight of argument. A straw poll is not generally usefully for establishing consensus as it encourages voting instead of discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like there isn't incontrovertible support for an early close after all. VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And the voting was skewed by User:Potorochin canvassing users to support his position about the article title. (He contacted several people who had expressed support for "massacre" previously and none who had expressed support for other titles.) Massacre may well be the better title, but straw polls are not a good idea and canvassing is downright wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that by inviting several other users to participate in this discussion I was breaking any rules. Unlike you, an experienced Wikipedia Administrator, I'm just an ordinary Wikipedian and I even didn't know the word "canvass" before I first read it in your comment. Let me just remind you, that the original title of this article used the term "massacre", but you renamed this article to a "shooting spree" without any discussions with other editors on the talk page (WP:REQMOVE). After this renaming, several users expressed their surprise and dissatisfaction with such an odd choice. 79.101.37.131 finally decided to go on with the procedure to rename this article and later Cla68 started a straw poll. I contacted several users, who already participated in the discussion about the title of this article before. I didn't ask any of them to support my position, I didn't even mention my position, I just informed them about a start of a formal discussion, to give them a chance to have their voices heard. I believe that all these efforts would not have been neccesary unless your previous arbitrary decision to rename this article. But I'm glad that even you finally admitted that the term "massacre" should have been preserved in the article title. --Potorochin (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. Creating a 1-lien stub does not give you naming rights (incidentally the original name is not even on the table, as it proved flat out wrong). The first significant contributor is the one that gets to set article title, date style, reference style, etc unless there is a pressing reason/consensus to do otherwise. I was the first significant contributor. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Being a "first significant contributor", as you described yourself, still doesn't give you a right to break WP:REQMOVE rule, according to the Wikipedia policies. And let me remind you, that despite writing the whole page of cherry-picked examples, you still failed to provide a single reference to the Wikipedia naming guidelines (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) over your choice of title for this article. --Potorochin (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Every argument I have made for the title has been directly related to policy - slightly more RS use "shooting(s)", which suggest it is the slightly more used common name (a part of naming policy). I have explained why to me shootings in more NPOV (a part of naming policy). I have shown that "shootings" is the more common name for similar articles on Wikipedia (a part of naming policy). I have stated that the first significant contributor picked "shooting spree" and that has been the article title for all but a couple hours of the article's history (a part of naming policy). I do not know where you get this ridiculous idea that only people who agree with you are citing policy, while those who disagree are not, but it is clearly not true. Additionally, if anyone it is cherry picking examples it is those who cite one or two articles that use the term massacre in their title, not the person who counted every similar article made in the last 5 years.

As far as the original page move goes, editors are encouraged to be BOLD and not play bureaucratic games. If you disagreed with BOLD move, you could have reverted. However, at that time the title "Alkozai massacre" was highly POV because no reliable source had used the term massacre. It wasn't until a couple days later that people started using the term massacre. Additionally, the article had no history of note - it was barely even a stub. Thus, there was no established title and no reason to believe a move would be controversial. I certainly wouldn't make a move like that now because the term has now been used by RS and the article has a significant history. Thus, I would know such a move would be controversial and would use REQMOVE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to your own statement here, when you renamed this article, 'slightly more RS use "shooting(s)"'. It cann't be proved now, but even if we take your word for this, you still went on with renaming this article to "shooting spree", and not to "shooting(s)", as it should be, according to your own data. Thus it was the breaking of the WP:NPOV and WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, wasn't it?--Potorochin (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It also seems odd that someone would sign up to WP specifically for the purpose of voting in this straw poll, vote in this poll having made no other edits for six months or start editing WP with a developed knowledge of WP procedures and only edit in this topic area. Just saying. FormerIP (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Who cares! All this CANVASSING, SPA, and all the other nitpickety complaining that Wikipedia regulars do when a discussion isn't going their way, or just for the sake of it, is ridiculously silly. You wonder why participation in WP is declining? Look at yourselves. Canvassing is unenforceable. SPA is unenforceable. COI (which hasn't been alleged in this discussion, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is in the future), is unenforceable. So, just forget about that nonsense and put text in the article and accept consensus on the talk page without complaining about it. It will make things go a lot easier for everyone. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone should care about canvassing and sock puppetry. If preventing people from cheating to build false consensus drives people, then those are probably people we don't want here anyway. Incidentally (or not), the opinions of those who actually contributed to the discussion (instead of just voting w/no reason given) are almost exactly 50/50 split. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I just would like to say sorry again for inviting several Wikipedians to participate in this discussion. It's a pity that you considered me, a main contributor to this article, or somebody else, as people whom you "don't want here anyway". May I just ask you, one last time, to provide one single reference to a concrete Wikipedia guideline (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) which would support your suggested article's title. You may cover even 90 % of the space on this web page with your opuses, but without any references to the Wikipedia guidelines, I'm afraid all of them are just void --Potorochin (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you think people should be allowed to use multiple accounts to stack votes and CANVASS to get their way, then yes your participation on Wikipedia is not wanted. Hopefully, you do not actually feel that way and will continue to contribute. You made a mistake because you only contacted only those whom you believed would vote your way instead of everyone who had contributed to the discussion. Hopefully, you won't make that mistake again. (Additionally, straw polls are a bad idea as they encourage people to vote instead of discussing - hopefully you have learned that as well.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have any proves that anybody in this discussion used "multiple accounts to stack votes", please provide it. As regarding CANVASS, I already apologized several times of my ignorance regarding this rule. It would be nicer of you, an experienced Wikipedia Administrator, not to break the Wikipedia fundamental principle of WP:GOODFAITH. And despite all the policies that you break, I wouldn't say that "your participation on Wikipedia is not wanted". I find your behavior here as threatening and hostile towards other Wikipedians. By the way, we are still waiting from you to provide a single reference to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA to support your suggested title of 2012 Kandahar shootings over the Kandahar massacre, which was accepted by the consensus and proved by WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Naturalness and Recognizability) as well as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. --Potorochin (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Panjwai Shooting Spree" and "Kandahar Massacre" are equally descriptive, but the latter is more recognizable to the general public (Panjwai is virtually unknown and is variably spelled in English). Also, and I may be wrong about this, it's not clear to me why switching back to the original title with consensus is so difficult, since it was changed to the current title without any discussion. -Darouet (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong about the second point because a one-line stub does not establish the title. It has been known as "Panjwai Shooting Spree" since the time of the first significant edits. (Also it was "Alkozai massacre" originally and we certainly are not going back to that.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

16 users will support the term massacre, and 14 of those users will support the term Kandahar massacre. 6 users will support either shootings or shooting spree. It seems as though canvassing brought 2-3 users on the side of "Kandahar massacre" at the very most, meaning that twice as many editors favor the term "massacre," with high participation. While ThaddeusB has asked that the title not be decided by a poll and instead by arguments, I don't know how we'll establish the superiority of one argument over another if not democratically (it could be insulting to suggest that everyone who's voting a certain way are not considering arguments). I think that ThaddeusB and others have reviewed the merits of either title very well; ultimately "massacre" and "shooting spree" are similar descriptors, with different political connotations, which will influence editors' opinions regarding which term to favor.

One thing that should be added to all that has been stated above is that shooting spree implies that the massacre was carried out by an individual, though that claim is contested by some villagers, media sources and by Afghan authorities. Most importantly to me, the term Kandahar massacre appears in the news 192 times in the past week, and Panjwai shooting spree appears 0 times during that same interval, according to google news. If you remove quotations around those terms, Kandahar massacre appears 4,000 times, and Panjwai shooting spree appears 1,300 times. In an ordinary search (not a news search) on google, "Kandahar massacre" appears 17,000 and "Panjwai shooting spree" 1,100 times (all in the last week).

The term "Kandahar massacre" is obviously, demonstrably more recognizable to the public and media, and used as such.

As a last point, I hope that nobody is suggesting that the votes of some people don't matter because they haven't contributed substantially to this discussion. I appreciate all that everyone has done here, but I should point out that it's not difficult for other editors to read over this discussion (which is becoming far too long) and come to a conclusion on the basis of what's been written.

Administrative action has apparently begun and can be viewed here. I am certain we can all continue to improve this article, whatever the result of a review process may be. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. You did miss one important point though - the terms being considered are "Kandahar massacre", "Kandahar shooting(s)", and "Panjwai" x. Thus the comparison you made is not the correct one. Also, because of the way Google bundles like news results the top line "n results" # is not really a reflection of how many sources contain the phrase. (There are over 20000 news stories on the story in GNews - I guarantee there are a lot more than 200 that use "Kandahar massacre", for example.) This is why I used Lexis Nexis results above to compare the RS number. Redoing the search I did a few days ago, I now come up with 134 results of Kandahar+massacre in the title/lede and 158 results for Kandahar+shootings. These are the results among "top world publications" only. If it is expanded to "all news", shootings comes in at 731 while massacre gets 500 results. Panjwai+massacre gets 129 results and Panjway+shootings gets 202 results. Lexis Nexis is not free by any means, so I can't link to the search results, but these results are much more indicative of actual RS usage than GNews. Thus, my conclusion is that RS clearly favor "Kandahar" and somewhat favor "shootings".

BTW, Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Thus, it is not a mere request to weigh strength of arguments, but rather a description of what will happen. You may not know how to do this, but luckily the closing administrator will know how. "Massacre" may well be chosen, but if it is it will not be based on vote numbers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB once again you to not provide diffs for your claims. Why is that? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

(It all depends on how the searches have been performed) ThaddeusB did not provide any diffs for his claims so that i had a detail look at a significant majority of reliable English language sources. With the result that the overwhelming majority refer to the topic as a massacre. Sometimes they use killings, slayings, shooting, rampage or slaughter. They might have used shooting in the early hours or days frequently but after the facts came the overwhelming majority now uses massacre. All the RS i list here call it a massacre.

• CNN - March 16, 2012 [13]

• BBC - 19 March 2012 [14]

• Associated Press - 03/19/2012 [15]

• Reuters - Mar 17, 2012 [16]

• ABC News - March 17 [17]

• New York Times - March 17, 2012 [18] - March 13, 2012 [19]

• The Washington Post - March 19 [20]

• msnbc - March 19 [21]

• The Independent - March 18 [22]

• The Telegraph - March 19 [23]

• Times of India - March 17 [24]

• Detroit free press - March 17 [25]

• The Australian - March 16 [26]

• The Miami Herald - March 17 [27]

• Voice of America - March 17 [28]

• Bloomberg News - March 14 [29]

• The Sydney Morning Herald - March 18 [30]

• The Guardian - March 18 [31] - March 20 [32]

• Belfast Telegraph - March 19 [33]

• UPI - March 16 [34]

• Aljazeera - March 17 [35]

• International Business Time - March 17 [36]

• CBC - March 17 [37]

• Gulf News - March 20 [38]

• The Spiegel - March 13 [39]

• FOX News - March 16 [40]

• Boston Herald - March 18 [41]

• The Seattle Times - March 18 [42]

• US Today - March 16 [43]

• PBS - March 19 [44]

Sources outside Afghanistan most frequently call it now "Afghan massacre". We discussed "Kandahar massacre" and "Panjwai massacre" previously. After spending another two hours with the sources and all the discussion we had, i do not have any doubt that "Kandahar massacre" would be the most appropriate policy based name for our article. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you expect me to provide a difference (diff) for something that isn't a change to the article. I suppose you may mean link. I can't provide you a link to Lexis Nexis results as it is a paid service. Are you accusing me of lying? It sure seems that way.

Your cherry picking a dozen sources proves nothing. I could provide a list twice that long of sources that use "shootings" and it would also prove nothing. Seeitisnothardtomanysourcestoeithertitle. The simple fact is that both Kandahar shootings and Kandahar massacre are very commonly used. In news sources, shootings is slightly more common according to Lexis Nexis. As far as I know, there is no way to tell which is more common on Google News due to the way they bunch articles "automagically" making any "total matches" number utterly meaningless. If you know of a free online news search tool that can do what Lexis Nexis does, by all means let me know. Until then, I would really appreciate it you stop accusing me of bad faith, POV pushing, lying, ignoring policy, etc. We get it - you think massacre is best. I disagree. That does not make me a bad person, despite what you may think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Your cherry picking a dozen sources proves nothing." No they are not cherry picked. They represent a vast majority of majority of reliable English language sources and they all use massacre. What you just said seems to be nonsense. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thirty sources does not represent the a "vast majority". There are over 20,000 news article written on this subject. As such, I could easily list a couple hundred sources that use even terms much more uncommon than any suggested here. There is no doubt that a large number of sources have used massacre. There is also no doubt that a huge number have used shootings instead. Both terms are indeed in very common usage. I do not know why you are insisting that only one term is in common usage, but that simply is not the case. I prefer "shootings" for the reasons I have stated several times (primarily because it is the most accurate and most neutral term in my dialect on English.) You prefer "massacre" for the reasons you have stated several times. Reliable sources have used both - a lot. Soon some uninvolved administrator will decide which option has a stronger argument. In the mean time, there is no point stating over and over again that I prefer "shootings" and you prefer "massacre". Indeed I would have stopped commenting some time ago if I didn't have to continually defend myself against false accusations of not citing policy, lying, and POV pushing (and respond to other obviously false statements). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: "there is no point stating over and over again that I prefer "shootings" and you prefer "massacre". Indeed I would have stopped commenting some time ago if I didn't have to continually defend myself" Would you agree, that finally it's a time for some uninvolved administrator to resolve this debate or would you prefer to continue this discussion? --Potorochin (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven days is almost here, at which time the debate will be closed as is proper. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have told you on my talk page i have never accused you of lying and i am not POV pushing and for the most time here you were not citing policy.

I would also have stopped earlier but there were simply to much to correct.

You say "A dozen sources"? I am counting 30. Your statements are often to far away from the truth.

These sources do represent the majority of reliable English language sources from NYT's to Fox News to international source like The Spiegel.

"most neutral term in my dialect on English" What is controversial in calling a massacre a massacre? I really do not get this I have shown you that RS call it what it is a massacre. Do you have any RS that dispute that it is a massacre?

I have explained to you that "shootings" has been used primarily in the first hours and days before all facts were known. Since then the vast majority of RS calls it massacre. They have done their fact checking by now and we have to assume that they are right. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You ((and Potorochin) have explicitly accused me of POV pushing and implied I am lying several times. Additionally, you two have stated multiple times that I "haven't stated one policy based reason" for my opinion, which is complete nonsense. Disagreeing with my reasoning is not the same thing as me not having any.

As to the rest of your post, you may want to reread what I actually wrote because you are responding to things I didn't say, as usual. Thirty sources does not represent a majority, as there are literally tens of thousands of sources on the subject. In reality, sources are fairly evenly split as has been shown time and time again. As such, both terms are acceptable by policy. I prefer shootings for the reasons I have explained numerous times. You prefer massacres for the reasons you have explained numerous times. Saying the say things over and over again isn't going to change these opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear ThaddeusB, one more time you claim that your choice is not unsupported by the Wikipedia policies and one more time you fail to provide any link to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA to prove it. Let's put it straight: Kandahar massacre, besides being accepted by the consensus here, is also supported by WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Naturalness and Recognizability) as well as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. Now could you finally provide here any Wikipedia policy to support your suggested title of 2012 Kandahar shootings over the title Kandahar massacre? Please, no more nonsense, just a link to the appropriate WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. --Potorochin (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the ridiculous assertion that because I didn't link the the policy that my arguments are not about policy. I have stated several times why I believe "Kandahar shootings" is the more common used term (WP:COMMONNAME). Actually, to be precise I have argued that the usage is very close in terms of #s. I have also argued why "shootings" better describes the event in my dialect of English (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA/WP:PRECISION). You are welcome to disagree with my reasoning, but repeatedly stating I don't have any is blatantly false and quite insulting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no a single mention of dialects in WP:PRECISION. According to WP:PRECISION the article's title should be concise and should be precise only as necessary, so that not to confuse this article with a similar article. There are no other articles about the "Kandahar massacre" (or "Kandahar shootings") so, in accordance with WP:PRECISION the reference to a year in the article's title suggested by you is excessive and should be avoided. Thus WP:PRECISION doesn't suppport 2012 Kandahar shootings in any way, but does support Kandahar massacre as a more concise title. So your reference to WP:PRECISION is void. --Potorochin (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for how tedious I'm about to be, but I've done a number of searches using both Factiva and LexisNexis Academic, and will post the results below. All results reflect searches for exact terms within the past week.

• From Factiva: Kandahar massacre (179), Kandahar shootings (79). Papers citing both sources seem similar (major global papers including Reuters, Daily Telegraph, Times (London), NDTV (India), BBC, AP, The Nation (Pakistan), NYT, Washington Post, NPR, and other papers throughout the United States, Central/South Asia, Africa).
• From LexisNexis Academic (major world publications): Kandahar massacre (18), Kandahar shootings (34).
• From LexisNexis Academic (all news): Kandahar massacre (51), Kandahar shootings (51).

I'll let you all conclude what you will from these results. Though I'm not an expert on how Google News works, I don't think that the Google News search (where "Kandahar massacre" appears far more frequently than "Kandahar shooting(s)", about 195 to 6 at this point) should be ignored because I don't know how it would systematically bias against shootings. I do note that LexisNexis (major world publications) favors "shootings". Factiva favors "massacre" and provides more results.

Again, given that everyone has had a chance to weigh various arguments for and against these terms, and see for themselves the results of searches on free or paid databases, I think that the Straw Poll is where we have to go. And as for its legitimacy, I was reading about canvassing last night, and Wikipedia seems to state that votes from those who have been canvassed should be disregarded. This still leaves a big majority in favor of "massacre." -Darouet (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Google News bundles stories it considers to be about the same subject under one header using an automatic formula. Thus, the number of hits does not represent the number of stories, but rather the number of "different" topics. Thus the number is meaningless when trying to gauge the support for one term over another as the bundling will distort numbers. I guarantee that the number of stories found on GNews that use "shootings" is far more than 6 (and the # that use massacre is far more than 195). By coincidence, the ratio of bundling is highly distorted as shown by Factia & Lexis Nexis searches which do not bundle like Google does. Additionally, Google considers "shootings" and "shooting" different words, whereas Lexis Nexis does not (not sure about Factia). Thus the shootings results are split into two piles by Google. (I think your searches confirm what I have been saying all along - that the two terms are used at roughly the same rate.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

RE:Google considers "shootings" and "shooting" different words. That's not true again. If you go far enough into the search results, you would discover that Google returns results with "shootings" for a search query of "Kandahar shooting" and vice a verse. The further you go, the more results with another word you receive. Google is intelligent enough to associate shooting with shootings.--Potorochin (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you run a search for "Kandahar shootings" you will get a different number of hits than "Kandahar shooting". If the search engine treated the phrases as identical, that would not be the case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not identical, but similar, therefore many results from "shooting" go to "shootings" and vice a verse. You may check it yourself, just go deep enough in the search results. --Potorochin (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Arb break

I think all the search engine results miss the point a bit. The fact that news sources have used a particular phrase a particular number of times does not mean that Wikipedia should have that phrase as an article title. So, with reference to today's news, no-one would think it sensible to have articles titled "French shootings", "Iraq bombing" or "Pope death", even though plenty of news sources are currently running articles containing those phrases. This is reflected in WP:AT: the ideal article title will...precisely identify the subject. In other words, it doesn't matter what Ghits you can produce if you have failed to give a name to the article which doesn't effectively distinguish it.

In this case, when we are talking about an event that happened very recently, "Kandahar massacre" may seem like a natural way to refer to it. But, once we are looking back on the event as old news, it is not likely to seem natural. Because there have been, sadly, many events in Kandahar in recent times which fit the definition of "massacre", the expression is likely to be met with the question "which particular massacre are you talking about?".

The only sensible answer to this is to use a name that is more precise. We typically achieve this by including a date. FormerIP (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:"Kandahar massacre" may seem like a natural way to refer to it. Am I right, that you also now accepted the term "massacre" as the most appropriate to descibe this event despite previous voting in the straw poll for "shootings" or "murders"? --Potorochin (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, because it is also a breach of WP:SENSATION. But that's a separate and slightly less important issue. FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SENSATION refers to "tabloid or yellow journalism". Do you really believe that CNN, BBC, Associated Press, Reuters, ABC News, New York Times, The Washington Post and a huge amount of other most respected media sources should be described as "tabloid or yellow journalism"? --Potorochin (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:SENSATION includes the phrase "Even in respected media...". "Massacre" is appropriate to a newspaper headline, because it is dramatic and attention-grabbing. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is an encyclopaedia. FormerIP (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary massacre is "the indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people" which is the most accurate description of the events in Kandahar on March 11. And there are more than 2000 articles on Wikipedia with a term "massacre" in the title. Would you describe all of them as "non-enclyclopedic"? Potorochin (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, because some events, seen in the rear-view mirror, get an accepted name which includes the term "massacre". We have no idea whether that will be the case here, although my guess is that it's unlikely.

This still isn't the main issue, though. FormerIP (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:"some events, seen in the rear-view mirror, get an accepted name which includes the term "massacre"" Yes, absolutely, and, as it was pointed out before by ThaddeusB, the term "massacre" was not used in the first days by the media, it was only afterwards, when the real outcome of this event became clear, that the term "shootings" from the first days was gradually replaced by the more accurate term "massacre"--Potorochin (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is "accuracy" that drives newspaper headlines. Just saying. More importantly, I dispute that massacre is more accurate. No one would deny that a shooting took place. The event is clearly and unequivocally a shooting. It may also be a massacre and clearly many people feel it was one, but some of us feel the term massacre is unnecessarily sensational and thus not the best term to use. As I said in my original analysis the differing connotations of massacre that exist in different English speakers minds in the crux of the issue. News search hit numbers are nice, but that are not the end all - or indeed the main issue - when determining article titles. Both "Kandahar massacre" and "Kandahar shootings" are in common usage as shown by all searches (there is disagreement about which is more common, but not disagreement that both are common), so either is on the table as a legitimate possible title. Speaking only for myself, given the connotation of massacre in my version of English, I do not think is NPOV to call this (The) Kandahar massacre since it is not universally known by that name (and as FormerIP notes is unlikely to go down in history as such). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with FormerIP's guess that the use of massacre is temporarily. As pointed out it is the opposite the sources started with "shooting" and only afterwards switched to the more accurate description "massacre" after they learned and checked the facts. I just checked the sources again. Massacre is still headline news. Afghan massacre suspect Sgt Bales 'remembers little', [45] massacre by US soldier puts focus back on brain testing‎....It has been declared a massacre and it will be always that because the fact that these men, women and children were slaughtered has been proven. No dispute about that in the sources.

WP:SENSATION is by best a red herring as it concerns fact checking. I think it is not disputed that the slaughter and burning of these 16 civilians including small children took place.

@Thaddeus you are driving circles. POV is not the issue. From WP:POV "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement."

So we are back to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA {Naturalness and Recognizability)? The slaughtering fits perfectly the definition of a massacre. And massacre is headline and used all around the world and all mayor yellow press and not yellow press for many days now. It is big in the news and that's why it is the preferred choice as per WP policy even if it would be POV. 79.101.37.131 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And as regarding WP:NPOV: To describe a murder of 7 American mob associates in Chicago in 1929 as a "massacre", but to insist that the murder of 16 innocent Afghan civilians, including 9 children, commited by the US soldier, shouldn't be named as "massacre", is not impartial and definitely not a WP:NPOV. --Potorochin (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Kandahar vs Panjwai

Robofish points out in the straw poll above that "Panjwai" is much more specific than "Kandahar". This is true, but not relevant. We care what the WP:COMMONNAME of the incident is; we should reflect the sources, not make up a name based on what we believe is correct. In the example regarding Croatia, we absolutely should call an article "Croatia massacre" if that is the name used by the sources and it can be used to unambiguously identify the subject. VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually i noticed that a lot of English speaking sources from the greater Afghanistan region often use "Panjwai" massacre while the overwhelming majority of western media uses "Kandahar" massacre. I guess that is because people from the region have a much fine grained knowledge of Afghanistan. Means they can associate something with the word Panjwai while most other people can not associate anything with Panjwai. What are we doing in these cases? I guess WP:COMMONNAME leads us to "Kandahar"? 79.101.37.131 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Google exact word search returns 284,000 results for the "Kandahar massacre" and only 7,460 results for the "Panjwai massacre". I hope it is clear enough that Kandahar association with this massacre is much stronger than that of Panjwai. According with Wikipedia policies WP:COMMONNAME as well as WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (Naturalness and Recognizability) and WP:PRECISION, Kandahar massacre is the most accurate and appropriate name for this article in the English Wikipedia. By the way, Panjwai is not really specific for the description of these murders, as they took place in the villages of Balandi and Alkozai. --Potorochin (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Editing Reminder

Hi All! In the debate that we currently have going on over the name of this article, I'd like to remind everyone that we should maintain a friendly and objective attitude towards one another and in our discussion. I think that everyone has made good points. I don't think that anyone in particular is guilty of instigating personal attacks; once a few ill-considered remarks or poorly chosen words have been written, it's far too easy for people to take things personally and respond, as they see it, in kind. For my own part I apologize if I'm guilty of this. So let's keep the heat down and finish this argument in a professional way! This will keep emphasis in the talk pages on what's been done right. What's been done right and what's most important here is that all of you have done a lot of hard work (research) to improve this article. -Darouet (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not from Afghanistan. I am not Muslim. I am, however, part of the human race, and a parent. I find the use of the word "spree" in the name of this article extraordinarily offensive. I cannot believe that it has been argued about, and permitted to remain for five days since it was pointed out as a problem. There is nothing professional about being unnecessarily offensive in the face of tragedy. The word "spree" relates to how the perpetrator may have felt about it. However I am sure the father of the children perceived it as a "massacre". The word "spree" trivializes the event. Amandajm (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think the same. I don't have time at the moment but either later today or tomorrow I'm going to write a short section for this talk page called "political ramifications of using the terms shooting versus massacre'". Some might say that every day in Kandahar has involved "shootings," since it's a war zone. A massacre is quite different. There's probably a consensus on this page that the "shooting" term is just as explicitly political as "massacre," if not more so, for the reasons you've brought up. -Darouet (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2012 (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.