Talk:List of rampage killers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Carnation massacre

I believe this should be listed in family slaughters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Massacre Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge with the list at Spree killer

See the proposal at the Spree killer talk page. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

John Kenneth Peel

Howdy. I just saw the recent edits and thanks for adding DeWitt Charles. I also saw that you've added an unknown who killed 8 in Craig, Alaska back in 1982 on a boat. Well, he's unknown no longer. Here's an article on him (and with a picture no less.) Also, I noticed on your talk page you have few lists with people with a low kill count (5 or less). I have about 20 or so articles pilfered off of the google news archives that are mainly people who killed 5 or less, some of which are pretty early on (1930s or so). If you would like to add some of these people, I can post a list here if you like, and the articles as well.Longevitymonger (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[1]

The thing with Peel is that he was acquitted of all charges, so to name him as the perpetrator doesn't seem right. He was found not guilty and I think we should keep it that way, everything else would be mere speculation.
About the lists on my user-page, well, they are remnants of the days when I started to compile this list and didn't know how many mass murder-cases I would find. I realised pretty soon though, that I would have to draw a line somewhere and should not include all the minor incidents. They are simply too many and, even worse, including them would create an even more severe bias towards cases occurring in the United States, than is already present.
Anyway, here's something interesting. (Lord Gøn (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC))

John's name should be removed from this list!!! To have it remained is nothing less than slander. This IS America, and he was acquitted!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.75.63.223 (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you would've bothered to actually take a look at the list you would've seen that Peel's name is mentioned nowhere. The respective entry says Perpetrator - Unknown. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC))

Oops..Well, if I had done another search on Peel I probably would have seen that. As penance for my unintended mistake, here are three other cases that I don't believe you have listed here, and most of them are pretty early on. Hopefully you can use these.

Ralph Gragg (34) (May 2, 1951): Killed 8 of his children in Collettesville, N.C. [2]

Lillie Mae Curtis (38) (March 16, 1938): Killed 6 of her children by gunshot in Center, Texas. [3]

And my personal favorite of these finds....Salvador Rublico (age unknown) (November 13, 1952) used a bolo knife to hack 12 people to death in Manila, Philippines. [4]

And now a question. By looking at the list you've made here, what is it exactly about the Philippines that makes people go off? There's countless persons on here (Domingo Salazar, Florentine Basobas, Danny Guades, Jonathan Moreno, the homicidal baker you mentioned above and the aforementioned Salvador Rublico) and some have killed into the double digits. Why? Was it because of the Marcos regime that dominated the country for so many years, is it the availability of weaponry or is the native population totally batshit insane? I've pondered this myself while adding most of these crazy Filipinos to my own list, and I've yet to figure out exactly why.Longevitymonger (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I really can't answer that question (one that could be asked for the USA as well, btw), though I assume that it has something to do with culture, mentality or heritage. Either that, or the bias in the list is too severe to allow any definite judgement. Looking only at those countries, where we can assume a minimum of completeness of the data, it does seem though that some countries do have a higher occurrence of rampage killings per capita than others. Great Britain, for example, seems to be a lot less affected than France or Germany. Why this is the case, I don't know. Though in the case of the Philippines I'm sure Marcos has nothing to do with it, nor has the availability of weapons, as the weapons most likely used by Filipino mass murderers seem to be knives and machetes, which can be found in pretty much every household around the world.(Lord Gøn (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

0 Death Incidents?

I agree that any incidents listed that do not comply to the article's stated criteria should be removed. With that in mind, along with the article's title of "List of Rampage Killers," why are there numerous incidents listed that do not include any fatalities (see Vehicular manslaughter and Grenade amok sections)? Even if a given assailant intended to kill many people, if they didn't, they shouldn't be listed in an article titled "... rampage killers."

I will not delete such incidents from the list just yet, because I would like to know if I'm missing something, and that 0 death [or even 1-3 death(s)] is/are appropriate for this article. Dav-FL-IN-AZ-id (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

First, all entries in the list comply with the article's criteria. As criterion number three says, the list shall contain every case "with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)." So, if there are reliable sources stating that at least a dozen people were wounded, the case is included.

Second, I don't see any reason why attempted mass murders should be omitted, just because the intended goal of killing someone was not achieved. If two people go on a shooting spree, the one being a lucky shot, killing all of his six victims, while the other is aiming badly and kills none, but wounds dozens, the act remains the same, doesn't it? The outcome was different, for the victims at least, but that does not necessarily affect the crime's notability.

About the title, well, if you think it is inappropriate for the cases listed, what is your suggestion for a better one?

Finally, here is a discussion with a similar topic and a more detailed answer.(Lord Gøn (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, I have to agree. "Killer" implies death, not intent. The criteria listed are flawed by definition. All entries that don't have a minimum 4 deaths should be removed.Go4thAndDie (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As soon as anybody comes up with a term that adequately and unambiguously describes an armed person, who's running through the streets with the intent to murder as many people as possible, but, while injuring dozens, fails to kill a single one of them, I'll go ahead and change the title accordingly. But in the meantime rampage killer seems to be the best (in the meaning of 'least problematic') alternative. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

You are missing the point: no one thinks the title "Rampage Killers" is the problem. The problem is including anybody in the list that did NOT actually KILL somebody. It is irrelevant what a given perpetrator's intent was, if they do not actually do what the list is listing. In this case, "Rampage Killers". Just being on a rampage does NOT make one a "Killer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.69.66 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You could as well turn it around and say the term "rampage killer" is the problem, because it does not adequately describe what this list is about. You see, the term this whole list is based on is the German word "Amokläufer", which is a person who wreaks havoc, in all probability with the intent to harm or kill a lot of people, but it does not imply that anybody was actually killed. So, just because the English language lacks a corresponding word, meaning exactly the same, I will not mold the list around its best, but still insufficient alternative.

Over the years I've had similar discussions numerous times, and the problem was and still is the lack of a word to describe the people this list is about; and it is a problem many "experts" must be aware of, at least subconsciously. For a more detailed explanation, read this discussion. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC))

Is ranking by numbers really necessary?

Do we really want to organize this page like a record book of some sort? Doing so would reward, or give the appearance of rewarding, perpetrators in proportion to the heinousness of their acts. Second, it could encourage, or give the appearance of encouraging, people to get to the top in some kind of effort to immortalize themselves (cf. professional baseball records or a high-score list on an arcade game).

How about alphabetical order by surname instead?

I understand your concerns, though I think that sorting the list by death toll is the only logic solution, regarding the reporting standards of the international media. It's pretty much an irrefutable fact that the chances for such an incident to be reported on an international scale increase with the number of victims, so the best way to reduce bias is by setting a victims-limit and sort it accordingly. And then, let's be honest just once, and admit that the more horrible something is, the more interest it attracts and the more likely it is that it is regarded as an important event in history. I guess, we simply have to accept it that people engaging in mass slaughter and annihilation will be rewarded with attention, and the bigger the bloodbath, the more attention they will get, no matter if this list is sorted by name, country or death toll.

Regarding point two, well, I don't think that this list encourages anyone to "get to the top", or even if it does, I don't think that it's absence would make any difference. Many newspapers provide lists like this with their report about the latest mass shooting, so if anyone is looking for some inspiration reading that, or an article about the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11, would do it as well. And it's really not that difficult nowadays to find out about the greatest mass murderers of all time. Most of them even have their own articles here on Wikipedia. The only thing that makes this list different from all the others is its length, and if anybody thinks he could immortalize himself by killing lots of people, well, he should take some time, look at it and see how many of those names are long forgotten and buried in oblivion. (Lord Gøn (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Sort by year for cryin out loud, as one would expect it for any other historically significant 'events'. This is not tabloid press, Wikipedia tries to be a bit scientific and neutral, you even say, that you understand the concerns. Even if manually sorted by year, there is still the ordinal number to the left and that very much ressembles a highscore list, get rid of that. of course there are worse things to be concerned about, but what speaks against sorting by the year by default? 94.134.205.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC).

If you want to provide a quick overview with a minimum of bias and a maximum of notable cases, sorting by death toll is the only way to go, because we live in a world where an increasing number of dead people automatically means increasing notability, and therefore reduced bias.

That the numbers on the left make the lists look like a highscore is irrelevant, as long as they are helpful, which is the case, because you can put the tables back into their original order without having to reload the page (definitely a plus, if your internet connection is slow) and they are kinda useful, if you are searching for a certain case in the edit page. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

ctrl+f and remembering the name makes finding it easier, too.

well, that's just like your opinion. lets list the changes of an article in "view history" by notability, too, to make it more comprehensible. imho, the whole list is not worthwhile. 94.134.192.246 (talk)

also, see the same decision in the spree killings article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.192.246 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is only my opinion, and I've never implied anything different. But whose opinion it is doesn't matter anyway, as long as the argument remains valid.

You cannot change how the edits are listed in the article history, they are always listed by date, which is the only reasonable way. Who should determinate the notability of an edit and how? This is a totally impractical and impossible idea, with no apparent value for improving the article.

If you think the list is not worthwhile, so be it, even though I don't quite understand why. After all, we do live in a world where this kind of random violence regularly makes headlines and sparks public outrange. So I find it just natural that there should be a place where you can go to get a quick overview, just to be able to put all the new mass murders into historical perspective. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

The number killed is not significant, and it's strictly a matter chance anyway. The significant thing is the frequency with which it happens, which is why a list that isn't ranked by year is essentially worthless. TheScotch (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, to say the number of people killed is not significant is simply ridiculous. It's like saying the number of people killed in a war is not significant. Of course it is. It's the most significant point of them all, or do you honestly think WWII would have the same significance as it has today, if there had been only a couple of hundred casualties? Do you think anybody would care more than a few days about a mass shooting with only three people injured? The number of casualties, and especially the death toll, is the only useable fact, if you don't want to end up with a list that is facing severe bias, or recentism, and lists the most notable incidents first. Frequency doesn't matter, especially not in regards of notability, and anybody who needs a list by year can have it with a single mouseclick - all the lists are sortable. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC))

Charles Whitman?

Curious if omitting Charles Whitman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman ) was an oversight or if there was some reason. Scottcmcdonald (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it always quite astonishing when people don't find what they are looking for here, asking "Where is X?" or "Why is Mr. Y not included?" I don't know why this is the case, maybe the list is too complex, too convoluted, or simpy too long, for some, even though I have really tried very hard to make as clear as possible where you can find what. But then some people don't even realize that most of the time only the first 15 entries are shown on the main page, and that there are links to the longer lists in A) the table at the very start of the page, and b) in every section after the note "For the entire list see". But to cut a long story short, Charles Whitman has committed most of his shooting in, or from a building belonging to the University of Texas, which means that he can be found among all the other school and university shooters at the List of rampage killers: School massacres. So he's there, you just didn't find him. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Oops. RTFM. You've done an excellent job; maybe it's because I'm ADD but I have a tendency to overlook the obvious. mea culpa. Scottcmcdonald (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Amelia Dyer?

Responsible for over 400 deaths. It's a huge number which would put her on the top of the list in europe, so it seems like a pretty dramatic edit, but I can't see why she shouldn't be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.122.253 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dyer is a serial killer, not a rampage killer, and nobody knows how many babies she really killed. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC))

Gender

Looking through the list, I didn't see any female names. Is every single person on this list male?

Also, what is the 'W' field? I think it's supposed to be for 'weapon' and 'F' equals Firearm, but I can't figure out anything else. Definitely could use some explanation - completely cryptic. --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 14 July 2011 (GMT)

Well, there are a couple of women listed. Most of them are actually in the familicides section, but there are a few exceptions, like Jennifer San Marco, Olga Hepnarova or Sabine Radmacher.

About the W-column: Look here. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC))

Yes, the W field is explained early on, before the first list, but I think many people will come here and go to a specific list, and then be stymied. Also, the lists are now sortable by column value, but there is no indication that that is so: one has to chance on it or for some reason guess or know it.Kdammers (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an abbreviations and footnotes-section at the end of every list, and since it is a rather common approach to put such things at the bottom I don't think it is too much to expect that people scroll down to look for it. But if it makes you and others happy, I'll put a little note at the beginning that they are explained down there. Regarding the sortability feature, it's broken since somebody has tinkered with it many months ago. Well, in fact it does still work, but in any table with changed background colours those arrows indicating the features existence simply vanish. If you want somebody to fix it this is the wrong place to ask. You may have more luck here. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC))

Flags in Country-column

If you mind taking a look, you can see that somebody has added flags in the country-columns and I'd like to hear some opinions about this. Overall I am pretty much indifferent on this matter, but the job has not been finished, and I am sure in the end it will be me who will have to complete it, so I wanted to ask if people think the little flags are an improvement, or not. If not, adding them to the rest of the list probably won't be worth the effort, in which case I'd simply revert. So anybody having an opinion? (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

I'm a fan of flags in general, but they really don't add anything here, I don't think. So I don't think they're worth adding.. Mlm42 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Domestic violence

Under the "Domestic violence" heading, it says: This section contains cases that could be considered non-public, which means mass murders perpetrated in a domestic environment. The section is divided into two sub-categories, the first containing all incidents where most of the victims were relatives of the perpetrator and the second all incidents where the targeted families were not related to the perpetrator.

However, there is nothing on this page that indicates which incidents fall into which subcategory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry for that, but so far I've treated the domestic violence-section a little bit stepmotherly. I'll try to fix it later. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC))

Made some changes. Is it clearer now? (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

Bath school disaster?

On the page notice it says, "This list only includes individuals who are directly responsible for each death, meaning targeting every single person separately. This excludes arsons, bombings, poisonings or other forms of mass murder where the perpetrator has no direct control on who will fall victim to his crime." According to the guidelines, then wouldn't the Bath school disaster not fit the list? All of the killings were due to bombings except one gunshot which used to detonate the car bomb, so it seems that it should be removed for not fitting the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.181.238 (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Bath school disaster is one of those cases that is a little bit difficult to assess, since you could say that Kehoe was actually on a rampage, but instead of using guns or knives he used bombs. Anyway, if ir were that alone, I'd put Kehoe into the other notable incidents-section, wher he was before someone put him among the other school killers, but it seems that Kehoe beat his wife to death before destroying his farm and bombing the school, and since I've put other cases into the rampage killers-lists even though bombs or vehicles were the weapons mostly utilized, while only one or two were stabbed or shot, I think he may remain where he is now. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

2012 Seattle shooting

I added the shooting in Seattle in may when 6 people were killed. I felt it was a fairly significant shooting this year. Also, the shooting at the mall in Oregon a week ago should be added. --Benbuff91 (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2012

Both cases do not meet the lists terms of inclusion. Since the perps death is not counted among those killed, and Ian Stawicki only killed five people and wounded one more, he won't be added, nor would the Oregon mall shooting, where the gunman afaik killed 2, wounded one. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC))

What does "W" mean? (column heading)

The 8th column in each table has the heading "W". What does "W" mean? Wideangle (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

W is for Weapons. For more details read the annotations. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Is it possible to change W to weapons? And possibly write the name of the weapon in the table? I know I would not look the annotations if i was looking at this page, and I doutb the average user would either.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the column heading should be, at a minimum, "Weapon", and not just "W". However, for now, I just added a line near the beginning of the article explaining the "W" column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav-FL-IN-AZ-id (talk • contribs) 02:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of abbreviations in lists is not unusual on Wikipedia (see e.g. here and here) and overall it should not be a problem, as long as an explanation is provided somewhere on the page. Every dictionary utilizes them extensively, and if the reader is unable or unwilling to search for the list of abbreviations, well, I dare to say it's his own fault. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC))

No, it's your fault for using abbreviations where none are necessary. TheScotch (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And who determines when abbreviations are necessary? I think it is quite obvious that it is much more economic to replace a word that is used repeatedly by an abbreviation, especially in a table that already contains a lot of information. Just imagine how cluttered it would look, if we'd write out every 'firearm, melee weapon, arson', especially for those whose only window to the internet is a 15" monitor. And anybody who has difficulties working with abbreviations, even though an explanation is given what they mean, must also have severe problems to cope with the world outside of Wikipedia, because every time he opens a dictionary, a scientific book or takes a look at a statistics table he has to face entire hordes of them.

Besides that, the weapons culomn has always been a compromise. On the one hand some information has to be present about the weapons used, so people can differentiate between shootings and stabbings, but on the other hand it shouldn't take up too much space, because the main focus of the list is a different one. Under these circumstances the taken path is probably the only logic one. You can't please everyone. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC))

The annotation explaining the codes in the W (weapons used) column ought to be in a template so that this text can be repeated accurately (and thus standardized as to interpretation) in related lists such as List of rampage killers: School massacres. 75.210.231.55 (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Pinyan name should be on same line as Latinized version

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) clearly shows the pinyin version on the same line. This should be the standard across all related lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.173.163 (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see why the way it is handled now is such an important issue for you. What's the big deal? And just because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) shows a table where the Chinese and the transliterated version are on the same line doesn't mean it has to be done that way in every other table. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

Upstairs Lounge Fire, 32 dead, is missing from the lists

The worst fire in New Orleans history, June 24 1973 is missing from the list. This is also believed to be the worst mass murder of gays in US history. Refer to Wikipedia article: "UpStairs Lounge arson attack"97.116.17.109 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure, if this should be added, or not, since Nunez never was prosecuted, nor confessed to police, nor, as it seems, was the fire officially ruled an arson. (Lord Gøn (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

no conviction and no irrefutable proof

I am floating for comment a proposal from User:Lukeno94 that all person's names should be deleted from these lists unless there is irrefutable evidence that they committed the crime(s) of which they are accused. 75.210.30.167 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

James Holmes' listing

I was just questioning why it's here since he hasn't been convicted. The last column does call him a suspect, but he is also listed as the perpetrator. Psalm84 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• What if he is found not guilty by reason of insanity? 75.210.30.167 (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

James Holmes was caught at the crime scene red handed, the evidence incriminating him is more than just circumstantial, after more than a year he still is the only suspect, and by going for an insanity defense basically admits that he is the one who shot those people. To assume that he did not commit the shooting would be mere speculation that is not backed by any reliable source. And should he be found not guilty by reason of insanity it would be an offical acknowledgement that he is the perpetrator, with the little side note that due to his mental state could not be held liable for his crime. (Thusz (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC))

Why are, for instance, school shootings not included in regional lists?

What sense does it make to have a list of regional shootings with broad exceptions?TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that school shootings, workplace killings, familicides, and hate crimes are treated as special forms of violence in the scientific literature I think it does make sense to put them in separate lists. On the other hand it wouldn't make sense to me to add them to the regional lists also, since I don't see any good reasons why they should be listed twice. The regional lists are very clear about what is not included, so there shouldn't be any problems to find what you are looking for, especially since the other lists are only one click away, no matter if you are looking at the main list, or one of the sub-lists. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

That seems to defeat the purpose of regional listings. Having duplicate listings is an unavoidable consequence of listing data in more than one way, not a flaw. If we added new lists, like rampage killings by ethnicity, or economic status, or mental condition, would we have an indecipherable patchwork of randomly placed entries to avoid duplicate listings?TeeTylerToe (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Are you saying that if it is on a main list then it does not go on a regional list? The good reason is so that those of the region can be found grouped into one place. If any are missing, then the list is incomplete. 75.210.30.167 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What? No, I think you completely misunderstood. The main list is "List of rampage killers", and all the others are the sub-lists. If you look through the history of this list you will see that a couple of years ago the layout was a bit different and the regional lists did not exist at all. But the former breakup by "mass murders" and "spree killings", being basically the trash bins for everything that did not fit into one of the other categories, was fraught with problems. Additionally these two sub-lists got too long making a split necessary, so I took all entries therein and re-sorted them by region. School massacres etc. already were in separate lists, and I think should remain so, because they are seen as distinct forms of crime. Also, I am of the opinion that there shouldn't be any double entries, because all of them already are part of "List of rampage killers", and were the list divided by letters, like A-M and N-Z, there wouldn't be any double entries either. At best you would leave a note, saying: "for entry X please look here" and that is what is being done here.

Again, to make this clear, the regional lists are only for those entries that do not fit into one of the more specific categories. Due to their great number these entries have to be divided somehow, the old separation by spree and mass murder was fraught with problems, while separation by region is rather clear in most cases, so it is definitely an improvement. There may be other possible ways to deal with this, but that was the best one I could come up with. I see absolutely no need for double entries, maybe because to me the lists by region are merely part of a bigger whole.

@TeeTylerToe: No, I don't think the purpose of the regional lists is defeated by omitting cases that are already included in other parts of the "List of rampage killers", instead they are exactly doing what they are supposed to do, being a dump for all the stuff that can't be put elsewhere. And the categories you are giving as examples are completely impractical, even a division by ethnicity would make sense at best for the United States, because in all other countries it is a safe bet that the ethnicity of the perpetrator is the same as his nationality. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC))

What sense does it make to only have lists of oddball killers by region, not making the same regional lists for other classes of killings? Why are they treated differently, uniquely? What about oddball killers makes it appropriate to have lists of them by region but not have lists of any other type by region? You could have one central list of oddball killings.TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

By oddball killings, do you mean those cases that do not fit into one of the more specific categories like school massacres? If yes, then having a central list for them would create a pretty long article that would have to be split. And how would we split? By region probably, so you would likely end up with the same layout you see now, given the fact that you do not want to say that we should take the "oddball killings" and oursource them into a "List of rampage killings that are not school massacres, workplace killings, familicides etc." which would generally be pretty stupid.

The reason that the unspecific cases are sorted by region, while the others are not, is their sheer number. As I said you have to sort them somehow, and sorting them by region seems not too bad a choice in my eyes. On the other hand, there aren't that many school massacres and workplace killings listed to necessitate a split by region. Not to say that I would not do just that should article size ever require it, as was the case with the List of familicides. So, should the school massacres section ever reach 150kb-200kb I will consider making sub-lists by region, but right now it wouldn't make any sense. (Lord Gøn (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC))

Dispute of Graphs #2

Historically the events are totally unrelated.

ex. a mass killing of employees by employers (called a war or skirmish in history books, usa history of the formation of unions) is completely unrelated to the rise in workplace and school shootings - for which there is no good reason to cite (any cause was un-necessary and avoidable)

The graph thus gains another decline by comparing incomparable things.

Were the graph to include skirmishes in the middle east and abroad i suspect we'd see a whole new blood-bath picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle2 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This list does not include labor unrests, and nowhere these events are compared to workplace or school shootings. How you got that idea is beyond me. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Dipute of Facts

The only statistic is dead per capita. This has two MAJOR flaws. 1) it includes Bath incident and warns it's wrong 2) it does NOT include the fact that the number of dead in an event is not at all related to the number of people in the population.

It's painfully obvious to everyone that the cases are increasing in frequency and for the wrong reasons.

It's hideous that a liberal polititian is using the Encyclopedia and lying statistics to make the case that under liberal facism the events are decreasing.

We all know it's increasing. Liar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading the graph. It does not show dead per capita, it shows average number of dead per case. And the reason I mentioned that the number of victims in the 1920s is significantly lower without the Bath school disaster is, because it was mostly a bombing and some may disagree to include it in the statistic, and also because one such outlier can massively skew the results, due to the low number of cases.

Of course the number of cases is increasing, but that seems mostly the result of population growth and not because the incidence within the population is growing. The only way to show that is to present the number of cases per capita, instead of the absolute number of cases (which is also given in the graph btw). The statistics don't lie, but if you don't like the results, well, continue to live in your fantasy world. And what liberal politician is using these statistics, and why would he do that? (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Ok, I've just seen that the title was unclear regarding the victims numbers and could be misread into number of victims per capita, so I've clarified that it's actually number of victims per case. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

What about war crimes?

It seems like some of the biggest rampages occur in genocide situations like in Rwanda in the 1990s. You might specifically say that they are not to be included. 68.197.234.170 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it does say in the very first line "perpetrated by individuals", which excludes, at least in my eyes, any mass murders committed in the context of war or a greater conflict, as well as every rampage that was committed by a group, organization, or an entire population. (Lord Gøn (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC))

How exactly does it exclude ruthless executioners such as [Vasili Blokhin] who personally executed about 20 000 people? At the very least there should be a reference to [Category:Genocide Perpetrators] in "See also". Zaelot (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty much done with Wikipedia, and I actually don't care anymore in which direction this list goes, but in my opinion the term rampage killer per definitionem excludes executioners and people committing war crimes, especially those that are backed by the government and made possible only by the help of an entire military machinery. Or at least I have never seen the term being used in that context. Rampage killers are people who generally act alone, not on behalf of an order, without the help or approval from outside, and certainly their crimes are not condoned by the legislative, judicative, or excutive authorities. There may be a bit of a gray zone here and there, e.g. soldiers going berserk and killing prisoners of war in a fit of anger, or similar things, but Blokhin would've never been able to kill all those people, if he had not had the help of hundreds, maybe thousands of Soviet soldiers rounding up his victims and leading them into his execution chamber. The Katyn massacre was not a rampage, it was a highly organized war crime, executed only on orders from higher ranks, and Blokhin just happened to be one of the guys who pulled the trigger. So, as far as I'm concerned Blokhin is as much a rampage killer as Joseph Malta is a serial killer, which is not at all. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC))

My sandbox

Please have a look here, I want to build a list of US-only incidents meeting the FBI definition of a mass killing. That is to say 4 killed (including the killer) with no emotional cooling-off period. (I note the FBI just moved the goalposts to include 3 or more killed.) I have started work. I hope such a list would not step on the toes of this project, and I would value your thoughts. I am watching this page for your replies. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger - Isla Vista Killings

Should Elliot Rodger be added to this list? As far as I can tell, he fits the criteria. 77.99.12.140 (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Numbered list?

Is there any particular reason the lists are numbered? It doesn't seem like they've been listed in any conceivable order for a while, and it makes viewing diffs/editing the list a pain in the ass. Any objection to removing the numbering? ― Padenton|✉   03:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the numbering. Not only does it make the lists difficult to edit it also makes it look like some sort of competition to who can be the best killer. Remember though that this list is just the master list and there are eleven other lists that contain data for Africa, the New World, Asia, Europe, Oceania, Workplace, School, Homes, Familicides in the US, Familicides in Europe and Familicides elsewhere that would also have to have the numbering removed. --Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why so many separate lists and not an aggregated list?

I find it odd that there is no comprehensive list of how many mass killings have happened in each country and each region.

This page makes actual research on which countries have more incidents and of what kind really labor intensive.

Is there no way to make the lists re-organizable by different columns the way you can in excel for example?

So that those of us who are interested in getting a clearer golal and local piture can do so with greater ease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.187.61 (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Julian Andrew Frank

The article for Julian Frank - and all references listed therein - do not definitively assign blame for the bombing to him. Though he is still considered the main suspect, none of the authorities who investigated could say for certain that he was responsible. I suggest his name be removed from this list. 192.34.134.55 (talk) 04:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, on inspection, the entire "Other incidents" section violates this article's edit notice, specifically points 4 and 5:

4. This list only includes individuals who are directly responsible for each death, meaning targeting every single person separately. 
5. This excludes arsons, bombings, poisonings or other forms of mass murder where the perpetrator has no direct control on who will fall victim to his crime.

The "Other Incidents" section contains nothing but "arsons, bombings, poisonings or other forms of mass murder" and therefore the entire section should be removed from the article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This list will contain

every case with one or both of the following features:

• Cases with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
• Cases with a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)

As long as there isn't any complaint by a significant number of people about this restriction, every mass murder which doesn't comply with these criteria will be deleted, without exception, without remorse. This list is already getting very long with this limit so I don't see any need to include every minor act of mass murder that occurs. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

Maybe it's not a good idea to provide specific guidelines, and therefore potential goals for would-be killers seeking infamy by way of Wikipedia? We wouldn't want to make this a competition either by only including the top x number. At what point do you stop becoming an encyclopedist, and start actually influencing events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.29.124 (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is merit to removing perpetrator names, "would-be killers seeking infamy by way of Wikipedia". On the other hand shooter identification is also important by linking the event to a specific individual. Would this alternative be reasonable: Note the full initials of the perpetrator instead of the full name. This would provide sufficient ID without making this a board of infamy? If someone wants to know the name of a specific event they can always follow the reference. Currently the age is included with the name; recommend add in the sex. Wiki-Ron (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell's article, "Thresholds of Violence", in this week's New Yorker (Oct. 19, 2015) deals with the fact that perpetrators do refer to the history of these events; studies suggest they are responding like a crowd at a riot, where, as time goes on, more people get involved. But there is considerable publicity about these events beyond WP.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The sub-pages need to be regularly reviewed for conformance to criteria, which should be listed at every sub-page. Someone changed the criteria at 'School massacres' to simply '2 dead', and I have just spent considerable time deleting the many entries that do not satisfy the master criteria. Added the master criteria to the top of the schools page.Parkwells (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

what's up with listing the death of an unborn child

specifically the fort hood shootings. says the shooter killed an unborn child, although the kill count doesn't include that and the shooter of that crime was never charged with that death. i'm sure there's political implications in that and whatnot, of which i don't associate myself with; i just find it inconsistent with other articles of this nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.202.228 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that such listings are inappropriate and have deleted them. That approach is part of the Republican agenda in the United States to raise the status of fetuses.Parkwells (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested title change

I herewith suggest to change the title of this list to "List of rampage attacks". (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC))

From Mass murder: "According to the FBI, for individuals, mass murder is defined as the person murdering four or more persons during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more. With exceptions, many acts of mass murder end with the death of the perpetrator(s), whether by direct suicide or being killed by law enforcement". This seems to cover what you are calling "rampage killings". Why not rename this list to List of mass murders? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, mass murder and rampage killing are not the same. I wouldn't even bother to cite the mass murder article we have here on Wikipedia, because it is incomplete, misleading, and overall in piss poor shape. Someone shooting up a school, killing less than three people may not be a mass murderer according to the common definition, but would still be a rampage killer. On the other hand, someone setting fire to a hotel in an insurance fraud, killing twenty people would be a mass murderer, but not a rampage killer. I suggest you read A Circle of Distortion by Grant Duwe where this is discussed in detail. Also, we've had this dicussion already, and as I have stated previously there is no widely used scientific term in the English language that is reserved for only that kind of crime, and the best alternative may be to describe them as a rampage type of crime. What we have here is an tremendious gap in the English vocabulary, and it is quite baffling that even after dozens of mass shootings in the United States in the last 30 years it still has not been satisfactorily closed. Desperado, amok, berserk, rampage killer, spree killer, mass murderer, gunman, these and others are all terms that have been used by the US press within the last 100 years to describe this type of criminal, and there are more that have only been used in a handful of scientific papers. This is a concept that is subject to scientific scrutiny all over the world, but in the one country where it is actually a major problem they don't even agree how to call it. What an irony. And btw, the list was called List of mass murderers and spree killers previously, and that has caused even more trouble than the current name. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

"Attack" is not as clear as "killing", so I don't support this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

But "killing" ties our hands to only include cases where someone actually was killed, meaning that a lot of notable cases where nobody died would have to be left out. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

I have not changed my opinion that this list is based on criteria which are entirely your own synthesis of various sources and, as such, original research. If you can't formulate a cohesive Rampage killing article, I'm not sure how this list can ever be anything other than original research. The inclusion of mass murderers other than your "rampage killers" would be appropriate in List of mass murders, so I ma not at all concerned that the list would expand. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that unlike Rampage killer (which is still a red link), Rampage killing is a redirect to Spree killer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That rampage killer is a red link means absolutely nothing, nor does the fact that rampage killing redirects to spree killer, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The spree killer article was a piece of unreferenced pov pushing until I have made an attempt to clarify in which context the term is actually supposed to be used. Also, I have never said that I could not write a cohesive article about rampage killing, it would just take a lot of time and research. A List of mass murders, btw, would be completely useless, because the term covers a wide variety of very different crimes. Just imagine, any bombing in Iraq with more than three, or four people killed is a mass murder and therefore would qualify. We are talking about tens of thousand of cases worldwide in the last 100 years alone. And even if we'd limit the cases to those committed by individuals without some political intent, there'd still be a mountain of cases. Grant Duwe has compiled a list of 909 mass murders committed in the United States between 1900-1999. I have that list, and I can tell you, it is pretty incomplete. Nobody would, or could maintain such a list, especially if it's scope is supposed to be global. It would soon devolve into a horrible, excessively biased mess. And about your opinion that this list is based on original research, is it derived from studying the relevant literature, or is it just an uninformed guess on your part? (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Even though I am of the opinion that it is the duty of any person capable of independent thinking to inform themself before coming up with any conclusions, and it certainly is not my obligation to do the research for you, here you have a definition for rampage (there are others, but whatever):

A rampage involves the (attempted) killing of multiple persons least partly in public space by a single physically present perpetrator using (potentially) deadly weapons in a single event without any cooling-off period.'

(Seeger, Thorsten, et al.: School Shootings: International Research, Case Studies, and Concepts for Prevention; Springer, 2012.)

(Lord Gøn (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

The trouble is that we have a list of something that is undefined. The fact that you have offered one definition does not mean that it is a widely agreed term or a widely agreed definition. WP is not meant to be documenting original research or the opinions of a small number of researchers. Even in giving that definition, you have cited it incorrectly (that definition is not by Seeger et al). I keep referring to the lack of a Rampage killer article to highlight the problem, which is that you have decided on a set of criteria for these articles which seems to be based on your own synthesis of research in this area. If it is too difficult to create that article, we probably should not be making lists. Which is one of the reasons that I nominated these lists for deletion (although there were BLP issues as well). I'm not sure how to proceed with this, as you seem unwilling to consider even that basic point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What? First, we do not need an article about a topic before we can create a list about it. We may need a definition in the list for those who don't know what a rampage killer is, but that is a completely different matter, and no reason to nominate an article for deletion. And you are twisting my words, I never said it would be too difficult to create an article about rampage killing, I merely said it would take a lot of work and time. That's not the same. So, the subject is not undefined as you claim, just undefined in the list, and hey, that can be fixed. Wanna try?

Second, it is a severe fallacy to think that, because I have given only one definition with one source, said definition is not widely agreed upon. Just because you don't know, if it is common, does not automatically mean it is not. Did you even bother to do some research before making that assumption? I tell you, the researchers do agree very well what they are talking about when they refer to something as a rampage. There may be some slight variations here and there, but that doesn't make the entire subject void, because this happens in many scientific fields, and grey zones are unavoidable. Also, the book I have cited has more than 30 contributors, including some of the most respected experts in the field. If they all agreed to contribute to a work that uses this definition of rampage you can be assured that it has some relevance. So, I've given you a valid definition of the term rampage, covered by a reliable source, and if you think that this definition fails WP:FRINGE, then please make your case. I am excited to see what you can come up with.

Third, of course I do have to formulate some terms of inclusion, but that has nothing to do with original research, but with the fact that we don't want every petty little incident listed, for the lone reason to keep the article and its scope managable. It's done that way all over Wikipedia and for a good reason.

You see, it is quite obvious that you are trying to discuss a topic you have absolutely no knowledge about. You claim that it may all be original research, you claim rampage killer is not defined, you claim the given definition is not widely agreed upon, and either claim is evidently based on nothing but a hunch. No facts, no knowledge, no sources. All you have is an opinion, and your self-admitted opinion is that you don't like this list and it should be purged from Wikipedia. Let me ask you, why is that? Why are you so adamantly against this list? Why do you think "it is not needed?" It can't be BLP, because BLP is not a reason to delete an article. Otherwise Wikipedia would've to delete the history of thousands of BLP articles, because pretty much everything written prior to 2007 would fail today's standards. It also can't be the lack of a definition, because, as far as I can recall, you didn't even mention that when raising your issues with the article on Jimbo's talk-page, or later on when you nominated it for deletion. So tell me, I'm curious. What is it?

Btw, Wikipedia does cover opinions even if they are only held by a small number of researchers. As long as they pass WP:N. everything is fine. Oh, and sorry, its Seeger, et al. (eds.). (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

Lord Gøn, do you recall what this discussion is about? It is about the title of an article on WP. The article is on WP, so the definition of "rampage killer" should be on WP. I'm not sure why you are so resistant to either creating Rampage killer. Unless the term is defined somewhere here, there is really no valid basis for these lists. The reason we are having this discussion at all is because our policy on living persons will not allow you to include someone in a related list. Please stop attacking me and focus instead on the issues with these lists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do recall very well what this discussion is about, after all I have started it, but if you begin to make wild claims that are backed by nothing but your opinion, I have to go a bit off topic to set them straight.

I suppose you have a policy at hand that clearly states that a list about something may only be started, if there is already an article about the subject on Wikipedia. If that is not the case then your constant referral to a lack of a rampage killer article is completely moot. That Wikipedia is not covering the topic yet doesn't matter, because a lot of relevant things are still missing here. But since you have found this little gap, why don't you roll up your sleves and tackle the task of filling it? And the valid basis for this lists, well, that is the scientific literature.

I admit that it may be quite helpful to have a definition in the list that explains what a rampage killer is, for all those people who may not already know, (and btw there already was something like that until someone else deleted it and turned it into an editnotice) but then this is not a reason to challenge an entire article, or its concept, because, as I said, this can be fixed. So, why are you so resistant to create an article about rampage killer? Why not doing something constructive once, instead of complaining? Or do you want to insinuate that I am the only person on this planet with the capabilites to actually do so?

Finally, I am not attacking you, I am raising a valid point. Just ask yourself, what can you, someone who knows nothing about the topic, not even has any interest in it, actually contribute to this discussion? You have no understanding of the complexities of the subject, you are not even willing to inform yourself, or referring to reliable sources when making any assumptions. All you do is making claims that are backed by what exactly? Is it undue under the given circumstances to ask what your personal grudges are with this article? And I still want to know what it really is that incites your ire. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

Lord Gøn, WP:NOR, our policy on original research, applies here. If the subject is not defined, in a neutral manner using reliable sources which represent the general academic consensus, then the list is original research. The obvious way to approach this is to create the Rampage killer article. Please stop attacking me, blaming others for the state of things, writing walls of text, and start addressing the issues raised about these lists. I am very patient but my patience is limited. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you are claiming WP:OR, though a quick internet search would prove beyond doubt that this list of rampage killers is not based on original reasearch, but on a subject that is well enough defined by experts in the field of criminology and psychology. Therefore this list is a valid addition to Wikipedia, and the only remaining issue is the absence of an explanation that identifies its subject to the uninformed reader. You have discovered this little problem, but instead of trying to fix it yourself you are starting to make baseless assertions and accuse others of not doing anything about it. How is that supposed to be constructive in improving this article, or the encyclopedia in general?

And as I said, I am not attacking you, nor am I blaming you for the current state of things, but your attitude in this regard is not really helpful. All that was necessary was to leave a comment like: "Rampage killing may very well be a valid topic for Wikipedia, but there are probably a lot of people out there who are not familiar with that term. For that reason, and to address possible accusations of original research the subject should be defined, either in a separate article, or at least in the list itself. Since I do not have the expertise to do this myself, it would be much appreciated if someone else could take up this task." Would it have been that much of a problem to phrase your suggestion in a way that is polite and bar of complaining and making unsubstantiated claims?

And I am still waiting for an answer to my question what your grudges with this list actually are. Has it anything to do with Nathan Van Wilkins? I'd just like to understand, you know. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Lord Gøn, once again, this particular discussion is not about me, what I may or may not know, what other people did or did not do, or Nathan Van Wilkins - it is about the title of this article. Since we have no definition here of "rampage killer" or "rampage attacks", neither is a suitable name. Since you cannot seem to focus on that simple issue, I will start an RfC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Since reaching an agreement between the two of us is highly unlikely I full support that move. Please go ahead. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC))

Jumping in here late. @Lord Gøn:, you are literally the only person who supports the term "rampage" killing. To the rest of us here, and the rest of the world, it's called a "mass shooting." Or "mass murder." Similarly, you are literally the only person who supports breaking up the list into all these separate lists. Anyone who feels like editing boldly has more than enough support to do so. —Fluous (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Fluous, back in the days I was literally the only person who had a vision where to go with this list and then bothered enough to put some serious effort into it. I chose the term "rampage killing" due to a lack of a better one, and it certainly was an improvement over the old "List of mass murderers and spree killers" which caused some serious problems, because a lot of people didn't quite grasp what the article was about. When I started this page in 2008 the term "mass shooting" wasn't widely used in the media and similar to the term "active shooter" it's association with such incidents of indiscriminate mass slaughter only spread within the last three years, or so. Before they were mostly described as "killing/shooting sprees," a term which has considerably fallen from grace since 2011. Besides that "mass shooting" doesn't adequately describe what this list is about, nor does "mass murder", since not all rampage attacks are committed with guns, and not all of them claim the lives of three/four or more people. Probably you are right and the rest of the world doesn't care about such nuances, but that is no excuse for using sloppy terminology. Your claim that I am the only one supporting the current layout is just that, a claim - neither of us can prove or disprove it, though a handful of people complaining about it in a span of eight years, while hundreds are visiting the page every day is hardly sufficient evidence that it poses an issue. Furthermore, the layout reflects the discourse in the scientific literature where school shootings, workplace violence, familicides, etc. are often classified as sub-categories of mass killing and consequently discussed separately.

What I find a little odd now is that you are specifically addressing me in this matter - after all, I have stopped working on this list more than two years ago and I don't care anymore in which direction it evolves or devolves. So, you really cannot blame me, if people still aren't bold enough to invest some time and mold it into a shape that reflects consensus more than what I have found most useful. That said, if you have an idea how this list could be improved, go ahead. I am the last person here who will try to stop you.(Lord Gøn (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC))

I was annoyed this page had no definition, so I added the definition suggested above. If that violates some arcane wiki folkways and immediately gets deleted, so be it.Burressd (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash

The 2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash is not eligible for this page because it is a case of driving under the influence. DUI's are the result of people's bad choices but are not indicative of previous murderous intent, which is what the term "rampage killer" would suggest. to include this case in the article it would also have to include the 2009 Taconic State Parkway crash, the Ethan Couch case, the Carrollton, Kentucky bus collision and every other case in Category:Driving under the influence. --Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the case may not be that clear cut. According to this article Mrs. Chambers wasn't drunk at the time, so alcohol obviously didn't play a role in the crash. If drugs were involved has not been clarified, though the prosecution argues that she intentionally drove her car into the crowd (whatever that is worth). That said, as of now the details in this case seem to be a bit murky and a motive for the crash, if there was any, has yet to be made public, so I would wait with adding the case until the situation is a bit clearer and we know with some certainty that Chambers has acted deliberately. (Lord Gøn (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

Mentioned on reddit

this page made the front page of reddit, they do raise a good point. https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/4bk6bc/wikipedia_is_whispering_to_me/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.94.178.27 (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think the organization of these categories are too vague and confusing. In some ways its clear that the organization is intended for the listings not to overlap with one another such that a single person couldn't be placed in two different categories. But the problem is that in many cases they can. For example, if you had a school shooting wherein the shooter killed black students because he was racist, would you place that shooting under the "Educational settings" category or the "Religious, political, and hate crimes" category? I think its important to choose one or another, either a person can be placed in multiple categories (in which case a few wording changes need to be made) or all of these categories should be merged into the continent categories. If the former is thought to be a better option then the wording in the continent categories is problematic because it states that you can't list anyone who falls in to one of the other categories. But then there is the "Others" category which is clearly intended to cover those cases. I think it would be better if this restriction in the continent categories were removed, and we just accept the fact that there is going to be overlapping in the categories such that the same person will show up in more than one listing.Chhe (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Number of the victims of Breivik

The number of the victims of Breivik which is mention in the table of political, religious and racial motivated rampage killings is wrong. Breivik killed 77 and not 75 people.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The number of victims directly murdered by Breivik is 75. Two victims died while trying to escape and thus do not meet the criteria to be included in the article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

He was formally charged with, and convicted of their murders: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Indictment,_Anders_Behring_Breivik.pdf&page=4

I would suggest this indicates the number should be 77. --2601:18C:8800:4600:C0B9:4C27:3E01:D719 (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Expanding list of rampage killers

There must be a way to make that text at the top of the page not be a prompt to kill people. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Why was Kurban Jiang

I don't see anything in the view history that states why his entry was removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you refer to the entry of the 2008_Kashgar_attack added by user Darksoliver on September 15. Well, I guess it had something to do with the fact that all the cases he/she/it has added were considered to be vandalism as they looked pretty much like gibberish, especially the names of the perpetrators. I mean "Kurban Jiang explicitly mentioned by" or "Lee was weeping" aren't names, they are nonsense probably produced by the Google translator. Hadn't I been familiar with these cases, and hadn't the editor added the Chinese versions of the names, I would have suspected vandalism, too. Anyway, originally the hate crimes et al. section was limited to cases committed by single perpetrators, so, the Kashgar attack diddn't fit the list's criteria of inclusion, because it was, at least according to the official version of the events, a terrorist attack committed by multiple offenders. However, people seem to handle this a lot less strictly nowadays, considering that the Tsarnaev and Kouachi brothers are listed, so I assume you could re-add it without causing any trouble - as long as it is done properly, of course. (Lord Gøn (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC))

Siquijor

Why is the siquijor massacre marked as unconfirmed? What makes it less reliable than some other obscure cases? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Citation

How come the source that was listed for the zhaodong shooting led to a porn site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Most obscure incident

What incident on this list do you think was the most obscure and hard to get information about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd say most cases occurring outside the Western world are pretty obscure, as the old journalistic rule: "One thousand wogs, fifty frogs, and one Briton" is true even today. Anything happening in Africa, Latin America, the Arab world, or South/South-East Asia is pretty much ignored by the Western media until there are at least dozens or even hundreds of people killed, so without access to local newspapers it's nearly impossible to find any information about mass murders happening in these areas. And even then you are often left with the basics, or contradictory reports, because even the national media doesn't give a shit, especially in Africa.

If you are asking about a specific case, however, I would say the one of Abd el Maleck was one hard nut to crack. I spent quite a bit of time over the years to unearth information about it, with no success. The breakthrough only came when another Wikipedian found out the perpetrator's name. Always difficult are older cases from China, because there are rarely any sources that are not written in Chinese, e.g. the Zhaodong shooting that you believed to be a hoax, was never mentioned in any western newspaper despite the high death toll. Thankfully a number of Chinese sources exist and give us some details. Any cases occurring in the Soviet Union and other countries of the Warsaw Pact are also a pain in the ass, because reports about mass murders were subject to heavy censorship. (Lord Gøn (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC))

G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Could yoh tell me, why does the source you gave for the zhaodong shooting lead to porn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 13:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why it redirects to a porn site now, but it certainly didn't when I added it to the refs. Anyway, here's an archived version of the page, and if you search for the perpetrators' Chinese names you should come up with a number of websites that give you a brief description of the incident. So, instead of deleting an easily verifyable case, you could add a source yourself. And btw, you may want to reconsider your deletion of Mutsuo Toi from the Asia section. The home intruders list is only for people who killed most or all of their victims at a single household, or where most of the victims were members of a single family. Neither is the case with Toi. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC))

Btw, why was your wikipedia page on the shooting deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The article was an unfinished piece in my user-space and someone else moved it into the article space without asking me, but only after he had removed all the given sources. So, it's no wonder the user who eventually submitted it for speedy deletion thought this shabby little article without any citations was a blatant hoax. It was then deleted for that reason, whereupon I asked for undeletion and moving it back into my user-space. That's the whole story. (Lord Gøn (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC))

User:Elhiggins, please read WP:NOTAFORUM. An articles talk page is intended for discussion on how to improve an article. It is not intended for discussions about the general content of an article such as asking about the most obscure case in a list of mass killings. Thanks. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing sources

Ive noticed that soke incidents listed (such as the taizz shooting) no longer have there sources avaliable. Is it possible to find out more about these incidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Taizz incident is referenced but it is a paper source instead of an internet source. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it the one on wikipedia that vaugely says what happened? Can the newspaper that told the story be found anymore?

The source is "Amoklaufer in Jemen totet 22 Personen" (I think in English, it means "Mass murderer in Yemen kills 22 People") in the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung. I do not know if the newspaper article can be found online but it ultimately does not matter as Wikipedia can and does use offline sources. See WP:OFFLINE. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What I wanted to ask is, how would I find the print? I looked on the internet and didnt find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 18:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

During my research I have only found three sources mentioning the incident. The first was an article by Agence France Presse, which was available at afp.pressedd.com, but was behind a paywall. This site is dead by now and I don't know of another service providing access to the AFP-archive for someone outside the press. The other two were by Swiss newspapers, Blick and the NZZ, were probably edited versions of the AFP article, and were behind a paywall as well. I'm not sure where I found them, but as far as I can remember the Blick article was available at swissdox.ch and the NZZ article at genios.de, but you'd have to search for them to be sure and I don't think it's worth the effort. They were very short, barely giving the basic details, and what was there is included in the little description given here. The AFP article may have provided more information, but I had no access to it. If you want to see a printed version of the articles your best chances are probably the archives of the NZZ and Blick, the first likely located in Zürich, and the other also somewhere in Switzerland. Alternatives would be Swiss archives. The first address then would probably be the Schweizerische Nationalbibliothek in Bern. Of course, you could also subscribe to the NZZ, which then grants you full access to its archive back to 1780. For more information go here. But as I said, I don't think it's worth it. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC))

I kind of wonder if the incident is infamous in taizz, the city where it happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the dong doc shooting be moved to workplace?

I did some research on the incident, and I read that the shooter was a militiaman, and the location was his military camp, shouldnt it be in workplace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Unconfirmed

I noticed that the siquijor massacre was labelled unconfirmed event, what does a submission have to do to be unconfirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you probably have to ask the person who marked the case as unconfirmed to know what went through his head when he did so, but I suspect it had something to do with the fact, that the newspaper article describing the incident is merely a second hand account. What is reported therein is that Commissioner Dean Conant Worcester went to Siquijor in 1905 and found a blissful island with little to no crime, and that the only crime people could remember was when a man went amok there many years prior and killed 32 people. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC))

Also, I think the archive that mentioned the incident no longer exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 19:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No no, it's still alive and kicking. See! (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC))

Well the link wikipedia gave is no longer there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Should the dong doc shooting be moved to workplace?

I did some research on the incident, and I read that the shooter was a militiaman, and the location was his military camp, shouldnt it be in workplace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be moved only if you can cite your "research." Seeing as you failed to provide any new sources I have reverted the move and moved the case back to the Asia listing. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think thats ok, because the straights time article sounds like it was workplace, but doesnt actually say it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Tian mingijan

Why was the number of people killed in the tian mingijan incident changed from 23 to 25-32+. where did he get those numbers from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Dnipropetrovsk maniacs and Beltway snipers

Should they be placed on the list? There's already several killers on the list whose attacks took place over the course of multiple days. Are their sprees too long to be added? Dreadwyrm (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Im pretty sure the beltway snipers fit the criteria, as there first 6 victims were killed within 15 hours, the dnipropetrovsk maniacs im not sure about, as they sometimes killed multiple victims each day, but if you take each day as its own incident, none of them fit the criteria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the Dnipropetrovsk maniacs as they are serial killers and not rampage killers. If they should be included anywhere it would be here:List of serial killers by number of victims. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Zhao Guanghui/Xinyang Cinema fire

Should that incident really be here. From reading the source it looks like an accident caused by a child carelessly throwing a firework. If this is counted as arson/mass murder then lots of other mass-casualty fires would count towards the list as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.199.240 (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This was an accident, not an arson. I have removed it. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

1938 Osaka Murders

Ive noticed thst the article cited for this incident now leads to a 404, should this incdent still be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 14:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC) I cant find any archives of the page before it 404ed either

Yes it should remain. Per WP:404 "Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer." -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to retrieve the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Flag icons

I've noticed that some of the sections have no flag icons, could I have a list of the flag icons so I can paste them in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.71.190 (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC) I was the one who added that, I wasn't logged in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 01:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

See here: Category:Country data templates by country -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Oceania section

As Oceania is generally considered not to include the area of "maritime southeast Asia", I've renamed the section "Oceania and Maritime Southeast Asia". The Wikipedia page on Oceania highlights the general view of the term to include only the following countries, notably lacking the Philipines, Malaysia and Indonesia:

Australia Fiji Kiribati Marshall Islands Micronesia Nauru New Zealand Palau Papua New Guinea Samoa Solomon Islands Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu

Therefore, it's inaccurate to have a heading stating "Oceania" as the region, listing killing that mostly took place outside of Oceania.

School killers criteria

Is there criteria really just at lest 2 killed. because if it is there should be way more cases included than there are now. This list seems to be exempt from the six killed rule

Terrorist grenade attacks

Where should terrorist attacks using grenades be placed? Currently the section for grenade killings prohibits such incidents. Dreadwyrm (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

other incidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it best not to include them at all. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Turabaz

Looking through early versions of this list, it's topped by an Indian guy named "Turabaz" who apparently killed 68 people, but I can't find any sources on him, and it was eventually removed. What was up with that? Dreadwyrm (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you show me the version of the page that had him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so i looked at the old versions, Turabaz was an incorrect report on Harphul Singh, who only killed 11 people, and had already murdered 5 people a long time prior to the rampage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Turabaz was mentioned in an article about Harphul Singh and was not mistaken for him. I can't remember exactly what the article said, but I think it was only that Turabaz killed 68 people, before a police bullet ended his life. I eventually removed him, because there was no indication that he had killed his victims at once, and at least in my opinion it is more likely that he was just some sort of bandit of the likes of Veerappan. (Lord Gøn (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC))

Speaking of bandits, thats one of the reasons I'm not sure about adding Rafael Lopez to this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera

Should he be included? sinice it seems that he was a professional hitman acting on the orders of a gang, rather than an attacker acting on their own.

I agree, this page does not include contract killers, removed. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Undescribed

The user undescribed keeps adding back a rampage attack thag doesnt fit the criteria after it gets deleted. He doesnt read the rules for inclusion properly either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhiggins (talk • contribs) 02:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Elhiggins, I left a message on your talk page regarding the matter. I would be more than happy to help us find a solution to this matter. - Thank you. --Undescribed (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)