Talk:Atrocity

message: Editors note: I would like people to add to this as much as possible and do so from the humanist perspective, rather than a nationalist one. Simply speaking, an American may object to the inclusion of the My Lai massacre as an atrocity, but it is certainly one from the point of view of most human beings, not that I speak for them all, but lets not play ignorant.
-Sv 00:25, 15 October 2002 
:Amerocentrism has no defenders on Wikipedia.  I question somewhat the usefulness of this article, though. --Robert Merkel (06:45, 15 October 2002, 203.45.8.43)
::Speaking of Amerocentrism, isn't it odd to assume 'Civil War' automatically means 'American Civil War'? Practically every country in the world has had one 128.232.242.21 01:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2002-2005

message: This article used to say 'thousands of Jews were killed in the holocaust.' I changed this to 'millions'. People in central Europe have been arrested for getting this figure wrong Indigenius 01:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust

message: I just noticed this article today and it's been on my mind all day.  I almost nominated it for deletion; in fact I had already pasted the template before deciding it better to discuss it here first.  IMHO, this article violates all three cardinal WP policies mentioned on Wikipedia:Deletion policy:  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research.  Not only that, it doesn't lend any encyclopaedic value (or probably better said, the content could be worked a different way to give encyclopaedic value).  First of all, to summarize this article, it's basically giving a definition of "atrocity" and then goes on to list certain events that fit that definition.  It's not an article on the phenomenon of "atrocity" (which might be encyclopaedic if the definition could be nailed down) but merely a select list of events that fit the very broad, imprecise definition given within the article itself; this, in itself, is a logical fallacy.  
Now, to get to the real problems.  The definitions of "atrocity" given are so loose and vague and not based on anything academic (legal, philisophical or otherwise). This is Original Research.  Consequently, almost anything could be viewed as an "atrocity"; this opens up POV issues.  Atrocity is a very subjective (and loaded) word.  What may be considered an atrocity by some, may be considered a great military victory by others.  Therefore many things viewed as an "atrocity" may not be verifiable as such, especially considering the definition itself can't even be verified.  
Suggested solutions:
*leave the definition to Wiktionary
*everything mentioned here as an "atrocity" already has its own page (Holocaust, The Rape of Nanking, Bombing of Dresden in World War II, etc) where it is described and discussed.  Any new material can (and should) be added or merged there.  This page adds nothing new and should be deleted, IMHO.
*if it is deemed necessary or valuable to have a "list of events considered 'atrocities' by various groups", there are two options:
*#make a page called something like List of events considered atrocities or,
*#create Category:Atrocities and label all relevent pages (start with the pages that link to this article before it is deleted).
This seems more encyclopaedic and less open to Original Research and POV. Any comments?--WilliamThweatt 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for deletion and options regarding this "article"

message: Someone said the world is in a mess today, meaning it's never been as bad as this. I agree the environment is in trouble, but mankind has not changed, ever. That's why the environment is in trouble. There's always the same percentage of bad and good, and it's a moving target. People that were bad once, improve and are good. People die and new ones are born. Today we hear there are more atocities than ever before. I think there were always the same percentages of every and all kinds of human evils, as far back as we can go. I can give examples, but everyone knows what I mean if they think about history. So today, we have more people than ever before. We have world wide media coverage and the problems are overwhelming. But basically, people haven't changed. We experience, we suffer, we learn and mature. We can be very good and very bad. We somehow reach a place where we decide to choose good. Yet if someone tried to hurt our loved ones, we would do whatever it took to prevent them, including murder. We want something better for our children, however, they will make their own mistakes. It's a neverending cycle. There is not a country on earth, that does not have a good and bad history. Individually, we've all made mistakes. It happens at home, between neighbours, friends, religion, fat versus skinny, educated, versus uneducated, the haves, and the have nots. This isn't new. Bullies, and beggers since time began. We can play any role. Human nature is what it is. Comments?(74.110.132.156 07:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: August 2007

message: This article was flouting WP's rules, as noted above.  I have
* removed the capital punishment section.  This is an article about atrocity, not capital punishment.
* moved the list of atrocities to List of atrocities, please see Talk:List of atrocities for my comments on that.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following on from discussion at [[Talk:British Empire]]... 

message: When this article was created back in 2002 there was no wiktionary. Now that there is a wiktionary this article is redundant as the dictionary entry wiktionary:atrocity fulfils the same requirement. So I have been bold and I have turned this page into a disambiguation page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiktionary:atrocity 

message: Substituted at 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment