Talk:Dawson massacre

message: If the Texans (or Texians) killed in the battle were combatants, can the event be construed as a "massacre"? "A massacre shall be considered the execution of five or more people, in the same place, as part of the same operation and whose victims were in an indefensible state." (See Massacre) - Kguirnela 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: History has come to refer to the event as a massacre. Perhaps it was because of the overwhelming odds against the Texans (54 vs 400-500 hundred) or the fact the Mexican Army had cannon or the Texans were killed while under a white flag of surrender or that the bodies were found the next day, stripped of clothing with wounds inflicted after death. Whatever the reason, it sounds like a pretty horrific event, which I'm sure the propaganda media of the day would want to portray to their best interest by using a term such as massacre. I would have no problem renaming the the article "Dawson Expedition" (with a redirect from "Dawson Massacre") and using massacre in quotes when referring to the battle. -Nv8200p talk 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is best to rename it to the "Dawson Expedition" (with a redirect from "Dawson Massacre") and using massacre in quotes when referring to the battle, as you have put forward. I, of course, submit to your discretion as the primary author. - Kguirnela 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Under no military circumstances would this be considered a "massacre", it's texican POV.Awotter (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the AnonIP. And ironically, with Awotter. Of course it's Texan POV. Texans hated Mexicans. The Battle of the Alamo is sometimes called a "massacre" because of the overwhelming odds the Mexican army brought to bear. The Battle of the Little Big Horn was often called a massacre, but only because the US soldiers lost. It wouldn't have sold papers if people said, "Oh look, they lost a fair fight." That would have gone against racist attitudes (whether we're talking about the Mexicans or the Native Americans), and would have implied that the enemy was the superior fighter. If it's a "massacre", the Texans can say that they lost, but only because the enemy was sneaky somehow. And if that's the way it went down in the press and in history books, then we have to keep the title Dawson Massacre, as per WP:Common Name. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on appropriateness of the term "massacre"

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:COMMONNAME. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Dawson massacre →  – Per WP:NPOV; massacre is a contentious label that should generally be avoided unless it is the clear common name in reliable English language sources and that isn't the case here per ngrams. It also isn't a useful descriptive title, as it isn't likely to align to any of the various definitions of massacre; while the American commander did attempt to surrender at one point, in the fog of war both sides continued to fight. BilledMammal (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 July 2022