Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Khmelnitsky uprising in the Ukraine/Bielorussia/Poland

But why are not mentioned the atrocities during the Khmelnitsky uprising (1648-1654) ? Only the death toll of Jewish pogroms is estimated from 100.000 to 300.000. 86.63.172.72 10:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WWI estimates

why would you include the flu death toll in WWI estimates that only makes things confusing. can we have the highest that doesnt include it. they happened to coincide it doesnt. those people didnt die due to war, the flu wasnt a weapon used by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.34.121 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

lowest estimate for WWI

I also have a source that claims 8 million died in wwi can i put that up? it is from 'history in a nut shell' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.34.121 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq

Why is there no mention of the present occupation of Iraq. Civilian deaths are known, from 100 000 to 1 000 000 or more.

Bert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.79.60 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree - in general, the number of one million deaths as a lowest reported figure seems arbitrarily high. If a war results in a lowest estimate of 100,000 deaths, that would seem to be historically quite significant. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I set the bar at 1M because the list before was very incomplete. I suggest that first we get reliable numbers for those wars listed, and gradually reduced the level by say 100,000 a time once the the current list is fully cited. That way we will not end up with a list full of claims not supported by reliable third party sources and a avoid the problems of selective bias that the list previously had. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But do we want to go by low figures? Surely some wars have a very wide range, with the realistic count lying towards the top of the spectrum. Also, it may be impossible to get truly reliable figures for certain conflicts. bd2412 T 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said lets get figures for those already listed before we go lowering the bar. Lots of work to do on >1M :-) Previously before I put in a 1M limit the list was an extremely selective one showing a clear bias (and hence failing WP:NPOV). It is much better to do this in increments until we get to a list that is near complete and large enough for this article. I do not know what that threshold is but it is better that we get to it gradually rather than having an arbitrary limit were most of the wars that meet that arbitrary limit are not included. I think it is better to use the lowest figure as both figures are open to manipulation (to present a war in the most terrible or best light) so we can be fairly sure that if the low figure is above a threshold then it is a pretty good indicator that in that war at least that many people died. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Slavery

Did not the Atalntic slave trade end in the 1800's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes see Slave Trade Act 1807 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rummel's Reliability

I have serious doubts about how reliable figures from RJ Rummel are. His figures invariably come to higher totals than almost any other source. Despite myself being a staunch anti-communist, I'll freely admit that I think the numbers he claims were killed in the Soviet Union are ludicrous - the fact that they are so much higher than those in The Black Book of Communism says more than enough (I think, from what I've read on the issue, a figure of 27 million killed by Stalin, which I've seen in both high school and university level textbooks, is on the high side). Throughout this article, though, I think there are an extremely high number of very dodgy figures, some of which are outright wrong (such as those given for the Brusilov Offensive in WWI, which I believe someone else has noted). Given the huge amount of uncertainty in pre-modern figures especially, I think it would be useful to split them from 19th and 20th century events. So much of this article is based on nothing more than wild conjecture by ancient and medieval semi-contemporary writers. Common sense dictates that many of these figures - especially the numbers supposedly killed by the Mongols - are beyond mere improbability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.154.192 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

His values are significantly higher than the norm for Holocaust deaths as well. The generally accepted values I've come across in college-level textbooks and other sources indicate anything between 6 and 8 million, certainly no more than 10 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.143.86 (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine

Why is this famine claimed as being "man made"? All scholars agree that the famine was "man exacerbated", however "made" implies that there was no overall food shortage, that the government must have done this directly and deliberately. In fact, there is a consensus of opinion among scholars that there was a food shortage in Ireland at the time. This famine was "man exacerbated", not "man made". In my opinion, the potato famine should be removed from the "man made famine" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.54.213 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ireland was a net food exporter during the famine. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cambodian Killing Fields

Why are the Cambodian Killing Fields not on here? Estimates of the death toll range from 800,000 (made by Pol Pot, so in my opinion not very reliable), to 3,000,000. Most accepted estimates are 2.5-3 million. With a total population of only 7 million people, I dare say it is one of the worst atrocities in history, in terms of population percentage. 68.230.223.62 (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

First Crusade

I wonder if the Jewish persecution during the First Crusade can be counted as a genocide. At least 1800 people were killed in massacres on the Rhine , but the death toll was likely higher (people in the Middle Ages were a bit shoddy in their demographic counting), and there was a habit of singling out Jews to baptize or kill. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the death toll was likely higher - there were accounts suggesting that "most" Jews were "either killed or dragged to the forts" in the Rhineland. So the thing could perhaps qualify as a genocide, although the death toll is uncertain. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thuggee

I removed the death count attributed to thuggee on this page. I've done plenty of reading on the subject, and have never come across anything even remotely resembling the number listed on the page. I've got no problem with anyone adding it back in if they have a solid source for the number, but my understanding of thuggee is that it was a form of highway robbery which was transformed by the British into some sort of mythical murderous cult. Draglikepull (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

To my mind, in the list of Noncombatant Deaths is missing the death toll in connection with the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Estimates range from 0.5 to 3 millionen deaths. cf. Wikipedia Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.178.59 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Global War on Terror

Shouldn't GWOT be on the list. Lansing put the civilian death toll (Iraq) at 1M which would seem to qualify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine

The article has the Irish Potato Famine listed as a "man made" famine. Given that most if not all scholars agree that this famine was not "man made" I think that it should be removed from the list. Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.76.128 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have altered the section header as I agree that "man-made famines" is something of an overstatement. Gatoclass (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Genocides in history

The section says Main article: Genocides in history I suggest that only genocides listed in Genocides in history are listed here as there is greater scrutiny of the claims on that page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge from War#List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Yeah, definitely remove the long list from the article War. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 16:04 z

Agree, will make both pages better.

--Vinay84 (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Iraq war listing?

The criteria for listing in this table is 1 million or more deaths, the Iraq war death toll is nowhere near that number by most reasonable estimates. The high end estimate of one study, which is likely false, barely scratches the million mark. This listing should be removed or the criteria for listing should be changed. Luckyshot99 (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

WWI estimate

The flu deaths should really be discounted. The fact that it was spread during the same time is really just incidental. I'm sure there were horrible diseases spreading through Europe during the Hundred Year's war, too, but do we add all the death tolls from those up and include 'em here? (I really hope not....) Consistency, people, CONSISTENCY!!! (level of anger exaggerated for purposes of seeming inappropriately bothered). 24.3.14.157 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Noncombatants

I have removed the section Noncombatant because "noncombatant" means those who are in a war zone but are not combatants. The majority of those events listed in this section were not for deaths related to war. Those that were are already listed in the section "Wars and armed conflicts". If someone wants to create two columns under "Wars and armed conflicts". One for combatants' and the other for non-combatants, then all well and good. But the current division into two lists make no sense when the totals entries differ and overlap. --PBS (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

this edit by an IP address reintroduced the noncombatants section without a comment in the history or on this talk page. I am deleting the section again for the same reasons as given above. --PBS (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions of "noncombatant" differ - webster's just defines it as "one who does not engage in combat". Seems an appropriate enough title to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

non combatant explains what a non combatant is. It has a specific meaning under international law. There are two obvious examples in the list but the rest are not non-combatant killings. --PBS (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Who says we have to use the definition given by the Geneva Conventions? Seems to me we are perfectly entitled to employ the term in its common, dictionary sense. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary "non-combatant, n. and adj."

A. n. A person who is not a combatant, as a civilian during a war; spec. a member of the armed services whose duties do not include active fighting, as a surgeon, purser, or chaplain, etc. Also in extended use.

B. adj. Not involved in fighting; of, belonging to, or characteristic of a non-combatant.

It seems that The dictionary definition is the same as that of International law. --PBS (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well how about we call it "Civilians" or "Civilians and non-combatants" instead? Gatoclass (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I really don't understand your motives over this article, the title is List of wars and disasters by death toll what exactly is this section meant to cover because it is not at all clear at the moment?

If it was a list of wars by non-combatant deaths then that would be a coherent title. The trouble would be that in most wars although fairly reliable numbers are kept on military casualties they are not kept on civilians. The British numbers for civilian casualties in World War II are the exception not the rule (even the Germans who are know for keeping accurate records do not have them for World War II). One of the problems is that if one is working with raw population statistics (if they are available) it is necessary to extrapolate the number of dead over and above those that would have died within a population if no war had taken place. The means that most estimates are very rough and ready and open to misinterpretation, so any list of civilian war dead is likely to have such ranges as to be next to useless as a meaningful list.

It seems to me better to have just one "Wars and armed conflicts" with four columns to cover max and min for combatants and non-combatants and junk this section unless you can suggest what this section is meant to be listing so that a NPOV list can be created. --PBS (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a page about "wars and armed conflicts", it's a page about large death tolls brought about by human agency, and as such is a complement to the page about large death tolls from natural disasters. Wars are clearly not the only method by which human beings have inflicted mass death on populations, that is why we have a number of sections to cover the different areas. I'm fine with tweaking section headers and/or section summaries where necessary, but I see no reason whatever for deleting entire sections, almost all the entries here list very well documented mass deaths inflicted by human beings, the issue of how best to label or organize them does not detract from their relevance to the overall topic. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You still have not suggested what this section is meant to be listing. That is needed if it is not to be a indiscriminate list. --PBS (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just given you a couple of explanations and alternatives, how can you say I've made no suggestions?

The section basically lists significant death tolls inflicted on civilian populations. That seems pretty straightforward to me. I've already suggested that we rename the section either "Civilian death tolls" or "Civilian and non-combatant death tolls" but you haven't responded to those suggestions. Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we had already set aside armed conflict as a category, so they can not be civilian death tolls (OED "A non-military man or official.") --PBS (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow, what do you mean by "we had already set aside armed conflict as a category"? Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We already have a section for armed conflict and most of the rat-bag of entries here have little to do with armed conflict (those that do would be better served in the war section which includes both combatant and non-combatant totals). --PBS (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if they have "little to do with armed conflict", all the more reason to have them in this section! That's what it's for - civilian death tolls exclusive of collateral damage from battle. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians killed in battle are still civilians (although they may or may not be non-combatants). I am removing this section again as there has been no progress to defining what it is and the vast majority of entries have nothing to do with war. --PBS (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This articles title is `List of war and "disaters" by death tolls`,so I think there is no problem even that this section nothhing connection to war. If you don`t like this sections name `Non-combattant` changing sections name is better than delete it.--Propatriamori (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A list must have some form of structure that defines it. This particular section does not have any form of definition it is just a collection of facts. For example what are the criteria links the slave trade, the deths of Leopold's congo and the Irish Potato Famine, and 228 Incident, it certainly isn't non-combattant deaths. --PBS (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed section now titled Civilian as many of the entries are not "campaigns" and "civilians or noncombatants" implies war, yet many of the entries have nothing to do with war. This particular section does not have any form of definition it is just a collection of facts. For example what are the criteria links the slave trade, the deths of Leopold's congo and the Irish Potato Famine, and 228 Incident, it certainly isn't non-combattant deaths. --PBS (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The new title is not much better than the old one because under such a definition any killing of more than three people could be described as a mass killing and be included in the list. Mass killings are not necessarily either war or a disaster. --PBS (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Gulag Archipelago vs. Nazi Attrocities

FWIW, I was surprised to find your page listing the Nazi civilian death toll higher than that of the Stalinist Gulag system. What was it again... I was told in by my history professor that the usual order is to put Mao on top of the nightmare list at ~50mil (but much of that was from starvation because he ruined their ag system - a "disaster"), then Stalin at ~25mil (I would call deaths in the Gulags actual murders - getting rid of the folks who know better I suppose), and finally Hitler somewhere between 5 and 10mil (number unclear due to the poorly tracked number of Gypsy murders, which were probably equal or greater to the number of Jewish murders - getting rid of anyone related to Grandma and anyone else easily blamed for Germany's poverty; not sure why he didn't just blame war reparations to France?).

Nope, no citations; just some thoughts, OB-v8 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)oB-v8

Conquest of the Americas - Genocide of the Aztecs

I am not very documented on the subject, but the murder of millions (estimates go up to 70 millions) of Aztecs during the Conquest of Americas sure have a place on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.211.131 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

North American Indians? Hi all! I think it would be prudent to add the Trail of Tears and related incidents which led to the current status of Native Americans in the US to the list of genocides. For more details about the scope of the human catastrophy Europe brought to North America see1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. m.rauchfuss@googlemail.com --93.135.62.71 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Man-made famines, 2009

See above #Man-made famines, 2007

The introduction to this section says "This section includes famines where most scholars agree that it was caused or exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime."

So I have added the {{OR}} template to the top of this section:

"This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (January 2009)"

Because nearly all famines since the advent of the steam ship and rail transport have to a greater or lesser extent been "exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime" (as were many before to a greater or lesser extent). It is not clear to me what the inclusion criteria are for this section. There is not one citation given on the article talk page that supports the contention that "most scholars agree that it was caused or exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime" --PBS (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, the OR template can stay there for now. I lost interest in this page due to the arm-wrestling that went on over it a long time ago, I've intended to come back and improve it from time to time but as it's a research-intensive task and I have a million other things to do, I haven't got around to it yet and don't expect to any time soon. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given the summary a tweak, I agree it was inadequate. I notice there have also been some new additions that provide no references at all. Gatoclass (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"This section includes famines that according to some scholars were caused or exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime." So two scholars think it was exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime and most don't does it go into the list? --PBS (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If we came across a situation like that I guess we could discuss it. However, that is a hypothetical, in most cases it's not possible to know the views of "most scholars", but we can certainly ascertain the views and estimates of individual scholars. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is the case of giving undue weight to views. "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." --PBS (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:UNDUE is written with articles in mind rather than lists. A list can't deal with weight issues in the same way. The way we deal with such issues here is by having a range of estimates, and by including summaries explaining exactly what it is the list represents. So the summary in this case informs the reader that some scholars consider these famines to have had a significant human component. I think in most cases you would find there is probably not a lot of disagreement about the status of the individual entries anyway, although there are probably significant disagreements over the scale. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by scale involvement or deaths? -PBS (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, by scale I meant the different death toll estimates. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mass executions during and after the Spanish Civil War

When we talk of "during", are we talking about both sides or only one? Because if both, Francisco Franco should be accounted as responsible for only one side, not both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.182.241 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Political and ethnic violence

What does "Political and ethnic violence" for example can the Poll Tax Riots be included in this section -- no one was killed but it definitely included political violence?

AFAICT just renaming this section does not get away from the fact that this section is a random collection of facts, and has no real criteria to define what is or is not included. Until it is defined with clearly defined parameters so that the resulting list is of a manageable size the section should be removed from the page. Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. --PBS (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The page is called "list of wars and disasters by death toll". Obviously if there isn't a death toll, the event doesn't belong on the page. Gatoclass (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because there are no deaths does not make it any less a disaster, it just means that it would be at the bottom of the list. It depends on how one defines a disaster. The OED defines it as "Anything that befalls of ruinous or distressing nature; a sudden or great misfortune, mishap, or misadventure; a calamity. Usually with a and pl., but also without a, as 'a record of disaster'." From the point of view of the British Government the Poll Tax riots were a disaster. It can also be argued that listing disasters by "Political and ethnic violence" is to take a POV for example the Poll Tax Riots were not a disaster for the people taking part as they succeeded in their objective so for them it was a success. It seems to me that a list of disasters by "Political and ethnic violence" is going to be a highly non neutral point of view list. --PBS (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For example was the Expulsion of Germans after World War II a disaster? --PBS (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have taken this dispute to WP:WQA as we don't appear to be getting anywhere in resolving this. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my naivete - but in response to the WQA I come here and my first question is "why wasn't this resolved long ago but creating separate lists"? The tables are separate anyway. (The alternative would be renaming the current List to accommodate events that are neither wars nor disasters (which in this context usually means natural disasters, though we can argue about the naturalness of some of them...).) What am I missing? Rd232 ^talk 05:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, but PBS's argument is that the list currently named "Political violence" violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE (or WP:OR, whichever). So if you are suggesting moving the table to a separate page, that would not resolve the dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The current new section titles have similar to the problem we had with List of massacres (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination)), there was not objective criteria which could be used to define what is a massacre, which is why List of massacres was moved to List of events named massacres.

One can define what a war is. One can also define what a genocide is and find reliable sources that call the events a war and a genocide and the number of dead. Natural disasters are easy to define, because few if any would dispute what is a natural disaster. But as I pointed out above the poll tax riots were a disaster for the British Government but not for the people who took part, it depends on the POV.

The reason why we have this list at the moment which I keep deleting is because it was originally a democide list. But the number of scholars who use democide as a definition are few, so it is a minority POV (it is covered in the democide article). Trying to rename the list to another title just makes it appear as a random collection of facts.

If we are not careful we will end up with exactly the same POV problems with this list that the List of massacres had. --PBS (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

One can wikilawyer endlessly about titles, because titles often have to be simplified for practical reasons. But here you are moving the goalposts again. You started by arguing that "Noncombatants" was not an appropriate title, and deleted the section on that ground, and now that I've changed it to "Political violence", suddenly you are arguing that the page name itself is too vague. But that is a different argument, and it's not an argument for deleting the section in question. I'm happy to debate the title of the page, or at least I would be if you hadn't rejected virtually every proposal I have made for improving this page over the last two years. Which makes me think you are going to find a reason to reject any alternative title I come up with as well. That is why I have asked for some assistance in resolving this dispute, because you don't appear to want to compromise at all, you have just taken the view that a particular section is inappropriate and you are continally finding new reasons to reject it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a suggested alternative title for the page: "List of manmade mass mortalities by death toll". Let's see what reason you can come up with for rejecting that. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the title of the page as it is (in I don't think a name like "List of manmade mass mortalities by death toll" is any better and the problems are the same). However the sections in any list need to be named in such a way that the size of the list is manageable (not open ended), and the definition of the list should be such that all entries carry citations that states the range and who claims it as a member of the list (hence the move of the list List of massacres to List of events named massacres). For example in the current list genocide is a specific term, as is war. I the list I have been deleting, who says that the Atlantic slave trade was a single act of man made mass mortality, when it was practiced by individuals from a number of sovereign nations who were not acting in a criminal conspiracy. For example are road traffic deaths "manmade mass mortalities by death toll"? --PBS (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You just said in effect that "disaster" was too vague. So I proposed an alternative title and now suddenly you are fine with the page title. This is how it has been with you at this page since you arrived here two years ago. You don't like the page as it is but you reject every proposal to improve it or to resolve the outstanding disputes. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking at the disputed Political Violence section, which is introduced with being about "state-sanctioned violence against civilian populations, exclusive of genocides", which seems an unhappy definition of democide without using the word (which would permit slave trade and such, where the definition given doesn't). The section doesn't fit well with the current page title (wars/disasters). This seems most solvable by moving it to List of democides by death toll. It may not be a widespread term but AfAIK it's the only one that fits the purpose. The Ethnic Violence section on the other hand, is irredeemable. It's far too broad and ill-defined, and individual examples can't unambiguously be assigned to ethnic as a cause. The distinction between ethnic and political is arbitrary for example - the partition of India wasn't a political event? And just because Rwanda was state-sanctioned does that make it non-ethnic? Ditch it unless you've got a brilliant idea for addressing this. Rd232 ^talk 13:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot use "democide" as a definition because there is only one source that uses the term, R J Rummel. Giving Rummel a whole section to himself would be a huge violation of WP:UNDUE. He probably already has a list on his own page anyhow.

Now, I concede that the definition that currently exists for the "Political violence" section is a little problematic, but that's mainly because PBS decided to move genocide to a separate section. The problem that created is that some events include genocide but are not limited to them, like for example Nazi crimes in WWII.

The distinction between "Political violence" and "Ethnic violence" is a distinction between state sanctioned violence and violence that is not state sanctioned. The slaughter that accompanied partition in India was spontaneous mass violence, it wasn't orchestrated by either state, which were helpless to do anything about it. All the entries in the "Political violence" section are (or should be) examples of state sanctioned violence, although it seems from your impression, that perhaps that distinction hasn't been made clear enough. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If we have an article on democide then we can use it in a list title if nothing else works. (The democide article says some other scholars use the term too.) Suggestion: these definitional issues are doing my head in. A fresh start might help - both editors could suggest new categorisations/definitions that might accommodate everyone's concerns. Leave the present article aside for the moment as that encourages nitpicking and getting bogged down in details. Rd232 ^talk 15:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Could we at least get a consensus on moving the page to "List of manmade mass mortalities by death toll"? The present title has always been awkward and inaccurate, and the "disasters" reference has long been redundant as all the sections pertaining to disaster, such as air disasters, mining accidents and so on, were moved to List of accidents and disasters by death toll long ago. Gatoclass (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection I am going to move this page to "List of manmade mass mortalities by death toll" as the current pagename has never been satisfactory and is now quite redundant since all the "disaster" sections were removed long ago. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think "man made mass moralities" means? --PBS (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mortalities", not "moralities". Mortalities = deaths. Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really what I meant, what I meant was what does the phrase mean. For example what is a mass mortality and how does one decide if the deaths were man made or from some other source.

We could have a section called "Crimes against humanity" and list those crimes against humanity that have been found to be such in courts of law. That with the Genocide list, would be a reasonable breakdown for the original democide list with another list that is clearly delineated. --PBS (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

One cannot expect to define every nuance of an article in the title. The meaning of "manmade mass mortality" will be clear enough to the reader. The section introductions will provide additional information where required. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning is not clear and without a clear definition for which reliable sources can be provided the list is original research. --PBS (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unacceptable for someone to try and gain the upper hand in a content dispute by edit warring when they do not have consensus for their position and know full well that another editor in good standing strongly objects to it. You cannot impose your will on this or any other article by force, and the fact that you would choose to try strongly calls into question your bona fides as an administrator.

Whether you are right or wrong about this particular issue, this is not the way to go about resolving disputes. If necessary, I will take this matter as far as I have to in order to prevent you behaving in this manner. Please don't make me do that. Gatoclass (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It takes 2 to edit war and you have not explained how you justify keeping a list that is not encyclopedic in content, and as such can not be verified with sources, is open to original research, and because individual entries will be a matter of opinion is likely not to have a neutral point of view. The list you keep inserting into this article under different names started out as "Genocide" and was renamed "Genocide and Democide" since we extracted the genocides and alleged genocides from the list, and the items added to the list under "Genocide and Democide" were those which were either a democide or genocide in the opinions of the editors who added them, the list has no support from reliable sources. As I said if you would like to convert the list into one that is quantifiable such as "Crimes against humanity" and use reliable sources for that list, then we might be able to get somewhere, but just renaming a list of random facts does not solve the innate problems with the list.

Let me give you an example of why this is very dubious "state-sanctioned violence against civilian populations," Many governments use state sanctioned violence to quell prison riots, do you intend this list to include those? The British government sanctioned used police in London to control protesters during the recent international G20, should that be in the list?

I have explained, a number of times why I do not think a list of random unsourced events should be in this encyclopedia, you have yet to explain why you think such a list should be in this encyclopeadia. --PBS (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is disease even mentioned in the Note for "European colonization of the Americas"?

I don't know the specifics of the 100,000,000 high estimate's derivation, but if it includes deaths caused by small pox and other diseases (as the note, to me, implies) then it has no place in a table described as listing "acts committed with intent to destroy", emphasis mine. If the 100,000,000 figure does not include deaths from disease then I think the reference to "European disease" in the note should be removed or modified so that it's clear that the high estimate does not include said deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troodon311 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC) --Troodon311 (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned because the source, David Stannard, does not distinguish between deaths from disease or violence in his 100 million genocide estimate. We can only record what reliable sources have said in these tables, any other approach is likely to be considered original research. Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of the deaths from disease were intentional - in some cases Indians were deliberately given blankets previously used by diseased people. Rd232 ^talk 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The only primary evidence for the deliberate infection of the Native American population is three letters exchanged between two British officers, Amherst and Bouquet, during the French and Indian Wars. The letters never mention that the plan was ever put into effect--they simply discussed the possibility. They were horrible and awful people who believed Native Americans were sub-human, but whether or not anyone ever actually spread disease intentionally is unproven. Grumpy otter (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't another source be used then, since the method he used in deriving his estimate does not fit the stated criteria of the table? --Troodon311 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, he's a History Professor, and his genocide estimate is 100 million. If he'd broken down his estimate and said 50 million dead from genocide and 50 million dead from disease, we could use the smaller figure, but he hasn't done that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Then his definition of genocide is different than the one the article uses (the CPPCG's). Either the article needs to use his definition of "genocide" or another source for the high estimate has to be found that fits the CPPCG's definition. You can't give a defintion of a word and then use examples that do not fit it, it makes the definition pointless. --Troodon311 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are advancing an original research argument. You have no way of knowing by what logic Stannard reached his 100 million estimate. We cannot go around guessing on what basis a history professor might or might not have decided on a particular position. All we are entitled to do is record the position he took. I also happen to think that his estimate is probably wildly inflated, but so are some of the other estimates. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"All we are entitled to do is record the position he took." Or reject it as having insufficient detail to include, as this one appears to have. Danthemankhan 14:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity

I have started a list of court cases where persons known or unknown have been found guilty of one or more crimes against humanity which caused a substantial loss of life. I have made it court cases because the WWW is awash with allegations of such crimes, and as there are more than enough case, in properly constituted courts (both domestic and international), in which a guilty verdict has been returned against the perpetrators of crimes against humanity to form a very substantial list. --PBS (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Abortion and sources

I recently reverted an edit (on 12 June), which ultimately led to some huggle edits soon afterward. Since then, the user who made the adds has opened a discussion with me on my talk page here and here. My contention was that the edits used unreliable sources and were a violation of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM. The other user disagrees, and proposes that the sources (http://www.dianedew.com/black.htm and http://www.blackgenocide.org/home.html) reliably verify that elective abortions are both "crimes against humanity" and a planned "genocide" of African-Americans.

I thought it would be best to bring this discussion to this article's talk page, and let others post their thoughts so that our discussion alone won't dictate whether or not the material in question is suitable for inclusion in the article. Please post here or on on either of our talk pages. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable sources. Severe WP:FRINGE issues for linking abortion with genocide. Disembrangler (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources are clearly unreliable. Gatoclass (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Source

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ is used in several places in this article. Unfortunately I would have to say it needs to be removed as it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for WP:V and WP:RS. See e.g. Mr. White's Who Am I page] Tameamseo (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it is not his web site specifically that is being used as a source, but his gathering of facts from reliable sources. Unless you can show that he has altered any of the the numbers so that they are not a true representation of the citations he gives, I do not see any problem in using his site. --PBS (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand now that Mr. White himself is not being used as an RS, but he cites reliable sources. I don't know if there's a guideline for such a situation but logically surely in that case our support as such is technically coming from the actual RS, not the non-RS that claims the RS makes the assertion. The references surely should then make clear that the actual source is not the site but the sources quoted by the site. Footnote 2 for instance is "Brzezinski, Zbigniew: Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, Prentice Hall & IBD, 1994, ASIN B000O8PVJI - cited by White" - so it's clear there that our actual RS is the book not the non-RS site. Some of the others though, such as 5 and 6, look as if the website is what's being used - in other words our assertions there appear to be supported only by a non-RS's claim as to what an RS says. I'm not suggesting that it's the case with Mr. White's site, but I could imagine a situation where someone's personal website made an erroneous or misleading claim about what an RS says and therefore caused factual errors on Wikipedia when it cited the non-RS website on the basis that it cited an RS. A little overly finicky maybe but if you don't mind, I'd like to change the footnotes so that it can be seen more clearly that the actual support for the claims is not the non-RS website but the RS that the non-RS claims to be quoting, as has been done for footnote 2. Tameamseo (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to do so. I did do a few of the refs that way that I added myself, but there are plenty more which have yet to be fully cited as you describe. Gatoclass (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I would consider it rude if you were to take my research without giving me proper credit. "Brzezinski, cited by White" is fine. "Brzezinski" by itself is fine, if you came across this source in your own reading. "Brzezinski" by itself, just because you don't like citing me, even though that's where you got it, would be bad manners. Thanks. - Matthew White 4.152.195.143 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm just noticing alsp that there seem to be errors in the copying. In Footnote 2, the non-RS claim about what the RS, Brzezinski, says for WWII appears to be 71 million not 72. Tameamseo (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Muslim conquest in India - 80 million???

Somebody here placed Muslim conquest in India as no. 1 deadliest conflict on this list, even higher than World War II. I think it should be discussed here. For one, how reliable is the source that 80 million people died? And since the conquest lasted for 600 years, I doubt it should be considered as one single conflict, but be seperated into several ones.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This conflict definately counts. It was one conflict waged for one reason, regardless of how long or violent it was. YippiePower (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Neanderthal "genocide"

It is foolish to refer to the extinction of the Neanderthals as a "genocide" perpetrated by modern humans. The very term genocide implies intent. The early modern humans did not even know of the concept of extinction, much less intend to bring it about for Neanderthals or to deliberately drastically reduce the Neanderthal population. The entire item needs to be removed, since it was just nature taking its course in the interaction between species. Refering to Neanderthal extinction as "genocide" also does a great disservice to those groups of people who have been the victims of actual genocides over recorded history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.144 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, or maybe not. Scientifically it seems we did kill them, I was skeptical of what was written, until I did the lack of research the original person did, as I added references in favor of this. I'm sure, the 2 sentient beings were incredibly aggressive towards eachother. Clashing together in a form of prehistoric war, where humans had the upper hand: Disease and better weapons. Newer fossils show neanderthals were killed with human weapons, and since Neanderthals occupied Europe before humans it seems the Humans would kill them for one reason: their land, think of the European colonization of the Americas but a few thousand years ago with different perpetrators.

Dude018219293 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

Maybe we should also add the genocide of the Dodo?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the initial comment about the Neanderthals. This purported genocide entry is totally ludicrous, biased and generally out of perspective. There were no states or armies in that era, no extended military campaigns, no ideologies, and therefore genocide is a completely wrong word here.

The way the notes section implies a scientific consensus on the decline of the Neanderthals is a massive misrepresentation and simplification. Oh and why is this "new evidence" that has "convinced scientists" published in a tabloid instead of a scientific magazine? I think this section needs to be either completely redone or removed. Junuxx (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tasmania

Whilst there are no reliable figures available of population numbers prior to European intervention, the full extinction of Indigenous Tasmanians has occured and was largely a result of murder and disease by European settlers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.160.28 (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Colonization of Americas - Rummel says "only" 2 million

Under genocides, European colonization of the Americas is ranked as no. 2 on the list, with estimates of a minimum of 8,000,000 people killed. But, Rummel actually places the number much lower, "only" 2,000,000[1]. So, I think it should be changed and placed lower, ranked no 3, after Holodomor.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Theres something that may be debateable, there is much conflict on placing an accurate number on The America's inhabitants from the arctic to argentina before and after the alleged "Genocide" in the list it possesses the highest estimate number-wise but an average low estimate. I think it should be placed at 1, or 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.34.160 (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection for three months

I have reverted to an old version of this article (75.176.69.14 at 15:26, 27 June 2009) which was the last time that the table headings were correct. I have semi protected the list for three months because there has been a lot of vandalism, and it gets difficult to judge what is the result of vandalism and what were improvements to the article. Please re-add any improvements to this article that my revert removed. --PBS (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Anshi Rebellion

I have removed the death toll which is obviously exaggerated. The decline of 36 million was a decline in registered population, which after the rebellion took the Tang government a long time to "re-register". The actual death toll was in fact far lower.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So, the death toll for An Shi Rebellion is exaggerated, but the death toll for the Fall of the Roman Empire is realistic? Do you have any refrence that the death toll for An Shi Rebellion was, let's say, only 3,6 million? The lowest estimate is 33 million. That's the only refrence. There isn't any other, and there for you have to settle for the fact that this is the closest to the statistical evidence instead of trying to fabricate fake evidence. Even if it was only 3,6 million it would still be big enough to be on the list, which is why I diasgree that it should be ignored and simply erased. But the death toll for the Fall of Roman Empire is the real exaggeration. An Shi Rebellion ended in year 763, the Fall ended in 476. There is no way that there could be 30 to 60 million dead people because of the latter, since the World population at that time was around 200-250 million. That would mean that 20 % of the World population was killed there, which would have left Europe virtually empty and unpopulated, and that's definitely not the case. The lowest estimate is actually 1.8 million[2]. McEvedy and Jones even estimate that Europe had 28-36 million inhabitants in 200 A.D.[3], which clearly exposes the "30 million dead minimum" myth. At least the An Shi Rebellion had a census before-after comparison, Fall of the Roman Empire doesn't have that, which is why I consider it the "weaker link". --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Genocides forgotten?

The list of Genocides is incomplete: many significant ones are missing. What about the Armenian genocide, Greek genocide, Assyrian genocide? Or the Free Congo State where apparently millions were killed? Shouldn't they be included?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

only Genocides listed in the article Genocides in history should be listed here. For example although millions were died in the Free Congo State (FCS) no reputable expert considers it to be a genocide. FCS like many other events which are not in the article Genocides in history are discussed in detail in the talk page and archives of the Genocides in history see for example Talk:Genocides in history#Belgian Congo --PBS (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason many such mass killings are not listed is because PBS has repeatedly deleted a long list of such events from this page as "original research". I have not restored the list for some time because the only way to maintain it is to edit war with PBS, which is obviously a less than satisfactory solution. At some future time however, I will probably restore it with some alterations. ATM however, I have other wiki-priorities. Gatoclass (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not develop the crimes against humanity section instead? It is quantifiable, and as crimes which "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population" are clearly a man made disaster (which something that could not be said of the old list without POV assumptions)? -- PBS (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Philip, this is supposed to be a page about manmade mass mortalities. Any sort of manmade mass mortality has a place here. You deleted an entire section because of a quibble over the title which you felt was inaccurate. That is not a legitimate reason to remove the content.

I can't recall now exactly what your last objection was, but I didn't get around to suggesting something else because, quite frankly, I have 1,000 other things to do on this project to keep me busy. That doesn't mean however, that I have accepted the status quo. I expect I will get back to this page eventually to try and fix some of the outstanding problems, it's just not a priority right now. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

American genocide high number

A recent edit has claimed that David Stannard gave an estimate of 120,000,000 dead. That number is very very higher than the 20 million claimed by Charles C. Mann. Furthermore looking through the ref'd book American holocaust: the conquest of the New World By David E. Stannard I couldn't find that number, or indeed an exact number. So what should be the set high number? --Phil5329 (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

According to White, Stannard gave an estimate of 100 million in American Holocaust, not 120. So I think we should stick to that figure. Gatoclass (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe

I think that we need to include those killed during the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. If you look here, you can see that estimates for the body count range from 1.7m to 3m, which would be large enough to warrant inclusion in the list. Epa101 (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comments to PBS in the "Other Genocides forgotten?" section above. Gatoclass (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. I'll have a look at the sources, and am fairly confident that at least one will call it a "genocide". Would it then be suitable to add? Epa101 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Rummel calls it a genocide here. I am aware that Rummel's work is controversial. Is this enough? Epa101 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ibos genocide in Nigeria during the Biafran War

I think this one was probably large enough to be included in the list. You can read about it here if you've never heard of it. If anyone has an academic reference for the number killed, please list it here so that we can see the highest and lowest estimates. Epa101 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I could not see where in the page or following pages that the author claimed that it was a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

True, the word is not on that page. Page 114, which should be here, mentions the claim but says that it was not accepted. It is included in Israel Charny's Encyclopedia of Genocide: see page 347 here, or, if that page is blocked from view, see page xxxix of the contents, which mentions it. Epa101 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

War of 1812

I was wondering why the War of 1812 was considered on the "Wars" list. It seems really irrelevant compared to all of the others. I tried to remove it (in sandbox mode), but only ended up messing up the tables. Casual T .30-06 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

made the change, not sure why it was in there.

Benspigel (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition of genocide

This article claims to use the UN's definition of "genocide" rather than the broader democide version. Why is the Irish Famine on there? How does that count as an attempt to eliminate a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Has anyone (outside the IRA) claimed that the British government was deliberately killing off Irish or Catholics with this famine?

Secondly, the figures for Cambodia are for everyone killed under the Khmer Rouge, but all sources on genocide state that only a minority of killings were "genocide" (e.g. the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against humanity, entry for "Religious groups"): most of the victims were Khmers just like Pol Pot and his colleagues. There was genocide directed towards the Cham Muslims, Chinese, Vietnamese and Buddhist monks, but this would total just 250,000. The section is currently marked as unreferenced: I plan to alter the figures soon unless anyone objects. Epa101 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you read Genocides in history article, it explains who has claimed that the Irish Potato Famine was a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at that: it says that historians disagree as to whether it was "genocide". Couldn't the same thing be said about the Belgian Congo? From what I know, a higher proportion of people consider that to be "genocide" than the Irish Potato Famine (any encyclopedia on genocide includes the Belgian Congo, but I've yet to see one that includes the Irish famine). The discussions on this article seem to have concluded that the Belgian Congo shouldn't be included, so I think the Irish potato famine should be excluded under the same guidelines. Epa101 (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Irish famine is gone now. I have added the genocide that took place during the Zanzibar Revolution, since that seems indisputably genocide. Epa101 (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest putting the Irish famine back under the "Famine" header, where if I'm not mistaken it used to be. Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was still there but without references. I've restored the references to this section. Epa101 (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done The bot should start in the next 24 hours.--Oneiros (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Percent of World Population

could we possibly include the approximate percentage of mankind that these deaths represented at the time of the event (this may only be possible for events that take place over a short period of time),

including this statistic could provide some context to the massive losses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.173.204 (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Or indeed the size of population of the combatants at the time, which would give a better idea of lethality. As long as the figures are nominal, such comparisons are "apples and pears". Even since WWII, the world population has increased almost 3-fold... Jonathan Stanley (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)