Talk:List of wars by death toll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What about Nagorno-Karabakh War[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karabakh_War08:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hugenot wars are redundant[edit]

They're already mentioned as 'French Religious Wars'. Does somebody know what of those two is the more common handle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.79.237.18 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.Theowoll (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts, which were not defined as wars[edit]

Not all conflicts are defined wars, and hence this is not a list of coups, rebellions, uprisings, operations, battles, etc. Some of conflicts were defined both as rebellions and wars, so they belong here (like the First and Second Kurdish-Iraqi Wars, which are also rebellions, and the Black September in Jordan, which is called by sources a Jordanian or Jordanian-Palestinian civil war.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim, you are kindly asked not to engage into an edit war and avoid all my attempts for conversation. Not all military operations are wars, and there is no source which supports your claim (if there is pls bring it). There is a special List of military operations for listing army operations, so you can insert it there. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Wars[edit]

The sources for the Chinese wars are sloppy, seemingly unreliable, inconsistent with one another (providing they even exist) and the figures look exaggerated, to say the least. Also, figures from that time are going to be unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.172.202 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Looked up the Three Kingdoms Wars stats. Closest I could find to the figures (here and here) are derived from census data before and after the wars, which doesn't seem to necessarily denote casualties. In fact, the first link (which is citation 5 in the article) goes so far as to suggest that this figure is a misrepresentation of the death toll, citing emigration and other factors. 2601:D:2F80:10CC:C190:319F:8665:B4B2 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Kitsch22

Muslim Conquest of India[edit]

Including all the conflict between Hindus and Muslims from 1000 to 1525 as a single "war" seems highly dubious. 129.72.147.184 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This information lacks precision, since it's critical to has a trusted source of information far away from extremism and misleading. Balqam (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding calling it a "war", given that "Mongol conquests" is second on the list, I would think Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent would qualify. Regarding precision, there isn't going to be precision with something that started around 1000 years ago, but that doesn't seem to be an issue, given that the number three on the list started around 2000 years ago. I've done research and have found estimates between 6 million and 80 million. I've been unable to find anything that has denied a whole, whole lot of people were killed; and certainly no one who suggests under 1 million, the threshold number for this article. Is anyone familiar with estimates under 6 million? If not I'm planning on putting in an entry with 6-80, pending discussion here. I am uncomfortable with the wide range; it's significantly more than the current "winner", Conquests of Tamerlane with a 13 million spread for a 35 year conflict. But if you extrapolated that out to the number of years of the Muslim / Indian subcontinent conflict, the Muslim conquests' 74 million spread over ~500 years doesn't look so bad. --Djbclark (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
No less an authority than Will Durant called the Muslim conquest of India the bloodiest in history. So it certainly seems to deserve a mention in this article, especially if a non-war like the Stalinist purges is included.The Sanity Inspector (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if the page should be split into "wars" and "campaigns". The Reconquista would also make an interesting entry. Cameron Nedland (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Death tolls needed[edit]

The following wars from 1900-1919 are missing because I have so far not found a death toll. 1900-1919:
Bailundo Revolt of 1902 (1902-1903)
Honduran-Nicaraguan War (1907)
Persian Constitutional Revolution
Dutch–Venezuela War
Border War (1910–19)
United States occupation of Nicaragua
Maritz Rebellion
United States occupation of Haiti
National Protection War
Kaocen Revolt
United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916–24)
Arab Revolt
February Revolution
Soviet-Turkish War (1917-1918)
Ukrainian War of Independence
Georgian–Armenian War
German Revolution of 1918–19
Greater Poland Uprising (1918–19)
Armenian–Azerbaijani War
Lithuanian–Soviet War
Lithuanian Wars of Independence
Any help would be appreciated DylanLacey (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

War on Drugs / Terror[edit]

Are there any numbers for these "wars" that the United States and other countries participate in?

addition of second punic war.[edit]

As headline suggest's, not sure if second punic war is included, if so defiantly not with the correct number of 613,000+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.169.232 (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Paraguayan War[edit]

Paraguayan War was the bloodiest conflict of South America ever and was the most devastating conflict in relation of total population: almost 70% of Paraguayan, Formosan and Entre-Rios population were killed and almost all Mato Grosso cities and towns were destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.92.34 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a wiki question but one of naming..[edit]

Why is the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) separate from World War II?

From article : 60,669,200-84,589,300 – World War II (1939–1945) and 20,000,000 – Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) are separate entries?

🍺 Antiqueight confer 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Compare with World Population[edit]

This article should be a table, where each war is listed next to the number of deaths, the estimated world population at beginning of the war, and the resulting percentage of the world population which died in the war. Sonicsuns (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this information, whether presented in a table or some other form, would be interesting. For example, it could answer the question of whether x century was more warlike than y in terms of the percentage of the world population that died because of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashdown1 (talkcontribs) 02:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

American Revolution[edit]

How come the American Revolution isn't listed here? In fact, the list looks rather incomplete in general.

Spencer Klein, Berkeley, CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:4780:16ED:98B5:1E15:5D2B:AEF9 (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Front?[edit]

How is this listed as a separate war? It was part of World War II. Sure it may have accounted for a large percentage of WWII's casualties (the entire reason WWII is No. 1 is because of the Eastern Front). It was not a separate war.--RM (Be my friend) 00:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

American Indian Wars[edit]

An editor has again deleted information about the "European colonization of the Americas" from this (and a related) article without providing substantive reasoning for the deletion. The edit summaries provided to date change with each deletion:

  • "There are no evidence that Measles were used deliberately for genocide"
Measles wasn't mentioned in the content you deleted. Why was the content deleted?
  • "the population in the Americas in the 1600s likely did not exceed 20 million"
If you have an issue with the numeric values used, then please provide correct numerical information along with reliable sources. You gave no reason for deleting the content.
  • "Further citations are needed"
If you feel that additional citations are needed, please provide them, or append a citation tag to the content. You gave no reason for deleting the content.
  • "Please refer to the 'Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas' wiki."
I did refer to the Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas article, and it supports the content you tried to delete without explanation.
  • "There's no plausibility to the claim that 50 million died, especially when no credible citations are provided."
There are numerous credible citations in the above-linked article, one of which was recently appended to the information you deleted from this article. If you feel there is a problem with the information, you must explain what that problem is here on the Talk page.
  • "Not only is the reputation of your source highly discredited, but the deaths would be better listed under the spread of endemic like black death as wars were not the direct causation of this endemic"
If you feel that a source or sources have been "discredited", you need to identify the source and demonstrate why it is "discredited"; just claiming it doesn't help us. You also gave no reason for deleting the content.
  • "I have already checked it and it was agreed for the entry to be removed because it does not correlate to an actual war but rather an epidemic, the figures are also inconsistent with the actual population of natives at that time so check it yourself."
Please provide a link to the discussion where editors "agreed for the entry to be removed" was reached. It is not reflected in your contribution log, nor on this Talk page. You also do not explain which of the documented American Indian Wars you feel is not reflected in the correlation. You gave no actual reason for the deletion of that content.
  • "Epidemic is not equal war, figures are highly suspect and disputed."
In this instance, the epidemic disease is indeed anthropogenic, and the information you deleted does not equate the epidemic with war, so you'll need to provide clarification. Also, as previously noted, if you claim that numeric figures are disputed, you will need to provide substantiation for your claim. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This has been pretty tirelessly covered at the Talk:List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page, which has a much wider scope than this article does. If I remmeber correctly you're familiar with that consensus there and nothing has changed that I'm aware of, so why are we having a repeat here? GraniteSand (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, GraniteSand. I see in the archives at the Talk page you linked that there have indeed been numerous discussions regarding the indigenous peoples of the Americas, but I did not participate in any of those discussions. (A search for my user name in those archives returns zero hits.) Could I trouble you for a link to one of the more recent discussions wherein the consensus you speak of was developed? I'm not familiar with it, but I suppose it is possible I am misremembering. As to your question, I'm not aware of what is being repeated here. I see that an IP added numeric information to the table in this article, then a new account deleted it with an odd edit summary about "...Measles were used deliberately for genocide...", and I've been trying to sort it out since then. I understand that population counts and causes of change in those population counts are both actively debated issues, but I don't think any side in the debate is proposing that there is a nonexistent death toll due to war for the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Your input would be appreciated, if you have the time available. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, GraniteSand. I see you have removed content regarding the depopulation of the Americas. Again. And yet again. "you need to provide a citation", you claim as you delete content, yet you conveniently left many other items uncited. "Not a single event, not a war", you then claim as you delete content, yet that same description applies to many other items in this list. Will we be getting to the real reason for your repeated deletions anytime soon? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If there is anything on this list you don't think fits the scope of this article then remove it. GraniteSand (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course. But what does that have to do with these recent edits of yours? Are you implying that you don't think the content you keep removing fits the scope of this list? So it wasn't an issue with "no citations", or an issue with not being a "single event", after all? It's a scope issue now? Okay. Could you please explain how the content is not within the scope of this list? Here's the lede, for your reference:
This list of wars by death toll includes death toll estimates of all deaths that are either directly or indirectly caused by war. These numbers usually include both the deaths of military personnel which are the direct results of battle or other military wartime actions, as well as the wartime/war-related deaths of civilians, which are the results of war induced epidemics, diseases, famines, atrocities, genocide etc.
Are you now contending that the Conquest of the Americas and the associated epidemics and genocide (an event studied by scholars which reduced the indigenous population from tens of millions to a mere 237,000) doesn't fit the scope of this list article? It does, but I await with interest your explanation of why you think it does not. The scope of the list is obviously very broad, as evidenced by the inclusion of entries like the Mongol Conquests or The 100 Years War, which span centuries and are actually made up of many separate events which are studied as a whole. Or the Kashmir Conflict and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, ongoing situations which include many diverse "wartime actions" which are studied as a whole. They are all within the scope of this list article.
As I noted above, I did not add the information to the article, but I have certainly reverted unsubstantiated attempts to delete it. It's clear you do not like the content, but your rapidly changing parade of reasons to delete the content isn't helping me to understand what underlying issue you have with it. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a laundry list of reasons why your insistence of including the "European colonization of the Americas" is wrongheaded, starting with, yes, the fact you didn't even bother to source it. The subject you're trying to shoehorn in here isn't a contiguous series of conflicts; it spans centuries, hundreds of various nations and non-national actors, non-conflict related pandemics, migrations, demographic intermingling, and contains a massive body of guesswork, with some estimates ranging into Book of Mormon type detachment from archaeological evidence. There are plenty of actual wars within the subject and if you want to include those then I would say that's fine. And, again, if you don't think something else fits here then say so and remove it. Also, you're way past BRD with this, I'm not the first editor to throw a flag here. GraniteSand (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. Answering each of your concerns in order:
There is a laundry list of reasons why your insistence of including the "European colonization of the Americas" is wrongheaded...
That is a mischaracterization. I haven't been insisting that the content be included. It was inserted into the article before I arrived here, by another editor. What I have been insistent about is making clerical reverts of unexplained and unjustified deletions. I'm sure it may appear to have the same net effect to you, but please quit erroneously attributing the origins of the content, or it's addition to this article, to me. Thanks.
...starting with, yes, the fact you didn't even bother to source it.
Of course I didn't; I didn't add the content to the article. I did, however, verify that the two main articles linked within the content did indeed convey the same information, with reliable sources, before reverting the unexplained deletion. And I did copy and paste a couple of those reliable sources into this list article at your later request. But since you selected just that particular bit of uncited content to delete when there are many other uncited entries in the same list, we both know that sourcing has nothing to do with your desire to delete that content.
The subject you're trying to shoehorn in here isn't a contiguous series of conflicts...
You mean the subject added by another editor, which you are now struggling to justify deleting? As for "isn't a contiguous series of conflicts", that is an interesting opinion, but none of the sources I've read convey that there were designated breaks or hiatus in the conquest and colonization of the Americas. To the contrary, the subject is described and defined in the sources as the four century period between the late 1400s and the late 1800s. Could you please provide your sources which convey the contrary, along with an explanation as to how it is outside the scope of this list?
... it spans centuries ...
Yes. Yes, it does; as do many of the entries in this list. I see no indication of designated time spans as part of the scope of this list.
...hundreds of various nations and non-national actors...
A handful, actually, according to the cited sources on the European colonization of the Americas — so I will have to press you to provide sources for your claim. But more importantly, please indicate for me where you feel the scope of this list addresses and limits the number of parties involved in a designated subject.
... non-conflict related pandemics, migrations, demographic intermingling ...
I would need to see your specific sources on these to better understand what you are claiming here, but as a starting point, can you confirm that you understand that the lede to this list says it also includes deaths "indirectly caused" by wars, as well as "war-related deaths of civilians, which are the results of war induced epidemics, diseases, famines, atrocities, genocide, etc"? The present (overly broad, in my opinion) scope of this list article includes the colonization of the Americas. If you are arguing for a more strictly defined, limited scope for this list, you might find a measure of agreement and support from me — but you'll have to make your case for that here on the Talk page.
...and contains a massive body of guesswork, with some estimates ranging into Book of Mormon type detachment from archaeological evidence.
While there may be "a massive body of guesswork" on this subject, of "Book of Mormon type", or worse, "Biblical proportion", that guesswork isn't cited among our sources. So that particular concern isn't applicable here.
There are plenty of actual wars within the subject and if you want to include those then I would say that's fine.
They are indeed already included within the subject. We don't disagree on that. Did you mean to say that I should break the subject into individual battles between the colonists and the indigenous peoples, and in addition, exclude the "epidemics, diseases, famines, atrocities, genocide etc" which are the results of that conflict? That would require a complete redefinition of the current scope of this list article.
... if you don't think something else fits here then say so and remove it.
Perhaps once, but not repeatedly if reasonable objections to the removal are raised.
Also, you're way past BRD with this, I'm not the first editor to throw a flag here.
Say what? Please indicate for me where consensus was reached (which would be the point at which we're "past BRD"). Neither one of us were the first to "throw a flag" here. You appear to be misunderstanding BRD, which is a guideline designed to promote discussion and resolution instead of revert warring. You also appear to have forgotten that I opened the discussion here, and when you joined the discussion on the 5th, I patiently waited for more than a week for your response to my request that you point out the consensus discussion you claimed existed. I even left the bold unexplained deletion in effect while I waited, to no avail; you seemed quite content to avoid discussion while your preferred unsubstantiated edit remained in effect. Please review WP:BRD if you have any remaining confusion.
I'll be returning the content you deleted unless you have an actual reason why the information shouldn't appear here. You have not given a reason (with the exception of "uncited", which is no longer applicable) in your comments above. You mention a "consensus" in your comments above, and again in your most recent edit summary on this article, so I will repeat my request that you direct me to the discussion(s) where this consensus was reached, so that I may review it. It would also be helpful if you could share with me your interpretation of the "scope" of this list article, as there are indications that we may have some disagreement there. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Good grief, I'm not doing the excruciating, bullet pointed, wall-of-text thing, especially when so much of it is just specious or circular logic. This has been removed plenty of times by a wide cross section of editors. Because it hadn't yet been removed again when you decided this was the hill you wanted to die on doesn't mean anything. There are two editors, now, who think it's inclusion is inappropriate. You disagree. Again, I suggest you solicit outside input if you can't accept the rejection of your, presently, solitary opinion. You simply don't have consensus. GraniteSand (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So to summarize: You won't be responding to my expressed concerns. You won't point me to this "consensus" discussion you claim exists. You claim this content has been removed "plenty of times by a wide cross section of editors", which equates to exactly TWO editors: you, and an editor with a total of 4 days of editing (gee, was that you, too?). Yes, I went through the whole article history. There are now two (you, and that same editor with 4 days of editing) who don't like the content, and are choosing to revert war rather than give a substantive reason for excluding the reliably sourced information. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death, here and the sister page; I'm not doing to endless back and forth with you. You're alone on this, so if you don't like it then the remedy is to find others to weigh in. Take it to whatever neutral venue you want, just mind WP:CANVASS. GraniteSand (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You haven't given an explanation for deleting that content from the article. You claimed it needed additional citations, so I provided them. Then you claimed the content was beyond the scope of this article, so I quoted the lead of this article to you which describes the scope, under which this content qualifies. Then you claimed there exists consensus to exclude this information from this article, so I asked you to please provide a link to the discussion which produced that consensus. You ignored my request. So I repeated my request that you point out this alleged consensus. Again you ignored my request, claiming that you and a new single purpose account with just 4 days of edits somehow equates to a "consensus". I can no longer assume good faith, and have no choice but to call bullshit on your claim that there ever was a discussion resulting in consensus to exclude the content from this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with you that it fits into the scope of this article. Even if your cited entry did agree with this item's inclusion the entry isn't sacrosanct. The inclusion of the event renders the term war almost meaningless and it introduces a level of guesstimation unmoored from reality which is patently unacceptable for a list article here context is so vauge. You've had it explained to you twice now, by two people. You're on your lonesome here. For what will be the last time, if you think this belongs here then you should have no trouble selling it to a wider group at MILHIST or some other neutral venue. Right? You want it included, the onus is one you. GraniteSand (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You disagree that the content fits the scope of this article? Okay. Let's focus on that one narrow concern of yours, setting aside for now your myriad other excuses given above (your "laundry list of reasons" I think you called it) for purging the uncomfortable information from view, alright?
You appear to split your concern into two parts: "inclusion of the event renders the term war almost meaningless" and "it introduces a level of guesstimation". Addressing your first part, it looks as if you are complaining that the "Colonization of the Americas" isn't a war. I agree; it is not a war, but a set of wars, conflicts and military actions, and the directly or indirectly resulting "epidemics, diseases, famines, atrocities, genocide etc." visited upon the indigenous people of the Americas by the colonizers. As such, the content fits perfectly in the present (overly broad, in my opinion - but I'm working with what we have) scope of this list. If you are suggesting that the scope should be narrowed to cover only actual war casualties, you may find me with a sympathetic ear. Is that what you were suggesting when you said, There are plenty of actual wars within the subject and if you want to include those then I would say that's fine.? If so, please propose the new lead wording describing the scope as you would like to see it. Presently, however, the content fits the scope. Addressing your second part, I do not see the "guesstimation" to which you referred. What I do see in the cited reliable sources and the related linked Wikipedia articles is a significant range of data generated by competing methodologies, which while they sometimes may vary, they certainly aren't guesswork. Is there something I'm missing here?
You claim You've had it explained to you twice now, by two people, which is incorrect; as I scroll up and review this whole page, I see explanations only from lonesome you. And one last correction: the onus is not on me to "sell" additions to Wikipedia articles, which can be added at any time by anyone. The responsibility falls back on me only if additions are disputed, which hasn't been done here — dislike, disagreement and disassociation, plenty, but the content hasn't been disputed. Should you wish to dispute the content, please feel free to do so, and that will inform us as to which noticeboard to visit to resolve that dispute. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Longitudinal studies[edit]

An editor has deleted a reliably sourced entry from this list article, with an edit summary stating:

  • (The case was already made, this is a longitudinal event and war was a minimal part of it.)

I don't disagree that the entry can be characterized as a longitudinal event, but there is nothing in our article excluding such events, of which there are presently many listed. So why the deletion? I've returned the reliably sourced content pending an explanation. Also, of course war is a part of the event; I believe that is a requirement to meet the scope of this list article, at a minimum. Do you disagree? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Since there has been no response, I'll return the content. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Wars are a state of conflict, it marks a beginning and an end, the European colonization of the Americas is different from say the British colonization of India, that colonization spans a period of over a hundred years, yet it is not considered a war in the classic sense. The example of European Colonization of the Americas is even more vague, as it was not a war, though there were conflicts that resulted from time to time, most of the conflicts recorded were in fact between native tribes against other native tribes, rather than European against the natives. What happened during this period was more of a period of settlement and pilgrimage rather than purely colonization, as the Europeans were able to build their own settlement and slowly build up a growing society and Governance in the vast and mostly uninhabited lands in the Americas. There's a big difference even between what the British did in India and what the Europeans did in the Americas, you are oversimplying this historical event by classifying it as a war, which it is not. Vellusammy (talkcontribs) 06:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinions. I disagree with several of them. I see you make several comparisons with the "British colonization of India", of which I am less familiar, so I'll draw comparisons to another entry in our list in my response. The Conquest of the Americas, like the Mongol Conquests, both listed in our article, did indeed consist of war. You say "it marks a beginning and an end", which is rather confusing; the beginning and end dates for these events are already noted. You state, "most of the conflicts recorded were in fact between native tribes against other native tribes", which, besides being completely unsubstantiated by you, doesn't mean that there was not war between the Europeans and the indigenous Americans. Also, I assume you are referring to "records" produced by the Europeans? You also make a very controversial assertion, "What happened during this period was more of a period of settlement and pilgrimage rather than purely colonization, as the Europeans were able to build their own settlement and slowly build up a growing society and Governance in the vast and mostly uninhabited lands in the Americas", which would have historians and most scholars guffawing. Should I assume you are a believer in the "Pristine Myth"? (Google it if necessary.)
We can agree on several points: (1) The Conquest of the Americas does cover a long time span; 4 centuries, although most sources note 95% of the depopulation happened in the first 150 years. (2) The "Europeans" and the "Indigenous Americans" can be further subdivided into smaller identifiable groups. (3) There were many identifiable "conflicts" and "battles" during the event covered, and many of the deaths tabulated in the death toll were not casualties of warfare, but were related (see the lede paragraph of the article). None of these three points preclude the content from being listed here. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There are many assumptions thrown about here as I mentioned, one those assumptions was that the Americas was heavily populate, by the time of European settlement, though that was vaguely true in certain parts of South America. This is certainly not the case in the Northern Hemisphere, where continuous immigration would later displace and outnumber the native population, by most estimates the number of natives for the North American region numbered no more than 18,000,000 which is the highest estimates. But a more logical assessment, put those numbers at around 5 million, and there were around 40 cases of conflicts between the European settlers and native Indians, resulting in the death of 16,000 white men and 30,000 natives, this is from the U.S statistical bureau, but most of the larger wars were fought between European colonial powers, not between the European and natives. As for South America, you need to check the population statistics, there are about 200 million people of indigenous American descent today living in South America of which 56 million are purely indigenous, those figures do not line up with 95% depopulation over 150 years, in fact if you agree to a more modest estimate of around 20-25 million for the entire South American population in the 15th centur, the population has indeed risen not fallen. As for wars refer to Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire which was the largest war recorded involving an European power and Indigenous tribes, and it is mostly a Tribal conflict with the Spanish taking the side of the Tlaxcala and Cempoala over the Aztecs. Those are just one of the wars, though there were other smaller conflicts that were fought among the indigenous tribes which did not involve the Europeans, this have nothing in similar to the Mongol conquest you suggested, there were intermittent wars fought but as I said they were all individual wars and cannot be lump in a 400 year time frame as one continuous war, this is not just a gross oversimplification, it is gross misreading of history events. Vellusammy (talkcontribs) 17:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There are many assumptions thrown about here as I mentioned...
You aren't kidding! Let's take a look at some of them:
Assumption: ...the Americas was heavily populate, ...This is certainly not the case in the Northern Hemisphere ... numbered no more than 18,000,000 which is the highest estimates.
By those highest estimates, which you just now admit exist, the population of the Americas at the time of contact exceeded that of Europe, East Asia and Africa combined. That is presently academic consensus.
Assumption: ...a more logical assessment, put those numbers (1492 North America population) at around 5 million
More logical in what way? That is a ridiculous assumption; please explain how the calculations for your 5 million figure are more logical than the calculations for the 18 million figure.
Assumption: there were around 40 cases of conflicts between the European settlers and native Indians, resulting in the death of 16,000 white men and 30,000 natives, this is from the U.S statistical bureau
Simply flat-out false. The 40 conflicts you refer to is a subset of the hostilities during a small 57-year period, which occurred long after 95-98% of the indigenous population was decimated.
Assumption: most of the larger wars were fought between European colonial powers, not between the European and natives.
Demonstrably false. Scholars agree that the casualties caused by colonist vs indigenous Americans far exceed the casualties caused by colonists vs other colonists.
Assumption: ...200 million people of indigenous American descent today living in South America of which 56 million are purely indigenous, those figures do not line up with 95% depopulation over 150 years
Of course they (assuming these aren't numbers from your imagination, which I suspect) don't "line up", as you are comparing figures which are 400 years apart.
Assumption: Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire which was the largest war recorded involving an European power and Indigenous tribes
Not according to the Wikipedia article you linked. Perhaps you'd care to provide a reliable source for your interpretation?
Assumption: this have nothing in similar to the Mongol conquest you suggested
Incorrect. (Or were you joking?) Both caused massive casualties; a lot of it caused by disease in both cases; both involved multiple warring parties over multiple centuries, and included not just direct warfare, but also cultural destruction, subjugation, and very large territorial conquest.
Assumption: I said they were all individual wars and cannot be lump in a 400 year time frame as one continuous war...
Which are you talking about? The Mongols or the Europeans? Both situations consist of many individual wars and invasions. Of course you can break major conquests like these down into individual battles and conflicts, but that does not negate the fact that both events are also studied and documented in their single larger context over multiple centuries. How do you suggest this article should address this?
...this is not just a gross oversimplification, it is gross misreading of history events
What is? The study of the of the Mongolian conquests as a whole event, or the study of the European conquests as a whole event, or the study of Tamerlane's conquests as a whole event, or the study of the Manchu's conquests of China as a whole event, or the conquests of the Zulu Nation as a whole event, or the conquests of Mehmed as a whole event? Each of these consist of many "wars" and battles, and each is listed in our article, so I'm having trouble understanding what your concern is here. Care to explain? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I kindly ask you to cite out each and everyone of these battles and wars fought between the colonist and the natives, each and every study and assumptions you just threw out there, you list an extensive list of things that you should now go about citing and proving every single thing you just said, then I will accept the entire longitudinal event as an entire war just to end the debate. Cite all the wars that were fought, list the casualty in each and every one of those wars, and add it up, I am not going to do that for you, since I have a feeling that what you are throwing out is nothing more than your imagination. The European colonization of the Americas was not a conquest but rather a mass settlement. The largest wars fought then were between natives of different tribes, in South America, and those natives are even more heavily populated in South America today. As I had mentioned before, if the population in the entire Americas had been anywhere near 50 million, there must have been thousands of cities that still remain to this very day, including millions of cultural relics, that would have lasted to this very day, instead of a few ruins in proven populated areas. You brought this up, you prove it or this will remain delisted. Till you list at least some of the wars fought, cite it, and add up the figures, even the ones fought among the natives, you will find yourself being really childish in throwing out your own assumptions here. As for the population figure you do realized that a large majority of the population in South America, with the exception of Argentina due to mass European immigration in the 20th century are mestizos which was already proven through DNA studies, unlike the things you threw out at random, which you cannot cite from anywhere apart from assumptions and more assumptions Vellusammy (talkcontribs) 12:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We can't add all the wars (and all the other deaths you mentioned) together; that would be a violation of WP:OR. That's why I cited reliable sources which did that for us. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You can't because you don't even have the list of wars, I have the list of all the recorded wars the Spanish had fought against the Aztecs, and all of them involve collaboration with other local native tribes, you have little facts to this part of history yet deem it necessary to make up your own version of it, on what basis can you do that? You fail to back up anything of what you say with proper source materials but insist on going by your own assumptions, as I said if you can cite your arguments then go right ahead and do it. Vellusammy (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect. We can't because Wikipedia policy forbids it. Please read WP:OR. What I have entered in the article is backed by reliable source citations. As for your request that I also "back up anything of what you say with proper source materials", it is only required that material added to the article be cited to proper source material — what I say during our discussions here doesn't require sourcing. But, if it will help clear up your confusion, I'd be happy to do you the favor of pointing you in the direction of the sources I've been using, even though Talk page discussions don't require citations. But as for the reliably sourced content you keep deleting, you will need to provide a policy-based reason for your repeated deletions. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You are the one using your own original research all the time to come out with your conclusions. You refuse to cite any of the source to the points you put out above because you have none and you made it up, not because you actually understood what went on during this period. So as I have mentioned, prove what you say as facts, and I will gladly have the entire period lump into the Genocide on the Native Americans, as it stands, what you are trying to assert is extremely unlikely given that none of what the Spanish did in the Americas resembled a genocide, colonization in some ways, perhaps after all they are settling in new lands not their own, but a conquest in classic military terms? No. In fact integration and intermixing between the natives and Europeans happened much sooner in the South and the demographics of South America today speak for itself, and we know intermixing never did happen between the Indians and the mainly British colonizers in the North, which was why the demographics in the North are mainly Europeans to this day, though the influx of immigrants is changing that today, really you do need a conquest to change the demographics of a region, oftentimes integration and migration over several generations will do just that. contribs) 07:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You are the one using your own original research all the time to come out with your conclusions. You refuse to cite any of the source to the points you put out above because you have none and you made it up, not because you actually understood what went on during this period. So as I have mentioned, prove what you say as facts...
For the third and final time, please read WP:OR: You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages. You would also do well to read WP:NPA, and quit violating it.
...what you are trying to assert is extremely unlikely given that (insert a whole bunch of irrelevant personal opinions here)...
Your theories are entertaining, and I'd love to discuss them with you sometime, but they are beside the point here. I'll repeat what I said above: But as for the reliably sourced content you keep deleting, you will need to provide a policy-based reason for your repeated deletions. I'm still waiting for your reason. The content you are deleting is cited to reliable sources; and all of your recent comments are merely you debating what those reliable sources say. You do realize that this isn't the place to conduct a debate on what you think happened versus what the cited sources say, right?
So once again, please provide your reasoning for deleting the reliably sourced content. All I've seen is a whole bunch of opinions like "none of what the Spanish did in the Americas resembled a genocide" and "intermixing never did happen between the Indians and the mainly British colonizers" and "really you do need a conquest to change the demographics of a region", all of which is meaningless to me. You need to be arguing with the cited reliable sources, not me, because I'm not the person being cited for the information you keep trying to purge from the article. If that barrage of personal opinions is your way of trying to say you personally disagree with the reliable sources, then you should raise your concern at the WP:RSN noticeboard. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources disputing your assumptions, and backed up my points, those are not theories, the Spanish rule in South America is one, they were always the minority in the region where they Governed and intermarriage and religion would later be used to integrate the natives whom they have aided and worked with to defeat the Aztecs, those are not assumptions, those are historically recorded and accepted history at least where Mexican history is concerned. I would ask you to respect WP:AD and not cite something that is disputed, if it is disputed it cannot be taken as the only truth, and this subject is highly disputed, and the fact that this event cannot be classified as a war, means it do not belong on this list just the same so accuracy dispute or not, this do not classify as a war. Vellusammy (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in your unnamed "plenty of sources" to back up your points and assumptions or mine. I'm also not interested in your personal opinions on Aztecs, intermarriages, minorities, etc. We're not here to take sides and carry on the academic debate; leave that to the academics. If you think something in our article is disputed, you need to produce the reliable source(s) (include the publication, page numbers, etc.) which you say refutes the existing sources, so we can review it and determine if the information in our article needs to be changed. As for your request that we follow WP:AD, sure, we can do that if you'd prefer. As instructed at WP:AD, I've marked the section in our article as disputed (so that it gets listed in the Disputed Category) and opened a "Dispute" section on this Talk page (see below). Xenophrenic (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in your personal assumption either based on taking up the side of a widely panned point of view, and then adding your own personal flavoring to it. There's plenty of researchers who did extensive studies into the actual records and came out with a low end of the population estimate, the US census Bureau in 1894 even stated the population of North America pre Columbus era could not possibly have exceeded 500,000. That is from the Census bureau themselves. It wasn't until Henry Dobyns assertion when he multiplied the known figures by 25 times using some fuzzy logic based on James Mooney who did an extensive study on this, that the figure of 100 million start getting thrown about, but Dobyns would later even admit that his method of calculations were too simplistic, and his estimates about the Inca population was at least 20 million off the mark from his original 37 million estimate. As for this section this have to deal with individual wars, not settlement or colonization, so it do not belong on this list, a longitudinal event or anthropological event perhaps, but it is certainly not a war, as there were long periods of settlements, migrations and nation building, and relatively much longer period of commerce and settlement then actual conflicts in any sense. Vellusammy (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in your personal assumption either...
That's fine. I haven't made any assumptions; but if I ever do, they wouldn't be any more important here than your assumptions and opinions. What matters here is what reliable sources say, and not your opinion or my opinion. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to have opinions or assumptions of my own. The only information I've returned to this article is from reliable sources, in this case Stannard (peer-reviewed, published by Oxford University, and highly cited). If you are challenging the reliability of the source, please raise your concerns at WP:RSN. If you want to discuss "widely panned point of view", I'm not interested, as that is a long-running, ongoing debate for academics well versed in this subject, and not me and you.
As for this section this have to deal with individual wars, not settlement or colonization, so it do not belong on this list...
Incorrect. Please see the discussion below. This list article does not list just "single wars". Perhaps the scope of this article needs to be changed, or more narrowly defined, but please refrain from deleting entries and content that are under discussion before that discussion has concluded. Editors need to be able to see the content being discussed. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
All I am asking for you to do is to source some of your mythical wars by the early Europeans settlers against the natives that do not largely involved the natives themselves, because you clearly haven't, and most likely couldn't. The USA statistic Bureau is as clear an original source as you can take for population figures and this entire section is clearly in dispute because the entire time frame cannot possibly be classified as a war, and even if it does you are only citing one author who is presenting one extreme point of view, where he claimed measles and not war was the cause of 95% of death of the natives, again an unsubstantiated opinion, that was panned by other authors, so the entire premise is clearly in dispute. There are other studies that are in opposite to your assertions so till you could clearly define to me why this period is actually considered an entire period of warfare, the colonization of the Americas cannot possibly belong in this category, it's not much different than the British colonization of the Oceania, to be honest, only that it happened on a larger scale, with much more human footprint involved, both events cannot be considered wars, as conflicts was not the order of things, migration, settlement and nation building was, if you have any opinions on the other wars listed here, go ahead an open a case against the ones of those you disagree with, don't just go add something just because you alone feel the need to misinterpret an entire event. Vellusammy (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from deleting entries and content that are under discussion before that discussion has concluded. Editors need to be able to see the content being discussed. As for your request to "source some of your mythical wars", I don't know what unsourced mythical wars you are talking about, so please be more specific. I haven't entered anything without a source. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Cite me some of the European wars that were fought against the natives without the native participation, as I mentioned before most of the recorded wars were fought among the natives themselves, and those wars are generally small in scale and cannot have constituted the human death toll you cited, besides this, these wars are all individual wars, and most of them had little to do with the European colonization of the Americas apart from the Spanish participation in a tribal war against the Aztecs. This event was more of a mass settlement and migration event, followed by colonial power rivalry later on in the 18th century, and the fight for independence from colonial rule. Cite me some of the wars during the early colonization eras that proved that there's a concerted effort at mass genocide of the native population, you couldn't because such an event never happened. In fact there were plenty of evidence to the contrary, prove of integration and exporting of European system of Governance to the natives, and integration through intermarriage and religion did happened throughout South America where the Europeans had come in contact with Indigenous tribes, which to this very day is reflected in the demographics of South America. There was not an argument that the colonization of the Americas as a war lasting 400 years, when in fact few major conflicts did occur between the natives and the new world settlers during this period, skirmishes were recorded later on but they were not considered large enough to be wars at all. It is you who have the audacity to claim this entire time frame as a war and a deliberate genocidal event all throughout, a blatantly false assumption, when all evidences and studies that do not deal with some political motivated assumptions were taken to account. Vellusammy (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Cite me some of the European wars...
It seems unlikely that Haines, Steckel and Stannard (the scholars referenced in our article) will read this and respond to your request.
Cite me some of the wars during the early colonization eras...
Again, it is unlikely that they are reading this. If you wish to debate their findings with them, or their methods of calculation, perhaps you would have better luck contacting them directly? I know that some scholars have already presented arguments advancing the notion that the conquest of the indigenous people of the Americas did not constitute genocide, so perhaps they can provide the information you seek?
It is you who have the audacity to claim this entire time frame as a war and a deliberate genocidal event...
Me? Incorrect. I'm not a historian or anthropologist, so I make no claims at all. I'm a Wikipedia editor, so I provided information as conveyed by reliable sources. It is these sources which treat the conquest of the Americas as a whole, and even equate the related war, displacement, colonization, slavery, disease, famine, and cultural destruction with genocidal action. If you are suggesting that the information in our article is incomplete, or missing a competing point of view from equally reliable sources, please provide them. As I said above, and I'll repeat here: If you think something in our article is disputed, you need to produce the reliable source(s) (include the publication, page numbers, etc.) which you say refutes the existing sources, so we can review it and determine if the information in our article needs to be changed. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes provide the citation that claimed this entire period as a war, provide information about your mythical wars, plague was definitely cited as one of the reasons for depopulation, but there are also other prominent researchers who dispute that plague actually played a major role at all in the depopulation of the natives, in fact they were evidences that the measles had already been present among the natives even before the arrival of Columbus. The population composition in South America today also debunk your narrative about a major genocide, since the majority of the population are in fact mestizo as I have stated. In any case none of this event constitute a single war, and few major conflicts happened between the period you mentioned. It's up to you to prove this event as a war, when none of the authors classified it as such, so this is something you made up yourself, and it is up to you to cite details on why you believe the entire event should be categorized as a singular war according to you. Vellusammy (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes provide the citation that claimed this entire period as a war...
No. I only provide citations for content added to our article. I never entered information to our article which claimed Mongolian conquests — Conquest of the Americas — Conquests of Tamerlane — Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty - Shaka's Conquests — Conquests of Mehmed II are just "single wars".
provide information about your mythical wars
I don't have any mythical wars. Where would I keep them? You aren't making any sense. And when did anyone mention measles?!
...debunk your narrative about a major genocide
I don't have a narrative about genocide. In fact, I don't know enough about the subject to have formed a "narrative" at all. I have no opinion on it.
If you think something in our article is disputed, you need to produce the reliable source(s) (include the publication, page numbers, etc.) which you say refutes the existing sources, so we can review it and determine if the information in our article needs to be changed. And if you think all these non-single wars shouldn't be in our list article, please explain why in the section below, then we can see about narrowing the scope of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You are claiming this entire period to be a war which we all know is a bogus claim made only by you here. I ask you to cite the wars fought against the natives just to get some perspective back you. No historians will agree with you that this entire period was a war or classified as one and I have cite you plenty who have debunk the population or plague theory, including the US census Bureau whose population estimates is about as credible as you can get, and from none of these sources or the ones who claimed the higher population estimates and that plague wiped out 95% of the natives did they claim this period was a deliberate, concerted war conducted on the natives. It is not up to me be to prove something that isn't there, it is up to you to prove this entire period as a war, and if you have any perspective on this part of history you will know what a fallacy your claim is, and how it completely distort history. Vellusammy (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You are claiming this entire period to be a war ...
No, I am not. Nor have I ever made such a claim. If you think something in our article is disputed, you need to produce the reliable source(s) (include the publication, page numbers, etc.) which you say refutes the existing sources, so we can review it and determine if the information in our article needs to be changed. And if you think all these non-single wars shouldn't be in our list article, please explain why in the section below, then we can see about narrowing the scope of the article.
it is up to you to prove this entire period as a war
Uh, no it isn't. No one is claiming that the entire periods of the Mongolian conquests — Conquest of the Americas — Conquests of Tamerlane — Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty - Shaka's Conquests — Conquests of Mehmed II are solitary wars. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Regardless these are period of cited warfare and dominated by warfare as opposed to what you are proposing, and if you have any problems with anything on the list, go ahead and make a case against it, don't go add something that purposefully distort history, and as you said you have no citations, nothing, as opposed to the Mongol conquest which listed many major and continuous battles with large standing armies on both sides. If you have any claims to inaccuracy on anything make a case, don't go add something that is blatantly your own assumptions. No historians have classified this entire period as a warfare apart from you, as I have mentioned it is not much different to the British Colonization of Oceania, but with a much larger human footprint and migratory event involved, this entire longitudinal event cannot simply be classified as a war. Vellusammy (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Regardless these are period of cited warfare and dominated by warfare...
Agreed. They are all warfare ... (and related conflicts, genocide, disease, slavery, atrocities, epidemics) as the scope of this list article entails (see lede paragraph).
if you have any problems with anything on the list, go ahead and make a case against it
Exactly! Please do this, rather than continue to try to edit-war reliably-sourced information that you do not like out of the article. There is a section below where you can make your case for deleting these events.
don't go add something that purposefully distort history, and as you said you have no citations, nothing
Incorrect. I've never said such a thing. In fact, Haines, Steckel and Stannard are cited in our article. Perhaps you missed that? And whether you believe the cited sources or not, there really was a conquest of the Americas by Europeans, as the cited sources show.
If you have any claims to inaccuracy on anything make a case...
Of course, if that ever happens, I certainly will. Now can you please do the same? You claim there is a "distortion of history" somewhere, yet I'm still waiting for even a single reference to a reliable source from you showing this distortion. Are we ever going to see reliable sources from you, or will you continue to push your unsupported personal opinion?
don't go add something that is blatantly your own assumptions.
I won't, don't worry. I don't have any assumptions. I only know what I read in reliable sources, and I only add what the reliable sources say. As I scroll up and review our discussion, I see that you have made a lot of claims but you have not cited a single reliable source conveying those claims. I've provided reliable sources that say there was a European conquest of the Americas, and it involved war; now where are your reliable sources saying there was not a European conquest of the Americas, and no genocidal actions, or war, or massive depopulation occurred. I would be very interested in reading them (please include publisher and page numbers, thanks).
No historians have classified this entire period as a warfare apart from you...
Thank you for the compliment, but I'm not a historian. I'm just a Wikipedia editor. Also, I don't classify any period as anything; that's a job for the scholars and experts. I only convey what they say. You are invited to try to quote me where I "classified this entire period as a warfare", and after you fail to do so, perhaps we can move on without such silliness.
... this entire longitudinal event cannot simply be classified as a war.
These events are not being "classified as a war", so you are arguing against a Straw man you created. The Mongolians waged many wars, as did the Europeans and the Zulus, etc., during these conquest events listed in our article. It sounds as if you simply do not like the fact that scholars are studying and documenting these whole events, rather than treating individual little battles as unrelated events. Haines and Steckel address the depopulation event which spanned 400 years due to colonialism, which included the direct and indirect effects of wars, genocide, disease, relocations and enslavement (pg. 22) and Stannard addresses the same time period as "genocidal warfare" and "Euro-American genocide against the Indians of the Americas" (pgs. 108-121). There are numerous other scholars who address these same whole events. You have complained repeatedly that these events cannot be listed as unified events, but your complaints have never been accompanied with references to reliable sources to back you up. You do understand how that is problematic, right? We don't edit Wikipedia based on your personal opinions; we edit based on what reliable sources say, and you've provided none. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
This period have never been classified by any historian as a warfare, till you actually cite me your bogus claim, and list where the war actually is, you are making up your own assumptions. You have no reliable sources but your own assumptions, again not allowed by wikipedia rule and you are repeating yourself, we won't go down this path again. Cite me which credible historian have mentioned this entire period as one continuous war, you won't even be able to cite me any historian claiming this in the early years of the colonization, because recorded conflicts were actually quite few, and they do not constitute wars in itself, and settlement and migration were the key factor in this event. Do not attempt to distort an entire historical event with your personal imagination. Vellusammy (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Repeating what I said above because you apparently missed it: Haines and Steckel address the depopulation event which spanned 400 years due to colonialism, which included the direct and indirect effects of wars, genocide, disease, relocations and enslavement (pg. 22) and Stannard addresses the same time period as "genocidal warfare" and "Euro-American genocide against the Indians of the Americas" (pgs. 108-121). There are numerous other scholars who address these same whole events. Please let me know if you are still confused. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The period named colonization of the Americas involved very few wars, and most of the recorded wars were fought among the more populous natives like the Aztecs, apart from that it was a period of migration through settlement and the transatlantic slave trade, the colonization includes bringing methods of Governance and Religion in areas where the Natives are more populous, including todays Mexico, as a way of integrating new world settlers with the natives, which is why the demographics of South America today is mostly Mestizos as I have mentioned, it completely debunks the theory of ethnic cleansing having taken place, this was especially true in the early years of the colonization. The British Colonization of India involved proxies, yet it cannot be considered a war, neither can the British colonization and resettlement of Australia, yes they were recorded cases of Atrocity, like the treatment of slaves, and the brutality towards certain groups of natives, but those do not constitute wars, neither are genocide considered wars, there's a separate category for genocidal event. You can list it there, with the appropriate ranges as provided in the Anthropological disaster page. (Personal attack removed) I suggest you list the correct ranges with proper sourcing this time, to avoid having it be disputed. Vellusammy (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
there's in fact few wars fought in between this period, and it's a human migratory event into vast new lands
The centuries of European conquest of America involved "few wars", and was simply a "migratory event" into "vast new lands"? I do not find that to be a credible claim, so I'm requesting that you provide a reliable source which says that. Please. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

it completely debunks the theory of ethnic cleansing having taken place, this was especially true in the early years of the colonization [...] but those do not constitute wars, neither are genocide considered wars
Reliable sources disagree with you:

...genocide against Africans and American Indians has resulted in the total extermination—purposefully carried out—of entire cultural, social, religious and ethnic groups. [...] Denial of massive death counts is common—and even readily understandable, if contemptible—among those whose forefathers were the perpetrators of the genocide. Such denials have at least two motives: first, protection of the moral reputations of those people and that country responsible for the genocidal activity (which seems the primary motive of those scholars and politicians who deny that massive genocide campaigns were carried out against American Indians) (Stannard pgs. 151-154)

Can you produce reliable sources which agree with you?
the colonization includes bringing methods of Governance and Religion in areas where the Natives are more populous, including todays Mexico, as a way of integrating new world settlers with the natives
Exactly; historians agree with you on that point:

But there were and are certain similarities of significance, and between the Jewish Holocaust and the Euro-American genocide against the Indians of the Americas one of those similarities involves the element of religion ... And here, in considering the role of religion in these genocides there is no better place to begin than with the words of Elie Wiesel ... an equally apt beginning for those who would seek to understand the motivations that ignited and fanned the flames of the mass destruction of the Americas' native peoples: "All the killers were Christian ... The Nazi system was the consequence of a movement of ideas and followed a strict logic; it did not arise in a void but had its roots deep in a tradition that prophesied it, prepared for it, and brought it to maturity. That tradition was inseparable from the past of Christian, civilized Europe." ... Christianity had not hesitated to 'destroy the altars of the heathen.' ... Had Hitler required supporting evidence for this contention he would have needed to look no further than the Puritans' godly justifications for exterminating New England's Indians in the seventeenth century or, before that, the sanctimonious Spanish legitimation of genocide, as ordained by Christian Truth, in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Meso- and South America. [...] To understand the horrors that were inflicted by Europeans and white Americans on the Indians of the Americas it is necessary to begin with a look at the core of European thought and culture—Christianity—and in particular its ideas on sex and race and violence. (Stannard pg. 152-154)

But as for your other asertions, we don't edit Wikipedia based on your personal opinions; we edit based on what reliable sources say, and you've provided none. I look forward to seeing your sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Your cited passage further proves my point, that is just one authors opinion against others, his own, and then what you cited when the author compared it to the Jewish holocaust, you can make your case in the genocide section, since genocide means deliberate mass murder or ethnic cleansing against a group of people, it does not constitute warfare when the said group has no means to defend themselves, especially against the plague which is what these highly disputed studies claimed killed over 95% of the population, so even if making a case for deliberate genocide, you will have a tough time, and you will have to argue your case, as for this being an entire war, you have proven that you are making this up, cite me list of continuous wars or armed conflicts fought between the settlers and the natives, all I am asking, your personal reimagining of events do not count. Vellusammy (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I see a lot of assertions from you, but we don't edit Wikipedia based on your personal opinions; we edit based on what reliable sources say, and you've provided none. I look forward to seeing your reliable sources for what you just said.
As for your personal reimagining, please quote me where I added "my personal reimagining" to the article. Let's see it. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Please refer to Timeline of the European colonization of North America, the only significant war that involved the natives during this period was the conquest of the Aztec, even then it was very much a tribal affair, followed by religious indoctrination later on. Principally the rest of the event especially in North America are migratory and settlement in nature, the same could be said for most of the South, you cannot cite me an instance of continuous warfare here, so to summarize this period as a war is a complete distortion of history, you can claim genocide or epidemic, but again those figures are all guesstimates at best, eventually it will be invalidated before because of contextual issues, and it won't hold up against closer scrutiny. Vellusammy (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I checked your link to your Wikipedia Timeline, and I see 11 sources cited at the bottom. Could you please indicate which of those sources you are citing (and include page numbers if they aren't already included)? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

A concern has been raised that the article contains entries which "cannot be classified as a war" because they consist of multiple wars and conflicts, and often span long periods of time. (For example, see the entries on: Mongolian conquests — Conquest of the Americas — Conquests of Tamerlane — Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty - Shaka's Conquests — Conquests of Mehmed II — etc.) Are entries like these within the scope of this list article?


  • Comment: While each of these major events can be broken down into multiple battles, military actions and even smaller "named wars", there is precedent among scholars to categorize and study these events in their whole, larger context. It would be problematic if this list included both an entry for the larger event and also entries for each of the smaller subset related events, but that doesn't appear to have happened in this list article. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's of course an issue where you take a period where relatively normal state affairs, trade, and settlements and building up of civil society and Governance are the order of things where conflicts only intermittently broke out to a period which was disrupted completely by conflicts, you could not take the Roman Empire, Mongol Empire, Chinese Dynasties, British Empire, as an entire period of war for the very same reason, there was the Mongol conquests under Genghis Khan, and then there was the Mongol conquest under Tamerlane, both are separate periods within a 200 year time frame, though both purely involved conflicts, the colonization of the Americas is a broad term, and to term it as a war is distortion of historical events, it was also a period of transatlantic trade, and migration of not just settlers but the slave trade from Africa into the region as well, this part of history is much broader then to be classified a single war. Vellusammy (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
None of the above mentioned events are "classified as a single war". Are you saying that we should remove the entries on the Mongolian conquests — Conquest of the Americas — Conquests of Tamerlane — Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty - Shaka's Conquests — Conquests of Mehmed II — etc., because they aren't "single wars"? Xenophrenic (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Most Historians have generally summarized the Mongol conquest under Khan as a single war and would use the same timeframe when writing about this part of history because of the intensity and continuity of conflicts during this period, so was Shaka's conquest, and conquest of Tamerlane, and Mehmed, they were marked by a period of prolonged and intense conflicts, some short like Shaka Conquests, some longer like the Mongolian conquest but they always mark a beginning to the resolution of conflicts, the same could be said for the Qing conquest of the Ming Dynasty, these periods marked a beginning of war, to the resolution of conflict and it's outcome, similar to modern day wars like WW1 or WW2 where each individual wars were clearly defined, where they were fought, and the standing armies of the two contesting sides were measured, and resolution of conflicts in each of these battles were clearly defined, no historians will ever claimed the colonization of the Americas as a single war, because if you take the entire 400 year time frame into account, you will find very few such conflicts happened in between, and the minor conflicts that did occur after the Aztec fell, happened only intermittently, just like any period in history, so nothing of what you claimed classifies this period as war. In fact the only event that classified as a war was the Aztec wars which was mainly a tribal affair, and the European wars or the American civil war, which happened much later on and did not involve the natives, but there were all individual wars, fought for different reasons at different times. Vellusammy (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
You have made a lot of unsupported assertions, so let's take this in small steps and work on one at a time:
Most Historians have generally summarized the Mongol conquest under Khan as a single war...
Interesting. I would like to review your source for your assertion that most historians considered the Mongol conquests as a single war. May I ask what it is (please include page number)?
The Mongol conquest begin with warfare, to it's dissolution which was ended by warfare, these are pretty much the same with all the other titles on this list, as for the source, it's already well cited, if you need more citation, you can look up the list of continuous wars that took place during this time frame, they are all clearly cited, the colonization of the Americas cannot be classified as one single war, because it simply is not, there's in fact few wars fought in between this period, and it's a human migratory event into vast new lands, as happened in Oceania, or in areas where there were contacts with the natives, they were cases of genocide, but the numbers were too few to be classified a war, in areas where the natives are highly populate, like present day Mexico, there was integration first through religion, then intermarriages, these were clearly recorded, unlike the wars that you aren't bothered to even cite just a few. Vellusammy (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
You claim that historians consider the Mongol conquests as a single war, and you claim that is "well cited". Then please provide just one of those citations for me to review. Just one. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Go to Mongol invasions and conquests everything is sourced there including the timeline for every recorded war, and notice that it is an entire period of conquest with continuous warfare, against large standing armies of other nations, or civil wars between the Khanates. There is no doubt about the continuity of warfare here till from the beginning of the conquest to it's splintering, where the Mongol empire broke apart, there is no such similarly between this and the colonization of the Americas, now I ask you to cite me the series of wars between the New world settlers and the Natives where large scale armed conflicts had broken out, you don't have to list me by years, just list it to me every decade the two contesting factions, you can't because you clearly understood by now that was not how colonialism worked, it was a mass migratory event along with integration of religion and slavery, and as I mentioned the population make up of South America reflects this, you clearly do not have the source to prove what you claimed as no historians have ever claim the colonization of the Americas as a warfare, you can argue for genocide elsewhere but note that unintended causes and death by disease do not constitute genocide, you can list those under epidemics with the correct ranges, because those are highly disputed figures among academics. Vellusammy (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Mongol invasions and conquests everything is sourced there...
That's nice, but that isn't what I asked. You claim that historians consider the Mongol conquests as a single war, and you claim that is "well cited". Then please provide just one of those citations for me to review. Just one. Is it that you can not find even a single source to back up your claim? I've cited multiple sources which treat the Conquest of the Americas as an event; please do the same for the Mongol conquests. Pointing me to a different Wikipedia article showing a list of 46 battles over one and a half centuries doesn't mean anything to me in this discussion (especially after you noted more than 40 different wars against Native Americans in just a 57 year window). Reliable source, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The Source from Stannard on pg. 151 of that book clearly stated his death toll estimate, to be at 60 million maximum,[not in citation given] you are trying to use his source yet citing numbers that aren't accurate, in no where did Stannard projected a death toll of 145 mill in his book, so I am merely making the correct amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellusammy (talkcontribs) 22:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Stannard is cited is cited for the 8 million smallest estimate. Stannard's maximum estimate is not the largest; Dobyn's is. Dobyns is cited for the highest estimate, based on his ~145 million population figure. (Stannard even notes that Dobyn's estimate is higher; see the quoted text in the reference citation.) See pages 6-10 in Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact by Dobyn for the complete breakdown on how he arrives at his estimates. That should clear up any confusion you may have; now is there any other reason why the correct figures shouldn't be returned to the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Nope, provide the exact citation to the death toll assessment numbers, you cannot just correlate your own version of the plague and disease and map it onto a population spectrum that is widely debunked. You seem to perpetually ignore the rules and regulations of wikipedia that stated the individual perspective and your own reinterpretation of numbers based on someone else figure is not allowed, Dobyn have never claimed 145 million to have died in war, in fact he likely amend his population estimates based on the number of natives or part natives that are living in South America in the present time which numbered over 200 million, it is you that use a second sourced population figure stated in Stannard's work to make up your own arbitrary estimation, it's breaking all sorts of rules and regulation here. Besides if you are going to use the plague numbers alone as your own estimation and map it to some arbitrary population estimate, again a very controversial and highly disputed figure, this means it do not at all belong in the List of War page but in the list of epidemics, like the Spanish flu. Vellusammy (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
See pages 6-10 in Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact by Dobyn. It's higher than Stannard's high estimate. And no, it's not "debunked". Disputed? Yes, by some. And others agree with it. Some thing Dobyn's estimates are still too low. It is still an ongoing controversial debate, and our Wikipedia articles do not claim to have the exact numeric answers. That's why we give the high and low ranges, and the mean averages. That's all we can do. That should clear up any confusion you may have; now is there any other reason why the correct figures shouldn't be returned to the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have checked and most of these numbers have been specifically stated and mentioned by credible historians quoting the exact figures, and to be honest, they are actual war events, not an epidemic, which is why it's extremely odd to have an entire event like this be classified as a war, and then the figures you claim from Dobyn are nothing more than based off your own reasoning from the population estimates, and that 95% of the mortality rate resulting from the plague, if you want to assert your opinions about the plague, take it to the talk page of disease and epidemics and provide your sources and arguments there, this discussion certainly do not belong on the List of Wars page. Vellusammy (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
the figures you claim from Dobyn are nothing more than based off your own reasoning from the population estimates, and that 95% of the mortality rate resulting from the plague
Incorrect. The figures are from Dobyn; the population estimates are from Dobyn (as high as 200 million - see Pg. 25); the depopulation rates are from Dobyn. I'm sorry you don't like Dobyn's estimates, but they are reliably sourced.
if you want to assert your opinions about the plague...
I don't have any opinions about it. I'm not a historian or anthropologist; so I can only repeat what is in reliable sources.
it's extremely odd to have an entire event like this be classified as a war
It's not classified as "a war". Neither are Mongolian conquests — Conquests of Tamerlane — Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty - Shaka's Conquests — Conquests of Mehmed II, etc. They are comprised of many wars. From the WP:LEAD of this article: These numbers usually include ... the results of war induced epidemics, diseases, famines, atrocities, genocide, etc. If you don't think any of these 'Conquest' events should be included in this article, then make a case for changing the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way, please be more careful when citing Stannard. The 60 million figure on page 151 is for deaths of Africans. His estimate for Native Americans is in the next sentence and is much higher. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Stannard is proposing genocide, not war, (BLP vio removed.) the other events in this list are a continuum of wars, and they are certainly fought with standing armies from both sides, the only example of war I could find over the first 130 years period of Columbus arrival was the Mayan Wars with the Spanish participated in in alliance with the other native tribes, Stannard specifically proposed genocide and ethnic cleansing and diseases, there's a difference between genocide and wars, and Dobyns projection are population estimates, you have to quote me where exactly Dobyn cited 145 million as a death toll figure, and not his population estimate. In any case a figure based on population estimates are not applicable, so I will give you a day to come up with the proper source and amend it yourself, the highest estimate cannot be extrapolated from population estimates but from what the author specifically mention as his own estimates. Vellusammy (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
weird stuff about Stannard...
I don't know what that means. I checked the David Stannard article and I don't see that. You do know WP:BLP applies to Talk pages, too, right?
you have to quote me where exactly Dobyn cited 145 million as a death toll figure, and not his population estimate
Sure: Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact
I will give you a day to come up with the proper source
I already have. And you can keep your 'day'; we aren't under a deadline. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
You have half a day before I mark your phantom figures on dispute, I have read the source and it alluded to Dobyns estimate of population of the Western Hemisphere, stated very clearly as Hemispheric population estimate by Stannard, and the Western hemisphere includes many other countries not just the Americas, though the Americas do occupy the largest geographic size by far, as I said before, you are not allowed to use population estimates by Dobyn to conclude your own death toll numbers, nowhere did Dobyn ever said 145 million natives were killed as a result of the European colonization. You should not be afraid of allowing your numbers to be in dispute unless you actually want to censor all debate on this issue, so amend your numbers with accurate citations, or this figure will be put in dispute till resolved. Vellusammy (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for finally making a commentary that made sense, now you have to make sure the Death Toll figures, match the sources, Stannard in fact put the population figures lower than Dobyns citing some major flaws in Dobyns analysis, again the citations do not match as population estimates cannot be used to extrapolate the death toll. Vellusammy (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Where the make for opinion your estimate to Stannard on the day and a half or longer by the date discredited differ due to widely differing, when Dobyns extrapolate the hemisphere to your death toll booth, exactly afraid of your censor on the citation, and you know it. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
You are citing Dobyns Hemisphere population estimate as a death toll figure, which is not acceptable, and Dobyn was cited in Stannard work because his methodology on estimating the populations were too flawed, even by Stannard standards Dobyns population estimates were too high for the Hemisphere, so I will give you a little more time to come up with the proper citations, before I do it for you. Vellusammy (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
The Source from Stannard on pg. 151 of that book clearly stated his death toll estimate, to be at 60 million maximum...
No, it does not. You are either grossly mistaken or intentionally lying. Which is it? Did you even bother to read the source?
You are citing Dobyns Hemisphere population estimate as a death toll figure...
No, I am not. You are either grossly mistaken or intentionally lying. Which is it? Did you even bother to read the source?
Nowhere in the cited source does Dobyn say 145 million is a "Hemisphere population estimate". Not even once. Perhaps you are thinking of his older estimates? The cited source is Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact — note the word reassessing. His latest estimates are based on completely different, higher population estimates. One example, "...the Hemispheric 1492 population was approximately 200,000,000. Many more of them lived in tropical lowlands than scholars have thought." I'm convinced you aren't even reading this stuff. I'm giving you 37 minutes to stop trolling, and start editing responsibly. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, let me quote directly what Stannard said, and tell me if I have a comprehension problem "Dobyns's hemispheric estimate of approximately 145,000,000 was advanced in his Reassessing New World population at the time of contact delivered at the Institute Early Contact Studies, University of Florida and Gainesvile (April 1988)" That is Dobyns Hemispheric estimate of the population mind you which Stannard has claimed is excessively high, and methodology as flawed. I want you to cite me exactly where Dobyns cited 145,000,000 as a death toll estimate, plain and simple, either cite it or don't. Vellusammy (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
That is Dobyns Hemispheric estimate of the population mind you which Stannard has claimed is excessively high, and methodology as flawed.
No, Stannard has not. But if you have another Stannard source where he says that ("excessively high"; "flawed"), please provide it, and a page number, so I can review it myself. If not, then please strike your false statement.
As for the footnote in Stannard, where he mentions a 145 million figure from Dobyn's "Reassessing" source, you raise a legitimate question. Dobyn's never specifically mentions a "hemispheric population estimate" of 145 million in that source, so I'll look further into what Stannard based that figure on; I have the associated notes, so it shouldn't take long. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Not just Stannard but other authors like Ward Churchil in his book "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to present." claimed the population estimates by Stannard in his Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact proposal. Churchil also mentioned that this work of Dobyns was never published, hence even if you want to take it as a population estimate, it may not be applicable to be used as a citation because it's an unpublished determination by Dobyns. As for Stannard criticizing Dobyns estimates I might have mixed it up with American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492 By Russell Thornton. pg 25 to 59, in which he analyses the high and low population estimates of the Western Hemisphere with what we understood today, the accepted low pre Columbus at 8 million, the proposed but unpublished high by Dobyns at 145 mill as stated in Atrocitology: Humanity's 100 Deadliest Achievements by Matthew White. Note all of these sourced Dobyns unpublished report, and they all stated clearly that they were population estimates of the Western Hemisphere, not death toll, which is why I mentioned population estimates by Dobyns especially ones that are unpublished cannot be used in the Death Toll figures. Vellusammy (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Churchil also mentioned that this work of Dobyns was never published...
Not exactly. Please read it again. Churchill writes that Dobyns, during his lecture, mentioned the 145 million population estimate, but that "the basis for this determination remains unpublished". Now we know why that number doesn't appear as a population estimate in the published "Reassessing" paper for that lecture, which instead has Dobyns giving a highest estimate of 200 million for the hemisphere population. Thank you for finding that! That likely explaines where Stannard heard the 145 mil number, too.
if you want to take it as a population estimate, it may not be applicable to be used as a citation because it's an unpublished determination by Dobyns.
Actually, it's been published in Encuentro, the peer-reviewed academic journal for the Central American University. Volume 4; Issue 4. Here's a link, but I think you'll need subscription access to see a copy online. How's your Spanish? Besides, Dobyns is an expert in the field, and almost every other expert has cited the Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact paper, so it is definitely a usable source. (Denevan's books usually cite the journal publication.)
As for Stannard criticizing Dobyns estimates I might have mixed it up with ... Russell Thornton.
I've read the Thornton section you mentioned, and again, I'm not seeing where he "claimed is excessively high, and methodology as flawed" with regard to Dobyns. He cites Dobyns extensively; he recommends Dobyns' research in several places; he expresses agreement with Dobyns frequently. In fact, Thornton thinks it's best to use Dobyns' "depopulation ratio" methodology, but he uses a different nadir population than Dobyns. Of course he also disagrees with Dobyns and many other scholars on specific points, and like all the other experts in this field, he has his own preferred methods and conclusions.
he [Thornton] analyses the high and low population estimates of the Western Hemisphere with what we understood today
No; that book was published in 1987 (before Dobyns' lecture and paper, mind you), three decades ago, so I doubt he mentioned Dobyns' more recent estimates of 145 million (lecture) or 200 million (paper).
population estimates by Dobyns especially ones that are unpublished cannot be used in the Death Toll figures.
And they aren't. But, population estimates can be (in fact, must be) used to determine "death toll" figures — or as the experts like to call them, "depopulation" or "population collapse" figures. And that's exactly what Dobyns did in chapter (9 - "Scale of Population Collapse") of his Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact paper published in Encuentro 4(4).
so amend your numbers with accurate citations
The numbers and citations have always been accurate; except when you've changed them. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Again the 145 mill figure is Dobyns proposal in 1988, and clearly cited as Dobyns population estimate of the Western Hemisphere by these authors, the mere fact that you misread what Stannard says and put in a population estimate as a Death Toll number is unacceptable, and don't give me some obscure Spanish Journal where no one could access or have ever heard of, that's like telling me a random website spewing their own opinions have any credibility. They definitely do not have more credibility than those who cited what Dobyn says in Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact in 1988 and it's clear that the 145 mil number was his population estimate of the Western Hemisphere and a work which was never published by Dobyns himself, so third party citations do not equal publications. Know the difference. Vellusammy (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
If you disagree with what a reliable source says, or if you think a source is not reliable, you are welcome to dispute it. To do so, please raise your concerns at the Reliable Source Noticeboard and ask for assistance. I'll join you there, and we'll clear up your confusion. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with nothing, apart from knowing that you do not have the right citations and misread what Stannard say when he cited Dobyns unpublished report, note that none of these authors are remotely using Dobyns simplistic metric or numbers as reference apart from to mention that it was the highest assertion of population estimate. You listed unpublished population estimates by Dobyns of the Western Hemisphere as the highest Death toll estimates, again I repeat, 145 million is Dobyns's population estimates of the Western Hemisphere, not a death toll figure. Vellusammy (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with nothing...
That is good news. Otherwise, you would be required to raise your disagreement at WP:RSN.
I repeat, 145 million is Dobyns's population estimates of the Western Hemisphere...
"was" his population estimate, at the lecture (as noted by your Churchill source above). But it is not in his subsequent paper ("Reassessing...") — not even once — because he uses even higher population estimates in his calculations to determine "scale of population collapse" (as high as 200 mil, after he refactors Borah's data in section 9). Remember that we are citing Dobyns' paper, not his lecture (Stannard's mislabeling in his footnote not withstanding). So if you still insist Dobyns uses a "population estimate" of 145 million anywhere in his paper (he doesn't), please provide the page number. Or if it turns out you are only repeating Stannard's misworded footnote about the paper, it is time you looked at the actual source. You remember how you looked the last time you insisted you knew what a source said, before you bothered to actually read it: "Stannard on pg. 151 of that book clearly stated his death toll estimate, to be at 60 million maximum"! Xenophrenic (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me repeat, population estimates are not death toll estimates, provide the exact citation where Dobyns mentioned 145 mill as his death toll estimate, you obviously are citing Stannard claims of Dobyns Western Hemispheric estimate, there is no doubt to this, since you are using Stannard source, so it is invalid, cite the exact source where Dobyns claim 145 mil as the death toll estimate, or else it is invalid, those figures mentioned not just by Stannard but by Thornton and Churchill were based of his 1988 assertion from "Reassessing" and they are clearly cited as Dobyns population estimate of the Hemisphere, even if Dobyns had ever made the ridiculous claim of 200 million as you claimed, which was about half the world's population at that time, it is a hemispheric estimate and not to be taken as a death toll figure. As for Stannard 60 mill, I misread the sources, and I clearly admitted I do not have Stannards book, but what I did some investiagtion, saw an error, and admitted it and do not persist with it, in fact I am only going by Wikipedia Stannard page claims that he said close to 100 million as a death toll, so till someone confirm it as facts on his book, I can only assume it is, but in this case I am very clear that the 145 mill is pulled off Stannards claimed of Dobyns population estimate and it is even cited as such, not just by Stannard but other sources as well. Vellusammy (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
As for Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact was Dobyns's paper Stannard alluded to, Stannard specifically mentioned paper, not lecture, I will go by what Stannard and other authors with credible access any day over you, Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact." Encuentro 4/4 (Winter 1988): 8-9 Is a common citation used by many authors on this subject, all of these authors work are published well after this time period, so I will trust their citations and interpretation of Dobyns work, over your independent research. Vellusammy (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow, so many factually-challenged statements. Where to start? Fortunately, you've demonstrated the ability to eventually learn, even though it usually takes a lot of repetition and time; but that's okay. Progress is progress, right? For example:
Yes check.svg Done— When you first started editing under this account name, you were insisting that Native Americans never numbered more than 20 million. Now you are arguing to insert estimates of 100 million. You've made progress.
Yes check.svg Done— You also once argued that epidemics, famine, etc., weren't related to war, so shouldn't be included with war totals. However, just recently, you introduced a book by Matthew White, who also says (and I assume you read), "Traditionally we add death by disease and famine into the total cost of wars and massacres (Anne Frank, after all, died of typhus, not Zyklon-B, but she's still a victim of the Holocaust) so I don't see any problem with doing the same with the American genocides, provided that the deaths occurred after their society had already been disrupted by direct European hostility." Most historians say the same thing, but it's good that you are finding sources on your own that explain this to you. This is progress.
Yes check.svg Done— For a while there, you insisted, "on page 151, where it clearly cited Stannard's own estimate of between 30-60 million deaths", which you now admit was false and you never read it. You are now citing a correct Stannard estimate number from page 151. That is progress! Unfortunately, you are still ignoring where Stannard says other historians are estimating even higher. And apparently, you are still referring to sources which you haven't even read, which means you are going to keep finding yourself in the same trouble.
Yes check.svg Done— You repeatedly insisted that Dobyns' "Reassessing" paper was never published (because you misread a Churchill footnote which didn't actually say that). But at least now you are admitting your error and you acknowledge it is published in Encuentro Quarterly 4/4 (Winter 1988), and is cited by many authors. This is progress! You still have some misconceptions about what is being cited in it, but we'll get to that in a minute.
Despite this progress, there still appears to be some confusion. Let's see if we can clear away the remaining misunderstandings you may have.
provide the exact citation where Dobyns mentioned 145 mill as his death toll estimate
I've already provided the exact citation (multiple times) which supports Dobyns' depopulation figures (he doesn't use the words "death toll"), and that source is his 1988 "Reassessing" paper. Once again: I'm citing the Dobyns 1988 paper, not anything from Stannard.
you obviously are citing Stannard claims of Dobyns Western Hemispheric estimate, there is no doubt to this, since you are using Stannard source, so it is invalid
No, I am not citing Stannard for Dobyn's high estimate. I'm citing Dobyns' 1988 paper. In fact, Stannard has nothing to do with Dobyns' high estimate (except to note that it exists). Since Stannard appears to be causing you great confusion, let's remove it for now and see if that helps.
Let me repeat, population estimates are not death toll estimates
Correct; they are not. BUT, and please pay careful attention to this, unlike some of the other historians, Dobyns derives his population estimates from his "death tolls", not the other way around. If you have a population estimate from Dobyns, then you already have his depopulation estimates. Whenever Dobyns gives a "population estimate", that means he first derived it from a DEPOPULATION estimate. The Stannard source explains this to you in the prolog page x you kept trying to secretly delete: "an overall decline of 95 percent has become a working rule of thumb. What this means is that, on average, for every twenty natives alive at the moment of European contact—when the lands of the Americas teamed with numerous tens of millions of people—only one stood in their place when the bloodbath was over". Perhaps it will help you understand if another scholarly source (Denevan, page 4) explains it to you: "since the rate and degree of depopulation after European contact are criteria often utilized [by Dobyns, et al.] for calculating original populations, it will be useful to review the causes of depopulation. Were these causes of such a nature as to account for the rapid and massive declines some scholars argue for? The answer seems to be in the affirmative." Or, if you prefer, check Henige, where he reminds us that Dobyns concluded, "The depopulation ratio of 20 to 1 appears to be a sound, if perhaps conservative, tool to employ as a hemispheric minimum." Dobyns applied his conversion factors of 20 and 25 to the nadir hemisphere population of just over 4.5 million to obtain his maximum hemisphere population range of 90,043,000 - 112,553,750 (or "death toll" range of 85.5 to 107 million). In "Reassessing", he recalculates his older estimates based on newer information, and arrives at even higher estimates.
those [145 million] figures mentioned not just by Stannard but by Thornton and Churchill were based of his 1988 assertion from "Reassessing"...
Wrong. Please be more careful when claiming a source says something. Stannard is the only scholar to mention a 145 million population figure in relation to Dobyns' paper, but he is obviously mistaken, and likely meant "lecture" instead of paper (upon which the lecture was based), since the 145 million population figure doesn't appear in print anywhere in Dobyns' paper. Churchill says Dobyns suggested the 145 million population estimate during the lecture. Thornton doesn't mention 145 million at all. And Henige cites the Dobyn paper, but never mentions a 145 million population estimate.
if Dobyns had ever made the ridiculous claim of 200 million as you claimed, which was about half the world's population at that time, it is a hemispheric estimate and not to be taken as a death toll figure.
Dobyns has indeed given a 200,000,000 hemispheric population estimate, derived, as he explains on pages 24-25 of his "Reassessing" paper, from the 20:1 depopulation ratio and 10,000,000 hemisphere nadir figures from Borah, modified by the newer Central Mexico figures, resulting in a "population collapse" of 190,000,000. Is it a "ridiculous" estimate? No, but it is certainly debatable. The proposition that one hemisphere might be almost as populated as the other hemisphere does not strike me as too outrageous. Even so, Dobyns says that highest of estimates is just an example which "must serve to illustrate the scale of rethinking that is called for." I'll add it as a "highest estimate" figure in our article which has a space for high estimates, but I don't think it should be part of the other article. What are your thoughts on that?
I am very clear that the 145 mill is pulled off Stannards claimed of Dobyns population estimate and it is even cited as such, not just by Stannard but other sources as well.
Incorrect. Other sources do indeed cite Dobyns' paper, but usually only pages 8-9 (which have his 51.6 million Central Mexico estimates and calculations, but no mention of 145 million anything).
I will go by what Stannard and other authors with credible access any day over you ... I will trust their citations and interpretation of Dobyns work, over your independent research.
I haven't done any research. I just convey what the reliable sources convey. As should you. If you have questions or doubts regarding sources, or if two different sources conflict, then raise those concerns at WP:RSN. I have Dobyns' "Reassessing" right here in front of me (as well as the books by Stannard, Denevan, Henige, Cook, etc.), and I can tell you for a fact that there is no mention of a 145 million population estimate anywhere in "Reassessing".
Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Wait so you are the only one independent researcher that claim the figure of 145 million from Dobyns is not a population estimate yet the others with their book published had made it clear it was a Hemispheric population estimate, and I am supposed to take your words over more credible, published work? You claim to have a peer review and unpublished paper by Dobyns, in what form are they? I would like to review them. As for the 95% or 1 to 20 metric when calculating the total population which was entirely based on the mortality rate from epidemics mind you, that simplistic method of calculation has been highly criticized and debunked. In fact before Dobyns Reassessing paper, which I repeat is an unpublished paper, but rather a peer review paper, the highest population estimates of the Western Hemisphere comes from Borah himself, at 100,000,000. Here we can only go by works that are published, in this case several authors have cited 145,000,000 as the Western Hemisphere estimates by Dobyns in his "reassessing" work. Vellusammy (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow, so many factually-challenged statements. Where to start?
Wait so you are the only one independent researcher
Incorrect; you are getting your people mixed up. Denevan is a researcher, Dobyns is a researcher, Stannard is a researcher. I am a deep-sea sport fisher, and part-time Wikipedia editor. I don't do research; I just copy into Wikipedia articles what the independent researchers say.
I am supposed to take your words over more credible, published work?
Of course not. You are supposed to read the sources yourself and then accurately convey what they say.
You claim to have a peer review and unpublished paper by Dobyns
No, I never made such a nonsensical claim. Please read more carefully; that is a requirement if you are going to be editing Wikipedia articles. The "Reassessing" paper by Dobyns is published in Encuentro, which is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal.
I would like to review them.
Wikipedia would like you to review them, too! Editing content which is cited to sources you haven't even read is against Wikipedia policy. If you are having difficulty obtaining the materials, I would suggest trying your local library, or asking another editor at WP:RSN to verify the content for you.
the 95% or 1 to 20 metric when calculating the total population which was entirely based on the mortality rate from epidemics mind you, that simplistic method of calculation has been highly criticized and debunked.
"debunked"? No, of course not. Criticized by some, and applauded by others? Yes, and the discussion around the best methodologies, and how to apply them, continues to this day.
Dobyns Reassessing paper, which I repeat is an unpublished paper
Make up your mind. On 21:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC), you admitted that you confirmed it was published in Encuentro 4/4 (Winter 1988): 8-9, according to "many authors on the subject". You forgot so soon? Also, repeating something false over and over again won't make it true.
Here we can only go by works that are published, in this case several authors have cited 145,000,000 as the Western Hemisphere estimates by Dobyns in his "reassessing" work.
Several authors cited? No, only Stannard, but otherwise I agree with you 100%. So why are you deleting it? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars[edit]

Of the conflicts in the (ex-)Yugoslav territory, only the Bosnian War is listed. These are missing:

Croatian War (1991 - 1995) with around 20 thousand total dead, Kosovo War (1998 - 1999) with 13,421 dead (source: Kosovo Memory Book), Ten-Day War (1991) with 74 dead, 2001 Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia with 150 to 250 dead Insurgency in the Preševo Valley (1999 - 2001) with 50 to 60 dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.118.12 (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, not ex-Yugoslav, but there is the Albanian Rebellion of 1997 with 2 thousand to 3 thousand dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.118.12 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Warring over estimates again[edit]

Vellusammy has recently deleted information and a reference cited to Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact with no explanation, so I'm sure that was just a mistake. I've reverted that edit to the article per WP:BRD. If the edit wasn't a mistake, then I look forward to the explanation for it, and would like to discuss it with you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your reference is proven to be wrong, you used numbers based entirely on population estimates quoted from Stannard's American Holocaust which mentioned Dobyns population estimate of the Western Hemisphere, and used it as a death toll number, that's like saying the World had 500 million people, therefor 500 mill had died of epidemics in the past. Vellusammy (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Stannard is cited only for the low estimate. The high estimate is from Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact written by Dobyns and published in Encuentro Quarterly, Volume 4, Issue 4. We could remove the Stannard source entirely, but it is useful because (1) it explains the depopulation rate used is 95% (see page x), and (2) it explains that more recently, scholars (including Dobyns) have begun using estimates even higher than the ones used by Stannard to arrive at his 100 million population loss figure. It is odd that you keep trying to insert Stannard's 100 million death estimate as the highest, when Stannard himself explains that other scholars are estimating even higher in that very same source. Why are you inserting Stannard's estimate as the highest, Vellusammy, when Stannard says his estimate is not the highest?
Your reference is proven to be wrong
You are saying the Dobyns reference is proven to be wrong? I am anxious to see this proof. Please provide it (source and page number), so that it may be reviewed. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I am saying your reference oif Dobyns based off of Stannards 145 million is wrong as it's the population estimate of the Western Hemisphere, I thought I made it clear enough, stop willfully misinterpreting what I said, and no, you provide me with the page number and publication where Dobyn used 145 mill as his death toll estimate and not his Western Hemisphere population estimate, wrong sources cannot be use as citations, your obvious misread of Stannards numbers and then making up your own figures based on Dobyns Hemispheric estimate is invalid. Vellusammy (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
You already have the cited source and page number. It has been noted 4 times above, and it is also in our article. But I'll repeat it yet again, since you have demonstrated that it usually takes a half-dozen iterations before it finally sinks in: Dobyns 1988 "Reassessing" paper, pages 6-10 & 25. And no, Stannard's book (you know ... the one you say you don't have and have never read) has nothing to do with it. Let me know if you need that repeated again. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I've found a similar (although not exact) source that I think you can read through Google Books:
It is also apparent that the shared history of the hemisphere is one framed by the dual tragedies of genocide and slavery, both of which are part of the legacy of the European invasions of the past 500 years. Indigenous people north and south were displaced, died of disease, and were killed by Europeans through slavery, rape and war. In 1491, about 145 million people lived in the western hemisphere. By 1691, the population of indigenous Americans had declined by 90-95 percent. -- American Philosophy: From Wounded Knee to the Present; Erin McKenna, Scott L. Pratt; Page 375
I could place it in this article temporarily while you're checking on the 145 million from the "Reassessing" source by Dobyns. However, it would only support an estimated population decline of 137,750,000 (95% of 145 mil). Xenophrenic (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
That source reminds me of the game where you pass the stories around, and ultimately those stories become distorted and it gets wilder and wilder till everyone else comes up with their own method of storytelling not based on actual scientific studies but based off their own version or interpretations of events. Truly fascinating and absurd at the same time, anyways, that seems to be the only citation that you can go with so make your amendment based on Erin McKenna figures if you want, but make no changes to the notes section just yet, because I am going to amend it to reflect why the population estimates are so wildly inconsistent. Vellusammy (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
make your amendment based on Erin McKenna figures if you want
I already put the McKenna source number in the "List of wars by death toll" article, which has a space only for "Deaths". The "List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll" article, however, has columns for high, low and mean average estimates, so I didn't put the conservative McKenna number there.
make no changes to the notes section just yet, because I am going to amend it to reflect why the population estimates are so wildly inconsistent.
I've waited for your proposed changes. I've reverted them for the following reasons: (1) You removed reliably sourced information without explanation. Please provide your reasoning for removing that factual, sourced content. (2) You inserted dubious content with citations to Henige, Denevan, etc., without including page numbers in the citation. Please include correct citations so that the content you are adding can be verified. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
All I need is to cite the book, because that entire book is dedicated to disproving and discrediting Cook, Borah, and Dobyns estimates, so there's not a need to cite the pages. In fact the entire book can be viewed on Google books, read it if you have the time, I did and if you have a problem the way the notes are used explain it here. Vellusammy (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a problem with the way you are failing to cite the content you added, as explained here: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this. And not just with the Henige source.
In addition, you deleted reliably sourced content without an explanation. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
If the entire book deals with the subject matter all I need to do is to cite the book, I think henige's work along with that of Rosenblat are crucial in explaining the weakness of the methodology used by Borah, Cook and Dobyns. If I were to cite the page numbers I would just cite the first page till the last since they are all relevant. Vellusammy (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
First, this isn't the place to explain the whole ongoing debate regarding competing demographic methodologies. The two articles you've been editing are List articles, which just convey the list items (in this case, death tolls), with brief citations and links to the relevant articles where more thorough information may be found (in this case, Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas). If you want to add detailed information regarding why the estimates by different researchers vary, or whose methodology is better, or worse, and why, then you need to do that in the appropriate article. Second, Denevan and Henige say quite a bit in their books. Whereas, you are making specific statements (one or two sentences) and attributing them to Denevan and Henige, so those require more precise citations (i.e.; page numbers). I've read the Denevan and Henige material, and I know they aren't saying exactly what you think they are saying. In order for us to discuss this material intelligently, we need to identify their assertions with something more specific than "it's somewhere in the whole book". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is most of the problematic information you have added. I'll break it into smaller pieces so it will be easier for us to work with:
  • (1) The numbers and the method in which population count was derived however are highly disputed among Historians.
  • (2) In Henige's own research he argued the "high Counters" had formulated estimates which were not based on any definitive records, census data, or archaeological evidences and by tendentious selectivity in identifying, consulting and interpreting sources.
  • (3) Henige went on to explain that the fifteen fold increase from the original population estimates by high counters like Borah, Cook, and Dobyns were based on instrument rather than evidence, where Newly introduced European diseases became the chief means used to explain a much greater population decline.
  • (4) Meanwhile other historians have attempted to aggregate both the high and lows of the population figures to come to a median consensus, with Denevans claiming population estimates in the region of 54 million as likely.
Your sentence number (1) is redundant to the sentence just before it, which already mentions "the lack of consensus on the demographic size of the native population pre-Columbus, which some say might never be accurately determined", and the sentence before that which mentions, "there is still variance based on calculation methods used". Sentences (2), (3) and (4) are simply not accurate representations of what Henige and Denevan said. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Very well I will not remove the previous citations but instead add a small reference on Henige's studies in in, the notes might need a little cleaning up, may remove some of the references to the epidemics in the future. Vellusammy (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I added a page number (Pg. 24) to the Henige reference, and corrected the quotation so that it accurately matched the source. Also, I noticed that you had removed this sentence: "Modern scholarship now sides with the higher estimates, but there is still variance based on calculation methods used." That is sourced to this source provided by you. Was that accidental?
As for the "notes" section in general, I anticipate that much of that will be moved to the main article and expanded even more. Any help with that would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Tell me when you are done, I will help fact check on it, the notes could be simplified further. Vellusammy (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

War of the Spanish Succession[edit]

The War of the Spanish Succession is not listed. The death toll listed on its wiki page is over 30 million, but it does not cite a source.

It appears the WotSS page was vandalized in a series of edits around March 28-30; the article otherwise doesn't have a casualty figure. --94.231.255.30 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of wars by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Data visualisation[edit]

Hi all, a few weeks ago I used this list as the main source for a data visualisation I did, which can be seen here. I compared the total of all upper estimates of all wars listed on this page with the total number of people born since 1 A.D., and the total people murdered since 1 A.D., which produces an interesting revelation about how rare violence actually is. Here are the sources and the working Excel file. To get the total people born I used [1] and to get the total people murdered I applied a flat rate of 80 homicides per 100,000 to per year population data from [2]. I know it's crude but I did it in my spare time and I purposely produced an overestimate. The reason I know it's an overestimate is because, per [3], the earliest homicide data is from Europe in the year 1300, which was experiencing civil revolt, plague and famine and whose homicide rate was still on the order of only 40 per 100,000. Also, a sizable chunk of all the people born since 1 A.D. are alive today, in a world where the homicide rate is only 6.2 per 100,000.

Anyway, that's it - just thought you guys might be interested, and thought we could add some form of it to the article? Possibly just the total war deaths as a proportion of total people born since 1 A.D.? Autonova (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

English Civil War Death Estimate[edit]

837,000 for this war seems exceptionally high, given that the population of England at the time would have been around 6 million (if I remember correctly). The figure is backed only by one source, given over three pages (Carlton 1992) which tells me it needs to be revisited. It was a brutal war, no doubt, but not that brutal surely.

Also, shouldn't it be renamed the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, following more recent historical developments? Much of the conflict occurred in and directly influenced Scotland and Ireland, after all. You could say it began in Scotland and ended in Ireland, in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:69B1:7C00:B022:9733:244F:CDDF (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The English Civil War (1642-1651) is covered in its own article and is also noted as part of the wider Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639-1651), since conflicts took place all over the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Kingdom of Ireland.

We currently lack an estimate of total casualties, but we have sources estimating about 50,000 Royalists killed in combat, 34,000 Parliamentarians killed in combat, and 127,000 noncombat deaths (about 40,000 of them were civilians whose death was caused by the war).

A section discussing the difficulty in estimating the casualties, gives the following estimates.

  • "In England, a conservative estimate is that roughly 100,000 people died from war-related disease during the three civil wars. Historical records count 84,830 dead from the wars themselves. Counting in accidents and the two Bishops' wars, an estimate of 190,000 dead is achieved, out of a total population of about five million."
  • In Scotland, the difficulty is estimating how many prisoners-of-war died in custody or never returned home for other reasons. "Casualties include the deaths of prisoners-of-war in conditions that accelerated their deaths, with estimates of 10,000 prisoners not surviving or not returning home (8,000 captured during and immediately after the Battle of Worcester were deported to New England, Bermuda and the West Indies to work for landowners as indentured labourers). ... "There are no figures to calculate how many died from war-related diseases, but if the same ratio of disease to battle deaths from English figures is applied to the Scottish figures, a not unreasonable estimate of 60,000 people is achieved, from a population of about one million."
  • In Ireland the historical record is poorer and the war apparently caused both a famine and a plague epidemic with additional casualties. William Petty, a 17th-century demographer, estimated that "112,000 Protestants and 504,000 Catholics were killed through plague, war and famine, giving an estimated total of 616,000 dead, from a pre-war population of about one and a half million." In addition, parts of the Irish population either fled the island or was send involuntarily into exile and forced servitude in the colonies. The article estimates the exiles and self-exiles to be about 40,000, but it is unclear how this figure was reached.
  • "These estimates indicate that England suffered a 3.7% loss of population, Scotland a loss of 6%, while Ireland suffered a loss of 41% of its population." More people seem to have died in Ireland than the rest of the combat areas, but the British Islands were not actually depopulated. Out of an estimated population of about 7,5 million, less than a million died in a 12-year conflict. Compare the numbers to the concurrent Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) where an estimated 8,000,000 people died from war-related causes. Dimadick (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

South African Wars are missing[edit]

Second Boer war [1] South African Border War [2] 83.110.153.148 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

References

The politically motivated inclusion of the Islamic conquests of india .[edit]

Is is just me or are those numbers pandering to the hindu nationalist narrative of an islamic "genocide" in india ? 2-80 million is a ridiculously large interval,and the 80 million estimate was made by an orientalist who has very little credibility as a historian.

Why does the source consider the death toll of conflicts between islamic indian states and their hindu neighbours as " conquests of india " ? Was Shah Jahan ,the indian-born ruler who was 75% hindu through his mother and paternal grandmother , a foreign conqueror of India ? why are his conflicts lumped together with the Ghaznavid and Mamluk incursions in India as part of the same war ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paypayvay (talkcontribs) 17:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm removing this section, mainly because the only source [1] is a politically motivated opinion piece, where the 80 million number is dubiously taken from Koenraad Elst, who himself cherry-picked the figure from Jatindra Mohamed Datta, who took the numbers as the difference in populations in India between those years using completely different sources. See "Did India's population decrease "by 80 million between 1000 and 1525" CE? (No)". .

Timeline and charts[edit]

A Timeline of wars has been created on Histropedia, which is now linked in the External links section. Feel free to add if anything is missing. Could someone create an English version of the chart File:Todesopfer durch Kampfhandlungen seit 1950.png, which shows casualties post-WWII? Wiki-uk (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed "total" row from table[edit]

With apologies to whichever editor went to the trouble of totalling "all data described here" to come up with these aggregates, I've removed the following row:

Total (all wars) 315,326,595–764,762,571 487,767,309 Recorded history Worldwide Based on all data described here

IMO, including such a total makes sense if and only if the stated value is, or at least might eventually be, a reasonable estimate of the true total, which in this case would be the total death toll due to war, across space and time. For that to be the case, one would have to show that the contribution to that total of the wars not listed here is more or less negligible. Which is a doubtful proposition, and even if it could be shown to hold, would still qualify as OR, I reckon. A less drastic step solution would have been to rename the row to something like "Total (all wars that happen to be included in this list)", but then the question becomes of what possible use that figure would be. I would further suggests that a top-down approach is more useful in a case like this: for example, find a figure for the total death toll irrespective of cause (= the total number of humans who have lived and died so far), and a figure for the historical likelihood that war was the/a cause of death, and use those as a basis. - 89.204.130.14 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

American Civil War Deaths[edit]

The listed estimates for American Civil war dead is 880,000-1,000,000+. This seems far too high, especially seeing as all three of the endnotes provide figures that contradict the article's numbers. All respectable death toll estimates I've come across lie between 600,000- 850,000, with 850,000 being the absolute highest I've seen. The death toll numbers should be changed in the article, unless someone can provide the article a respectable source contending for a death toll higher than the ones previously mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.2.94 (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV issues: All muslim conquests are being suppressed.[edit]

How is it possible that none of the muslim conquests of anything made the list, except Tamerlane? Libtards are covering it up. We need to add data on all of these:

1. The muslim conquest of India

2. The muslim conquest of north africa

3. The muslim conquest of east africa

4. The muslim conquest of Spain

5. The muslim conquest of the near east

6. The muslim conquest of Malaysia

7. The muslim conquest of Indonesia

8. The muslim conquest of central asia

9. 1000+ years of the barbary pirates' coastal raids.

10. The muslim conquest of the Byzantine empire

11. The Muslim conquest of the Balkans

It's ridiculous and biased that they include the reconquista without covering the original conquista. It's ridiculous and biased that they cover the crusades but not the Muslim conquests that took those same territories from christians in the first place.2600:8801:0:1530:7C7D:DA64:B396:4E24 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Reilly, Robert R (2012-05-01). "Wanted: A Competent Commander in Chief; Dangerous Illusions about Islamism". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-07-20.