Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Entries on this list that are arguably disasters or wars

The worst is "European colonization of the Americas". First, it is *by far* the longest event, being over 2x as long as the second-longest (Crusades). Second, it involved many different nations and peoples fighting many others for various reasons in various ways over many years. Might as well add "Roman conquests" if we're going to add this. Third, most of those killed died without ever contacting a European; they died from European diseases that raced hundreds of miles and years ahead of the Europeans themselves. If anything, this item should go in a list of epidemics.

If we are going to insist on keeping this, we need to apply these standards consistently to other events like the Roman conquests, Muslim conquests, European conquest of Africa, and so on. But we shouldn't because these are eras in history not 'wars' or 'disasters'. Even the Mongol conquests entry is stretching the definition of 'war' since it spans 168 years and dozens of political entities. Crusades is just as bad - there were like 9 of them; if we combine these we might as well combine "The World Wars" into a single event and also include deaths from the Spanish Flu. e.g. The second crusade started 50 years after the first crusade ended - twice the time as between WW1 and WW2.

I'm going to remove the entry now unless someone can come up with some consistent rule that includes it. I also want to open discussion on removing Mongol Conquests and Crusades for above-mentioned reasons. Mongol conquests and crusades should be broken into specific wars and specific crusades. Casimirin (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Meseems we should at least have a reference to the series of diseases that wiped out much of the North American population when Europeans arrived. The "howling wilderness" of the Pilgrims' time was the result of massive depopulation by disease of a land that had had areas so thickly populated that the smoke from fires could be smelled hundreds of miles out to sea ([http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdt_img_top?ie=UTF8] Mann, p.50).
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

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:

  • (no reason given)
Deletion of content requires a valid reason; and deletion of content should not be marked as "minor".
  • "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) 16:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The estimated anglo population of the English colonies in what is now the United States stood at only 275,000 in 1700. The Census of 1800 was the second Census conducted in the United States. It showed that 5,308,483 people were living in the United States, of whom 893,602 were slaves. By 1840, the U.S. population stood at 17 million including slaves. According to most sources the estimated population north of the Rio Grande in 1492 when Columbus first reached the new world ranged from 2 to 18 million. According to the Smithsonian, that population declined dramatically after 1492 but not because of armed conflict between natives and settlers. Migrations from Europe in the East and from Asia on the West Coast introduced diseases that decimated native populations who had no immunity to them. The mortality rate for smallpox alone was 80 to 95 percent. There were approximately 600 different tribes who spoke diverse dialects and they warred between one another and killed for control of territory and resources, and two thirds of these conflicts were inter tribal wars, even then those numbers would pale in comparison to the deaths contracted from small pox and measures. Make no mistake, settlers did engage in hostilities against natives and vice versa. There were atrocities on both sides. The same thing happened in Canada, Australia, South America, Central America, Mexico, but they were not the reason for the depopulation of the natives, epidemic was.
VelluSammy 13:52, 05 September 2015 (UTC)
That is an interesting cut & paste paragraph, apparently from this copyright protected forum here, but that does not explain why you have deleted content from this Wikipedia article. In fact, the paragraph you copied conveys that the anthropogenic introduction of diseases decimated the native populations (which could have numbered 18 million in just the North American area alone). I'm going to request that you please stop deleting content from the article without explanation; please stop deleting Talk page comments from other editors, and please stop copying blocks of text from other websites without proper attribution. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This was already debated above, the Black Death was removed from this section precisely because it do not cover death toll caused by epidemics but rather war related deaths, there is another section for that and it is already listed in another subsection, if you want to revise it take your discussion there. VelluSammy 13:52, 05 September 2015 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to that discussion about the "Spanish colonization of the Americas" table entry you keep deleting? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This should be listed at under List of epidemics, as stated above in the first argument, besides the Spanish conquest of Americas is just an intermittent part of centuries of relocation by European Settlers to the Americas as well as local and colonial wars for supremacy later on, and the population figures are unlikely to have reached the high millions, 50 million deaths even from plagues alone is unlikely as the population by most account did not reach half that figure. There were wars fought from time to time, but they were mainly tribal in nature, apart from the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs which they allied themselves with the Tlaxcallan, another native tribe in the region, they were no other major conflicts of such scale that would suggest anywhere remotely near the figures you stated. Historians generally agreed that the native population were indeed depopulated by measles and small pox, through centuries of migration and settlement, but just how many is a controversial figure, because the overall population of natives would unlikely be anywhere near 50 million. This should be taken to List of epidemics, as the Spanish Conquest of the Americas is a separate war altogether, with the death toll probably in the thousands certainly not millions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.129.145.169 (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I see where one editor above suggested that this information should be added to a list of epidemics. You are welcome to make that addition to epidemic articles, but please remember to include citations to reliable sources if you do so. Now back to the issue with this article: What is your reasoning for deleting the content? The indigenous people of the Americas most certainly suffered from disease brought by the Europeans (anthropogenic), and they also suffered tens of thousands of casualties through numerous wars (more than 40) and conflict just in North America -- so why have you tried to delete that information from our article without explanation? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The colonization of the Americas was an event, not a war, though there were conflicts against the indigenous population during this period the largest of these conflicts as pointed out was wars between colonial powers, all of these were individual wars in itself, they should be listed as such, as for the epidemic and the population decrease, there are several notable historians who had argued against it like James Mooney who estimated around 1.1 million indigenous population in North America pre Columbus, Russell Thornton had 5 million and argued those who claim the higher numbers as using pseudo science with racial politics behind their claims. If you look at the demographics of the indigenous population they have actually grown not decrease by the 80% claimed due to epidemic. The total number of Indigenous population in the Americas today is over 56 million. If you include the population of mestizos(mix of indigenous and European descent) the added number would be closer to 200 million. Meaning about 200 million people are indigenous or partly indigenous, which call into credibility about the higher estimates anyways, it's more likely that apart from the natives in North America, the Indigenous population in the South have largely interbreed with their European settlers, than they are to have been dead from diseases. There's also the problem that there wasn't any credible studies to back up your claims, which in itself a longitudinal event not a war, in fact there are no credible statistics to back up the population estimates of the Americas at all before the 18th century. VelluSammy 12:26, 05 September 2015 (UTC)
You did not change the entry to 1.1 million or 5 million as you just indicated; instead, you deleted the entry completely. If you have reliable sources which provide contradictory information, please provide them here so that they may be reviewed. I've undone your edit (again) per WP:BRD. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Why should I change the entry which is an event, not a war? There are no credible evidence of widespread epidemic that wiped out 90% of the Indigenous population in the South, though it's a fact that the Indians in the North had their land dispossessed and their population did not thrive or do well after colonization, you need to explain why this period should be considered a war, which it is not, and you need to explain how you consider those figures to be even remotely credible. Vellusammy (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Why should I change the entry which is an event, not a war?
Because you keep claiming the numbers are wrong and need to be changed. (This article is about events other than just war; a fact which seemed to escape your notice.) So produce reliable sources to back up your thus far completely unsupported claims, and make the change.
There are no credible evidence of widespread epidemic that wiped out 90% of the Indigenous population in the South
Of course there is. See Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas, including the section on "Depopulation from disease", for several reliable sources.
you need to explain why this period should be considered a war
No I do not. This article is not just about wars.
you need to explain how you consider those figures to be even remotely credible
No I do not. That is left up to the experts in our reliable sources to do the explaining. As a Wikipedia editor, I just need to accurately convey what those reliable sources say - and that has been done. By contrast, you still haven't provided a single source to support your contention that zero native Americans died in anthropogenic events and wars. Since you are still refusing to provide even a single reliable source to back up your dubious claims, your attempt to remove the cited information on native American depopulation has been reverted. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you could take any time frame in history, something like the entire duration of the British Empire and claim an arbitrary figure of the unnatural deaths under British colonization of the Commonwealth you would probably come of with similarly absurd range of lower estimates to higher estimates depending on who does the counting and how they attribute the numbers, so if you list something as unspecific as The Colonization of the Americas which extended for over 4 centuries, and with such wild ranges and estimates, it doesn't really lend the figures much credibility, I don't see the logic of including it on the list since it depicts a timeframe in history rather than anything specific, but I will amend the figures regardless to reflect the proper lower and upper range estimates, given the overall estimates of 8 million -104 million Indigenous inhabitants in the entire Americas during the 1500. VelluSammy 08:10, 05 September 2015 (UTC)
You didn't cite a source for 6 million for the western hemisphere. Where did you get that number, if I may ask? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Source added, someone else may suggest it's removal due to contextual issues VelluSammy 08:46, 05 September 2015 (UTC)
The sources you added appear to reinstate the sources removed with this edit. I left those sources intact, but adjusted the numbers in our article to accurately reflect what they say. (Note that the Rummel source says, "Before the conquest of the New World the Indian population may have numbered from 8,000,000 to 110,000,000; perhaps even 145,000,000. A moderate population estimate consistent with the latest research is of 55,000,000 Indians. Almost totally as a result of several waves of disease carried to the Americas by the conquering and colonizing Europeans, the Indian population dropped steeply by tens of millions, even possibly by as much as 95 percent. In Mexico alone the Indian population may have fallen by 23,000,000 to under 2,000,000. Including those Indians who were killed in warfare and democide, perhaps 60,000,000 to 80,000,000 Indians of Central and South American and the Caribbean died as "a result of the European invasion." Also note that the 2,000,000 number from Rummel is specific democide outside of warfare, disease and other anthropogenic events, which is more limited than what our Wikipedia article covers. The Rummel source notes, "Not even considered here is the human cost of war, another way governments are an agency of death." Rummel's actual numbers here convey around 8 million as a base minimum.) If you think the Rummel source might be challenged as a reliable source, we can defer to the Stannard source which conveys many of the same estimates, and which does meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You are now substantiating those figures on your own, which is not allowed, if you cite an author you better make sure those figures are accurate. If you are to do your own calculation based on population estimates, you need to make sure your math are right, so if most of the ranges given were 75-90% for death by epidemic, you take the low population figure to calculate against the low estimate, 75% of 8 million will be 6 million, since you have a tendency to pull out figures from nowhere and without citations, you should at least do the calculations right, and if you do want to use citations, you will have to accept the absurd ranges provided. Here's one thing though, for a population that was supposed to 100 million, there had to be many large deserted cities, I am talking about thousands, so much more archeological finds, and discoveries of ancient artifacts, and ruins, the footprint of their existence will be undeniable, but there's none of these when it comes to the indigenous population apart from the few archeological finds that supported the lower end of the population estimates. Which is why the high estimates are derided as pseudo science, they are unsupported by any archeological findings or historical texts and are usually used to satisfy certain political needs. VelluSammy 03:53, 06 September 2015 (UTC)
I cited Rummel for the 8 million figure. What are you citing for your 2 million figure? I'd wager you are using his "democide" figure, which would be problematic as explained just above.
- ... since you have a tendency to pull out figures from nowhere and without citations, you should at least do the calculations right ...
I'm going to ignore that unsubstantiated pile of crap and request that you return to reality. We are talking about this source, correct? Please explain where you are getting your 2 million figure from that Rummel source. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Liberal Bias in the Article

In the section "Other Events" it states that Operation Condor was carried out by "right wing dictatorships," but there is no mention of the fact that the biggest disasters in human history were carried out by left wing dictatorships. The top tragedy of all time was Mao tse-Tung's policies, that killed 49 million - 80 million people. He was a left winger. The second highest are the policies of the left wing Soviet Union. Other left wing tragedies include those carried out by the Khmer Rouge and the Shining Path, although it is not limited to them. Far left communism killed roughly 100 million people, yet there is no attaching the title of "left wing" to this fact in the article. It would appear that wikipedia has a liberal bias. Why is it all right to call the dictatorships in South America right wing, but not to call communist dictatorships "left wing?" Everything they did was an attempt to help poor people and to redistribute wealth and resources from the rich to the poor, whether from capitalist millionaires or aristocrats. The state control and violence they exercised was all "necessary" to kill capitalists who were trying to hold onto their money, land, and resources. The repression they inflicted was "necessary" to stop people from getting richer than each other. It was state-enforced equality. This is on top of the fact that the economics of socialism didn't work, and caused people to starve to death. These dictatorships were left wing, but the only mention of political spectrum alignment in the article is that of "right wing dictatorships." Explain. This is liberal bias. 2601:184:100:AD92:45C:F095:EB27:3F89 (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Log mean numbers seem wrong.

The first table list deaths by "Log.mean", and the line above the table says that "log.mean is calculated using a simple power law". No algorithm is given for this computation. No explanation of "simple power law" is given.

For World War 2, the log.mean deaths listed is 58. The natural presumption is to suppose that log.mean is the logarithm of the mean estimate of the number of deaths. 2 to the power of 58 is about 10 to the power of 17, whereas the highest estimate of deaths in WW2 is about 80-100 million, i.e. no more than 10 to the power of 7. So what base is used in the table? Not 10, not e, not 2, these all grossly overestimate the number of deaths.

This table needs to be redone. It is clearly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mataap (talk • contribs) 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Stannard ref issues

I added a tag to the Stannard ref used to justify a 145 million person death toll for the Colonization of the Americans meta-event. I think the edit summary does its job. Does anyone have a better source and/or a citable max number that is actually quantified? GraniteSand (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The above mentioned edit summary says: (provided ref seems to make tertiary generalizations about population estimates, not concrete statements that 145 million people were killed over the course of the meta-event.)
I examined the reference citation to American historian and Professor of American Studies David Stannard's work published by Oxford University. If one follows the citation, and its footnote (note #13, and additional appended "detailed discussion" referenced within it), one sees that the estimated 145 million population figure is anything but a "generalization", nor is the depopulation rate in excess of 95% among the indigenous peoples. It's certainly at the high end of scholarly estimates, which some contend may still be too low (see the same detailed discussion), but the cited source appears to be of high quality. I've removed the "dubious" tag as inapplicable because the present source is more than adequate, but I'll check other sources for good measure. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The reference does not state that European colonization killed 145 million people. It states that, "one well regarded specialist (who?) estimates that," the peak indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere was "around" 145 million. To derive "145 million people were killed in the European colonization of the Americans" is a misreading/synthesis of the reference at best and an outright fabrication at worst. Also, please don't remove tags until a consensus has developed on the issue in which they relate. GraniteSand (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Did you just ask (who?) the cited reference is talking about? I see. So you haven't even read the cited sources yet. Please refrain from inappropriately tagging content based on your personal dislikes, when you haven't read the material you are tagging. The cited reference does not state that European colonization killed 145 million people. It states what the estimates are, who made those estimates, and how the depopulation estimated were derived. You would know that if you read the cited source. Also, if you would like to generate consensus on a specific issue, please open an RfC. I can help you with that if you need assistance. If you have a specific concern about the reliability of a source, or think that there is "misreading/synthesis" of a source, please raise your concerns at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, respectively. (Hint: actually reading the reference before opening a discussion is highly recommended.) Xenophrenic (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

An editor has placed a "dubious" tag after an entry in this list, with an edit summary stating:

  • (The footnote clearly stated 145,000,000 as one estimate for the population figures, not the depopulation. Find another source.)

I've double-checked footnote number 13 in the reference cited for this entry, and it certainly doesn't give any population figures. Perhaps you are referring to the "145,000,000" number mentioned on page 11? That's a population estimate, and not what we're talking about. What you want is how the population loss is calculated, so please check footnote 13. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I've just reverted an edit summarized as "Undid vandalism", as there was no apparent vandalism. Mistaken edit? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you are basing those numbers purely off the highly controversial work by David Stannard, at least cite his depopulation estimate which is at close to 100 million, according to him, the citation here mentioned his population estimates for the South American Hemisphere, again cited by Stannard himself, which cannot apply to the depopulation figures, so amend it and provide the proper citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellusammy (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That is incorrect. First, Stannard's work is certainly no more controversial than anyone else's work in this contentious field. As for your suggestion to at least cite his [Stannard's] depopulation estimate which is at close to 100 million, I could, but Stannard's depopulation estimate (pg. 151) is not the highest depopulation estimate noted in Stannard's work. The Stannard source also notes the work of multiple others in the field, with even higher estimates than his, including one as high as 98% depopulation rate of a population of nearly 150,000,000 at contact. You would know this if you followed the discussion indicated in footnote #13 of chapter 1 in the Stannard source. One of those higher estimates (Reassessing New World Populations at the Time of Contact, Institute for Early Contact Studies, University of Florida at Gainesville) is certainly very controversial, and even Stannard considers it "very high" and prefers to work with depopulations of closer to 100 million, but he notes that it has still found some support. All of the estimates, low and high, are controversial — but they still need to be accounted for here.
As for amending your citation (recall that you introduced it here), I can certainly try to copy edit for you. I'll remove the notation to pages 72-75, which cover the example depopulation of Hispaniola (not the "South American Hemisphere" as you seem to think), as it appears to be confusing you. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That citation specifically mentioned population estimates, as for Stannard noting the work of multiple others in that field you will have to list those multiple others, as no where in Stannard's work was the figure of 145 million used as a depopulation figure, either provide the exact source or use Stannard depopulation estimate, and source that too. contribs) 17:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellusammy (talk • contribs)
The citation does also mention population estimates, that is correct — and rather obvious, since one needs to know populations before depopulation can be calculated. As for the "others" in that field, referred to by Stannard on page 268 in his summary, which category of scholars are you saying we have to list? Please be specific. Your statement, "no where in Stannard's work was the figure of 145 million used as a depopulation figure" is nonsensical; see his explanation of the "pre-Columbian hemispheric population" decline on the last page of his explanation in appendix 1. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Again no where in Stannard's work was the figure 145,000,000 cited as depopulation estimates, rather it was the population estimates, cite the exact source and stop reverting. Vellusammy (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I did cite the exact source. You removed it. So I put it back. Please read it. Especially page 268. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay then list the entire paragraph for us to see, or cite it down as the new reference with all the footnotes. Vellusammy (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I did list it: Appendix 1. (And it is not a paragraph, it's almost 8 pages.) That's where Stannard explains the controversy on pre-Columbian settlement and population, and how the various high and low estimates were calculated, who made those calculations, and how consensus on those estimates have changed over time. Are you telling me you haven't even read it? And you are trying to slap a "dubious" tag on something you haven't read? Facepalm Facepalm Xenophrenic (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
and just where did Stannard cite the figure of 145 million as the depopulation number? Kindly explain how you come about with those numbers here, if it make any sense, or it is at all accurate to what Stannard is referring to, I will let it past, besides this I will get to Stannard work when I have the time, it just feels like this is some conclusion you came out with again. Vellusammy (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Stannard didn't, the researchers Stannard cites did. (I can tell you still haven't read the source.) The death toll numbers from the cited source were derived from the approximation of the true number of the hemisphere (more than 145,000,000 at its highest) and the nadir of under half a million (237,000 at it's lowest, based on census data from 1900). Xenophrenic (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
No you still haven't proven to me how you came about with the 145,000,000 estimate when by all accounts those are population figure given by Stannard, so I amended the ranges that to figures that are clearly sourced, and defined with accurate citations. This is according to Stannards own personal estimation as well, on the cause of unnatural deaths for the Native population, certainly in no where did he cite 145 million as the figure. Vellusammy (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
No you still haven't proven to me how you came about with the 145,000,000 estimate...
I didn't "came about with" that figure. That's from the source I cited, which you would know if you read it.
...when by all accounts those are population figure given by Stannard
Incorrect; Stannard never gives a population figure of 145 million, but he does cite in his book other researchers who have, and you would know this if you read the cited source.
...I amended the ranges that to figures that are clearly sourced, and defined with accurate citations.
No, you did not. You cited Mann, pages 106-109, which does not convey the numbers you added. Did you mean to cite pages 93-96 in the Mann source instead? Page 94 does indeed note a 100 million loss of life estimate by the first third of the 17th century according to Dobyns, but not the 10 million low estimate you entered. But the 10 million figure is not the lowest of the low estimates, and 100 million is not the highest of the high estimates, so I have returned the properly sourced numbers. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added an addition reference to alleviate any further confusion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
All I am asking for is just one passage from the author that confirm the validity of the 145 mill figure, just one, and list it here on the talk page, it's not that hard, just convince me that your source are actually not gibberish. It's that simple, you either have the citation or you don't, in any case I am not interested in getting further into the dispute here, I just think you conducted this matter in a remarkably evasive manner, and it's not conducive to an open discussion, withholding information and just selectively giving out citations just to build up your case isn't conducive to this debate, your figures will always be in dispute if it cannot hold up to close scrutiny. Vellusammy (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You have 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 your edit wasn't a mistake, then I look forward to your explanation for it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:23, 22 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,[failed verification] 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, if you are to use Dobyn's source then the numbers should be lower because Dobyns projection of the demographics is much lower than Stannard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellusammy (talk • contribs) 22:56, 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) 23:36, 22 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) 10:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Dobyn's figures were debunked decades ago. Why should they be cited at all?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
How charmingly political! Of course Dobyn's figures were "debunked", for being too low. (He didn't take into account the 10-11th century Norse contact in North America, and the accompanying contagions on record.) They were also debunked as too high, if you've believe the rants and ravings of Henige and his ilk. But then Henige's assertions were also thoroughly debunked (see Noble David Cook in the Journal of Interdisciplinary History). And Denevan and Dobyns both debunked Moody, but then Dobyns went on to debunk Denevan (in 1983). Fun, no? I think what you meant to say is that there is significant disagreement from all sides — and on that I would agree with you (as would reliable sources). But no one has been "debunked" out of the discussion on population and depopulation of pre-contact Americas, which brings me to the current issue: Dobyn's estimates are presently at the high end; not Stannard's (and Stannard even notes this in his book). Since none of these estimates, low or high, are indisputable figures, we can only tell our readers what the ranges are according to reliable sources. Agreed? Is there any other reason why the correct figures shouldn't be returned to the article? (By the way, TTAAC, I haven't seen you in a while. I hope you are doing well!) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Table does not sort properly

Trying to sort the table by minimum estimate of death toll seems to take into account only the first number of the total figure. I.e. 3.0 comes before 20.0 since 3 is greater than 2. I don't know how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.116.216 (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. In the future, the solution is using template:nts and template:ntsh liberally. Basically all entries in a column should use one of those, or *none* should. They can be mixed if necessary. Rwessel (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust High/Low

It seems odd to calculate the Holocaust "low" as Jewish Only and the Holocaust "high" as All People Targeted. It would be a better representation of the Holocaust to have it be low and high estimates of All People. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.130.187 (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Years in tables are written as numbers

Is there any particular reason why the from/to dates in several of the tables are written as numbers? Eg, 1,979 instead of 1979. 1,382 instead of 1382. -- PaulxSA (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No. It should be changed per WP:MOSDATE 00:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 Done Let me know if I missed any. Rwessel (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Deaths in North America from Colonization

Europe had an estimated population of 91 million in 1500. The table in this page says the upper range for the population of indigenous people in North America before Europeans came was 138 million. This seems utterly ridiculous. Calling a spade a spade. This is the first time I have seen a figure even remotely this high. It was taken from a book which has a prime focus on the philosophy of North American indigenous populations. Not issues around population. Just beause it comes from a book doesn't mean it is correct. Has anyone ever examined the veracity of this book's numbers. Especially as it seems so out of place from all other estimates which are much, much lower... even to an order of magnitude. Here is the reference: "American Philosophy: From Wounded Knee to the Present; Erin McKenna, Scott L. Pratt; Bloomsbury; 2015; Page 375; "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."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshowmecanuck (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time I have seen a figure even remotely this high.
That is one of the great benefits of Wikipedia; it introduces you, often for the first time, to a vast wealth of existing information. Regarding the reference you quoted, I see that it refers to the population of the western hemisphere, "north and south" America, not just North America. While Europe may have had a population of 91 million in the time of Columbus, scholars generally agree that the population of the Americas was even larger, with estimates between 100 to 200 million being not uncommon. According to:
  • David Stannard: "[D]emographers have been uncovering, in region upon region, post-Columbian depopulation rates of between 90 and 98 percent with such regularity that an overall decline of 95 percent has become a working rule of thumb. [...] Today, few serious students of the subject would put the hemispheric figure at less than 75,000,000 to 100,000,000 (with approximately 8,000,000 to 12,000,000 north of Mexico), while one of the most well-regarded specialists in the field recently has suggested that a more accurate estimate would be around 145,000,000 for the hemisphere as a whole and about 18,000,000 for the area north of Mexico."
  • Woodrow Borah: who estimated in 1964 that pre-Columbian Americas had a population "upwards of 100 million"
  • Henry F. Dobyns: who estimated in 1983 a hemispheric population of 112 million, which he revised in 1988, noting, "... the revised Central Mexican estimate of 50,000,000+ individuals, the Hemispheric 1492 population was approximately 200,000,000. Many more of them lived in tropical lowlands than scholars have thought."
Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with listing the European colonization of the Americas here. That is, indigenous deaths would have resulted from any sort of contact between indigenous people and Europeans. Indigenous deaths from disease were not an indirect result from war; they were a direct result from mere contact. Any contact, at all. This is much more of a natural disaster. The listing should be removed. -Fluous (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
So you are saying that even without the war, without the slavery, without the displacement, without the violence, rape, forced servitude, without the cultural decimation and resulting despair, some indigenous deaths would have still occurred due to unintentional spread of disease? To what degree, and based on what sources? I've heard similar theories, but many scholars would disagree. For example:
It is true, in a plainly quantitative sense of body countine, that the barrage of disease unleashed by the Europeans among the so-called "virgin soil" populations of the Americas caused more deaths than any other single force of distruction. However, by focusing almost entirely on disease, by displacing responsibility for the mass killing onto an army of invading microbes, contemporary authors increasingly have created the impression that the eradication of those tens of millions of people was inadvertent--a sad, but both inevitable and "unintended consequence" of human migration and progress. This is a modern version of what Alexander Saxton recently has described as the "soft-side of anti-Indian racism" that emerged in America in the nineteenth century and that incorporated "expressions of regret over the fate of Indians into narratives that traced the inevitability of their extinction. Ideologically," Saxton adds, "the effect was to exonerate individuals, parties, nations, of any moral blame for what history had decreed." In fact, however, the near-total desctruction of the Western Hemisphere's native people was neither inadvertant nor inevitable. ...disease and genocide were interdependent forces acting dynamically...
I don't see the justification for the removal of such information. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
"Some indigenous deaths from disease?" Some? Some? You could read the depopulation from disease section on the wiki for the population history of indigenous people of America.
Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans.[21] They reject both of the earliest European immigrants' explanations for the population decline of the American natives. The first explanation was the brutal practices of the Spanish conquistadores, as recorded by the Spanish themselves. ...Soon after Europeans and Africans began to arrive in the New World, bringing with them the infectious diseases of Europe and Africa, observers noted immense numbers of indigenous Americans began to die from these diseases. One reason this death toll was overlooked is that once introduced, the diseases raced ahead of European immigration in many areas. Disease killed a sizable portion of the populations before European written records were made. After the epidemics had already killed massive numbers of natives, many newer European immigrants assumed that there had always been relatively few indigenous peoples. The scope of the epidemics over the years was tremendous, killing millions of people—possibly in excess of 90% of the population in the hardest hit areas
I'm removing this, because the numbers overwhelmingly reflect deaths from disease unrelated to warfare or conflict but to mere contact. -Fluous (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I've read it, including the "citation needed" tags and the parts you omitted. So you are saying that even without the war, without the slavery, without the displacement, without the violence, rape, forced servitude, without the cultural decimation and resulting despair, some indigenous deaths would have still occurred due to unintentional spread of disease? To what degree, and based on what reliable sources ("on the wiki" is not such a source)? I've heard similar theories, but many scholars would disagree. (And please don't make unsupported unilateral edits without consensus, that's not very polite.) Xenophrenic (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
(1) It is your contention that the deaths occurred due to "war, slavery, displacement, violence, rape, forced servitude, cultural decimation, and despair" vs the "unintentional spread of disease." To what degree did that occur? It is your burden to produce such evidence to justify its inclusion here, in a list of wars, armed conflicts, and genocide. (2) There are references for the quoted wikipedia text. To find those references, click the number and it takes you to a citation. (3) Please don't make unsupported, unilateral reverts. -Fluous (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
It's my contention? Really? This comes as news to me, but I'll play along. Who was my publisher, and when was I published? And when did I cite myself as a source in a Wikipedia article? Please be specific. Also, I asked a question regarding degree & sources, to which you've been non-responsive. If you would like to resume the discussion, please let me know. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have no problem listing European Colonization of the Americas in the Other deadly events category. It's clearly more like those things than warfare. And it doesn't absolve Europeans from responsibility. Just like how certain actions taken by Mao and the Soviets are both listed in the "other deadly events" category; yet they're certainly not absolved from responsibility. Would you agree to that? -Fluous (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The information is presently listed in the section described thusly: "These figures of one million or more deaths include the deaths of civilians from diseases, famine, etc., as well as deaths of soldiers in battle and massacres and genocide. ... Some of the accounts below may include ancillary causes of death such as malnutrition and disease, which may or may not have been intentionally inflicted." It appears to be in the appropriate section. As for Mao, Soviets, and "doesn't absolve Europeans from responsibility", I don't understand that you are trying to say. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thirty years war

Our own article Thirty years war puts that event at the very top of all wars. I don't know, but I have heared so before as well. Like 100.000.000 killed due to the war. The long duration does also speak for a high number. Large parts of central Europe lost 90% of its population. Boeing720 (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That article say 8,000,000. Rwessel (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

adding an additional sorting Parameter?

I am no professional, it is just something that came up when reading the article:

Atrocities from different times with different population counts are compared.

This leads basically to the following question: what is deadlier: a conflict that kills 50 out of 100 people or a conflict that kills 100 of 1000 people.

How much sense would a sorting option that sorts the "deaths relative to (world)population given at that time" make? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.199.11 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I second this desire to weigh these numbers by a population estimate. Of course the entire article is so rich in amalgamated information already which makes it by itself into a piece of original research. But that should be just fine. With that, one might add a world population estimate (or export to a spreadsheet and join the data with a population estimate table.) But that would not consider population density differences in the regions of the world. So, one would need a more specific population estimate of the population that is involved in the area of the disaster or the target group if it is a genocide or a geographically distributed event such as the transatlantic slave trade. Gschadow (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding Data to Demonstrate the Death Toll as a Percentage of the World's Human Population

I think that it might be helpful to include data for each death toll entry that would list the death toll as a percentage of the world's population at that time in history, based on the best estimates available. I admit that I do not know the best source for estimating world populations, but we should pick a method (whether it be picking one single source that is felt to be most reliable, or taking an average of the top reliable sources) and use it consistently across all entries. This would help tremendously with giving context for comparing destructive events that happen in modern times with destructive events that occurred in different eras when there were fewer people participating and thus fewer people to kill.

Alternatively, (or additionally) a very helpful statistic would be listing the death toll as a percentage of the population density in the area where the disaster occurred, though I admit this would be a much more difficult undertaking. Where it can be done, however, it would be incredibly revealing. DRJDCooper (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC) DRJDCooper

I have noticed that another user already commented above regarding a similar but less-detailed proposal. My apologies for not noticing initially.
I have a second proposal here regarding the possibility of adding another interesting statistic - Deaths per Day. I have seen this statistic used in other writings, and it helps convey the acuity and deadliness of a particular event. (i.e. a one-day event that kills thousands might be considered more deadly than an "event" spanning hundreds of years such as the European conquest of the Americas)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DRJDCooper (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, many people here expressed similar desires. The question is, is there any literature out there that has attempted to add population counts into the statistics? Perhaps we should begin by adding a section into the main article where this angle could be placed, initially only as a stub but then worked out as more sources are located by the community. Gschadow (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Average Deaths Per Year

Would it be a good idea to include an approximate average deaths per year? It would put into context that the 18 million dead over 4 years of WWI is actually significant compared to the 33 million dead in the African Slave Trade, because WWI saw approx. 4,500,000 dead per year whereas the African Slave Trade saw under 27,000 dead per year, less than the population of the British Virgin Islands. Chris Martin (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed this is the third quantity that needs to be added into the equation in order to do some comparison. Ultimately one needs to create a compound measure of relative mortality rate R based on absolute mortality N, target population P, and time duration T: R = N / P / T. Gschadow (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

  • From Hillsborough disaster: "Hillsborough inquiry by Blair government criticised". BBC News. 25 October 2011.
  • From 1929 Hebron massacre: "Arab discontent". BBC. Retrieved 17 April 2012.
  • From Famine: "BBC NEWS - Business - Firms target nutrition for the poor". News.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-02-01.
  • From United Kingdom: "Scotland to hold independence poll in 2014 – Salmond". BBC News. 10 January 2012. Retrieved 10 January 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Red Holocaust vs operation condor

In The List of Dictatorships by death tolls all the deaths by communist dictatorships get grouped together under the Red holocaust but i don't see all the deaths by South American dictatorships supported by the U.S government, shouldn't Operation Condor be up there too, I seem to remember more than 30,000 were killed under this regimes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC4B:E880:4CEA:5EF7:7071:361D (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of geometric average

Why?Ernio48 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'd like to know, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I took a look at reference 1 (I think) years ago when the geometric mean was first added, and the authors of that paper found that the geometric mean of of the high and low death toll estimates of some events came close to the true death toll. I don't think that this conclusion is widely accepted to apply generally, and I don't see a need to have the geometric mean in the article. (Calculating the geometric mean is simple math, so isn't original research.)--Wikimedes (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hrw1999":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Gulag

Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the number of dead for the whole Gulag period (1918-1953) at 30,000,000.[1] Today, most historians seem to have settled on a total of about 20,000,000.[2][3] These estimations rank Gulag second in the political-purges list, surpassed only by Mao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxaxax (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1953, (tr. Thomas P. Whitney, New York: Harper Collins Publisher, 1974-78), http://salempress.com/store/pdfs/masterplots_4.pdf
  2. ^ “How Many People Did Stalin Kill?” History of Russia, http://historyofrussia.org/stalin-killed-how-many-people/
  3. ^ Robert Conquest, Preface, The Great Terror: A Reassessment: 40th Anniversary Edition, Oxford University Press, USA, 2007. p. xvi.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of wars and anthropogenic disasters 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

North American Native Population Estimation Seems Way Too High

Agreed. Both authors of the book are philosophers, not historians, from University of Oregon. Not exactly the type I would quote during a debate on the subject. 2601:205:101:AADC:D594:FD21:D18B:4D2F (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's ridiculously high speculation. The Roman Empire - a modern (for the time) agriculturally advanced state - could not support such a high population. That a primitive culture of hunter-gatherers could attain such a population is utter nonsense. What happened to the native Americans was tragic, but spouting completely unscientific figures as facts does nothing to help awareness of that. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
While I too think it is high, it is equally wrong that Native American were primitive hunter-gatherers. See Cahokia, maize, Machu Pichu, Tenochtitlan, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
All of you should read the article cited for low estimate, which gives a nice overview of the history of Pre-Columbian population estimates, how they are made, and what the latest thoughts are. For one thing, it has little to do with the IPs' assertions which are based on what I can only assume to be are movies about the Sioux and Pirãha (see, I can generalize too!). SamuelRiv (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan

Should be divided into two phases: Soviet-Afghan and internal Afghan. Now it's a double entry practically.Marcin862 (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll/Archive_15&oldid=1145678334"