Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Mass killings under communist regimes

I would like assistance to know why this new scholarly peer reviewed source https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors is not being accepted now? I would also like assistance on how my addition of Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes is not being allowed if the European colonization with 1 source has been allowed? Danielbr11 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources like the Reason and op-eds in online newspapers are not reliable sources in the least. The issue of "Mass killings under communist regimes" is highly controversial anyway with disputes on that talk page going on as I type this, so it is not necessary to shoehorn such a controversial and contested topic into this article using such rubbish sources. It seems your edits on the aforementioned article have been reverted anyway, and for similar reasons, so now you are bringing the same source and others here. Rummel is hardly a reliable source on deaths under communism, especially his estimates on the USSR which are not taken seriously by any historian on the subject. It is certainly not an "extremely reputable source everyone uses." And just because you have issues with another part of the article on European colonization doesn't justify your edits which have been rightly reverted on the Mass killings under communist regimes article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The revert was justified under several policies. Just start with a look at the five pillars and work your way down. The equivalence to European Colonization is false. This edit has to stand on its own, and threats will get you nowhere. If you cant discuss this with respect and civility, you should not be making the edit. And the hawaii.edu source seems to be out of context, it does not seem verifiable in any way. Also, your edit is not minor, please stop marking it as such. Rklahn (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me there are about 10 total sources now read each one (if you feel the need to remove a few you can). The mass killings under communist regimes article actually has a maximum estimate of 161,990,000 go look for yourself. You are not going to easily permit 1 european colonization source when many other sources say the maximum deaths are way lower because it is also a highly controversial and contested subject (most colonization deaths were from disease just as famines under communism). Read all my sources you are not going to reject it just cause you dont like one of them. Danielbr11 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop with the logical fallacies that two wrongs make a right. The section on European colonization has nothing to do with your POV and highly WP:undue additions. And all the sources are either opinion pieces like this one and this one, or published on agenda-pushing websites like this one, and this one, and some sources with titles like "Satan's Communists, Socialists, and Blacklist: The Legacy of Karl Marx", which of course pillories BLM, Antifa, the Democratic Party making it blatant propaganda (and really bad propaganda at that) and not a serious source on the history of communism. At least the section on European colonization contains peer reviewed sources and others considered reliable! You were reverted on MKuCR for similar reasons. Stop edit warring and get consensus here for your additions, as the onus is on YOU to do so! EDIT: Oh, and you also keep adding it to the section "Wars and armed conflicts", which of course is not even the right section for such materials even if you did find consensus for their inclusion.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Im prepared to go through the sources one by one, if need be, but there is a general trend of them lacking neutral point of view, so my question is this: Why do you think the sources cited taken together present balance on the subject? Rklahn (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to repost it with this peer reviewed scholarly source (just 1 is necessary like the european colonization one) and you cannot remove it just because YOU think (aka your biased opinion) the european colonization source is "more" reliable than it! https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors .... and by the way this article is written by a professor of a military university which is neutral as "neutral" as the colonization sources https://mises.org/wire/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution Danielbr11 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You should not repost without consensus, which you clearly do not have. Rklahn (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We are allowed to make edits if there are scholarly peer reviewed sources which i have provided. A few of you disagreeing because of your "feelings and biased opinions" doesnt prevent me from editing it. There are plenty of people and sources who disagree with the european colonization estimate most of them say its way lower so you dont have consensus on that either.Danielbr11 (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No, actually, you are not. Edits on Wikipedia are made by consensus to achieve the goals of the five pillars. This edit clearly lacks consensus, and should not be make until it does. If you have not done so yet, you are approaching edit warring, which is considered disruptive behavior, which carry sanctions. Stop editing the article and engage with those of us trying to discuss it here on the talk page. Rklahn (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me i have already engaged with you by posting peer reviewed articles. The argument against my first post is that it didnt have peer reviewed articles. Now YOU are engaging in hypocritical bias where you agree with other controversial contested edits but not mine simply because you dont like that its against your opinion. There is no other reason so let the wiki admins get involved to see the truth.Danielbr11 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this an RfC, or an argument? If the latter, please remove the {{rfc}} tag; if the former, please supply a neutrally-worded opening statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is an argument, not an RfC, and Danielbr11 should remove the {{rfc}} tag. We are also having some procedural problems. Rklahn (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I have no dog in this hunt and I have not looked into who might be right and might be wrong. My only connection with it is to have closed the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard request because of the RFC that is pending here and because of other procedural problems. But I want to correct a misconception I noticed here. There is no "right" to have an edit included in Wikipedia regardless of how well sourced it may be. See WP:ONUS. Whenever an edit is contested, the burden is on the editor seeking to introduce the edit to obtain consensus to have the edit included. Nothing is included in Wikipedia without consensus. On the other hand, proper sourcing is a threshold to inclusion. Nothing can legitimately be included unless it is properly sourced. Disputes over whether or not something should be included should focus on why or why not the edit should be included, specifically how it improves the encyclopedia and how it fits into policy and guidelines. The quality of those reasons - along with the number of people !voting, though that's a weaker factor - is what determines consensus. The RFC that has been filed here may help reach consensus, but it would help the RFC considerably if the exact reason for the dispute and the competing content issues were to be clearly spelled out just below the RFC tag. Finally, if this is just an issue over whether certain sources are reliable or adequate or whether better sources exist, a filing at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard might provide assistance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC) (Not watching this page) Ok Rklahn i am not going to add the edit again until we reach consensus on the talk page. I dont know if Griffin will continue this discussion as i already met his demand of a scholarly peer reviewed source with this https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors Will you please continue the discussion with me here as to how my source is not reliable or why isnt my addition allowed compared to the other items on the list? I hope we continue to talk there instead of me being ignored or brushed off when we should be able to make relevant edits. What is necessary for us to reach a consensus. Danielbr11 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danielbr1: There are a couple of things going on here. First, we are stuck procedurally at the moment. The talk page section has a {{rfc}} tag without a neutrally-worded opening statement. I really should not comment on the talk page until either the tag is gone, or the statement is there. Second, Im not even sure what the proposed edit is at this point. We have been through so many proposed sources, Im not sure which one I should address. Third, everyone involved has to be civil about this. You, me, Griffin, anyone else who wants to engage. I got your apology, and accept it, but I cant ignore history here. Fourth, I asked at one point Why do you think the sources cited taken together present balance on the subject? and never got an answer. I think that would be a good starting place (but you may disagree, feel free to present an alternative). Fifth, as the person proposing the edit, the onus to provide Verifiability is on you. Rklahn (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok Rklahn I updated the RFC opening statement to a neutral question. After Griffin demanded scholarly peer reviewed sources this is the main one I am using: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors I also kept these two because one is written by a professor at Citadel Military college and The other is a statement by a medical doctor under oath before Congress: https://mises.org/wire/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75859/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg75859.pdf All three state exactly 150 million deaths as their maximum estimate. To answer your question they show balance because they are all peer reviewed professionals who have studied different topics. These sources are equal in balance to the 1 source accepted for European Colonization. Once again European Colonization death estimates are also very highly controversial and contested because most sources say the maximum death toll is much lower since a lot of deaths were from disease.Danielbr11 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's almost like you don't understand what a scholarly peer reviewed source is, as the ones you listed above certainly do not qualify. Anything from mises.org should not be considered a reliable source for this topic, or any other topic for that matter, given their overt agenda to smear anything even nominally "socialist" as bad. It is NOT a peer-reviewed scholarly source by a long shot! The title alone gives away what a polemical right-wing screed that it is! The second source is a WP:PRIMARY source and the topic is not "mass killings under communism", but Chinese "organ harvesting". Not a reliable source for deaths under Communism, and not a source subject to scholarly peer review. It speaks volumes that these are the sources you come up with, along with all the horrid sources mentioned above, and demonstrates that there is not a single peer reviewed article or book that gives such ridiculously high estimates of "deaths under communism".

And, again, you insert this material in an inappropriate section. The topic of "mass killings under communism" doesn't belong in the section "Wars and armed conflicts". It's obvious your putting it there so it's the first thing readers see in the body. Obvious POV-pushing and inappropriate.

You have been warned multiple times, and by multiple editors, about edit warring and treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and you violated the WP:3RR with this edit because you refuse to listen. Other editors have called you out for WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and I think they are right.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with C.J. Griffin's view that a scholarly peer review is required here (in fact, I don't think they are really saying that, but reasonable editors could draw a different conclusion), but otherwise I agree. The sources lack a Neutral point of view and are not balanced by opposing views. I can understand why. True opposing views don't seem to exist. In a quick search, the "opposing view" can be summarized as "Well, capitalism too", and I don't think that gets us anywhere useful. Ive already said this, but it bears repeating. The sources for European colonization of the Americas are not relevant here. This edit has to stand on its own. My opinion at this point is that this edit should be abandoned, it does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts, it is an encyclopedia, and thats two different things.

It's also not as if this general topic is not covered in this list already, from the PRC, Soviet Union, post revolution Cuba, etc. I think there would be some benefit for an interested editor in improving those entries. It looks like someone did a lot of work on the Mao Zedong entry, as an example, and other entries could use a similar treatment. Rklahn (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I never said sources subject to peer review were required; I was pointing out that the sources Danielbr11 kept insisting were peer reviewed were indeed not. While I do strongly believe such sources are some of the best for this topic given the rigorous fact checking involved, other sources could be considered reliable depending on what the source is. Popular biographies could fall in this category, for example. That being said, I don't think Danielbr11 provided even one reliable source, let alone one that rises to the level of an academic source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There goes Griffin making accusations against me again when it is HE who is pov pushing allowing european colonization with a non neutral source. Do you keep ignoring my 1 main peer reviewed source https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors I can say the same for all your sources that they are biased non neutral. You CANNOT claim every source that doesnt match your opinion is non neutral. You are rejecting my edit simply because "you dont feel it belongs" when it is equally valid as any other item on the list. The sources are neutral just as any other source is. Each source does not have to have opposing viewpoints because most sources are designed to study one topic. And there is a european colonization item as well as a genocide of indigenous americans item which basically duplicates the numbers. You are wanting to abandon my post simply you dont want it to be there so since you want to hit this dead end i am going to have to continue escalating this.Danielbr11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Are you going to continue to blatantly ignore my 1 main scholarly peer reviewed source https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors I’m going to continue escalating this so the admins see your blatant ignorance. How dare you continue to accuse me of POV pushing when you say your socialist and believe religion is harmful to society on your personal page.Danielbr11 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

If you keep inserting material in an inappropriate section just to get it to the very top of the list, how is that not POV-pushing? Your repeated assertions about a double standard keep falling flat because it is a bullshit argument. That has been part of the article for a long time, and I did not add it. I did contribute the last sentence in the Notes section with a reliable source published in the peer-reviewed journal Quaternary Science Reviews, however. Tell me, what journal was your "1 main peer-reviewed source" published in?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Griffin the article has been reviewed by professors and PhDs it appears here https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG= It is a valid source period and I can simply put this edit under the War crimes, massacres or political purges repressions list but every time I meet one of your demands you still don’t want it on the page.Danielbr11 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A senior dissertation is not a peer-reviewed research article. And this individual is hardly an authority on the subject of "mass killings under communism". So basically the best source you can find for this high estimate is some senior paper written by a student at *ahem* Liberty University.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here’s another one from the Independent Review which is a peer reviewed journal https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 But you see it doesn’t matter to you regardless because you view any source that says this as a biased source versus your athiest socialist opinion.Danielbr11 (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Independent Institute is a libertarian think tank. And please refrain from ad hominem. Consider the source I provided above, and what you have been providing. The aforementioned Quaternary Science Reviews is a prestigious academic journal not promoting any specific political or religious agenda, whereas all the sources you have provided - quite literally every single one of them - are steeped in political bias, either evangelical Christian conservatism (e.g., Liberty University) or anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism (e.g., Mises Institute).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danielbr11: These sources are not reliable. The test is that all majority and significant minority views are covered. That is not happening here. All the sources are from either a conservative or libertarian point of view. You need to find one that also presents the socialist and perhaps even the anarchistic point of view. And Im beginning to doubt such a source exists, and if it does not, the edit should not be made. Rklahn (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Good try from both of you but here it stated non neutral sources are allowed its simply the editing in the article that must be neutral. The article has both points of view because it has a minimim estimate AND a maximum estimate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content In fact look what it says here under achieving neutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Again the article shows both point of views as minimum and maximum estimates. I never said anything about politics or religion but Griffin who says on his page hes an athiestic socialist is the one who continues to show HIS non neutrality against christian or libertarian sources. Danielbr11 (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

We are going round and round on this, without any substantial new point being made. I do not know exactly how to move forward at this juncture, but let's try this. You have done a very good job of introducing a Christian Conservative and Libertarian perspective on this. Now try writing as if you were a Socialist, and introduce that view. Rklahn (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to see if I can take a stab at explaining this. No, not every source has to have an neutral-unbiased point of view. You are correct. HOWEVER- and thats a big however- the source that reviewed it DOES have to have a reputation for having a non-biased POV. Meaning the publisher. Because a publisher can review something, decide that although it has a POV, it still uses accurate information while giving a new analysis and decide to publish it. If a biased publisher reviews a piece- they are not checking for factual accuracy- they are checking if the analysis lines up with their perspective. And that is the problem with the sources you have provided- the publisher standing behind the author does not have a strong reputation for evaluating facts over perspective. This has nothing to do with my political beliefs- not that it matters, but I happen to be a moderate and a Christian- so.... hiding deaths under communism is really not something I'm highly motivated to do. However- I am highly motivated to make sure that WP is accurate, which means well sourced- and so far, you have not provided a good source for your edits. Might I suggest, however, that you go back to that dissertation from Liberty and start wading through their sources? Its possible that they got their numbers from a source that would work here. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle the source from the Liberty article is Martin, Prevailing Worldviews, 182. Regardless what you said about the publisher is not found in the neutrality or reliable source policies I posted above. My sources are acceptable regardless it’s these users Griffin and Rklahn that are in violation of the policy by deleting a scholarly peer reviewed source from a differing viewpoint whether it’s biased or not when the article has a space for the minimum and maximum estimates. In fact this article says “lack of consensus” in the notes for European colonization while there are also sources that say “unreliable source” next to them and even Rummel is used as a source on the list somewhere. It’s ok this will be escalated so the admins can see the violation of policy.Danielbr11 (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danielbr11: You are, of course, free to escalate anything you want, but I would appreciate notice of what forum you do it in. Thanks. Rklahn (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Well... I tried. And I will also recuse myself on the DRN because of it- Just remember- no DRN while ANI or RFCs are running and beware of boomerangs.Nightenbelle (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

would you accept this source from a neutral reliable publisher for 150 million killings under British Empire https://www.jstor.org/stable/175562?seq=1Danielbr11 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

can somebody tell me if this neutral reliable publisher source Is reliable https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20millionDanielbr11 (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Clicking the link you posted here only throws up a GBooks page with a context-free quote; you'll need to provide some information about the sources you suggest in future. The assertion that the publisher is neutral is incorrect – it is the Foreign Affairs Publishing Company which had its roots in the World Anti-Communist League. The author, Suzanne Labin, had a strong, explicit, and intentional anti-communist agenda in her writings. The source could maybe be used somewhere, but it can absolutely not be used to support this claim – it is just as weak as the sources added in that edit. Since the claim is not even meaningful ("communist regimes" is not a unified concept), it is no wonder there are no scholarly sources to be found for it. It looks like it might be time to drop that particular stick? --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources policy page states you cant delete a source simply for bias. Show me how this source does not meet the reliable source policy.Danielbr11 (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You really have latched onto that one phrase. Please understand- it says you can't delete a source SIMPLY (meaning only) for bias. However- it does not state that you can use a bias source to insert controversial or contested information. It does not say a bias source is appropriate as the only source for information. Now- as a publisher- I don't have as much of a problem with the Foreign Affairs Publishing Company in general. While they definitely do have an anti-communist bias, they also have a fairly decent commitment to presenting a fair picture. Generally. This particular author- From her WP page "was a French Socialist writer and political scientist, known particularly for her anti-communism,[3] anti-totalitarianism and pro-democracy writings." This is concerning. You also have provided a link to a search- were you searching for just that quote? To be clear- were you searching for a source that supports your agenda as opposed to reviewing the sources then coming up with a good summary of them? Because finding sources to support your argument is what persuasive writers do, reviewing sources and summarizing them is what informative writers do. This article needs to be approached from a informational perspective rather than persuasive. Now before you ask- no there is no policy that specifically says that.... because it is inherent in the definition of an encyclopedia- it exists to inform, not persuade. You can refer to WP:NOT for more clarification. When you want to introduce something as fact that will be controversial- it is necessary to find a strong, unbiased source. If you want to review a perspective- a biased source can be appropriate. But this list is presenting facts- something inarguable. The sources must also be inarguable. You have yet to hit that mark. The RS policy addresses generally the threshold for sources for all topics on WP. And in many topics- a bias source still provides needed information- IE- on the Communism page- bias sources would provide valuable perspectives on all sides as we define a complex topic. On a list of total number of deaths- there can be no room for complexity- there is a set number dead. There are clear parameters. This person died for this reason. So the sources do not have room to allow their bias to influence these numbers. This is why, in this instance, the other editors are being so strict about non-biased sources. We don't want anyone to come to this page and say its guilty of WP:NPOV because we have used pro-communist or anti-communist sources. We need to use non-biased sources to give just the facts. Now- as to the source- Just from reading the passage- I can tell the author is trying to shock their reader. The way they craft their statement, "No, you have not misread I said...." They expect their reader to be shocked. They want their reader to be shocked. If, then, their purpose is to shock the reader- and we know they are socialist, anti-communist as well, did they round up at all? Did they pull every possible death of any person who lived under communist rule? Or did they keep to only deaths caused by the regime? Those questions, which are unanswerable, are why this source is not a good one to use here. I'm sorry- thats my opinion and the reasoning behind it. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle your statement " But this list is presenting facts- something inarguable. The sources must also be inarguable. " Is untrue because for each minimum and maximum estimate on this page there is another source that would show another number. As i said for European Colonization and Genocide of Indigenous Americans the notes say "there is lack of consensus" and most scholarly sources say its way less.Danielbr11 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielbr11, please start threading your replies, as described on your user talk page. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources policy page states you cant delete a source simply for bias. And I did not say that you can. I addressed your claim that it is a neutral [...] publisher, which is incorrect. As for why this source is not a reliable source for the very specific claim in question, well, you have not made any argument for why it would be (see WP:ONUS), but there are several reasons why it is not. Nightenbelle mentions one reason above: we have absolutely no idea where that figure comes from. Furthermore, and equally importantly, the book is about the history of Chile in 1970-1973 (per this description), it is not a scholarly work that analyses and discusses communism worldwide, and so it may or may not be a reliable source for claims about Allende's Chile, but even if it is, it does not follow that it is a reliable source for claims about other topics. (You already know about the importance of context, of course, since you say you have read WP:RS, but I am pointing it out anyway for the benefit of other readers.) Finally, the book is from 1982. The claim inserted here couldn't possibly be sourced to it, even if the book had been a reliable source otherwise. It is a complete non-starter for at least these three reasons – and in addition, the claim itself is meaningless, so it may be time to drop this stick. --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

British Empire Source Discussion

would you accept this source from a neutral reliable publisher for 150 million killings under British Empire https://www.jstor.org/stable/175562?seq=1Danielbr11 (talk) 5:29 pm, Today (UTC−6)

First- I created a new section because this is a new issue. Now- On first glance- I would say no. This is an extreme claim and as such- requires a suburb source. Your source while it is peer reviewed- so Yay!!, is also 35 years old. A LOT of research / study / New information has come to the surface over the past 35 years. I would say we need a much more recent source to add something that will be controvertial just by the nature of it being about one of the largest empires in modern history. Thats my two cents... I'm sure other editors will be around to weigh in shortly. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please show me where policy states it needs to be less than 35 years old. It is stil way later than the period it mentions the deaths. This source meets all the criteria. The European colonization number is very controversial as well most scholars say it’s lower. The Holocaust lowest estimate source is from 1954. I was willing to give up the communism edit for this one since this source meets more criteria.Danielbr11 (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danielbr11: Im just going to fix things like indentation and threading where I see them going forward. Otherwise, these discussions are hard to follow. And I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

There is a pejorative term to describe what you are doing here, and I hesitate to use it, because its pejorative, but its on point: wikilawyering. Please stop telling people to prove that their comments fit into some sort of policy framework. The goal on Wikipedia is to follow the underlying fundamental principles, not to strictly accept sources that do, or do not, meet policy.

I said this back when we were discussing Communism, and it's as valid here. Equivalence to other entries in the article is false. The entire article is already known to have multiple issues. We are all supposed to be here to improve the article, and that means, in part, that we can not accept the quality of other entries as precedent. Each edit has to stand on its own.

On to content. Nightenbelle raises a valid point, one that I agree with, that should be replied to. Is there a reliable source to be found that reflects any information that has come to light in the last 35 years? Rklahn (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have access to this source on JSTOR. I will try to read the entire article later, but after skimming it, it appears that the 150 million figure is only mentioned on the first page and refers to the total number of people that fell under the control of the British Empire in the decades immediately following the 1776 American Revolution:

The American Revolution, of course, was not averted; but while this crisis embarrassed the British Empire, it did not destroy it. Even before 1776, the conquest of Canada had reduced the thirteen colonies' strategic significance, just as their profitability to the mother country had been outstripped by its Indian possessions; their final loss was made up, and more than made up, with relentless and almost contemptuous speed. Between 1780 and 1820 some 150 million men and women in India, Africa, the West Indies, Java, and the China coast succumbed to British naval power and trading imperatives.

While the wording could be seen as ambiguous without context, "succumbed to British naval power and trading imperatives" would be a weirdly euphemistic way to describe what would have been perhaps the most concentrated campaign of mass killing in history up to that point (and by a British population of only 16 million near the tail end of the time period in question, per the author later in the same article). In any case the size of the world population circa the turn of the nineteenth century renders Danielbr11's interpretation implausible at best, and there is certainly nothing in the plain language of the source to suggest that it is providing an estimate of "killings" under the British Empire throughout its entire history (as opposed to a relatively brief period of forty years). In addition, if the author actually intended to convey that Britain had perpetrated a holocaust dwarfing both world wars combined (and perhaps doubled), wiping out nearly the entire Indian population, I don't think that she would have mentioned it in passing (without a citation) in the introduction or "background" section of her article, only to never return to that topic again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Boy, did I miss this one. TheTimesAreAChanging is 100% right. The author of the source did not mean died when she said succumbed, she meant failed to resist pressure, or less exactly came under the power of. Personally, Ive given Danielbr11 a LOT of benefit of the doubt on this page, and Im not going to do that anymore. Rklahn (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danielbr11: I hope you understand, my response above, @TheTimesAreAChanging: and @Rklahn: and the others are indicative of Academic debate. Its not that we are out to get you or brush you aside. This is how research and writing gets done in academic settings. I don't know the background of the rest, but I have 3 degrees, 2 in business, 1 in English Education, 1 of my degrees is a Masters. I don't say all this to throw my weight around, because I truly don't believe that degrees determine intelligence or should determine influence on this site or anywhere else. However, an education background does indicate a background in analysis and crafting arguments. Specifically- I taught English and Communication. So, how someone communicates and their motives behind it are of particular interest to me. Its part of why I volunteer at the DRN, and part of why I enjoy analyzing WP:RS and reviewing new pages. It appeals to a part of me that I don't get to exercise nearly as much as I wish I could anymore. I would encourage you to approach your sources with the same analytical eye we are. Try to root out every argument we could make against it before you post it, have an explanation for those arguments, a rebuttal. Don't just look for a source that says what you want to say- look for a source that meets the requirements then see what it says. Analyze how your sources make their arguments- not just what those arguments are. These are just suggestions. Do with them what you will. But being critical of your own sources will help you when you suggest them and other editors are critical of them- because you have already worked through the arguments for why they shouldn't be included, and found reasons why they should that outweigh those concerns. And- you will have found persuasive ways to convince other editors to support your proposals, rather than just brow beating them with the same phrase over and over and trying to tell them what they will and will not do. As I write this- notice I'm not telling you that you WILL do this in the future- I'm offering a suggestion that could benefit you. You are free to do with it what you will. Approaching things from that angle will resonate better with your fellow editors. Again... just a suggestion. Thank you for approaching things from a more positive angle for the last 24 hours. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

OP is now indef'ed from this page. Meters (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The number of victims after the Hussite wars is missing. According to the Czech wikis, the number of Czech lands, estimated at 2.80–3.37 million around 1400, decreased to 1.50–1.85 million by 1526. This is almost 50% of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honza1978 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Massacres of Indians by Muhammad of Ghor

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Deaths of Hindus by Muhammad of Ghor ||100,000deaths ||100,000deaths ||100,000deaths ||India ||1173 CE ||1202 CE |29 years ||This is mentioned by Persian historian Hasan Nizami in his Taj-ul-Ma'sir.

Shakespeare143 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Massacre of the Latins

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Massacre of the Latins ||60,000deaths ||80,000deaths ||69,282deaths ||Turkey ||1182 CE ||1182 CE |1 year || A mob killed all Latin (Western European) inhabitants of Constantinople

Shakespeare143 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Israelite Ethnic Cleansing of Canaanites

Can I add this under the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecution section, the Wars and armed conflicts section, and the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section?

|- ||Israelite Ethnic Cleansing of Canaanites ||100,000 ||100,000 ||100,000 ||The Levant ||1400 BCE ||1400 BCE |? ||The Ethnic Cleansing of Canaanites by Israelites occurred when Joshua conquered Canaan and resulted from the Israelites' account that God told them to kill all the Canannites. Either all the Canaanites died or the majority. It is estimated that 100,000 Canaanites died during this ethnic cleansing. According to the Bible, under orders from YHWH (God), the Israelites slaughtered the people of every town conquered. The Bible mentions that in 1 city 12,000 residents were killed, and it also mentions 8 other cities that were completely destroyed.Shakespeare143 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare143 A quick note since I am not free till the weekend. The Bible/Bhagvadgeeta/Quran and any other religious text is not considered WP:RS for historical content. Hence a lot of the content you had added on this and other articles would fail WP:RS. VV 09:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Genocide of Hindus and others during Islamic conquests in the Indian subcontinent

Can I add this under the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section, the Wars and armed conflicts section, and the War crimes, massacres and ancient war atrocities section?

|- ||Genocide of Hindus, Buddhists, and others during Islamic conquests in the Indian subcontinent ||60,000,000deaths ||400,000,000deaths Shakespeare143 (talk) ||154,919,334deaths || India || 643 CE || 1813 CE |1170 years || Muslim conquests began in 643 when Arab forces defeated Rutbil, King of Zabulistan in Sistan, and continued until the Sikh Empire's victory over the Durrani Empire at the Battle of Attock in 1813. During this time period, there were many massacres and ethnic cleansings of Hindus.Shakespeare143 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare143 The book by White already has a page at The_Great_Big_Book_of_Horrible_Things making it redundant to copy-paste content to another article. Further, the reference https://blog.hua.edu/blog/distortions-in-indian-historiography which you used above is a blog which is not WP:RS. I hope you get the gist of the arguments for why your edits have been reverted. VV 10:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram I'm actually not using anything from White in this atrocity that I am commenting under. I just changed the reference from a blog to a more reliable source. Shakespeare143 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Hindus by Firuz Shah Tughlaq

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Ethnic Cleansing of Hindus in Bengal by Firuz Shah Tughlaq ||500,000deaths ||500,000deaths ||500,000deaths ||India ||1365 CE ||1367 CE |2 years ||Bahmani Sultanate soldiers massacred inhabitants in districts surrounding Vijayanagara.

Shakespeare143 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not use White here either. Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Massacre of Chittorgarh

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Massacre of Chittorgarh ||30,000deaths ||30,000deaths ||30,000deaths ||India ||1568 CE ||1568 CE |1 year || Hindus were killed by Akbar.

Shakespeare143 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this mentioned in the source, the explicit use of the word "Hindus"? VV 00:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram Yes, it does. It says Akbar "had ordered the massacre of about 30,000 surrendered Hindu peasants". Shakespeare143 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see. VV 00:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Massacres Around Vijayanagara

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section and the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section?

|- ||Massacres around Vijayanagara by Bahmani Sultanate ||500,000deaths ||500,000deaths ||500,000deaths ||India ||1365 CE ||1367 CE |2 years ||Bahmani Sultanate soldiers massacred inhabitants in districts surrounding Vijayanagara. In one massacre, around Raichur Doab, 70,000 Hindus were massacred.

(talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC). I did not use White as a source here either. Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC) I just added a bit about massacre around Raichur Doab. Shakespeare143 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ala-ud-Din Massacre of Hindus near Chitor

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Ala-ud-Din Massacre of Hindus near Chitor ||30,000deaths ||30,000deaths ||30,000deaths ||India ||1303 CE ||1303 CE |1 year || Ala-ud-Din ordered the massacre of 30,000 non-combatant Hindus living in the vicinity of Chitor. Shakespeare143 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Genocide of Bengali Hindus by Sultan Firoz Shaw

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Genocide of Bengali Hindus by Sultan Firoz Shaw ||180,000deaths ||180,000deaths ||180,000deaths ||India ||1353 CE ||1353 CE |1 year || According to Professor R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, "Sultan Firoz Shaw invaded Bengal and offered a reward for every Hindu head, subsequently paying for 180,000 of them". Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Suicide of Russian "Old Believers"

Can I add the following to the Human sacrifice and suicide section?

|- ||Suicide of Russian "Old Believers" ||10,000deaths ||10,000deaths ||10,000deaths ||Russia ||1665 CE ||early 1700s CE |? || According to sociologist and scholar Thomas Robbins, tens of thousands of "Old Believers" in Russia committed suicide, generally by self-immolation. Most suicides occurred at collective events at monasteries or hermitages. Shakespeare143 (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Massacre of Ghara

Can I add the following to the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Massacre of Garha ||48,000deaths ||48,000deaths ||48,000deaths ||India ||1560 CE ||1560 CE |1 year || Mughal historian Aub-I Fazl states this. . Mughal Emperor Akbar ordered the killing of 48,000 Hindus, including 40,000 peasants and 8,000 Rajputs.

Shakespeare143 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I just added more info here. Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Massacre of Srirangam

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Massacre of Srirangam ||12,000deaths ||12,000deaths ||12,000deaths ||India ||1323 CE ||1323 CE |1 year || Muslim forces killed 12,000 Hindu ascetics. Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaḍḍā Ghallūghārā

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Vaḍḍā Ghallūghārā ||25,000deaths ||30,000deaths ||27,386deaths ||India ||1762 CE ||1762 CE |1 year || Ahmad Shah massacred 25,000-30,000 Sikhs, including many children and women. Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Massacre of Gwalior

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Massacre of Gwalior ||100,000deaths ||100,000deaths ||100,000deaths ||India ||1196 CE ||1196 CE |1 year || 100,000 Hindus were massacred by Qutb al-Din Aibak. Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Massacre at Nalanda

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Massacre at Nalanda ||10,000deaths ||10,000deaths ||10,000deaths ||India ||1197 CE ||1197 CE |1 year || Approximately 10,000 Buddhist monks and students were killed by Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji. Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Massacre of Khanwa

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Massacre of Khanwa ||200,000deaths ||200,000deaths ||200,000deaths ||India ||1527 CE ||1527 CE |1 year || Approximately 200,000 Hindus were killed by Mughal Emperor Babur. 100,000 Rajput Hindus were killed and 100,000 innocent bystander Hindus were killed. Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Deaths of Indians after 1857 Indian Rebellion

Can I add the following to the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Deaths of Indians after 1857 Indian Rebellion ||10,000,000deaths ||10,000,000deaths ||10,000,000deaths ||India ||1857 CE ||1867 CE |10 years || Almost 10,000,000 Indians were killed by the British in the 10 years after the 1857 Indian Rebellion. Entire villages and towns were killed.{ cite web | title = India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...' | year = 2007 | publisher = BBC | first = Randeep | last = Ramesh}} </ref> Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Persecution of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits by Sultan Sikandar Shah Miri

Can I add the following to the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- ||Persecution of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits by Sultan Sikandar Shah Miri ||100,000deaths ||100,000deaths ||100,000deaths ||India ||1389 CE ||1413 CE | 24 years || Sultan Sikandar Shah Miri (reigned 1389-1413), the 6th Sultan of the Shah Miri dynasty of Kashmir, established a governmental department to destroy and burn the Hindu Temple of Martand, and he instituted policies with targets of converting or exterminating the Hindu Kashmiri Pandits. Around 100,000 Hindu Kashmiri Pandits drowned in the Dal Lake and were burned at a spot in the vicinity of Rainawari in Srinagar City. This resulted in many Kashmiri Pandits forcefully migrating to neighboring regions. { cite web | title = Kashmir's Composite Culture: Sufism & Communal Harmony -Kashmiriyat | year = 2017 | publisher = European Foundation for South Asian Studies | url = https://www.efsas.org/publications/study-papers/kashmir's-composite-culture-sufism-and-communal-harmony-kashmiriyat/}} </ref> Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare143

Shakespeare143 may I suggest that you slow down a bit. It is not possible for other editors to look at each of the bits in detail and respond quickly and there is a chance something will get missed out especially since your edits have been contested across multiple article pages. VV 04:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mahmud of Ghazni's Invasions of India

Can I add the following under the Wars and armed conflicts section, the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section, and the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section?

|- |Mahmud of Ghazni's Invasions of India |2,000,000deaths |2,000,000deaths |2,000,000deaths |India | 1000 CE | 1027 CE |27 years |According to lecturer at Keele University Naveed Sheikh, 2,000,000 people died due to Mahmud of Ghazni's invasions of India. According to Vinay Lal, a Professor of History at UCLA, in one of the battles during Mahmud of Ghazni's invasions of India, the battle for Somnath, Muslim chronicles suggest that 50,000 Hindus died.

I did not use White here either. Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare143 I looked at the source here and while there is a row in the table on page 11 with Mahmud of Ghazni and the numbers, it does not say "Hindus were killed". This would fall under original research which is not allowed. Please check if you are doing something similar in other data as well, by introducing original research or synthesis not present in the source. Wikipedia is not to WP:RGW. Editors have gotten banned/blocked for pushing such content, some on this very page above. VV 00:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram Ok, thanks for letting me know, I didn't realize it was original research. I'll go take a look at the other things I proposed to see if there is original research. Also, I noticed a few other mistakes in my other proposed additions to the article, so I'll go look at them.Shakespeare143 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram I just changed a part of it to include something about Somnath. Shakespeare143 (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare143 please see WP:SYNTH. I don't see a reference to Somnath in the same source. VV 01:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

VincentvikramIn the source https://southasia.ucla.edu/history-politics/mughals-and-medieval/mahmud-of-ghazni/ it says "Muslim chronicles suggest that 50,000 Hindu died in the battle for Somnath"Shakespeare143 (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot say whether the UCLA link is a peer reviewed article as it has no author info, no references, etc.. Again, have a look at WP:SYNTH because you have taken two(or more) sources and combined them to get a synthesised claim. Now we don't know the exact context of each of these sources to do A+B=C. A better way to state what A said and what B said. VV 02:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram I looked up some more things about the UCLA article, and it says that it was written by Vinay Lal, a Professor of History at UCLA.

I also changed the wording of the sentences to prevent synthesized claim. Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that I am looking at this again, I think it is better to not include "According to ..." here as it is not needed. Also, it is not necessary to be peer reviewed. Additionally, it is not a synthesized claim because a source is not needed here as it is very obvious that they were mostly Hindu, as most people in that region of India were Hindus.Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Mass Killings of non-Muslims by Aurangzeb

Can I add the following to the Genocides, ethnic cleansings, and religious persecutions section and the War crimes, massacres, and ancient war atrocities section?Shakespeare143 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

|- ||Mass Killings of non-Muslims by Aurangzeb ||4,600,000deaths ||4,600,000deaths ||4,600,000deaths ||India ||1658 CE ||1707 CE |49 years ||Aurangzeb ordered one of the Mughal Empire's worst-ever campaigns of religious violence directed at non-Muslims. (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Shakespeare143 This statement sounds like POV pushing. Wikipedia is not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It appears that you want to highlight how Hindus have been persecuted by Muslims. VV 23:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Vincentvikram. I do not think I am doing POV pushing or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I just noticed that this event was not mentioned on this Wikipedia page, so I thought it would be good to add it. I was just using a source to describe an event. But now that I am reading that statement again, I think it probably is better to just delete "Aurangzeb ordered one of the Mughal Empire's worst-ever campaigns of religious violence directed at non-Muslims". Shakespeare143 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it again, I think it is appropriate to say that "Aurangzeb ordered of the Mughal Empire's worst-ever campaigns of religious violence directed at non-Muslims, particularly Hindus" as it is factual.Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

No inclusion of Covid-19 pandemic

Why there is no event of COVID 19 pandemic included in this list! Please consider my request. --43.230.107.103 (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Answer: This pandemic is not a literal war, just symbolically but I think it could be added to the list just as a comparison effect using a different color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewZanelato (talk • contribs) 06:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

new sort method-- by percentage of world population?

I like the sort by geometric mean. But the population in WWII was much greater than during the Mongol conquest, I assume. So by that measure, perhaps the Mongol conquest might actually be a disaster on a worse scale?

Would anyone want to take on this idea of scaling this by world population, and make it work?

Answer: Well, would be complicated as there are no estimates of world population for every year.

AndrewZanelato (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)== Only wars with more than 1 million deaths as the highest estimate ==

I propose that we leave on the list only wars with more than 1 million deaths as the highest estimate so that the list does not remain too long and too confuse as it is now. Wars with less than 1 million deaths can be included in the article "List of wars by death toll".

Missing leaders

I added the following people: Rhee syngman Vladimir Lenin Communist leaders, various countries Hong Xiuquan

I also have a spreadsheet of many other individuals who might belong on this list on my computer.

Sorry I just figured out how to use the discussion pages of articles.

What will happen to the edits I made earlier?

I could also add a row called: Various Facist leaders, to parallel the Communist one.

Are there any big flaws which you need me to fix in the near future? Hong kuslauski (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Other missing leaders:

Antonio Salazar and Marcello Das Nevas 741000

Greek Junta 2,000

Theoneste Bagasora 800000 (Rwandan Genocide)

I went ahead and added them

Winston Churchill 3000000 (Famine in Bangladesh)

Total Death toll for 20th century colonialism 50,000,000

Many death tolls are derived from this link: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Maximum estimates

Why can someone remove the Highest estimates of 120 million for World War Two and 100 million for Taiping rebellion but We still have the 137 million for genocide of indigenous peoples when we know most of those were disease related not genocide? Nobody anywhere has estimates that high for the indigenous people’s.Foorgood (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you that we should not remove the large estimates for WW2 and the Taiping rebellion (presuming they are credible), but we should not remove the indigenous people's large estimates either. Many of the diseases that indigenous peoples faced were given to them on purpose by colonizers. Doglover truthfinder (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)