Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Concession on "wars of aggression"

Okay, look, in order to get this page unprotected I am going to concede for the time being on the "wars of aggression" argument. There are a lot of other things that need to be fixed on this page and it's unfair to other users not engaged in this particular debate to lock them out. And I recognize that until I have a reputable secondary source or two to back up my claims, my argument from the judgement at Nuremberg could arguably be dismissed as "original research", and probably will be by Ultramarine.

I reserve the right, however, to reinsert a figure for wars of aggression into the list should I find an appropriate source. But until then, I think it's best that I drop it.

However, there are still many things wrong with the current list, not least of which are the many unsourced refs and the discrepancies between various figures within the list. And I will certainly be re-editing the Hitler figure. The figure of 5 million as the low for Nazi democide is unsourced and in my opinion unsustainable, since that would be the low for the Jews alone. The Nazis committed a great many more democides that that. In fact, my current sourced range for Nazi democide is 20-26 million. There may well be a smaller figure for the low somewhere, but if so I haven't found it yet.

In the meantime, I'm going to request that this page be unprotected. In my opinion there was no reason to protect it in the first place, since our disagreement had already devolved to the talk page. Gatoclass 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I requested it stay protected. Anyone can see we have no consensus yet. You're practically telling us your gonna do what you want later anyway. There is no way you are going to include War Dead under Hitler/genocide. You do that and I will revert back or insist that Red Army war dead and atrocities go under Stalin's total.

Ya know, I agree with you that Hitler's total is more than 5 million but I marvel at your continued ability to default to pushing the highest numbers for Hitler and the Lowest for Stalin since the whole Stalin edit started.--JohnFlaherty 15:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What is really sad is I had a good bit of euphoria after we reached an agreement in the Stalin article. I guess I thought we would be able to work togther better.--JohnFlaherty 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no way you are going to include War Dead under Hitler/genocide.

Is there something wrong with your comprehension? I just said I was dropping the idea of including the combatant dead. I do however have a couple of sources that put the democide toll for the Nazi regime at at least 20 million - and one of them is your buddy Rummel. I am perfectly entitled to make an entry if I have sources to back it up, whether you like it or not.

You're practically telling us your gonna do what you want later anyway.

I am under no obligation to canvas every word I want to add to Wiki with you or anyone else. If you don't like something I add, you can change it, IF you have reputable sources to back your argument.

I have no intention of engaging in endless sterile debates with you on talk pages about the exact wording of my every entry - or yours for that matter. That's not what Wiki is about. The Wiki be bold guideline is not there for no reason. It's there to ensure that things actually get done on Wiki, instead of just being haggled over on the talk pages endlessly. The process of edit/revise/re-edit is a much more constructive one than anything we do on this page. We should only devolve to this page when we have to, when there is an issue we cannot resolve by other means. All your page protection here has done is bring the improvement of this page to a crashing halt.

What is really sad is I had a good bit of euphoria after we reached an agreement in the Stalin article.

Yes, and after agreeing that the section was "a heck of a lot better" than what was there before, and that we should all "step away from it for a few days", you then went back and disingenuously linked to a page that had blatantly incorrect estimates for the Stalin death toll that were unsourced and completely incompatible with the agreed numbers we had all worked so hard to hammer out on the Stalin page itself - but which happened to conform with your desire to see a higher number next to Stalin's name. Not to mention the fact that it was an attempt by you to get by stealth what you couldn't get by argument at the Stalin page - a mention of the Mao death toll, which was the very issue that brought us into conflict in the first place.

I regard that particular edit of yours on the Stalin page as completely underhanded and a total breach of faith with me and the others who worked so hard on the entry. So please spare me the homily about unco-operative behaviour. The fact is, you are the ONLY person who has continually criticized my edits and persistently sought to have them changed. Gatoclass 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The only person who attempted to get what he wanted after lossing the argument was you. You lost time, and time again and simply plowed onward.

Your partisan obsession with denying the realities of his murderoeus record is pathetic. I did nothing underhanded. YOU continuously betrayed the good faith efforts of the group to sneak in your views. When we said to wait on consensus, you changed the article so it offered your propaganda under the cover of Wikipedia's "be bold!" tenant, so spare us the NPOV, hero bull.

You straw man, you mislead, and you outright lie. Case in point. I was NOT the ONLY person who critized your edits. The were critized continuosly. I even defended you from such criticism so don't try and pass that lie off on me.

I linked to this page because of your complete inability to recognize reality and list this man where he belongs among the great criminals of humanity.

NOTHING I claimed was unsourced. You simply disregarded source, after source, after source because they did not comply with your views.

You will not rest until unjustice is done to the victims of Stalin.

Your entire effort has been one continuous "breach of faith".--JohnFlaherty 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You yourself described my edit on the Stalin page as "excellent". Woogie, who you yourself described as an expert on the numbers with a barnstar award for his contributions, thanked me for "a job well done". NOBODY else has challenged my edit as unbalanced, except for TJive who made a momentary attack largely in relation to the positioning of a particular reference which he felt was misleading. After which he graciously excused himself on the grounds of his high emotional involvement in the issue.

MOST of my edits on Wiki are still extant after several months of editing (how are yours doing?). Apparently, nobody in all that time has found them to be unbalanced, or unbiased. Except you. You have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every change, and are only reconciled to it after you have gotten no support from others for your position - but in fact you never really accept the edits I make, as evidenced by your method of sneaking back to try and alter things to suit your POV even after we have supposedly reached consensus.

I said right at the OUTSET of the debate on this page that I was dropping my proposed entry on Nazi Germany. Why don't you try re-reading through this page and you'll see that is the case. But that wasn't enough for you - you still had to go and gratuitously have the page protected. You can't get your way in honest debate, so instead you try to muzzle me by resorting to an underhanded tactic like that.

I'm not sure what it is that motivates you, but I'm growing rather tired of your serial obstructionism and intransigence. I think I am for the most part a reasonable human being, but I am running out of patience in your case. Quite frankly, I can't think of anyone in Wiki at the moment I would prefer to work on a page with less.

Now - please give me one good reason why you have insisted on having this page protected. It's certainly not because I haven't been willing to debate my edits here, as testified by the discussion above. So what exactly is your problem? I'd really like to know. Gatoclass 22:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

MOST of my edits on Wiki are still extant after several months of editing (how are yours doing?).

Diong very, very well. Thanks for asking. I have some that are months old. I'd ask you to look for yourself but your pathological dishonesty would make any assement worthless. Then again, go ahead. I have reality onmy side. Check them out. I've dealt with partisan bullies like yourself for a while now.

You have to be dragged kicking and screaming to every change, and are only reconciled to it after you have gotten no support from others for your position

OMG! Talk about projection! That is you you’re talking about pal!

- but in fact you never really accept the edits I make, as evidenced by your method of sneaking back to try and alter things to suit your POV even after we have supposedly reached consensus.

Again, projection. You're speaking about yourself. We had to drag YOU kicking an whining towards every edit.

You can't get your way in honest debate, so instead you try to muzzle me by resorting to an underhanded tactic like that.

The only one failing to make their point debate wise is you. You have been beaten back time and again because of your bias and the reason the page was protected was because you are unable to restrain yourself from making edits without consensus when you are beaten in discussion.

I'm not sure what it is that motivates you, but I'm growing rather tired of your serial obstructionism and intransigence.

Funny, that is precisely how I feel about you. I think I am for the most part a reasonable human being, but I am running out of patience in your case.

Again, ditto. I lost patience with your sneaky methods and agenda and outright lies a long time ago.

Quite frankly, I can't think of anyone in Wiki at the moment I would prefer to wor on a page with less.

Amen brother. I have been thinking those thouights for days but restrained myself from voicing them.

Now - please give me one good reason why you have insisted on having this page protected. It's certainly not because I haven't been willing to debate my edits here, as testified by the discussion above.

Because you are a partisan hack. Because you cannot be trusted to abide by consensus. Because you make biased edits by fiat and then react as the NPOV victim when the reality is you are the one pushing it. You're a frustrated child lashing out in a tantrum because you cannot get your way. Your edits, when they are not hedged in by more reasonable individuals, are pure propaganda and you have been called on them numerous times. Your lashing out because someone is standing up to your attempts at revisonist history. --JohnFlaherty 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you are a partisan hack. Because you cannot be trusted to abide by consensus. Because you make biased edits by fiat and then react as the NPOV victim when the reality is you are the one pushing it...Your edits...are pure propaganda

Yes, that's right, you said to my face when Woogie was there that my edit was "excellent" and that the section was "a heck of a lot better than it was" after I made it, but now the truth comes out. And it's just as I said - you only feign acceptance of my edits because you have no support for your views from others, when all the time you are inwardly fuming that you didn't get your way. Thankyou for proving my point.

And I hope you enjoyed your little tirade. I am not going to respond in kind because I'm sure it would only be counterproductive.

At this stage, I am loosely considering some kind of mediation, because I see little hope of talking sense to you. But before I do that, and for the sake of avoiding more pointless acrimony, let me ask you again - what exactly do you want from me in regards to this page? Perhaps we can still come to some sort of agreement here. If not, I think I might refer this dispute, such as it is, to a mediator. Gatoclass 00:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, you said to my face when Woogie was there that my edit was "excellent" and that the section was "a heck of a lot better than it was" after I made it, but now the truth comes out.

It was a heck of a lot better because we heald your feet to the fire every inch of the way or it would have been another fantasy story.

And it's just as I said - you only feign acceptance of my edits because you have no support for your views from others, when all the time you are inwardly fuming that you didn't get your way.

Lying and projecting once more. I did accept (and DO accept) the entry WE made together. To claim that entry is all you is fantasy. You crafted the words that we all agreed on.

And it was you who was constantly beaten back in discussion because your numbers were wrong.

And I hope you enjoyed your little tirade. I am not going to respond in kind because I'm sure it would only be counterproductive.

Sure. Since you started the tirades in the first place. The noble Gato strikes again.

At this stage, I am loosely considering some kind of mediation, because I see little hope of talking sense to you.

Buddy, trying to talk to you and expect honest exchange is the definition of futility. Your mendacity is continuous and in so many varied forms I am shocked by it.

But before I do that, and for the sake of avoiding more pointless acrimony, let me ask you again - what exactly do you want from me in regards to this page? Perhaps we can still come to some sort of agreement here.

Gosh, how reasonable of you. I want you to not make edits until we have at least a minimum agreement. I will, as I have from the beginning, do the same. I will make no changes that we have not reached some agreement on. In fact, I will let YOU propose the changes. How's that for reaching out? Also, your promise to leave Hitler’s war dead from his ranking is, like much you offer, worthless because you said “for now”. I want you to agree that war dead are not genocide and not crimes against humanity as a Gulag or the Holocaust were. You do that and we can request the page be unlocked. --JohnFlaherty 11:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good, perhaps we can make some progress here after all.

I'm not sure what your specific objections have been to my edits but I assume they deal with Stalin and Hitler at present. The 4 million bottom for Stalin is not negotiable in my view, because Wheatcroft says the figure is 4 (actually, he says 3 in his article, but for the sake of consensus I'm prepared to go with 4).

As for der Fuhrer, I've already indicated that I was not going to pursue the "wars of aggression" angle and try and fit the combatant dead into his total.

What I did say earlier was that I reserve the right to alter that position if I come up with a reputable secondary source which supports my view about combatant dead being directly attributable to the Nazi regime.But if this is really going to be an issue for you, then if you like I'll make a commitment to contact your talk page and not edit for at least 24 hours afterward in order to discuss the hypothetical source with you first. But let's face it, I think I'm very unlikely to come up with such a source anyhow.

Meanwhile, my current (sourced) low-high for Nazi democide is 20-26 million. If I can find sources either lower or higher I will include them, but honestly I don't think I am likely to find too many because democide is not a term that has especially wide currency in academia. So Rummel's estimate will probably end up being the low in this case.

So the (sourced) figures I propose are:

Stalin 4-50 million;

Hitler 20-26 million.

Mao will of course still top the list of genocidal dictators because of the 27 million low.

The only other thing I need to know is, are these the only figures that are a source of dispute? If so, and assuming you agree to thea above, then I guess there are no longer any outstanding issues requiring further discussion, and the page can be unlocked. On the other hand, if you have further concerns, please let me know and we'll see if we can hammer them out now. Gatoclass 12:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)::

That is moving in the right direction but I still have issues with the numbers. Both the low and the high for Stalin are ridiculous (I propose we go with 15-25 million if we have to have a range) and I would like to see a break down of your 20-25 million for Hitler. That will be a start.

I think we both agree on Mao (wow...go fiqure) so he should not be hard to work out. After that, we should discuss Tojo & Pol Pot. That should not be too difficult.

So yeah, basically the issue is Hitler vs Stalin.--JohnFlaherty 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing. Please stop accusing me of "lying" and "mendacity". I take offence to these charges. In several weeks of exhaustive negotiation with you and others, I may have made one or two mistakes and/or errors of judgement, but I haven't told any lies. But let's face it, we're all prone to twisting things to suit ourselves a little sometimes, and usually without realizing it. I recognize that I am not immune from that temptation. I'm quite sure you're not either. So please, stop making these charges, because I find them rather offensive.

I find your constant misrepresentation of issues offensive. You have mounted numerous straw man arguments aimed at me and have made false claims about everything from the number of editors involved to my lack of sources. Stop that and I'll stop.--JohnFlaherty 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As for me "starting the tirades in the first place", yes, I got pretty angry on this page earlier on. I got angry because you went and sabotaged my attempt to get this page re-opened AFTER I'd already agreed to drop the thing about combatant deaths. So in my view you were just being bloodyminded.

There was no way we could unprotect the artcle before this discussion.--JohnFlaherty 13:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

But, no use dwelling on that now. Gatoclass 13:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Both the low and the high for Stalin are ridiculous (I propose we go with 15-25 million if we have to have a range) and I would like to see a break down of your 20-25 million for Hitler.

John, it's not my fault that the estimate for Stalin is "ridiculously low". It's "ridiculously low" because there are at least two reputable sources who say it's that low. I am simply arguing for the facts, as they are proposed by reputable sources. This isn't about the figure that you or I prefer, it's about the figures that the available reputable sources state. And don't forget that you still have the high of fifty million. If you like though, we can include a link back to the Number of Victims section on the Stalin page so that readers can make themselves fully cognizant of the scale of Stalin's culpability.

And don't forget, that right at the beginning of this discussion, I proposed a separate section where man-made disasters that don't fit the description of genocide/democide, like the famines, could be listed. So you will still be getting the inclusion of the famine figures, albeit under a separate heading.

As for a breakdown of the Nazi figure, I don't have the link handy but if you do a search under "democide" you will quickly find Rummel's website, where you should easily be able to access his figures for Nazi Germany with a full breakdown. The bulk of the additional (non-genocidal) victims are, of course, Slavs. Gatoclass 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You best stop inferring that I do not want the truth. You're one to talk about "prefered numbers" so look in the mirror before you accuse me again.

Then ranking is impossible, unless we rank Hitler and Stalin on the same level. If The upper range of Stalin's death toll is 50 million (DOUBLE Hitler's highest estimate) it is wrong to list him after Hitler. I agree that we should list them by the low estimate generally but in this case we might better serve people coming to the page by listing them on one line. Either that or we could have two columns ranking by low estim,ate and high, but placing Stalin after Hitler when it is possible he murdered double the souls is a diservice to his victims. I will concede that since the low number is 4 million (insulting BS) we should not list him before Hitler either.--JohnFlaherty 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you that 4 million democides is too low for Stalin. Personally, I would think the low would have to be at least 5, and probably more - perhaps considerably more, but then my access to sources is limited. But this isn't about my or your personal estimates, it's about the range of estimates that are extant in academia.

But while the number of victims is not negotiable in my view, given that they are based on reliable, verifiable sources, what might be negotiable, as I've already suggested, is the method of presentation. For example, if the heading was "Genocides, democides and man made famines", one could bump Stalin's minimum figure up to 10 million. But I'm still inclined to think that man made famines might be better put into a separate list.

And then I'm still thinking that since we are basically trying to list acts of mass lethality by government that were essentially criminal in nature, then it seems to me that the victims of the wars of aggression waged by Japan and Germany and declared illegal at the end of WWII should also be included. (And I'm obviously not the only one who feels this way. The anonymous poster who railed about Japanese crimes in Asia to you above is a case in point). But I'm not sure exactly how one might go about this. Basically, finding a descriptor that encompasses all these crimes is proving to be a lot more difficult than I had anticipated. So I'm undecided on how to proceed ATM. Gatoclass 04:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In any case, let me re-state my position. The low for Stalin has to be 4 million. The current figure for Nazi Germany will be 20-26 million, in line with the available sources. (Even though I personally think the high should be around 40 million, for all the victims of Hitler's war of aggression). In addition to which, we will have a separate listing for man made famines, in which Mao and Stalin will obviously be making a reappearance at or near the top of the list. What do you say? Gatoclass 06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite following your idea. Probably my fault. Can you show me an example? I still like my idea of listing them both on the same line, or else two seperate cloumns (high vs low) but I'd be interested in seeing an example of your idea.--JohnFlaherty 13:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When I said a second listing, I meant, a separate section with a list dedicated to manmade famines (or famines which had a manmade component). Perhaps in that list we could also include other manmade disasters which weren't necessarily deliberate but which through criminal negligence cost many lives. Bhopal comes to mind, for example.

I think in regards to the "Genocides and Democides" heading though, I could probably accept your idea of having two separate columns in the listing, one for the low figure and one for the high. I think it would be neater, and add some extra emphasis to the high figure which I'm sure you would find agreeable, and which I probably wouldn't be averse to myself. Gatoclass 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just had another idea. In addition to the "Genocides and democides" listing, I'd like to see an additional listing entitled "Regimes by lethality" which would simply list regimes which have caused the deaths of large numbers of people through any cause whatever. Stalin's low could then be bumped up to 10 million. However, it would also mean that Hitler would come in at around 40 million for his war of aggression, and Imperial Japan would also get a high listing (how high, I really don't know, since I'm not too familiar with this area).

In such a listing we could also include such historical figures as Timur Lenk (Timurlane) and the Mongol Khanates of the middle ages. When I think about it, this would probably be a very useful list, enabling people to see quickly which regimes in history have been responsible for most deaths.

I still think there should be a separate listing for the genocides and democides though, since they are particularly heinous crimes which I think fully deserve separate treatment. Gatoclass 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am oppossed to none of that in theory. I would like to see your version of a practical entry on those propositions however.

The issue here is Stalin's culpability as a mass murderer. Hitler's position in this dark category is well established. If we can come up with a compromise that places Stalin AT LEAST on the same level as Hitler, who is among the top two or three most evil human beings ever to have drawn breath, all issues considered, I will be satisfied.--JohnFlaherty 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look, after giving it some thought, I think I've come up with a proposition that should satisfy your concerns.

I think all we need to do is have an alternate list which lists the various regimes by highest death toll estimate instead of lowest. It can't really be done on this page because there is already a wealth of other information here. However, it easily could be done on a new page.

So basically what I'm proposing (as an example) is to have the "Genocides and democides, ordered by lowest estimate" on this page, with a heading and a link which simply says "For an alternative list ordered by highest estimate, go here with "here" being a link to a page with the alternative list.

The way I see it is that this here page is a sort of generic one listing a whole bunch of different excess mortalities, but there is certainly plenty of scope for alternative pages listing some of these large scale mortalities in greater detail and by different criteria. And if you like, you can link from the Stalin page directly to one of these alternative pages, for example directly to the page which lists victims of genocide and democide by highest estimate.

If that doesn't satisfy your concerns, I don't think anything will! Gatoclass 01:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest Iraq figures

I don't know that this really relates to the purpose of the page protection, but MSNBC and Newsweek have mapped a new death toll in Iraq which reports 2,726 coalition casulties and 40,706 Iraqi civilian casualties, for a new total of 43,432.

There have been at least 49-51 additional deaths since (June 18-19 = 10 in a Mosque bombing, 2 by mortar, 1 U.S. soldier, 3 insurgents; June 20 = 2 more U.S. soldiers, 2 in suicide bombing of a nursing home, 7 in a car bombing, U.S. reports 15 suspects killed in a raid, 3 killed while firing at a downed U.S. aircraft; June 21 = 1 Saddam lawyer; 4 U.S. Marines in Anbar province, 1 U.S. soldier; 2 Shiite hostages reported killed by purported escapees), so the new total should reflect a minimum of 43,457, and pushes the top of the range up to about 167,180. bd2412 T 15:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

F, not PH

Since this page is protected, can an administrator please spell Hitler's name right? It's ADOLF, not ADOLPH. Thanks. Kelisi 03:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done. bd2412 T 04:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Erm... I'm completely new to this conversation and am finding it difficult to get up to speed. Can I request an update on "where you're up to"? Thanks. --Dweller 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to Dweller. If you're referring to the debate between JohnFlaherty and I, basically we are waiting for John to confirm that his concerns have been met and that therefore he is willing to allow the page to be unprotected again.

I left him a message with a new proposition this morning, but he hasn't responded so far. Gatoclass 11:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that all the debate is over Hitler and Stalin, which occupy just a few lines of what is an article in desperate need of verification work. I was assuming I've missed the broader picture conversation and wondered where it's up to? --Dweller 11:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite correct, John is concerned that Stalin isn't going to come in high enough in the listing, and that's why he had the page protected.

I too expressed my opinion that this wasn't a disagreement worthy of locking up the entire page. I thought a "disputed" notice would have been more than enough for what I regard as a relatively minor and everyday dispute such as this, but John begs to differ. At least up to now. I'm hoping though that he has a positive response to my last proposition, but no word from him yet. Gatoclass 12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that no progress has been made with anything else? --Dweller 12:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, anything else? Do you mean, are there any other outstanding issues between me and John? Not that I know of, and certainly not from my side of the fence. But really, you'd need to refer a question like that to John rather than to me.

However, I'm under the impression that John's basically agreed that the page can be unlocked once we resolve the Hitler/Stalin issue. Gatoclass 12:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant sorting out the remaining 99% of this rather poorly sourced page. --Dweller 12:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it needs a lot of work, and possibly splitting into several articles. A lot of the stuff on this page constitutes neithr war or disaster. Alun 12:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I said earlier the page probably needs to be renamed. "List of wars and disasters" doesn't really cut it.

I don't think it necessarily needs splitting into several pages though. It just needs to be renamed to better reflect its overall content. However, I certainly think some of the sections that appear in this article could have spin-off pages dealing in more detail with the material that appears in them. Gatoclass 13:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Gato, every timne I try and reach out you paint me in a negative light.

I protected the page for a number of reasons. Unprotect it! I thought we were making serious progress.

This whole page is a disaster and I thought we would clear up Stalin/Hitler and move on but if I am in the minority for protecting the page than go ahead and petition to have it unprotected.

I have been busy at work and not able to participate like I wish but others seem to have taken an interest finally so I am certainly NOT the only interested party and others views should be heard. I just feel that without some consensus the article will become a mess of revisons all at once.--JohnFlaherty 23:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)