Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Double-counting of Croatian Jews and Roma

I've realised that victims of genocide in Croatia during WWII are effectively counted twice: in one case, the Jews and Roma of Croatia are included with those killed by Nazi Germany and its allies in the Holocaust; in the other case, they are listed alongside the Serbs killed in the Ustashe massacres.

Does this matter? If so, perhaps the Ustashe entry should be modified so that only Serbian figures are there. Epa101 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Year Column

Any objection to me doing an average deaths per year column? I want to know before I put effort into doing it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RJ Rummel has already done yearly democide rates for the 20th century ones. Here is one of his tables. Epa101 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Year the Holocaust began

It says 1941 at the moment: that's when the Jews began to be gassed. However, many of the things mentioned in the description started before '41: the sterilisation of the disabled, of mixed-race children and of Gypsies began before that, as well as the killings of political and religious dissenters, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Should the year be altered? Perhaps the year when Dachau, the first concentration camp, opened should be the start. Epa101 (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Phillipine-American War?

I'm sure there is evidence to suggest that genocide occured during this period in history. Burningview ✉ 02:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Revolution

I think the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) should be included, as it has been the bloodiest war ever fought on the Western hemisphere, with more than 1,000,000 killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.198 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

Since there are sections that "speculate" on deaths from a variety of causes, I think it's appropriate to include the estimated 944,935,000 abortions worldwide. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.32.190 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Belgian atrocities in the Congo and its place on the chart

Foe some reason, this has been placed above the Holocaust, even though the highest estimate for the Belgian atrocities is 10 million, while the Holocaust's lowest is 11 million! I think this should be remedied as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.200.111 (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's sorted by the lowest estimate. The lowest estimate for the Holocaust is about 5.8m as some scholars/organisations insist that only Jewish deaths comprise the Holocaust. Epa101 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is sorted by lowest estimate, then why is the colonization of the Americas on "first place"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.19.45.130 (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's because people edit the estimates but don't change the positions in the chart at the same time. I've tidied up the top half just now, and shall do the bottom half later on. Epa101 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So, the whole Belgian/Congo thing has been added back to "first". So, that mean the general consensus is that it was a genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.62.188 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to editors to decide if something is or is not a genocide we report the consensus of experts in reliable sources. The general consensus amoung reliable sources is that it is not a genocide see below: #Wikipedia synthesis and the section Genocides and alleged genocides -- PBS (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia synthesis and the section Genocides and alleged genocides

There is far too much synthesis in the section List of wars and disasters by death toll#Genocides and alleged genocides, with people adding events that they think is a genocide with no reliable sources to back it up. For example take the "Belgian atrocities and tropical diseases..." if the editors who had contributed to that entry had looked on the page Genocides in history they would not have found an entry. An investigation into the talk archives would have revealed why (See Talk:Genocides_in_history/Archive 6#Belgium and the Congo)

The exhibit deals with this question in a wall panel misleadingly headed “Genocide in the Congo?” This is a red herring, for no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different.
— Adam Hochschild In the Heart of Darkness, New York Review of Books, 26 October 2005.

I suggest we make it a rule if the genocide is not listed in the main article Genocides in history it is not included in this section -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

All three encyclopedias of genocide have an article for it. Christopher Catherwood is a respected historian and he wrote the article for Leopold II in the Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide. I think that's a reasonable inclusion. A more complicated question is whether we should allow an entry just because one person has called an act "genocide". Ernst Nolte called the British bombings of Hamburg "genocide", but he is very much on his own in saying that. Epa101 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But did Catherwood specifically call it a genocide? -- PBS (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he doesn't use the word in the article. I mention it because the word "genocide" is in the title of the encyclopedia, which suggests that many of its entries are genocide. (It obviously wasn't a war crime)

The person I have quoted above, Adam Hochschild, is a leading expert on the Leopold's Congo, and it was his book that brought the issue to the for in the late 1990s. The quote is part of his reply to an exhibition which was in a large part put on to refute his book and what he says about historians has to be taken seriously. -- PBS (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From the history of the article "Pmanderson ...(Reverted edits by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) to last version by Epa101)" given the above why did you make this reversal? -- PBS (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nazi genocides

The range of 6-7 million however the notes state that the figure can raise to 14 million when we include all the various groups that were mass murdered; so why isnt this latter figure used in place of 7 mil? Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Genocide involves mass murder, but not all mass murder is genocide. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have thought about this. The estimates are all for the Jews killed, but the other groups are mentioned in the commentary. Perhaps a separate entry should be given to the Gypsies and to the other groups. Epa101 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Revolution

I cannot believe the bloodiest war ever fought on the Western Hemisphere is not listed. It lasted between 1910-1920 and about 1 million people were killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.202 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Estimates of the numbers of deaths caused by the Mexican Revolution vary, as you can see here: [1]. Some go as low as "half a million", some as high as "2 million". But since the lowest estimate is under 1 million, I think it does not qualify to be on the list before other wars, which had a bigger death toll, are listed.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The casualty estimates for the Iran–Iraq War vary between and 400,000 and 2,000,000, yet it is listed on the article. Therefore, I think the Mexican Revolution should be included as well.

Dirty War, and Conquest/Colonization of the Americas

Both of these are listed in teh genocides/alleged genocides section, but I have some doubts about the appropriateness of these.

Regarding the Dirty War, was that really genocide? Was in not just a particularly bloody political oppression?

Regarding the conquest of the Americas, I have no doubt that many genocides and potential genocides took place. But is it accurate to treat all these as one genocide? Given that neither the native Americans nor the European invaders were a single people, and the conquests took place over several centuries often with various shifting alliances. IMO, lumping all these together would be like combining the figures for the Mongles, Timurids, Huns, etc into one huge "genocide of settled peoples by Eurasian steppe nomads". Or, for a more recent and perhaps more comparable example, combining all the European invasions/colonizations of Africa into one. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's called a genocide by a reliable source, it gets into the table. Re the Dirty War and so on, we used to have a separate section on mass killings that didn't fall into the category of genocide but one user repeatedly deleted the section and I got sick of arguing for its inclusion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Dirty War was classified by some as genocide, therefor it should be included.[2][3] See also genocides in history.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the Diry War classifies as a genocide, I think the period of the Colombian history known as "La Violencia" (1948-1962) would also classify, as both were cases of a government trying to get rid of the political opponents. Death estimates for the violence range between 200,000 and 300,000. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Violencia

You have a point there. La Violencia even has a larger death toll. However, what historians define it as genocide? I have trouble finding any. In case of Dirty War, we at least have indictments and binding verdicts defining it as genocide, though it remains a disputed matter.[4]. But even that gives it more credibility for defining it as genocide than a conflict that does not have anything defning it as such. We have Victoria Sanford, but she refers to a different La Violencia, in Guatemala.[5]. We must be careful about such things - we can not just label a conflict a genocide just like that. It has to be labeled by experts, historians, lawyers, not by us. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source referring to Colombia as a genocidal society.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 19 August 2010

All right, Irving Louis Horowitz places it as a "genocidal society". Any other author, to at least have two (as to not be only one author who thinks it is a genocide)?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: Encyclopedia of Genocide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 August 2010

Please sign you posts with 4 tildes ~~~~ it will automatically be changed into a user-id or ip-address and time stamp.

AFAICT neither of the given sources unequivocally call it a genocide. In the first source please quote a specific sentence (as I could not see it) and the second one cites a page containing a list of democides not genocides and list it as "La Violencia massacres", not specifically naming it a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I give up. I understand poor Colombian peasants may not be as good looking as Argentinians, nor is well connected as the Armenian diaspora, nor as fashionable for celebrity adoption as Rwandans. Anyway, for what's worth, the two books mentioned above ("Genocide: State Power and Mass Murder" and "Genocide Encyclopedia") both mention Colombia's La Violencia period, so I think it is fair to assume that their authors have at least implicitly accepted that what happened in Colombia between 1948 and 1960 is tantamount to genocide. I cannot find another word to describe security forces and the paramilitary units known as Chulavitas opening wombs, bayoneting fetuses, feeding children to dogs, cutting testicles an ears, raping women in front of their families, and killing men with trademark methods such as the "Colombian necktie", the "T-shirt cut" and the "vase cut."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.198 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 August 2010

Well, if it makes any difference to you, if what you described above really happened, then I also regard La Violencia as a genocidal act. Unfortunately, there are simply too few experts or publications that mention it as such. Yet it does not mean that the view may not change sometime in the future. Maybe someone like you or some historians will start publications that officially regard it at such and then it will be included in the list for the future generations.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Other human-made disasters

While I agree that what happend in the Congo was a human disaster, it is no up to us to define it as such, to do so without a source is OR. -- PBS (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have given the section name a tweak. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Talking about crimes from the "rubber boom" days, I think the attrocities committed by Julio Cesar Arana and his Peruvian Amazon Company against the Putumayo natives should also be included on the list. The case made all its way to England, where it was exposed by Sir Roger Casement to the House of Commons. Estimates of the dead toll varies between 10,000 and 30,000 huitoto and other Amazon natives. Here is an academic sourceand a good articledrawing comparisons with the Congo atrocities, which by the way Sir Roger Casement also investigated. Long life to Ireland!

Kamikaze, ritual suicide?

I think that classifying the Kamikaze pilots as "ritual suicide" is odd, given that it was part of an overall war strategy. In order words, they didn't commit suicide just for the sake of it (as one would expect in a ritual suicide) but as a way to produce as many enemy casualties as possible. Otherwise, we might need to add the Palestinian and Al-Qaeda suicide bombers as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The table of casualties in 'Wars and armed conflicts'

I do not understand the first row in the table: "World War I + II, Jews exterminated >100 million white christians}}[1]". Further, the reference [1] is to some article about Hitler possibly being Jewish...?

Maybe one is simply meant to edit things which seem incorrect but this is my first activity on Wikipedia so I am treading carefully. SkinnyMonkey (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't even need to try to understand it, it's nonsense. World War I and II are already in the table and there is no need to merge them together like the author did, they are not a part of one and the same conflict. Someone added it arbtritraly for his/her own point of view of the world. It's not even an event that's named in the table, it's just some several events glued together. I will remove it.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Crusades and Muslim conquests

The Crusades were a reaction to 400 years of Islamic conquests. Is there no best guess as to how many lives were lost in the 400 years of Muslim conquests leading up to the Crusades? I would have to imagine that the 400 years of conquests of the Persians, Byzantine Empire, Spain, France, Sicily, Southern Italy, etc...would have created a very high death toll, yet I have never seen any estimates anywhere as to what that death toll might be. I figured when I saw one for the Crusades, it would be appropriate to have one for what sparked the Crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.223.36 (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably mean this: Muslim conquests. The Crusades were terrible and deserve to be on the list. As for the Muslim conquests, I do not know of any death toll estimates, there for we can not give any just like that. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that lumping the crusades into a single bunch is misleading, given that they consisted of separate campaigns, between different adversaries (the 4th crusade was even launched against Christians!) over a 200-year period. Otherwise, we would need to group WW1, the Russian Civil War, the Greek-Turkish War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, WW2, and the Chinese Revolution into a single war as well, as they were in one way or another consequence of Japanese-German imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.222 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If you read the intro of the crusades here on Wikipedia, it says: "The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns waged by much of Western Christian Europe, particularly the Franks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. The specific crusades to restore Christian control of the Holy Land were fought over a period of nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1291." Ergo, the general consensus is that it encompasses all the conflicts from 1095 to 1291.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after WW2

The source for high estimate for German expulsion killings ([[6]]) actually talks about historians exaggerating number of killings for political reasons. Example: "Mit mehr als zwei Millionen, so behauptete der Historiker Ingo Haar, sei diese Zahl seit Jahrzehnten viel zu hoch angesetzt, aus politischen Gründen. Tatsächlich seien 500.000, vielleicht 600.000" - translated: "more than 2 milion as asserts historian Ingo Haar is highly exaggerated for political reasons. Actual number may be 500.000 perhaps 600.000". It's like when reliable sources are talking about existence of Holocaust-deniers they are not in any way backing denial of holocaust itself! -Meson 9:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.177.169.200 (talk)

All right, I will replace it with this source:[7].--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Deluge question

In the wars section, it is claimed that the death tol for Deluge is 3,000,000. But the source is only this[8], a Polish book that does not state any number on the given internet page. Is there anyone who can independently confirm that it is really written in that book?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. harej 02:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll → List of wars and disasters by death toll — This article was move in a bold move on the 4 September this year by Twinsda "moved List of wars and disasters by death toll", with AFAICT no discussion on the talk page, I think the old name is better: It is shorter and more likely to be searched for. -- PBS (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - as things stand, the proposed article title would be inaccurate - natural disasters are not included in the lists. I think it might arguably be more useful to expand the article so it did include them, then a much more generic name would be possible. — Amakuru (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Neither option reflects the content of the article. I think whether or not some of the content is anthropogenic is highly debatable, particularly the Famine and Other human made mass mortalities sections. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Support - the old title sounds better to me. Also, the term "disaster" doesn't necessarily mean "natural event". In the article disaster, it says: "A disaster is a perceived tragedy, being either a natural hazard or man-made catastrophe.".--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - not because I think the current article name is appropriate, because I don't. However, the old name is also inappropriate, because deliberate mass killings like genocide etc. are not "disasters", a word that implies accidental or unintentional causation. I have previously suggested the article be moved to "List of wars and manmade mass mortalities by death toll", or just "List of manmade mass mortalities by death toll", and I still think either of those would be a more appropriate name. Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

An Shi Rebellion

The list places the An Shi Rebellion as resulting in 33 million - 36 million deaths. As the article on this topic notes, however, this decline in the registered population did not necessarily result from actual deaths, but rather from a break-down in the census system. I am not aware of any more accurate estimates on the true number of deaths, and it's possible none are available. Still, I wonder if there is a way to reflect the controversy. Homunculus (duihua) 06:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The article notes it, but does not bring a source. If a source is available, I say write it inside the ref tag. --Muhandes (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

World population

I think this lists would had more meaning if it were included the percentage of the World's population that died because of each disaster, because even if the number of people that died in the Mongol Conquests and in WW2 are similar, in the last there were five times more people. At least some approximation to the world population at each time would give the perspective.

Done. It really gives a new perspective to the subject. Some smaller ones were less than 0,1% of the World's population, but some were big, like An Shi Rebellion, which apparently killed off 1/6 of human kind.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a couple problems with this. First, as noted in the section immediately above this one, the high-end estimate associated with the An Shi rebellion does not refer to deaths per se; the majority of the decline in the registered population at the time was instead caused by the break-down of the census system. But it seems that you used the high-end estimates (which, as the An Shi example illustrates, can be quite far from the true number) in accounting for the % of world population that was killed. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to provide the range? Also, what did you use to estimate the total world population at the time?

If you can answer or resolve these questions, that would be good, but I am somewhat unsettled by this idea for another reason. Citing the % of world population killed turns these disasters into little more than fascinating historical artifacts. The human suffering associated with large-scale disasters does not diminish as the total world population increases. Unsigned poster above wrote that the tables would have more "meaning" if this figure is included. Meaning to whom? In what sense? Certainly, when one loses a son or a brother to genocide, the "meaning" associated with that injustice is not conditional upon what fraction of the world population he represented. There is something perverse about this...Homunculus (duihua) 04:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I will provide a range for the An Shi Rebellion. But then again, its range is somewhere between 33 and 36 million killed, which isn't such a huge difference. I used World population estimates, which in itself gives a table of population estimates for almost every Century.

Obviously that human suffering is not bound by the percentage of the total World population killed - a Georgian who lost his brother in a relatively small war, like the 2008 South Ossetia War, is suffering equally as strong as lets say someone who lost his brother in the An Shi rebellion - yet it's interesting to have the percentage to give a perspective of how big the toll was.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding 'massacres' or 'politicide'

The current section dealing with Genocides and alleged genocides includes a number of events that do not to meet the legal definition of genocide, as they did not constitute attempts to eradicate distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups; some were purges of political enemies, and others massacres that occurred in the context of war or rebellions. I would not want to remove items from the list, but perhaps we can consider adding politicide to the section title so as to be more inclusive of mass killings of opposition political groups. Homunculus (duihua) 03:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly are these "events that do not to meet the legal definition of genocide"?--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent

~~Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent should be added. Population decrease of c. 80 million. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)~~ Nevermind; apparently a disputed figure. — goethean ॐ 20:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Falun Gong as alleged genocide

Another editor recently added the persecution of Falun Gong to the list of genocides and alleged genocides. They were reverted, however, apparently on the grounds that the low-end estimate for deaths they provided (~3000) is not from a reliable source, but instead comes from Falun Gong organizations (the high-end estimate provided comes from Ethan Gutmann, who is considered something on an expert on the topic). I do not believe that deleting the entire row on Falun Gong was the appropriate course of action, so I restored it with another source, but was reverted again by the same editor, on the same grounds.

There are two questions at issue here, and I would like to solicit other opinions on how best to resolve them.

First, there is a question of whether Falun Gong should be included in the list at all. In my judgement it should; Falun Gong has been classified as a religion, and the Chinese government has openly stated that it is their goal to exterminate it—an objective they have carried out through torture and other forms of coercion. More importantly for our purposes, this opinion has been shared by legal authorities, including in a 2009 ruling in Argentina[9] and another in Spain[10].

The second question is in dealing with the death toll estimates. The high-end estimate strikes me as very high (but then, so do most of the high estimates in this article), but Ethan Gutmann is considered a reliable source on the topic of violence against Falun Gong, and his estimates were arrived at through original research and interviews. The low-end estimate, ironically, seems to be the subject of greater contention because it is provided by Falun Gong organizations. From what I can tell, it reflects the actual number of individuals whose deaths were reported, and each case is accompanied by a description of the circumstances surrounding the death. I could not find another source that confirms this estimate of 3,000, though several sources cite the estimate and ascribe it to Falun Gong sources.

If there is a better low-end estimate available, we should provide it, but even though I'm quite well versed in the relevant literature, I'm not aware of one; most observers simply seem very reluctant to produce a number. In 2008 Amnesty International reported that over 100 were killed[11], but that's only for the one year of the reporting period.

Suggestions on how to resolve this would be welcome.Homunculus (duihua) 18:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Use one of these sources, and if anyone reverts you again, let me know and I'll talk to them. SilkTork *^YES! 19:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

None of the material added follows WP:RS, as I pointed out, Reuters simply quoted from Falun Gong Information Center, Ethan Gutmann isn't even a proper academic, derives his figures from rough estimates, and is sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy. The two individual court decisions means jack, considering that they aren't not legally binding, and are initiated by FLG activists similar to how some European judges issued warrants against George W Bush for war crimes. No FLG researchers and academics like David Ownby classify the FLG ordeal as genocide, and even Amnesty, the most reliable souce on the issue, only lists documented deaths to be somewhere near the low hundreds. Falun Gong and other political repressions does not belong in this article, and is completely out place next to wars, mass killings, ritual suicides, and other disasters whose tolls range from 5 to 8 digits. --PCPP (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In another legal decision here[12], it was noted the the FLG ordeal constitutes individual human rights abuses, not systematic genocide or crimes against humanity.--PCPP (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We're a little past talking with PCPP, aren't we? He is obviously a disruptive troll that does not care about the encyclopedia or any objective standard of research. He is here to push CCP propaganda and that's it. He is wasting our time. If he reverts again I urge someone to open a case on him. I can help prepare it. I won't volunteer to submit it myself because I know it will be stronger if someone else does it, but I am sure there are other neutral editors here who will do it. In fact, I'm just going to put an ANI thing right now. I'm simply sick of wasting my time on this person, and seeing the time of other editors' wasted. --Asdfg12345 19:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But here's my factual response. 1) The Reuters article has nothing to do with the Falun Dafa Information Center. Reuters went to Argentina (did you look at the dateline?) and reported on the court case. It's a reliable source, a fine source. 2) Gutmann is a recognised expert on the subject. He has carried out years of research, he's a published author, and he has been called to Congressional committees to discuss his research. Trying to discredit impeccable sources is a bad idea. Oh and I reverted, because I'm quite tired of this disruption. I'm opening an ANI case now. --Asdfg12345

In case you couldn't read, here's what the Reuters article stated:

"The Falun Dafa Information Center, which documents suspected abuses against practitioners in China, says 104 Falun Gong adherents died of abuse or neglect in custody last year, bringing to 3,242 the number of deaths documented over 10 years."

Nowhere did Reuters endorse the figure as fact. Furthermore the 162,000 figure comes from a FLG conference held by politician Edward McMillan-Scott. The fact that Gutmann was funded by the American propaganda agency NED does bring scrutiny to Gutmann's research, particularly it's not supported by other such as Ownby.--PCPP (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to "In another legal decision here[13], it was noted the the FLG ordeal constitutes individual human rights abuses, not systematic genocide or crimes against humanity" -- so what? I don't see what that has to do with the Argentina judge calling it genocide and that being reported by Reuters. --Asdfg12345 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It means that the definition of "genocide" on the FLG issue is disputed at best. Understand?--PCPP (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Four things:

1) I added one of the references suggested above by SilkTork, as well as to the court ruling in Spain.
2) To PCPP, most of the genocides and alleged genocides on this list are disputed, some of them very intensely. That is not grounds for exclusion from this list.
3) The ruling that you are holding up here does not say that the suppression of Falun Gong is not a genocide. Read more carefully. It says that the judge found that those allegations were "nonjusticiable." That is, the court refused to adjudicate on the question because they did not want to issue judgement on the policy of a foreign state.
4) The original point of contention remains. We still don't know what to do about the low-end estimate for the death toll. Any good ideas? Homunculus (duihua) 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with using the Falun Gong figure for the low-end. Ownby finds Falun Gong human rights research highly credible, despite what PCPP claims. Anyone with a copy of the book gets that message more than once. Secondly, I think it's helpful to note the origins of the persecution ("The practice had grown extremely quickly and was popular among a large cross-section of society, implicitly undermining the Communist Party's control of society.") -- but not crucial. I would leave it in anyway. --Asdfg12345 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1) According to CBS [14], Spanish courts are also looking to indict George W Bush for war crimes. I guess we should also add him to the list right? A list of vague statements like "some observers" (like who?) adds little to your arguments. 2) Examples? This article is named wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, and you're saying the FLG repression, a long term political repression at best, is somewhat comparable to the Srebrenica massacre that killed 8000+ people in a matter of weeks? This article is not an indiscriminate collection of all documented cases of alleged genocide just because two sources say so. Hell the list of wars didn't even the numerous one that killed less than 100 thousands. 3) So what? It doesn't say that it IS genocide either.--PCPP (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Who is bored of this? Let me copy what the text says above the table:

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) defines genocide in part as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

Determining what historical events constitute a genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. In nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide, therefore, will almost always be controversial. Determining the number of persons killed in each genocide can be just as difficult, with political, religious and ethnic biases or prejudices often leading to downplayed or exaggerated figures.

The following list of genocides and alleged genocides should be understood in this context and not necessarily regarded as the final word on the events in question.

It is a sad fact, but one which cannot be denied: the genocide against Falun Gong ticks all the boxes. If you want to try to include Bush, that's your own business. --Asdfg12345 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Author of highest estimate

About Ethan Gutmann, he doesn't seem to have a degree on History, he doesn't seem to have any published papers in any journal [15]. His only claim to scholarship seems to be his book, which got good reviews. Not sure how we are supposed to establish his reputation for accuracy. I think that it's wrong to cite him for a higher estimate that is two orders of magnitudes higher than any number given by reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, he seems to be a businessman, with no qualifications in a relevant field. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a degree in history should be the deciding factor. He is a journalist, has published pretty prolifically in mainstream news publications, and also has some scholarly credentials. His bio says he holds a Masters degree in international relations from Columbia University, has worked as a fellow in a couple Washington policy think tanks, and has severed on numerous occasions as an expert on the topic for Congressional committees. I ascertained this from his bio, available here. Can you explain why he should fail as a reliable source on this subject? That his estimates are higher than other estimates is, in and of itself, not sufficient reason for exclusion. Homunculus (duihua) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case, has this estimate been reproduced by any other author?

Because, Silk Tork gave above this link to "genocide falun gong" in google books, and I looked at the hits, and I didn't find any book that labelled the persecution of Falun Gong a genocide.

And Totten's book (the only book cited in the article), only says "More recently, Chinese communists attempts at suppressing the quasi-religious movement known as Falun Gong have also been considered by some to fit the 1948 UN Genocide Convention's criteria of what constitutes genocide.", which is a quite weak claim. Many of the sources were about a failed trial where the judges refused to rule because it interfered with China's sovereignity. Excluding the sources edited by The Epoch Group, I see a lack of mention in places where it would be mentioned if there was an actual genocide.

TLDR; too few secondary sources? very high estimate given at a conference and not cited anywhere else? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please point to a policy which states that the high estimates on this page need to be cited in more than one place? That seems to be an arbitrary rule. If there's a reliable source for it, what's the problem, exactly? --Asdfg12345 17:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As a positive point, the text above the table, reproduced in the above section, seems a sufficient disclaimer. --Asdfg12345 17:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be two things being discussed here. First, on the inclusion as a genocide, if you take a look at the rest of this list of genocides and alleged genocides, you will find that a number of events classified as such are very contentious. Population displacements, famines, and what would appear to be massacres of opposition political groups are all included in this category. The criteria that seems to be employed is that events are included in this list if a reliable source has called them a genocide. If there is debate over the use of the label, it is described. In the case of Falun Gong, as I previously noted, you have courts in Argentina and Spain that have supported accusations of genocide and crimes against humanity, and that alone warrants its inclusion, in my view. If we have other reliable sources that explicitly refute the use of the label, then we can write that in the description field. Moreover, the estimates on death tolls in this list can range quite dramatically. Were one to probe more deeply into origins of the cited death toll estimates, I am quite confident that you would find some based on more tenuous evidence than the sources used in the Falun Gong example. It's a tricky thing, gauging how many people are killed in genocides and massacres; the oppressors most often write the victims' history. My personal sense is that Gutmann's estimates are high, but my personal feelings on this matter are irrelevant. I, unlike him, have not spent years interviewing former Chinese prisoners and piecing together a picture of China's labor camp population and conditions. Gutmann is an expert on this topic, and should be used for the high-end estimate unless and until a reliable source produces an even higher estimate. Homunculus (duihua) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Did I mention that he is estimating what percentage of Falun Gong followers were included in the organ harvesting in China? (Organ_harvesting#Organ_theft_events, it used to have a separate article). That is not a genocide figure, it's a figure for an organ harvesting that has not been called a genocide by anyone. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And both courts gave an estimate of 3000+. they don't mention 162,000. And Ethmann's figure was given in a press conference? Not actually published anywhere? This highest estimate is not well sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the court rulings? I couldn't find them on a quick search. Mind sending the URL, just as a matter of curiosity? To other points:

I think it's safe to assume that people whose vital organs are removed under these circumstances, if indeed these allegations are true, would die. The organ extractions would be involuntary, and would be a kind of punitive measure whereby they are targeted because they practice Falun Gong. Are you suggesting that there is some kind of fundamental difference between people who are simply tortured to death and whose who are killed and whose organs are then removed? Why is one a genocidal act and not another? I don't suppose you would argue that Jews whose hair was used in the manufacture of pillows were not victims of a genocide?
The 162,000 purported deaths has been called a genocide. The conference where Gutmann presented those figures was based on just such a theme[16]. Gutmann's speech also uses the term.
Concerning the reliability of Gutmann's speech, in my view it satisfies the criteria a reliable source. Let's treat Gutmann's speech as self-published. WP:RS states that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Gutmann is an established expert on the suppression of Falun Gong, has published in reliable third-party news organizations about the subject, and testified on the topic as an expert for Congressional commissions. Homunculus (duihua)

The organ harvesting was not targetted at Falun Gong members, and anyways I don't see any source calling the Chinese organ harvesting a genocide.
About trials: "In Doe vs Qi [349 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (N.D. Cal. 2004)] (...) The court found that only the individualized human rights claims for torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, under the TVPA, and arbitrary detention, under the ATS, were justiciable (...) Specifically, the court declined to adjudicate claims of genocide and "crimes against humanity" because those claims would have required the court to evaluate the policy or practice of the foreign state." International Criminal Law: International enforcement page 440. "(...) against former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin for acts of genocide on Falun Gong members.[8] While this lawsuit was dismissed by the U.S. Distric Court in September 2003 pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity,[9] the dismissal likely did not spell the end of the controversy." Columbia journal of Asian law page 149
In another source it says that the US trial was about freedom of religion[17]. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The organ harvesting is directed against Falun Gong members, and can only be understood in the context of the broader "eradication" campaign against the group. That you would suggest otherwise indicates you have read neither Gutmann's piece nor any of the related charges from Kilgour/Matas, or anything else on this topic. To quote from Gutmann, the 162,000 figure refers to "total Falun Gong harvested."
It is not necessary that sources directly say that people killed in the alleged organ harvesting are part of a genocide (though, if you want me to produce a source that states it even more explicitly than Gutmann does, I could. It's just tiresome and unnecessary). We have sources saying that the suppression of Falun Gong is a genocide. Organ harvesting, if real, is part of the suppression of Falun Gong. Organ harvesting against Falun Gong is therefore part of the "genocide," and Falun Gong members killed amidst suppression for their organs should be counted as part of the death toll. This is common sense. If you want to argue that organ harvesting of Falun Gong members is unrelated to the broader persecution against Falun Gong, the burden of proof is with you, I think.
Since when are U.S. trials part of this discussion? We know that American courts have been reluctant to adjudicate on the genocide charge. The decisions referenced above were in Argentina[18] and Spain[19].
If it would satisfy you and bring an end to this tiresome back-and-forth, I can add a sentence or two in the article about how, while Argentinian and Spanish courts have indicted Chinese officials on genocide, American courts have refused to rule on the grounds of sovereign immunity.
To an extent, I appreciate that you are trying to ensure accuracy here, but I would appreciate it if you familiarized yourself with the issue more. Homunculus (duihua) 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, do cite sources saying that the Chinese organ harvesting is called genocide in reliable sources.
Note that the Kilgour-Matas report does not mention "genocide" and gives a figure of only 3,006 deaths (the report), and Reuters gives 3,242 because it's a figure from a later date.
See the discourse given by the Argentina Judge, who never ruled on the matter because the pressure made him resign[20]. He says that FG madea genocide dennounce, but he only talks about violations of human rights. He ordered arrest orders to interrogate the Chinese leaders, but he never ruled on the genocide charges, and he didn't confirm any genocide in his discourse. The Spanish Court started proceedings in December 2009, it's going to be ages before it makes anything. Both trials were started in order to check FG's allegations, they haven't made any conclusions.
Also note how no human rights association has denounced any organ harvesting genocide. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply point-by-point here. This is time-consuming, and I'm not very interested in continuing to debate with you, as I'm not even sure what it is you think should be changed on the page, if anything.

I found three people who have stated quite explicitly their view that organ harvesting constitutes genocide. All are credible individuals, though they are known to be vocal supporters of human rights for Falun Gong. 1) Clive Ansley, a Canadian human rights lawyer who practiced litigation in China, gave a speech on Falun Gong, as an expert, before a forum organized by a group of Canadian parliamentarians, titled "Genocide and Mass Murder for Organ Harvesting." Text of that speech can be found here. 2) Edward McMillan Scott, Vice President of the EU, is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald saying of organ harvesting ""We are talking about genocide. The Falun Gong has been singled out."[21]. Elsewhere, in a letter to Chinese lawyer Gao Zhisheng that was republished by Falun Gong sources, he says even more directly "the selection of prisoners for 'reverse-match' organ and tissue transplant ... is genocide, as defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide"[22] 3) Ethan Gutmann, in his speech that is cited in the text, very strongly implied that the practice of organ harvesting against Falun Gong evolved into a "genocidal conspiracy" after a couple years. Now, I am going to preempt you, because I suspect that you will come back and argue that these individuals are too partisan to be counted as reliable sources, or something. I'm not going to fight you on that, because it doesn't matter anyway. As I said before, common sense should prevail here. Falun Gong is the subject of an alleged genocide, as the CPC has set out to eradicate it through mass imprisonment, torture, forced conversion, and killing of members. Falun Gong victims of organ harvesting are targeted as part of this campaign. Therefore, deaths due to alleged organ harvesting are part of the alleged genocide.
The ~3,000 figure comes from the Falun Dafa Information Center, and represents the number if individuals whose deaths have been reported. Because of the nature of the campaign, and because it is ongoing, it is presumed that the true number of deaths is not yet known, and could be higher. Kilgour and Matas cite the 3,000 number, but if you read their report carefully, you will find that they attempt to ascertain how many additional, as-of-yet unreported Falun Gong deaths have occurred. Using official Chinese figures, they conclude that from 2000 - 2005, 41,500 organ transplants occurred in China whose origin was unexplained, and they posit that Falun Gong practitioners were likely the source of these organs. To put it plainly, then, Kilgour and Matas seem to believe that from 2000 - 2005, up to 41,500 additional Falun Gong members were killed.
The Argentine judge does, indeed, invoke the term genocide. To quote: "“The genocidal strategy … comprised a broad range of actions arranged in total contempt for life and human dignity...The designated purpose - the eradication of Falun Gong - was used to justify any means used. Therefore, torment, torture, disappearances, deaths, brainwashing, psychological torture were everyday occurrences in the persecution of its practitioners.” As to the Spanish decision, it was a decision to indict. I realize that does not amount to a definitive pronouncement that genocide had occurred, but it is what it is nonetheless: an indictment of top Chinese officials on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. This suggests, at the very least, that the court found the allegations sufficiently credible to proceed with further investigation. Anyway, for what purpose, and what desired end, are you arguing about this? It's not even on the page. If I were to put it on the page, I would write that these courts indicted Chinese officials on the charges, which is true.
For the purposes of this article, it doesn't matter. Homunculus (duihua) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to butt in for a moment, before we get to the question of whether or not Gutman is reliable, the figure is currently sourced to his own website, and self-published sources fail WP:V. So unless you can provide a reliable source for this figure, it will have to go in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I will also jump in to respond to Gatoclass. You say "before we get to the question or whether or not Gutman is reliable...". It seems other editors have already addressed this question. As Homunculus pointed out, "WP:RS states that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Gutmann is an established expert on the suppression of Falun Gong, has published in reliable third-party news organizations about the subject, and testified on the topic as an expert for Congressional commissions." I agree. He constitutes a reliable source on Falungong.

In my assessment, citing the 162,000 is consistent with the verifiability policy. The claim that is being made on the page is that the highest estimate of deaths for Falun Gong is 162,000. This is a true statement, and it is a verifiable statement. Now, the actual figure of 162,000 is not verifiable — no such figure is. But that such an estimate has been made by a reliable source is verifiable. If the requirement upon is to provide a definitive number of deaths, there would be no need to provide a range of estimates. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." It seems that we are in broad agreement here that Gutmann's highest estimate is probably too high, but that does not matter. He is an established expert, and we can verify that he made that estimate.

It's good to see lively discussion on this, but reading through the exchange, it seems that these issues have already been discussed ad nauseam. So to move on, I would like to ask why Tibet is not included in this list (certainly, the death toll exceeds even the highest estimates on Falungong)? I think I will add it, unless there is some good reason not to. —Zujine|talk 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The only source is a self-published website, with the figure being reported only in a press conference that was celebrating the 10th anniversary the alleged victim of the genocide. The figure is way bigger than any figure given by reliable sources. And it hasn't been published anywhere else (outside of Falun Gong nedia). So, if nobody provides additional sourcing, other places where this figure has been published, I'll go ahead and replace it with the 3000+ estimate that all reliable sources use. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now replaced Gutmann's estimate with the estimate of the Kilgour and Matas report, which should be more acceptable as a RS. (I sort of recall that they published an updated number, anyone can point us to it?) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC involving this article

Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#A mess of WP:Content Forks

This article is currently being discussed as part of WP:Request for Comment at the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard under the section heading A mess of WP:Content Forks. The discussion is to decide how this and other closely related articles could be systematically organized to avoid redundancy The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Armenia

That really is not in this list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide — Preceding unsigned comment added by CV23388 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Commas in percentages

The commas in the percentages seem to be messing up the sorting ability, is this intentional or should they be fullstops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.212.175.183 (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mongol Conquests

Dose it make sense to include the mongal conquests as one event, thay were seiries of wars that took place over hundreds of years.--J intela (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I was going to make the same point. If these are in, why not European invasions of Africa in the last few centuries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.93.204 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I also find that this list seems to have an extremely disproportionate amount of events from the 20th Century, leaving out all the mass deaths and wars created by the whole of history. I mean, I'm sure the conquest of all the great empires of yore (such as the aforementioned Mongol Empire) had been behind deaths into the 100,000s and thus belong on this list... I mean, it's not like genocide and wars were a 20th Century invention! -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I also forgot about the fall of Carthage, where the Romans systematically killed Carthaginians at the end of the Third Punic War where some 100,000 people died over a period of three years (IIRC). Why isn't this on the list?? -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to the Mongol Conquests; I think maybe it should be combined and separate; that is, combine all the ones headed by ONE single Mongol warlord (such as Genghis Khan) under one entry, and THEN under each individual entry, break it down piece by piece. That is, Genghis' entry would have his TOTAL kills, and then below have a list of each individual "lump", such as the Mongol invasion of Khwarezmia and his genocide of the Tanguts (Western Xia) as individual entries below the total. But that's just what I think. -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Death Toll of the War on Drugs is an Anthropogenic Disaster

Milton Friedman, a statistician and economist, estimated that around 10,000 Gun deaths per year in the United States are attributable to the prohibition of drugs (http://www.server.theadvocates.org/library/casualties-of-war.html).

Keep in mind that this is the United States alone, and I am no statistician... and I think it would be impossible to find a solid basis to estimate this disaster unless you are one with a knowledge of the sources to look at. I will simply field a number in the hopes that this will be examined, evidence brought forth and that this will be added to the list.

But given this number by Friedman, I think we can say that on average, 8,000 gun deaths per year in the United States alone are attributable to the prohibition of drugs. Assuming that the prohibition escalated around 40 years ago:

320,000

This is where I will continue without sources, just to field a number.

Given that Europe's total market is larger, however less violent, a baseless estimate would be 10,000 a year in Europe.

720,000

And assuming that violence related to the drug trade in third world countries and trafficking centers is around 3 times worse than Europe and the US combined...

We come to a death toll, from gun homicide, of about 3,000,000.

That, I think, is a conservative estimate. We have not yet accounted for the provable increase of overdose rates (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html), the provable spread of AIDS by our neglect to provide sterile needles to our populace, the provable massive filling of prisons and prison violence, blunt object/blade related deaths, unsolved homicides, and poverty... all caused by this anthropogenic disaster.

I encourage anyone who sees this and is more adept at seeking real, solid statistics at formulating a real death toll of the prohibition of drugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.135.61 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some parts of Europe where the amount of drug-related violence is extremely high (Kosovo is the main example that springs to mind). Epa101 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)