Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Ghiyas ud din Balban Massacre of Rajput Hindus of Mewat

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? |- ||Ghiyas ud din Balban Massacre of Rajput Hindus of Mewat ||100,000deaths ||100,000deaths ||100,000deaths ||India ||1275 CE ||1275 CE |1 year || According to historian William Wilson Hunter, Ghiyas ud din Balban, the ninth sultan of the Mamluk dynasty of Delhi, nearly wiped out Rajputs Hindus of Mewat, killing approximately 100,000 of them.

References

Yes, you can (and should) add any information you have to this page, provided it is verifiable and sources are included ReidMoffat (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There are sections of this article about famine and plagues, there could be an argument for adding the Covid-19 pandemic to that

Doglover truthfinder (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The section referred to focuses on epidemics exacerbated by human activity such as government policy/neglect or war; COVID-19 has certainly not received a perfect response but to put the deaths on Humans would be a bit of a stretch. ReidMoffat (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

At the top of the article, I think we need to highlight some important and disastrous genocides/wars that most people don't know about.

what do you all think about this Doglover truthfinder (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have some ideas they can be referenced to as an example in the top section ReidMoffat (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

List of wars by death toll is already a page; the section on this page should just have some major examples

[Update: The list of genocides also applies to this]

I propose:

• Change the 'Wars' section to clearly mention the other article, List of wars by death toll, and note that this list will only show some of the deadliest conflicts
• Increase the minimum death toll to be shown on this page, such as to 1 million

This will solve the following issues

• Re-writing the page List of wars by death toll on this page. That page is already more comprehensive than this page and we don't need to repeat
• Inconsistency- there is a very large amount of wars with 100k+ deaths; this list either a) shows all of them, which leads to the problem above, or b) leaves some out, which leads to inconsistency

I am not going to just change this, since it would involve deleting a large amount of content. Thoughts? ReidMoffat (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sloppy language

This is an article about death tolls, but the word casualty (person) is used too often when it is imprecisely defined. Under "mistreatment of civilians" a number of conflicting terms are given, including that they are deaths (so mistreatment is an understatement), that it is "purposely caused", democide, and the language "usually part of a military strategy that disregards human lives". This is not necessarily the same thing as war crimes, which for some reason is given as the title for every statistic. Also the section header would exclude essentially all collateral damage, as well as most starvation and disease. Any of these may or may not be part of what you want to include in your definition, but it is completely unclear and seems to be applied arbitrarily.

I understand it is impossible to be consistent and comprehensive, so maybe someone who is more familiar with the sourcing in this article can start putting a better disclaimer on each section, and simply list civilian deaths without trying to determine whether they are purposely caused or war crimes or whatever. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The "List of political leaders and regimes by death toll" is highly inaccurate, is it necessary?

Most of these are huge syntheses of information with massive possible ranges, ill-defined terms used for finding 'death tolls' and overlap with other wars (such as Genghis Khan Timur, and Kublai Khan). Is it even necessary at this point with the incredibly high inaccuracy? ReidMoffat (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It’ll be nice to have but it needs to be rewritten as soon as possible because like you mentioned it’s very inaccurate and low quality. I Am Hunted (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the section is unworkable and should be deleted entirely. The header: "This section lists deaths attributed to certain political leaders, deaths are from both the conditions within the country due to national policy, and active killings by forces loyal to the leader in question." Excepting the very few leaders whose culpability been argued over extensively in academia, everyone else who could be listed would be just baiting for controversy over something that is barely well-defined to begin with. Is a comprehensive review of excess mortality during one's time in office an objective measure? Because such metrics won't distinguish deaths, say, from a natural disaster that are unavoidable versus being due to national policy failure. And without good metrics or wide review, we might just get scattered hare-brained estimates for a couple modern U.S. presidents, and then many current world leaders (since excess deaths from the pandemic are rather well measured), based on these criteria. SamuelRiv (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Boudicca's rebellion in Roman Britain deserves a mention

Three Roman cities, Camulodunum (now Colchester), Verulamium (St Albans) and Londinium (London) were sacked by the Iceni Tribe, put to the sword and burned in AD 60/61 in revenge for Roman acts of repression. BDC, 16/03/22

Do you have any sources that state the casualties of the rebellion? If so (and if it fits the criteria) feel free to add it. I Am Hunted (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We (historians) have no remotely reliable sources to give even a ballpark figure for deaths in this conflict. It is simply impossible to tell how much loss of life occurred, as we have only the vaguest descriptions of the conflict to go by, from sources that cannot be considered truly reliable.82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

90% of Indigenous Americans died of disease?

Could we have a better source for this? A new york times article from 2002 called “Don’t blame Columbus” is hardly a trusted and unbiased source. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:E6B (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

What was the total number of those who were killed by the Greek Junta?

Curious, but besides the Athens Polytechnic Uprising of 1973, how many Greeks were killed by the military junta from 1967 to 1974? 2607:FEA8:7A5E:C400:486C:595:C57F:890C (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Sahel Draught and Famine?

İ'm curious as to why the 1972-1974 Sahel draught and famine is missing from this list. İ've seen estimates of a death toll of over 100,000 people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.235.142 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Coronavirus under Disease and Famine

We should include Coronavirus responses under the Disease and Famine section, as it is cited commonly that the response in several nations had been deliberately underplayed and/or outright sabotaged by heads of state. 2A02:C7E:4258:F600:B00D:C560:DD75:6E8F (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion it doesn't really fit in this article. Even though there is a 'disease and famine' section it's mostly famines, plus a few disease + famines. Most people still think coronavirus was natural in origin, and a poor response doesn't make it anthropogenic. We wouldn't list Hurricane Katrina because of the poor U.S. government response. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Length of WWII

Shouldn't the war start with the Marco Polo Bridge, not the invasion of Poland? Since deaths in the Sino-Japanese war are being counted. 161.195.68.253 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

---

List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll → List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll – Since we already have a separate page for List of wars by death toll, I think the current title needlessly duplicates its scope. Most of this page is already about stuff other than wars. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Congo free state

Some remarks. First the lowest(and most recently calculated estimate) is around 1.5 million population decline, not 3 million.

Moreover, the 10 million number is not a number of deaths but a population decline, including also mass emigration and lowered fertility rates. The actual number of deadly victims is not known. LouisBStevenson (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Eduardoj.diaz (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC) 

BRITISH GENOCIDE KILLED ONLY IN INDIA 165 MILLION =https://mronline.org/2022/12/14/british-empire-killed-165-million-indians-in-40-years/

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023 (2)

Eduardoj.diaz (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

British genocide in India = 165 millions

https://mronline.org/2022/12/14/british-empire-killed-165-million-indians-in-40-years/

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Marxist Leninist

I don't like this on the list. It includes Stalin and then he is listed again. This is a list of kills by one leader. Not by many. Put it in its own category. that would be perfect. You can add the fascists and anything else that has a bunch of people too. Spiel (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There's something funny about sorting with numbers

I think it sorts all the way correctly until there's the Indian Rebellion of 1857, which has + sign (806,000+). I think removing the + sign might fix the sorting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anttir717 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Mexican War of Independence and Cristero War

Shouldn't these two wars be added to the first list? According to both the Wikipedia pages for these wars, death toll for each was surely above 100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.47.145 (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

spin off of articles

could we potentially split off pieces of this article or copy pieces of this article to form another article called list of political leaders by death toll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hong kuslauski (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 November 2021 (uTC) (UTC)

Various Colonial regimes of Europe

Why does this only includes Various Colonial regimes of Europe and not elsewhere in the world (like the Arabs, Ottomans, Japan)? Besides, in comparison to the other mentioned 'regimes' this category is too vague. You can't compare a period of more than 500 years with a single dictator. This list used to include only dictators, we should go back to this. This is what people want to read. Not this vague list. BTW: why is Napoleon not included in this list? Wester (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe add the Haymarket Square riot?

It was of note because it is definitely a human caused disaster, but it is very low in terms of death toll, so should this riot be added to the list of disasters?

If you want to read more about it I suggest this history article, it's a good summation of everything:

https://www.history.com/topics/19th-century/haymarket-riot TheMasterPlayer1112 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

1912-13 Massacres maximal death toll

The estimated number of Albanians killed during the massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars is not very agreed upon. Typically, early estimates like 20,000 or 25,000 are cited for the first few months. Scholars who provide numbers usually give 120,000 or higher. Miftar Spahija Thaçi claimed that 500,000 Albanians were killed/died from disease/sicknesses during this period.[here] I've tried to include this estimate, but its legitimacy is disputed, and understandably so. But as far as I can tell, the demographic changes lead me to believe that this estimate holds some legitimacy, at least as an upper bound.

The number of Muslims in the Kosovo Vilayet was 959,175 (of which the vast majority were Albanians) in 1911[1] and 441,740 in all of Yugoslavia in 1918.[2] Of this change in population, between 60,000 and 300,000 were deportees from 1912-14.[3][4] In addition to this, the number of Albanians killed/died in Albania can be as high as 100,000.[5]

Given these figures, I'm inclined to believe that Thaçi's estimates, while not likely, are plausible and should be included, especially due to the current lack of information regarding civilian casualties. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is about massacres of Albanians during the Balkan Wars, so the death toll would have to reflect civilians/non-combatants who were killed as a result of atrocities. Not other causes, such as disease, hunger or natural causes and certainly not soldiers who died in fighting. Conducting your own research into the demographic changes and deducting possible casualties from that is just that.. original research, and it's forbidden on Wikipedia.

I don't think that a book by a non-academic Albanian publisher at the height of Albanian-Serbian tensions and the beginning of a war is a reliable source. Especially since it presents a figure as you said that is unlikely, and it diverges from the rest, making it fringe and also isn't about civilian massacres. There are few historians from the Balkans, unless they're internationally renowned, that don't engage in some form of nationalism or activism in their work. The fact that there's a lack of serious research into civilian casualties in the Balkan Wars is a problem but that is why we should stick to reliable sources and academic consensus. Honestly, the 120,000-270,000 figure is suspect too, because it's based on the primary reporting of Serbian antigovernmental politicians at the time. But I accept that it might be plausible and it is cited in other places.

Consider that WWII casualties in Yugoslavia were for a long time thought to be 1.7 million because total demographic losses were manipulated and used as actual losses. It turned out that the actual number of casualties were closer to a million. In the first year of the Bosnian War, 200,000 was the commonly cited figure, especially by journalists. After proper research following the war, it was revealed that casualties amounted to about 100,000 for its entire duration and all sides. During the Kosovo War, the US State Department claimed 100,000 Albanians were killed when the real number ended up about 10,000 for all sides. If serious statistical and academic research was conducted on this topic, I'm willing to bet it would also be lower than you might think. --Griboski (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You're probably right, but in relation to the Kosovo and Bosnian Wars, the number of deaths were immediately reported to be be significantly higher likely because the extent of ethnic cleansing in these wars were attributed to potential killing rather than deportations (something that post-war research cleared up relatively quickly), since many civilians became unaccounted for. I'm not trying to provide OR, but putting into perspective the population decline and the wide possible number of refugees can leave a couple hundred thousand civilians unaccounted for, enough to make Thaçi's figure plausible.

You do bring up a good point, that his figure also includes non-killed deaths, like disease/starvation, but due to the plundering in the region, and the extent of the violence, those deaths should arguably be included as well. I will concede though, that we should keep the figure at around 120,000 to 270,000 (since these figures are found in more reliable/widely cited scholarship), even though its accuracy can be called into question. I personally think the figure (120-270,000) should be generally accurate, but I'd also argue 120k might be an underestimate since it's commonly attributed to Kosovo and Macedonia exclusively. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I won't oppose 120K as the low and 270K as the high, even though I think the sources on that aren't great but definitely am against the 500K for all the reasons stated above. --Griboski (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for opening up the discussion Yung Doohickey. The sources quoting the highest figures are not explaining in detail how they came up with that figure, other than quoting an individual who came up with that figure. Each citation is basically a copy and paste of the other and for example, the citations for the 120,000 figure given by Kosta Novaković are written from a very nationalist POV perspective that do not meet WP:RS. On the page Casualties of the Armenian genocide, the death toll was derived from countless investigations and commissions by both the Allies and Central Powers. For this event in question, contemporary sources at the time cite 20-25 thousand deaths, with the Committee for the National Defence of Kosovo citing 100,000 deaths. I would be in favor of having these figures added as they are the most reliable. The sources noting the higher figures are on occasions reporting deaths as a whole. As Griboski has mentioned, this isn't part of the scope of the article. I see you have put in a lot of time and effort into the article, however this event is poorly researched as there was little investigative work done by the superpowers at the time. Using high figures from single individuals will always create conflict as they can be interpreted as biased. ElderZamzam (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The 20-25,000 figures only apply to Kosovo Vilayet the first few months. The University of Belgrade placed the number of deaths in present-day Kosovo at 50,000 throughout both wars. This makes 120,000 a pretty safe lower bound when applying the total number of civilians killed by belligerents throughout both Balkan Wars in all regions. The 100,000 figure from the Committee for the National Defence of Kosovo probably refers to Kosovo exclusively and includes years up until 1915. The 270,000 figure is fair to include since, even though there lacks information about it, it seems very plausible given the lack of any estimates from outside of the Kosovo Vilayet. The upper bound was likely added to include the fact that other Vilayets could've experienced a similar loss in life as the Kosovo Vilayet. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the 270K figure used anywhere else besides by Jing Ke (I am aware of the communist blog but that's not a RS) and he doesn't specify where he got it from. He also says from 1912-1914, when the Balkan Wars lasted from October 1912 to August 1913. So, I have to wonder if that includes first year of WWI as well. All the Serbian deputies use 120K as the upper bound which is what everyone who cites that figure seems to base it on. --Griboski (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it needs to be said that the Serbian deputies are highly likely to underestimate / downplay Albanian deaths. If any of them aren’t a reliable source from what you stated, it would most definitely be that. The 120-270k figure is the most fair and accurate from what we have. NuancedProwler (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, primary accounts aren't great sources for casualty numbers as shown in other wars. They tend to overestimate. And these were members of the far-left/communist opposition to the government, their ideology sympathizing with the Albanians in this case even if they were Serbian. But anyway, the 270K figure doesn't appear to originate there. --Griboski (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that these contemporary sources are relatively consistent and haven't really been seriously challenged by modern scholars as far as I can tell. The early estimates of 20-25K in the Kosovo Vilayet are generally consistent with the 120K total. The 270K high approx. was probably made to broadly encompass the fact that the 120K figure is sometimes attributed to Kosovo and Macedonia in particular, or if it is an underestimate. I think that even though they were left-wing and anti-government, they wouldn't try to intentionally slander their own nation. Yung Doohickey (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

"killed/died from disease/sicknesses during this period" Are these diseases specified in the sources? The lack of medical resources would probably have killed them anyway, but we could probably cover death causes in the relevant articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)