Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 5

message: Looking throught the sporting disasters, I can find no verification of numbers in the Wiki articles for any of them. --Dweller 12:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Article unprotected as per request at WP:RFPP -- Samir   धर्म 05:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I'm taking this on. I'm going to:
:#ask for sources for all
:#remove request for those not needing
:#use the table format that can be seen higher up this page - initially in my sandbox
:#delete entries that are not disasters
My work in progress can be seen at the article and in user:Dweller/sandbox
Helpful suggestions on my personal talk page please to keep this section easy to read. Thanks. --Dweller 10:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of wars and disasters by death toll#Sporting events|Sporting events]]

message: Why does the Siege of Tenochtitlan appear twice? - Eric 07:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The duplication occurred due to user  neglecting to remove the old entry (however the user did remove a separate overlapping entry) after adding a new one.   I have now performed this task.   —Viriditas | Talk 08:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Tenochtitlan 

message: The death toll should be at least 8,010 instead of 6,500
Changed. ComaDivine 08:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Tinian 

message: These articles have overlapping content and should be merged. Or at least, List of disasters should be repurposed as a simple list, leaving this one to count death tolls. Rmhermen 14:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I noticed the edits by Jackist were reverted.
To be honest, when I saw the initial edits, I was shocked, repulsed, and then finally intrigued. I'm wondering, while it does seem to be indirectly (but deliberately) propagating an anti-abortion stance, should we include it nonetheless? Or does another page on wikipedia have abortion statistics?
:If the statistics are reliable, then abortion is presumably the correct page. Certainly not here. -- Necrothesp 00:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion? 

message: For the "1,634,000[9] - Democides by the United States (1900-1987)" entry under "Genocides and Democides"
the reference http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB13.1.GIF is a table listing deaths resulting from apparently *all* military activities of the USA from 1900-1987.   This wikipedia article has links for both Genocide and Democide and neither definition appears to include any deaths inflicted upon uniformed enemy combatants in War.   The vast majority of the deaths listed in the table are such war time related deaths.
This entry needs to be either removed or moved to a different category.   I recognize that the USA is an evil diabolical genocidal regime bent on murdering millions of innocent people but any account of its genocidal/democidal atrocities cannot reasonably include the deaths of uniformed military personnel as the majority of it's total.
I'm tempted to simply delete the entry straight away but I think the total from the table may be useful as an entry in some new category if someone can devise one appropriate for such a figure.
Zebulin 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the whole 'Democides' section is very, very hard to quantify.  We're double- (and triple-) counting a lot of deaths in this section.  For example, the democides of Nazi Germany would include many democides of the United States (in World War II); same with the democides of Imperial Japan and the United States.  We need to reform this section, or remove it. Chip Unicorn 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,634,000[9] - Democides by the United States (1900-1987) 

message: Mao may not have commited genocide, but he did in fact commit democide. What's democide? Well even if you don't know what it is, it should still be listed because the category is "Genocide and Democide." Well I guess we should look for a definition of the term. Who made the term anyway? Oh yeah, political scientist R.J. Rummel. Should we check if he defines the millions of deaths under Mao's regime as democide? Well in fact the inventor of the term defines 73 million of those deaths as democide. It's actually rather generous to Mao to leave the low bound of 27 million there.
Of course, if you actually gave half a damn about citations, you would have already clicked the citation and seen the obvious.
Reverting, for obvious reasons. Personal opinion does not overrule citation (especially such an authoritative one). --I AM a Citation 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 139.168.7.30 

message: It seems sufficient to me to defer references to the articles on the subject (unless there is no article).  There would need to be a systematic attempt to verify that each article actually does contain this information, that it agrees with the list, and that the info is referenced. -- Beland 02:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Seriously? A high estimate of ONE BILLION DEATHS between '49 and '75? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Milestones there were only three billion people in the world in the sixties... I find it hard to believe that China killed roughly one third of the world's population, while still managing to have ~1.4 billion people today...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.18.16 (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  China? 

message: considering the war in the 1960's as being the same war today seems a bit biased to me.
I actually thinkthe Afghan Civil war should be split up. It makes it seem as if it was all one singular war which is completely incorrect. On top of this the Afghan Soviet War (1979-1989) took a million lives in itself. And then we've got the US war for its own interests like the Soviets from (2001-present day), which has taken a large amount of lives as well.
Be more specific as to what these wars were and split them up accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan civil war 

message: Why do the tables uncritically present such high death tolls for things like the Battle of Platea and Gaugamela?  Or indeed, the Mongol invasions or ancient Chinese rebellions?  It seems to me that such speculative totals of distant events from eras without reliable census information should be taken with a grain of salt.
Wilhelm Ritter 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Tolls of Ancient Wars and Battles 

message: It might be nice to make these tables dynamically sortable, as I've done for List of United States disasters by death toll.  See Help:Sorting for documentation. -- Beland 02:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable table 

message: This list is definitely wrong. In many cases, the number listed is the number of casualties. Death toll is doesn't involve casualties, or it will be called casualty tolls... 
For example, 2 million deaths for Brusilov Offensive! If you check the attack, the number of casualties is about 1.5 million. This chart does not make much sense. Battle of Chancellorsville had maybe 3000 deaths, not 12,000 and Battle of Gettysburg had 8000 deaths not 15,000... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.255.61 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths or Casualties 

message: I heard there was an enormous flood in the 70s, some dam blew, and it cascaded and blew an entire network of dams
not sure the name/exact place/exact date but it was on some disaster show on discovery 
yet I cannot find it in this list ?
where is it ? 
216.113.96.172 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  busted dam and huge flood in china in the 70s 

message: Currently the list is sorting by the lowest estimate. The lowest and highest figure is very likely to be flawed or inaccurate. Therefore, how about that we sort it out by the median figure? This would probably be more accurate. Oidia 01:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting Order 

message: Battle of Kursk (1943) is cited twice, with different numbers. i guess the higher number includes the wounded as well Ozkaplan 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Kursk (1943) 

message: I have moved the arson attacks and other fires listed in the "Murders" section to Other accidents. Some of the fires were not even meant to kill anyone, they were disasters; events like this lack the agency people usually mean when they refer to murders. Furthermore, there is nothing tangible to distinguish these attacks from the ones excluded from the murder section and placed in "Terrorist attacks" (I suppose they could go there, some of them, but they were all done for different reasons). They do not belong in the Murder section anyway, thats why I moved them. Hope everyone is happy with that. Jdcooper 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arson 

message: Just a thought, if its not already impossible, would someone be able to alter the table so there's another column for references? Proper provision of references would cheer up this article infinitely more than a table would. Jdcooper 14:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References (where necessary) can probably be put in the already existing low/high columns. The problem with creating an extra column exclusively for refs is that it leaves less room for the other columns, and I know from experience that space is very much at a premium when it comes to these tables. Gatoclass 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right on all counts. We do have to make sure that references are provided though, in the eventual perfect article. It really is much more important than it looking pretty, IMHO. Jdcooper 03:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hahaha, I agree, looking pretty is very important. By the looks of it we need LOTS of references to cite all those figures Oidia 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget though, that most of the wars cited are already linked to Wiki pages dedicated to those conflicts. While I haven't checked, at least some of them probably already contain references to the figures, and if they don't, I think the refs are arguably better added there simply because of the shortage of space here. Gatoclass 08:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are better added in both places, because of the importance of accuracy in both. The only reason there is a shortage of space here is because we are trying to cram too much information in. Jdcooper 15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I wasn't referring to an alleged shortage of vertical space :) I meant horizontal space. Gatoclass 15:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a shortage of both, and trying to cram too much into either diminishes both the quality and readability, therefore usefulness, of the article. Jdcooper 06:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I expect there to be lots of objections to this. Since the article is very long, and I really would like to put all the lists into tables. Should there be a cut off point where "if below this number of deaths, it will not be added in the article"? Oidia 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule. Depends on the section. Mass suicides looks reasonable with full existing list since it is short. Most of the double-digit aviation accidents on the other hand don't belong IMO. --GregU 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In this vein, I trimmed (deleted) 11 of the less-notable double-digit aviation disasters from the bottom of the list. They are all well below the 100 worst in this category (the 100th worst has 119 fatalities according to one source). If you do want to extend the list, there are probably more in the 120–150 range that could be added yet, in preference to re-adding these. --GregU 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cut off point? 

message: That partcular site has pro-human rights and anti-geno/democide on their agenda, so the neutrality and accuracy of their death toll figure and highly questionable. Oidia 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That site is RJ Rummel's personal website, and he is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science (and the guy who actually coined the word "Democide") - so I'm afraid he qualifies as a reliable source on Wiki. Gatoclass 11:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Oidia 03:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I have removed the 'disputed' tag Wilmot1 11:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer inspection it appears to a specific dispute about the Arab Slave Trade, so have left it for now but may move itWilmot1 11:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geno/Democide figures from www.hawaii.edu 

message: Why isnt the cromwellian conquest of ireland included in the genocides section. Up to %50 of the irish population died because of it !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.200.62 (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish genocide