Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 11

India-Pakistan Independence 1948
Don't the deaths involved with the India-Pakistan population exchanges/ethnic cleansing in 1948 make into the genocide list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.137.158 (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I know about the partition, after the borders were redrawn, much of the resettlement was voluntary (as opposed to the governments rounding up people and expelling them). As such the deaths from population exchanges would not qualify as genocide.  Deaths from "race riots" and the like would also not qualify as genocide, I think.  Such deaths are anthropogenic, however, and could be added to the Other deadly events section if reliable estimates of the death toll can be found.  (I am not well read on the Partition of India and would welcome a more informed opinion.)--Wikimedes (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Taiping & the floods
We need sources and at least a stub article on the subject, but it's worth at least asterisking the death tolls of the Taiping Rebellion and the list of deaths by flooding. There was something like a continuous Yellow River flood from 1850 to 1855 that (a) disrupted the entire North China Plain and (b) got so bad that the entire river, which had been flowing south of Shandong for 500+ years, shifted north, taking out entire counties along the way. It should easily make the flood list, if we can find something with separate numbers to include. The related deaths are instead usually grouped under the Taiping tolls (inflating them) despite actually having held Hong's army back from being able to march north of the Yangtze. — Llywelyn II   01:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why no inclusion of Islamic campaigns in, and administration of, the Indian subcontinent?
I noticed that, aside from Timur, there are no entries for the various Islamic invasions of what is now India, Pakistan and Afghanistan nor the various genocides and mass executions that took place under the subsequent regimes. The scope is broad and the figures are contentious but that tens of millions were killed in various conquests and millions executed in various administrative actions by Sultanates and Empires is well sourced and not credibly disputed. I searched the archives and found this topic had been broached previously but I couldn't find any real discussion on the issue. Considering that it's such an obvious oversight, and that most topics regarding Islam and violence are meet with hand wringing, I have to assume that it's come up before and been rejected for some reason. Does anyone know what that reason is? If it truly is just some bizarre oversight does anyone have any input as to how to go about structuring such entries? GraniteSand (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is all I found in the archives . If you have reliable sources on the death tolls during these conquests, by all means add them.  I expect most of the larger ones could be added as separate entries.  If a reliable source has estimated a total, it could be added too.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll respond again since it seems you're the only other interested editor. I've been looking at secondary sources. Direct treatment by Anglophone historians is surprisingly sparse. I could treat individual events as isolated entries here but that wouldn't really follow the established precedent of the the article, i.e. the Crusades, the Mongol Conquests, European colonization of the Americas, and the such. The most obvious high estimate on deaths resulting from Muslim invasions, raids, and conquests of the Indian subcontinent are K. S. Lal's statistic at 80 million. I'm having trouble pinning down a floor though. Any help by interested would be appreciated. GraniteSand (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the literature on this topic, but if K.S. Lai is a reliable source for a consolidated total, by all means add it. A few other thoughts:
 * If 80 million is the only estimate that you currently have, you can put that in as the lower limit as well. If you have lower estimates, but aren't sure if they are the lowest, you can use them and adjust downward as more estimates are found.  Or you can wait until you're confident you have the best estimates available, it's really up to you.
 * Non-English sources are allowed, but they are discouraged because they make it hard for the English speakers reading the article to verify the information. But if the topic really is covered much better in other languages, those sources can be used.  (See WP:RSUE)
 * (Sorry that I can't give more than generic advice).--Wikimedes (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Second Congo War
Where's the Second Congo War? Up to 3 million deaths made it the deadliest conflict since WWII according to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.30.191 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in there. GraniteSand (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bodo League massacre
Bodo League massacre could be added on this list. happen during Korean War, with death tolls reaching at least 100,000. --101.235.15.254 (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Duration of Event and Percent of Global Population
It seems to me there is a significant difference between 1.7-3.1% of the world's population being killed in an uninterrupted 6 year period, and 17.1% of the world's population being killed over a 162 year period.

The former case, WWII, works out to as much as 0.5% of the world's population being killed per year for six years in a row. The Mongol case, on the other hand, would average not more than 0.1% per year. Moreover, because of geometric population growth due to the way human reproduction works, you can discount the effect of a future death on world population compared to a present death (since the present death cuts off a period of reproduction that the future death does not).

I would suggest fixing this in one of two ways. Either average the % figure by year or, (and I think this would be the better way) don't merge disparate events into long term conflicts. (I mean, if the Mongol conquests are one event, why not merge the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, and WWII into a "German-Unification Event," or treat most of the wars in Europe since the 1500s as "European Power Balancing Event"?)  Drolz 09  23:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that per cent of world population is problematic for events of long duration, and is perhaps meaningless for events lasting longer than a generation (~20 years). I could support dividing the % of world population by number of years to get an annual % of world population and using that figure.  There would be a few details to work out:  the maximum annual % of world population would use the maximum estimated death count and the minimum population during the period, for example.  Also, how would you deal with events such as the Rwandan Genocide that lasted less than a year?  Would this be the per cent of world population divided by 1 year or 1/3 of a year?  Another detail to be worked out on an individual basis would be what start and end dates to use, which will not always be straightforward.


 * Regarding decoupling long duration events such as the Mongol Conquests, Transatlantic Slave trade, Native American Genocide, etc., I think we should follow how reliable sources group them. All of these have death toll estimates spanning the entire >100 years duration, so Wikipedia should include them as such.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the key is to treat subjects the way reliable source consensus treats them, and there may be such a consensus out there, but no such consensus is demonstrated in sources cited in this list. Take, for example, the "Mongol conquests" entry: it cites one webpage which refers to a number of different sources, all of which measure mortality over different time periods, generally much less than the 162-year umbrella period taken by our list. It might make sense, where sources support such an approach, to list estimates for subsections of these very large periods - for example, mortality under Genghis Khan - in addition to any longer-term figures. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * More broadly, I'm concerned about drifting into WP:SYNTH if we do too much mathematical manipulation to suggest a hierarchy of the relative significance of the events in question: that's the sort of analysis that should be left to reliable sources. We already have sourcing problems: the figures in the "Percentage of the world population (killed)" column lack citations. Some of them seem erroneous (that 17.1% figure for the Mongol conquests seems to be the misreading of a source) and pre-19th cent. population estimates are variable enough that I don't think we can simply take one and use it as the denominator to produce our own estimates, as seems to have happened - that's nontrivial, novel analysis and therefore OR. We need reliable sources to take up the burden of claiming that X casualties amounted to the death of Y% of the world's population.


 * Also, the "Wars and armed conflicts" table relies heavily on necrometrics.com, which looks like a useful resource but is dodgy as a RS - WP:SPS might let it in if its author is an established expert in the field.


 * Finally, this list is about deaths, but many of our sources are measuring decline in population over long time periods - not the same thing, because of births. Baileypalblue (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

"Soviet crimes" should be removed
As long as the article has distinct sections for Holodomor, Russian Civil War, Decossackization, German expulsion etc. it is inappropriate to have on the same list a section called "Soviet crimes" between 1917 and 1953. It only causes confusion.
 * I agree. This should be changed. Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree. "Soviet crimes" are not an event, and not even a series of related events. They are a number of entirely separate events who have nothing in common except for the fact that they were caused by the same government. There is no equivalent listing for "Nazi crimes", "British colonial crimes" etc., and for good reason. -- User1961914 (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Prisons proposal
I think it should be a separate page and I note that there is nothing about North Korea (possibly the deadliest in the world now) and Mao China listed even though they were the biggest ever made. Is there some reason for this? BernardZ (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Genocide in the Americas by the Europeans.
In the scetion about the Americas it says it is controversial to say that there were too few Spanish to kill so many, but in North America it is estimated that there were 3,000,000 natives in Canadaa and ten times that number in the U.S. During the Indian Wars the US gave the Indians on more than one occasion Small Pox infected blankets to destroy the enemy. They killed millions of Bison and subseuqently about the same number of springbucks died later on due to the erecting of fences. The only reason this was done was to starve out the Native population. The only reason that this would be disputed that it was not the most horrific genocide to have ever occurred is guilt. Excuses made to mollify the emotions of the guilty parties and to not have pay resitituion to the victims descendants. Read about what happened at Fort Pitt if there is any doubt that this happened. There are historical verifiable accounts of the systematic execution of the scientists and doctors of the Aztec Empire claiming they were sorcerers due to the fact that they did not understand what they were doing. As Arthur C. Clark said, to parphrase " any science advanced enough will appear to be magic to primitive cultures." Unfortunately the Europeads were the primitives and are guilty of Genocide. I am of European descent and am ashamed of this fact and this type of coverup in inexcusable.

Brian T. Johnston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.83 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Bengal Famine 1943.
The detailed wiki page this refers to puts the estimate of deaths as between 1.5 and 4 million. This article puts the minimum estimate at 4 million - the same as the maximum estimate. Shouldn't these 2 articles agree on this? I suspect I should change this page to agree with the main page - i.e. change this page's minimum estimate to 1.5 million - but do not know enough on this topic to be sure this is the correct action. Holland jon (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Jonestown
I changed the Jonestown entry. It said that Jonestown was the largest loss of American civilian lives before 9/11. It wasn't; at least the General Slocum and SS Sultana disasters had higher death tolls. I took the wording used in the Jonestown article, which includes "deliberate" and therefore is strictly correct. Instead of including that information in the entry, I changed it to a reference. The same method is used for the kamikaze pilots.

Roches (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Maafa
One of the alleged genocides is "Maafa", to which I added "slavery in the Americas". It links to Slavery in Africa. I didn't use the term "slave trade" because the Maafa article says this is a euphemism, although it means the sale of humans as property (compare "peculiar institution" -- that's a euphemism). Whether or not the slave trade constitutes a genocide has to be left to the reader to decide, but I think the entry should use the most common expression. Roches (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't source other articles and I especially wouldn't cite that one. Maafa is an Afrocentric neologism created by a fringe academic who peddles in racist pseudo-science who goes by Marimba Ani. The trans Atlantic slave trade no doubt deserves some attention here but the paradigm shouldn't be "MAafa". None of this is your fault, of course, but I've been meaning to address it for some time and just haven't had much time. Since you're interested did you have any thoughts on the matter? My initial though was to simple link out to Atlantic slave trade and bring over citations already in use there. My worry is that is too broad of subject to accurately classify as a cohesive event and instead should be broken into more easily definable instances. GraniteSand (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that the section "Wars and armed conflicts" be moved to List of wars by death toll. There is much unnecessary overlap and duplication of effort. My preference would be to move the section immediately into the other article, and then transition the remaining conflicts (since the article is more comprehensive than the section) to the table format, since I see no advantage to the plain list.

Thank you. Inverse Hypercube (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the better move would be to merge List of wars by death toll into this article. There is more attention given to this article and there are a lot of issues of scope in regards to what would and wouldn't qualify as "a war", leaving ample opportunity for events to slip between the cracks of the two articles.


 * Right, that could work. I worry about the article being too long though. Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we'd have to reach on consensus on what constitutes a notable number of deaths in a war, for starters. I think we could also remove the prison camps section as most are part of the already included holocaust or other noted events. GraniteSand (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I like how the other article has wars with lower death tolls, such as the War of the Stray Dog. Nor would I want to remove the information about prison camps.


 * I notice now that there is also overlap between the section "Genocides and alleged genocides" and the article List of genocides by death toll. I have an idea which would solve the problem of repetition, keep this article from getting too long, and not require the removal of information: first we move these sections into the articles like I originally suggested, then establish a threshold for inclusion into this article. Then we'll selectively transclude the events above the threshold into this article, and the rest will still be available in their own articles. What do you think? I can make a mockup if I haven't explained that sufficiently well. Inverse Hypercube  (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What about a list of Roman conquest death toll and genocide committed by the rulers over the time of their rule?×xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.165.125 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can find reliable sources that provide figures for it as a cohesive or contiguous series of events then I don't see why not. Just be careful of adding up a whole bunch of numbers you find for individual events and creating your own number from that. GraniteSand (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this proposal result in this article becoming a List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll except for wars? I don't think it would be a good idea to have such a list that arbitrarily excludes wars. They are, after all, the most common method for large numbers of people to kill each other, and many of the links that point to this page are war-related (for example, I just came here from a link prominently posted in the first paragraph of the World War I article). -- User1961914 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one might keep it here without making it too long by making the list collapsible? Ideally, I would have all numbers in one single table that one could filter, collapse and search in like a pivot table. 14:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Star Lord -  星王 (talk)

Greek Famine
The Greek Famine of WWII should be added. Over 300,000 confirmed deaths due to the German occupation and the English blockade of Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.44.16 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware that is included in the overall numbers for the Second World War. If listed individually, the list of such singular events within the wider war would produce a huge and arbitrary list of scattered events tied to one another. We'd end up with a list of "disasters of the Second World War, and a few other things". GraniteSand (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the lists do have separate entries for the Holocaust, Massacres of Poles by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, several concentration and death camps, the Bengal famine of 1943, Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies, Siege of Leningrad, Vietnamese Famine of 1945, and the Nanking Massacre. It might be better to set a lower limit of deaths for inclusion in each list, list the sub-events that meet the inclusion criteria separately, and mention that these are included in the total of the parent event.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I'd say that the Holocaust is a unique event that ran broadly in parallel to the Second World War. In this context I think the entire prisons section is dubious and most of the entries are superfluous for reasons you've noted. I'd also say that it could actually make for a good article in of itself, though. I'm afraid that if we do it the way you're proposing we might end up with never ending, ever-growing listcruft. The potential list of events which could be listed is staggering and would either be so exhaustive and contextless as to be worthless for the lay reader or inherently incomplete. I'm at a bit of a loss, though, to come up with a reliable metric for bringing an event out of its "parent event" for prominent inclusion. The Nanking Massacre, for example, is an important event with deep cultural and political consequence today, but it's still "part of" the Second World War. GraniteSand (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don’t think that there is a perfect metric for multiply overlapping events. The deaths from the Siege of Leningrad, for example, were caused partly by WWII (and in turn by Operation Barbarossa and the Eastern Front of WWII) and partly by Generalplan Ost, which overlapped with the Holocaust.  I believe that all of these have reliable sources with death toll estimates.  How do we choose which of these events to include in the list?


 * The Nanking Massacre is probably more famous than the Greek Famine during WWII, but the number of deaths were similar and I would be hard pressed to come up with a reasonable and workable metric using reliable sources that would favor the inclusion of one over the other. I expect the Greek Famine also has political and cultural consequences.


 * The best solution I see would be to set a bar of a 100,000 deaths (high estimate for the event) with a reliable source and include all events that meet that bar, even if there is overlap between events and some events are included in other events. (Probably Operation Barbarossa and the Eastern Front of WWII could be considered the same event?)  This will unfortunately make for some long lists, but that is just a reflection of the large number of deadly events.  Each list would then have its own, more extensive, daughter article so that readers could find lower-death-toll events and compare them.  Some very notable events (the Jonestown Massacre, for example) would be in the daughter articles rather than this article simply because there are many other events that killed far more people.  (Or we could set different bars for the different lists in this article, but that seems like artificially tweaking the criteria to include the events we want.)  I think that having a more exhaustive list adds context and meaning rather than subtracts, but I usually like to see all the details.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Although if a threshold of 100,000 deaths means that there will be roughly 400-700 entries for WWII alone, maybe the threshold should be higher or I should rethink things entirely.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we'll just have to exercise more editorial discretion to find events with reliable sources treating them as distinct and individually notable events outside the framework of their meta-event, if you will. I still think the prisons section can be either forked or removed all together. GraniteSand (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Second Northern War
The article gives 3,000,000 deaths for the Second Northern War. Is this correct or should it be the Great Northern War? I wrote a message on the of the user who made the. Theowoll (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the event listed is the Deluge, of which the Second Northern War was a part, thus the link to the Second Northern War in the See also column. I'm not familiar with these events; does this make sense?--Wikimedes (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked into the wrong column. I came from the page List of wars by death toll, where only the Second Northern War with the same number is mentioned. The columns "From" and "To" give the years for the Second Northern War, which would be the Deluge in the stricter sense, i. e. Second Northern War. It should be clarified whether the Deluge in the wider sense or the stricter sense had the given number of casualties. Theowoll (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Massive edit warring and sockpuppet or meatpuppet attack
Users watching this page should be aware of this report.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Users editing this page should also be aware of the following:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue engaging in the edit war. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

wrong number
how it comes that the muslim killed the people from where you get this number

Fake number for Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent
Recently wikipedia insert Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent at the top of death toll depending on a very weak source of death number

Reference is ((( Lal, Kishori Saran. Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India. This estimate along with the higher estimate is based on studies of demographic changes between the 11th and 16th centuries. Historians such as Simon Digby have suggested that the estimate lacks accurate data in pre-census times.)))

I ask how wikipedia publish this sensitive information and says in its reference its lacks accurate data !!!

wikipedia must double check every word before publish

wikipedia publishing system seem to be penetrative

Several times wikipedia publish a wrong data and then remove it !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.225.18.2 (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

60-80 millions killed by Muslims without providing resources
Dear Wikipedia,

Please provide the source the writer depended for Muslims killing 60-80 millions in Indian Region. In-fact, if there are no sources - which I believe you will never find - then this statement to be removed from the head of the table since it gives a first impression that Muslims are killers which is totally unfair and does not reflect their history for honest searchers! Most of the people do not check for the comments usually Wikipedia provides when there is a lack of resources.

Please again remove this statement to keep us trust your posts and seek knowledge from your respected website as we usually do.

Best Regards,

Mohammed Samih — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.0.130 (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be taking a demographic analysis of a lengthy series of interrelated events over a half century ago as some sort of vicarious attack on yourself and a hugely diverse contemporary belief system. This is not a reasonable position to take. Lal is a reliable source and his scholoarship on the time period is renowned. Like all scholars Lal's work has its detractors, a fact thoroughly, even tediously, documented here and corresponding articles. If you have other sources which cite lower estimates for the Muslim invasions of the subcontinent then please provide them. If you need help in formatting them I would be happy to help. GraniteSand (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Conquest's in the Indian subcontinent
The item has been recently placed on top of the list with no reputable reference. This shall greatly affect the level of trust of the audience. the main article about the issue doesn't even mention this fake information. either bring a reputable reference and give evidences or delete the item. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amal Mosad (talk • contribs) 21:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

==

==

The item has been recently placed on top of the list with no reputable reference. This shall greatly affect the level of trust of the audience. the main article about the issue doesn't even mention this fake information. either bring a reputable reference and give evidences or delete the item. Thank youAmal Mosad (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent
60-80 million killings by Muslims in the Indian subcontinent is completely wrong and does not relay on any reputable evidence or rational explanation it was just recently placed on top of the death toll list depending only on false speculations. The original article did not contain this item so adding it to the top of the list is really annoying, did it just come to the writer to put this number one data recently without knowing it from the start!!!!!!!!! Publishing such wrong information in this well-known site affects its reliability and trust negatively, so please delete this section, and please know that it is based on mistaken speculations and without any trusted source.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng.eslam87 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A suggestion to add this information was brought up about 6 months ago on the talk page, so it's appearance on the list a few weeks ago really isn't sudden. It appears that there is a reliable source (Lal) estimating 60-80 million deaths, so it should remain on the list.  If there is a reliable source with a lower estimate, this can replace the lower estimate.  Not liking a fact is not a valid reason for removing it.  (By the way, there are already several sections on the talk page suggesting removing this entry, so there's no need for a new section; in the future it would be better to add your reasons to one of the existing sections.)--Wikimedes (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit : List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll
The first topic on this list based on numbers without evidence from history books.. information comes from guessing is not true information. I blame Wikipedia if they not remove these hatred numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.129.52.24 (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Please use the open discussions on this page to continue this line of debate. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Conquests of continents
Are we going to include the European conquest of the Americas? Tens of millions of people died in that. DS (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, how many people were killed when the Romans conquered Europe? DS (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * European conquest of the Americas is listed in the Genocide section as "European colonization of the Americas". If Historians have estimated the number of deaths arising from the Roman conquests, this could be added to the article.  If historians haven't gotten around to it, or Wikipedia editors haven't found the estimates, is this a reason to remove other estimates?--Wikimedes (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you an administrator falling out of the sky to try and antagonistically make a rhetorical jab or are you an administrator who genuinely doesn't understand synthesis and sourcing? Maybe I'm not at all understanding your posts but I'm pretty put off by this behavior, especially in light of the fact you didn't even seem to read the article. GraniteSand (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the Evidence?
If one Scholar claims some thing that massive, we can't just hang it on the wall as a fact like this. If indeed 80 Million were killed then it should be called genocide I agree. However, is there any evidence that such killing was taking place over that period of time in that region? Is there any Temples in India that have txt books or paintings or sculptures or Monuments or engraves in a CAVE depicting such difficult time in which 80 Million were under killing during 500 years. at that time it's impossible to kill so many because they didn't have automatic weapons or nukes. I'm sure this 80 million could have invaded the Muslim world 2 time over with wood sticks back then. This 80 million number is very unbelievable, if the historian noticed such huge population demographically then it could probably be due many other reasons such as an epidemic/plague or even huge part of the population converted to Islam and moved out due to persecution or simply it was a war time/zone and people fled to safer areas or could be environmental due to weather shift or dried up rivers or could be to commerce trade shift from one region to another, would that be classified under killing as well? Don't get me wrong, Since Islam started it's conquests 1430 years ago, these concept of these conquests was about spreading the land and would have hit a mark as an accomplishment to the Islamic Khalifa (Ruler) book at that time and we would have been transcended in history books with such legendary battle names which there is non if you look for it. But certainly there is no accomplishment in killing 80 million people, from an Islamic conquests point of view the two main objectives would be spread the word of Islam if people under conquered land didn't convert then they have to pay the jizia which is a Tax on non Muslims and if they don't have money then no Tax end of story. The Magnitude of killing 80 million people would have translated in Muslims reaching CANADA from the other end of the globe during this conquest. 80 Million killed is hard to believe due to lack of evidence and history, the demographic change could be epidemic or people escaping troubled zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxb19 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Seriously, this edit warring is going to go on longer than the actual even that you are all fighting about including/excluding. The page was protected for three days, and it all started back up again immediately after. Start a discussion, come to consensus, and go from there. Until then, the page is fully protected, again, for a week this time.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an inaccurately cursory review of recent edits. An entry in this article has caused a series of meatpuppet attacks from IPs and single issue editors, some in violation of 3RR. Almost without exception the edit warring has been a result of these attacks being undone by no less than a half dozen experienced editors, including an administrator, most with unrequited appeals to constructive dialogue on the talk page. I'd also point to the good work being done on the talk page by said experienced editors. We're rapidly moving toward a consensus on changes and will need access. I'd ask for a restoration of access. GraniteSand (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does seem to be an edit war going on ironically on the subject of war. Given the sensitivity of the topic I would imagine that the edit war may resume after a week. My recommendation would be that people bring relevant sources from the Academic literature to decide on the reliability of the sources instead of quoting stuff which has been published by independent press. Vonaurum (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Conquest is of UNRELIABLE source!
Hi, i wonder how did the muslim conquest of the Indian Subcontinent out of nowhere became at the top of the list! The source of this information is only 1 and it is based on demographic changes?!!!! so it is not based on facts! It assumes!!! Unlike the other sources for the rest of the list, which are reliable and based on numbers and facts. This is totally unacceptable source, and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.194.139 (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

removal of 80 million number
The list is for wars and anthropogenetic disasters. The Muslim conquest of India was neither a war nor a disaster - it was a multi-century period of history that included times of war and times of peace. Thus it fails the inclusion criteria for the list. This list isnt, and shouldnt, be 'long periods of history during which many different groups did many nasty things and let's count all the bodies' In addition, per WP:RS extraordinary claims require extraordinary support from sources. We only have one source which cites this number, we need more sources which define the period of conquests in the same way and arrive at a similar death toll, and in any case we should split it by the invading group, of which there were several waves. But first we need some corroboration on this extraordinary number.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, here we go trying to whitewash the deaths of tens of millions of people. There are estimates and those stand. Adjust the estimates, don't remove the item.

Besides, there are first hand accounts by Muslim scholars on the issue. No amounts of 21st century civility will negate the deaths of those that died by the sword of Islam. Here are a few names of MUSLIM scholars that you can reference: Among the most authoritative books devoted to recounting the conquests are: Ibn Ishaq's (d. 767) Sira ("Life of Muhammad"), the oldest biography of Muhammad; Waqidi's (d. circa. 820) Maghazi ("Military Campaigns [of the Prophet]"); Baladhuri's (d. 892) Futuh al-Buldan ("Conquests of the Nations"); and Tabari's (d.923) multi-volume Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk, ("History of Prophets and Kings"), which is 40 volumes in the English translation. Source: Themoother (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We are discussing the conflicts in the Indian subcontinent in the period between 1000-1500 AD. Read this discussion that has taken place regarding removal or inclusion, and is continuing. Justified removal of content within the WP guidlines and policies is not "whitewashing" or "censoring" but good editing. Can you please be clear, what do you mean by "21st century civility" and "sword of Islam"? The source you cited is mostly a personal opinion and is biased for citing facts. If you wish to include an entry for the early Islamic period, provide reliable sources, make sure that it is within WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE, and notable enough to be placed on this list. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk  ✉ mail  12:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The litmus laid out here by Obiwankenobi fails to incorporate several other referenced entries in this article, entries previously mentioned and discussed, at length. This leads me to believe that Obi has not yet read the rest of the active discussion, has not yet read the entire article and/or has a yet undisclosed issues with the material he's discriminately removed. As the entry he's objected to shares attributes with still existing entries I can only conclude a lack of comprehensive analysis of the topic at hand is the explanation I can think of. I'll revert the change until the extraordinary circumstance of the removed material is revealed. GraniteSand (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read the article and the discussions here. The fact remains this is an extraordinary claim and it cannot be properly described as a disaster nor a war. We may as well count the bodies from European colonization of Africa from 1600-1965. Such a strong claim needs other sources that back up this number.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have not seen my recent arguments, you should read them. If you have read, then explain here rather than leaving something in the edit summary! If the removal lacks consensus, so does inclusion. As for the rest of the comment, I don't see why the removal lacks awareness or logic. Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ mail  13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have seen them and I'll take it back up in the more fleshed out section where you made them. I'm definitely not ignoring your diligent work, I've just been busy. Also, bearing in mind that we don't form consensus from straw polls, we have had over a half dozen editors from many different places restore or voice support for the material. That they aren't active here at this moment doesn't nullify that consensus., you keeping saying you've read the article and the discussion but you keep making comments and edits which indicate you haven't. I'll just take you at your word, even if the alternatives are less charitable. Your assertion that the entry is extraordinary doesn't hold much water. That the events were real and extremely bloody isn't in dispute. The number is no more radical for the context than 100 million in the Americas or the Taiping Rebellion, nor even 80 million in WWII. It is, though, a scholarly estimate from a reliable source. If you think there is other, more accurate data to be found, then find them. GraniteSand (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * the number of dead in WWII has been studied by dozens of scholars, and WWII is a well established WAR (which is what this list is for). OTOH, a series of invasions by different peoples over a 500 year period cannot be called a war or a disaster by any stretch of the imagination. I don't at all doubt that there were a lot of deaths, but you need to get better sourcing and it should be broken up by waves of invasions. A single claim is not sufficient for such a bold claim, especially one that purports to count deaths from 1000 years ago, and isn't based on direct analysis of contemporary sources in terms of # of deaths (rather, it is a meta-analysis). You need more than one source for that per WP:RS. I have looked, briefly, but found no other source which gives, or even attempts to give, a figure for this particular period of time. It's undue weight given to that one source.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While, consensus is not polling, it is something that can be reached by two editors. Consensus changes and prior consensus does not nullify valid arguments and subsequent edits. May be you can try to ping the other editors, but I am afraid it will be borderline canvassing. There is a choice for a RfC, but we can come to a conclusion here. Lets just not linger over this issue and waste our time and energy on it. To include the entry, the above arguments must be countered. As for now, I see no obligation in continuing to maintain the entry. It has been almost two months since we started discussion; take your time but not too much! -- Fauzan  ✆ talk  ✉ mail  13:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to cast around for back-up; that's a rigged game. I've been just crushed by work and life of late and I simply don't have to time to invest in this at the moment. I completely disagree with your position on this issue and I think that the overall drive to remove the entry is in question. Nonetheless, you've been tremendously patient with my plodding schedule, more so than is due, in fact. Additionally, your dissents have been honest and engaging. It's rare that I enter into a dispute with someone on Wikipedia and come out the other side with a greater regard for them than when I began. Happily, this is one of those fleeting occasions. In light of the fact that my immediate availability is limited and you've been exceptionally gracious I'd suggest an RFC on the issue. If and when I can contribute I will. Outside of that I can make no promises, I'm simply too busy. GraniteSand (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)