Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 13

Several entries all together
We have several entries that really aren't individual wars and/or aren't well-defined periods: While I understand that these long periods of time can be thought of as conflicts on a certain level (we do think of the Crusades all together, for example), they really oughtn't be included here with individual wars or "group" wars such as the Thirty Years' War. Some of them are simply periods of history, while others are basically extended tribal warfare (Ming Dynasty transition and Shaka, respectively), while the Japanese conquests are basically four wars thrown together (comprising just 24 of the 51 years), and different definitions of the period of the Crusades might extend as late as the 1440s. These are not at all comparable to incidents like the Second World War or the Yellow Turban Rebellion, which (although some historians include the Mukden Incident for WWII) have generally agreed-upon dates and are generally conceived as being individual wars. I have no objection to these entries' appearance on the page, but they really ought to be moved to a separate table on this page. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent (525 years)
 * Mongol conquests (162 years)
 * Late Yuan warfare and transition to Ming Dynasty (28 years)
 * Ching Dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynasty (46 years)
 * Conquests of Tamurlane (36 years)
 * Conquests by the Empire of Japan (51 years)
 * Shaka's conquests (12 years)
 * Crusades (196 years)
 * What's are you proposing the reliably sourced parameters of this table should be? Please also be aware that sginificantly broad meta-evetns also include items such as the European colonization of the Americas, an event spanning more than 400 years in this context. Additionally, as an admin who has dropped out of the sky here, I'm assuming you've come this way via the 3RR noticeboard. Assuming this is true can you tell interested editors where the admins are on that subject? My presumption is that there's been an off-board discussion. GraniteSand (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's part of the problem, since defining those significantly broad meta-events is extremely tricky. We might as well have an entry for "Anglo-French wars", which would be complicated by the idea of a French subject becoming the Anglo ruler (do we include the Conquest, since France per se wasn't involved?), centuries of warfare between opposing claimants to the French throne, and other ambiguous situations.  Your comment makes me begin to wonder if these meta-events ought rather to be removed entirely.  Meanwhile, I came here from WP:HD, where multiple requests have been made for assistance in removing the Muslim conquest of India; I don't agree with the assessment that it is nothing but LIES, but since death tolls are so extremely difficult to get right for such massive events (especially the ones lasting several generations), I do agree that we ought not to consider them of equal worth with assessments of individual wars lasting a comparatively few years (e.g. World War II).  Anyway, part of the issue is definitely the issue of inclusion: if we include broad patterns such as the ones I gave above, where are we going to stop?  We might equally have "Christian-Muslim conflicts" (presumably 633-date, since the al-Qa'ida types speak specifically against Christians in some of their pronouncements), or "Japanese-mainland conflicts" (beginning at least with the Mongol invasions of Japan, and including Yi Sun-sin and the wars of the 20th century; hey, we've gotten bits of two conflicts mentioned above!), or really any other grouping.  Who knows; we might as well have "Humans versus humans", basically all conflicts since wars started.  I know that we shouldn't add such things, but I see no real reason to include the current list if we shouldn't add the things I've mentioned.  Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that if historians or other reliable sources are treating Anglo-French wars, to use your example, as overarching historical phenomena while conducting scholarship to establish composite statistics in that vein of thought, and the meta-events cannot be entirely summarized in their distinct requisite parts, then we can include them here. I would say that meta-events which fail that criteria cannot be included here, either because to do so would establish Original Research or due to a simple lack of reliable sources. I would also reestablish that the statistics here are estimates, a fact ingrained in the very nature of their presentation here. We have to give some credit to the reader that they'll be able to understand the basic elements of an entry spanning five centuries with a 15% margin of error, more so in light of the attached footnoting. To do otherwise is engaging in censorship in the name of cognitive hand-holding. After all of that I do have to raise a concern over your use of the concept of "worth" in this context. This article is not List of wars by death toll; in fact, we have a much broader scope here. I would think that there is a tacit understanding on the part of the reader that when they arrive here, as opposed to the other extensive array of lists, that they're looking for a more holistic approach to statistics. This credits the inclusion of meta-events, not detracts from them. GraniteSand (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Mongol conquests have distinct parts (Genghis Khan versus other Mongols, Mongols versus Chinese, versus Persians, versus Russians, etc.), as do the Crusades (they're numbered and named), and the Japanese conquests (see entries #1, #2, and #8-13 at Sino-Japanese War). I would guess that this is also true of the Muslims in India, since it has four see-alsos (one of which, Tamurlane, gets his own appearance elsewhere in this chart).  Not being familiar with the Zulus or the beginning or the end of the Ming Dynasty, I can't say whether this is the case for those years-long processes.  On the issue of "worth", we're already saying that the genocides, the deadly prisons, etc. aren't "worthy" of being put in the same table as the wars.  I'm basically saying that we're comparing apples and oranges if we put the 500-year-long Muslim conquest of India in the same table as the Second World War.  One would expect a centuries-long gradual conflict to kill lots of people, purely because it goes on and on and on.  Yes, we have historians who study these incidents, but do we have historians who are providing lists of this sort and saying that the centuries-long metaconflicts ought to be put together with individual wars?  If this kind of list needs specific citations for inclusion (proof that people have examined a group of wars as overarching historical phenomena while conducting scholarship to establish composite statistics in that vein of thought), it needs to be more specific than that, since such a citation doesn't establish the idea that these conflicts warrant inclusion with individual wars.  I think both situations are a bit of overkill, going beyond the common-sense approach of separating (and perhaps removing) longlonglong conflicts from the section with individual wars.  Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, any meta-event in which we can breakdown in its entirety (and such companions are recognized by reliable sources) should be represented in those distinct circumstances. I would say that the Crusades are a prime candidate for the treatment you've suggested, assuming the scholarship exists in regards to deaths. If we can establish the entirety of the other composites you've mentioned then I would say we should take the same actions. In instances such as the European colonization of the Americas, the Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, where such events are treated as overarching historical events by reliable sources, we do not have the entirety of the events compartmentalized by reliable sources. As scholarship exits framing deaths only in such meta-events our only two options are to censor such scholarship on the assumption that readers cannot parse such information or to include them as they've existed here on the assumption that they can. Unless there is a third way that I'm not seeing? GraniteSand (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The third way is to include the broad collection as individual events, not be censored. As per Nyttend, The WW2 and Muslim conquests are way different; comparing apples with oranges. Yes (reliable) scholarship does exist. It asseses the Amercian civil war as a single entity, or a longer American and USSR-Russian conflict, or a longer colonization of the Americas, or a longer still colonization of Asian-African states by the western countries, or simply human conflict as a single entity. Not just the span of time but a wide span of geographic locations may be studied as a single entity. And a single entity not a single conflict. Now here, we are listing conflicts, not events as studied by some, but as events accepted as a conflict. And if we do not have sources speaking about the single events after being broken down, they are not notable. WW2 is notable, but a minor skirmish is not. As Nyttend said, do we have historians who are providing lists of this sort and saying that the centuries-long metaconflicts ought to be put together with individual wars? Some events are studied as a single entity, but still they are studied individually by more historians. As I pointed out in this section, inclusion of some events can be argued on the fact that events like colonization by Europe and crusades have atleast some similarity in geographic regions and purpose of using the colonized land as a source of agriculture products, economy, religious expansion etc. But some events as the Muslim conquests, do not have such a reason for their inclusion in the list, apart from the obvious reasons like domination and expansion. And existence of scholarship, as already said before may not merit an inclusion. So, some entities may not be included. For some like crusades, we may need to define a single event and look up sources. If most of the sources consider a group as one, include as a group, If most consider individually, break it down. Still unsure? use common sense. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  12:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you remind me why removing information is inherently censorship, anyway? If we have events that are longlonglongterm periods of conflicts and not wars, it's not censorship to remove them — it's good editing.  It's distinctly disingenuous to place European colonisation of the Americas or Islamic conquest of India on a plane with specific incidents, since they're entirely different kinds of historical events.  Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess, then we should remove the first entry, as it is obviously not a single conflict., what do you think about it? -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  10:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nyttend that we should move entries that are collections of wars to a separate table. Perhaps we could call the table “Collections of wars” or “Collections of armed conflicts”?  To Nyttend’s list above of collections of wars, I would add the Napoleonic Wars and the French Wars of Religion. (I’m not sure about the Thirty Years' War, the Hundred Years' War, and the Gallic Wars, but from their Wikipedia articles, they appear to be considered to be single wars.)  The War in Afghanistan should be removed: although the entry is supposed to include the Nato invasion, casualty estimates only go up to the year 2000, and we have a separate entry for the Soviet invasion.  Also the Deluge appears to be a part of the Second Northern War and possibly the Russo-Polish War, so perhaps it should be removed or moved to “Other deadly events”.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, we need to first define what a meta event is and is not. Currently, the term is too vague. We have to define how far can we go about saying which meta event has sufficient similarity/chronology in its constituent events, while some events will be too broad/meaningless to be considered as a single meta event. In the meantime, can we have the first entry, "Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent" removed as per the above discussions? -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  08:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only on for a few minutes but I'll be back later, sorry for the drive-by comment in advance. First of, for Fauzan and Nyttend, you're both right about "censorship", that was a lazy word choice and on my part and prescribes an intent that I have no indication of either of you harboring. I had some things rattling around in my head from the meat puppet attack this article recently suffered and it bled over into inaccurate verbiage in this discussion. Sorry about that. On a more immediate note, I don't know yet if I support a unique table. I think we need some sort of commonality in classification by reliable sources to group these events. To do otherwise trends toward Original Research, especially in a list article, where most potential editorialization occurs not in the data but in the presentation of the data. GraniteSand (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The below comment(s) by were moved here by .
 * The below comment(s) by were moved here by .

Suggest removal of this entry due to the following reasons: 1) Grouping criteria is severely flawed, in terms grouping 500 years of demographic change into one event based on religion or belief systems, can we group all wars by communists against christians over the last 200 years,  Can we group the Christian wars death tolls against non christians over 2000 years and call it the Christian conquest of the world? Of Asia? Of Europe? Of the Indian subcontinent? What prevents such grouping is that it defeats the implied purpose of the list itself, that is, stating violent extreme acts of War that diminish huge numbers of people in a short period of time, because those acts imply horrific acts of killing and terror caused by human action of a specific group of people or political entity.

To make this point clear, take the following example, we don't group death tolls by christians against Asian ethnicities over the last 400 years because that includes the Korean war, world wars, wars from colonial Europe...etc and those incidents are made by different entities that vary considerably in terms of caused deaths and amount of inflicted violence, we also don't group demographic change in Asia for the last 400 years with death tolls list because its misleading, why should we consider migration from China or Japan to the US or Europe as a number matching deaths by war!?! The implication that alleged demographic changes in 500 years of "Muslim conquest" lacks justified cause of grouping, listing in a death tolls list, questionable source, and purpose.

2) Stating this number on top of the death toll list should not be based on theoretical research/claims without backed up documented historic accounts stating numbers on specific events, 60-80 Million deaths based on the work of one historian with heavily disputed numbers should not be on top of a list on wikipedia.

3)  The numbers are highly speculative without stating a documented list of specific battles/wars mentioning casualties at each incident, this lacks scientific documentation and implies that this is caused by war while it might have been caused by conversion to other faiths, migration to matching beliefs... Etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Kilany (talk • contribs) 03:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to first identify the purpose and criteria of listing such numbers, because Grouping 500 years under such a title "Muslim Conquest of the Indian Subcontinent" is like grouping the last 400 years of demographic changes in the far east under a broad title called the "Christian Conquest of the Far East", under this we can add all immigration numbers to the US, any conversions of faith and death caused by World wars, the Korean War and battles fought in from the time of colonial Europe.

When I read "List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by deathtolls". I assume we are looking at the verified bloodiest events in humanity committed by a distinct set of people who represent a form of shared political or ideological background, now, placing in 500 years of conflict between Muslims and Hindus, groups completely different sets of political entities, ethnicities, dynasties, backgrounds, even different sects of Muslims and paints them with a single color that is being violent and blood thirsty in the Indian Subcontinent for 500 hundred years! Even if we assume that the 60-80 Million demographic change is correct over 500 years, why is not documented specifically in historical events such as specific battles or war? Such huge figures wouldn't have passed lightly, without mention from historians at that time so that it requests the theoretical calculations and assumptions more that 500 years late, even if we'er assuming this is correct without showing a proper timeline of events for that change might reflect completely wrong results, what if the demographic change was caused by a single dynasty in a short period of time. What if demographic change was caused by migration into areas populated by others? What if there was a huge wave of conversion to Islam in that time/region!?

Such a controversial listing would entice similar groupings based on a single writer's work that is biased in terms of grouping events based primarily on religion regardless of the political reference, ethnicity, loyalty, or even ruling dynasty and will leave the door open for entries that differ in terms of value of being added to the list.

In short the number itself is highly speculative, heavily disputes, based on a single writers's work and the grouping criteria of 500 years and different political identities is misleading and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Kilany (talk • contribs) 04:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well and, you can see a discussion is ongoing. Please see how wikipedia works by building consensus, not voting. Also both of your only edits; like editors here; have been to this talkpage, which may raise suspicions about sock puppetry. Editors found indulged in sock puppetry are liable to be blocked and account creation from their IP can be blocked to prevent further abuse. Thank you. --  Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  11:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess, that you may want to elaborate on how WP:OR was the justification for the removal. I am not going to edit war on this. I think we are moving towards a consensus for including a new table for collections of wars. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  03:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, by your own admission, there was no consensus for removal. Editors who attempt to classify material must base their organization on sources, which you did not do when writing: "What is the rationale behind claiming that these 500 years was a single event, and conquerors comprising a wide geographic region from Turkey, Persia, Mongolia, Afghanistan, et cetera need to be bundled up into one wide ranging entry under "Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent". The existence of Crusades and European colonialism is on different grounds."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I never admitted that there is no consensus, at least I didn't mean to. The discussion is moving towards removing collections from the existing table and reorganizing into a new table, as already said above, "comparing apples and oranges". It is not me who has to provide sources, it is the editor who wants to include; the editor needs to show, as pointed out by Nyttend, do we have historians who are providing lists of this sort and saying that the centuries-long metaconflicts ought to be put together with individual wars? If you are referring to the validity of my 6 day old comment in one of the above sections, please refer to the article under the entry. And if you think we cannot base the organization on sources, such events need to be excluded outright. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  03:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My schedule is opening up for the next few days so I can participate here again. It would seem to me you are striking at the issue of categorization, or perhaps scope, and maybe this is really the crux of the issue here in regards to meta-events. Am I understanding correctly that you feel that all entries here must be found to be housed within a single reliable source? GraniteSand (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Here’s an idea for how to break the table of armed conflicts down into events and collections of events. I’m using War, Rebellion, and perhaps Conqueror as the base units. Whether parts of wars should also be included in the article (leading to a list with thousands of entries) is probably a separate discussion.


 * What is a war?
 * 1) Common sense is required: The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty are not wars for purposes of inclusion in the table.
 * 2) Unsuccessful rebellions tend to be called rebellions rather than civil wars, but they are armed conflicts that should be included in the article. We can either retitle the table “Wars and armed rebellions” or have separate tables for wars and rebellions.
 * 3) Conquests by a single leader should probably be classed as single events rather than meta-events. Like rebellions, there can either be a separate table titled “Conquerors”, or we can have an inclusive table “Wars, armed rebellions, and conquerors.”
 * 4) Follow the reliable sources. If reliable sources treat it as a single war, rebellion, or conqueror put it in the appropriate single event table.


 * What is a “Collection of armed conflicts”?
 * 5) Armed conflicts that are not classed by reliable sources as single wars, single rebellions, or attributed to a single conqueror, and are not sub-events of a war, rebellion, or a conqueror’s actions, will usually be a collection of armed conflicts.
 * 6) Follow the reliable sources. If reliable sources make death toll estimates for a collection of armed conflicts, it can be included in the table.  If no reliable sources make a death toll estimate for a collection of events, the collection of events should not be included in the article.  (What do we do if only a single reliable source makes a death toll estimate?)
 * 7) It might be a good idea to have a “duration” column as well as start and end dates; this would allow the table to be sorted by duration. Longer events can be expected to have larger death tolls.

Splitting up the current table according to the above criteria I get:

Wars, armed rebellions, and conquerors:
 * Clearly wars: WWII, WWI, Russian Civil War, Second Congo War, Nigerian Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Second Sudanese Civil War, Soviet War in Afghanistan, Mexican Revolution, Iran-Iraq War, American Civil War, Spanish Civil War, and Paraguayan War.
 * Clearly rebellions: Taiping Rebellion, An Lushan Rebellion, Dungan revolt, Yellow Turban Rebellion.
 * Conquerors: Conquests of Timur-e-Lang, Napoleonic Wars, Shaka's conquests. (Plenty of other conquerors not yet in the article could probably be included.)
 * Probably wars: I use the Wikipedia articles as proxies for reliable sources.  If someone spends the time to look at the reliable sources, results from such a search would govern.
 * Thirty Years’ War: Called “a series of wars” in the first sentence of the article, but seems to be treated as a single war thereafter.
 * Hundred Years' War: According to the article, there is consensus among scholars to treat this collection of three separate wars as a single war.
 * Gallic Wars: Several campaigns that appear to be considered to be a single war, despite the name.
 * Probably a rebellion: Du Wenxiu Rebellion: According to the article on the Dungan Revolt, this is sometimes considered part of the Dungan Revolt, but Wikipedia seems to classify them separately, and until someone samples the sources to see if there is consensus one way or the other, it should probably be a separate entry.

Collections of armed conflicts:
 * Clearly Collections of armed conflicts: Muslim conquest of India, Mongol conquests, Conquests by the Empire of Japan, French Wars of Religion, Crusades.
 * Probably collections of armed conflicts: Late Yuan warfare and transition to Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynasty: These appear to be treated as a collection of armed conflicts rather than as single civil wars or conquests.

Other: --Wikimedes (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Deluge: Not a war or a collection of wars. Part of the Second Northern War and perhaps the Russo-Polish War as well.
 * War in Afganistan (1979-): Would be a collection of the Soviet War in Afganistan, Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001), and War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and perhaps a few other conflicts, but the death toll estimates don’t include the War in Afghanistan (2001–present).
 * 👍. Also, IMHO, collections of (armed?) conflicts should not be included in the wars section. @, it refers to entries like Crusades, as they may not be considered equally with the rest of the normal wars by historians. Feel free to edit the below table. -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  19:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 👍 Well presented and impressively reasoned. I would say the term military campaign may be beneficial. This is also the first opportunity I've had to use the hitherto unknown "thumbs up" feature. Huzzah. GraniteSand (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Table

 * Includes events as they are in Wars and armed conflicts section now

Classification system

 * Lets discuss here -- Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email


 * I would argue for Wars, military campaigns and armed conflicts and Genocides and ethnic cleansing, the removal of the Prisons section as largely redundant and/or a distinct topic, the renaming of Floods and landslides into Ecological disasters and the folding of Human sacrifice and ritual suicide and Other deadly events into Miscellaneous anthropogenic disasters or another equivalent but less coat rackish name. From there I'd say we could resort existing entries. GraniteSand (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Some events can be categorized in multiple ways. For example A was attacked by V, W, X, Y and Z over a long period.
 * Z and V were motivated by (reason, country, etc) M1, W X Y by M2.
 * V and W attacked in a short time T1, X Y Z in T2.
 * W and X belonged to place P1, V Y Z to P2.
 * X and Y were of ethnicity E1, V W Z of E2.
 * Y and Z were of religion R1, V W X of R2.
 * We need an order of preference and which criterion to group according to and which not. Ethnicity and religion should not be used as a criterion. For the rest, I propose M(motivation)>T(time)>P(region). Scholarship will exist and categorize differently, but it is not a criterion for inclusion. The event should be considered single by diverse sources and should be one of M, T, or P. –– Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex"> ✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-4.6ex"> ✉ mail  14:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest couple of things:
 * 1. The sorting order by the maximum estimated deaths
 * 2. Add a column for reliability of the figures, for example, if the number is contested, why. Similar to the notes in List of largest volcanic eruptions, where you specify in the notes if the number is contested and why.

Qwaider (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It might be worthwhile to break our tasks into manageable chunks. Perhaps we could reach an agreement on conflicts vs. metaconflicts (which is a major point in the discussion on the Muslim conquests of India), then decide whether to include Muslim conquests of India, then decide how to reorganize the rest of the article?  If we decide that some entries currently in the Wars and armed conflicts table don’t belong in any of its daughter tables, we can move them to another table (Other deadly events if nothing else) until we get the rest of the article sorted.


 * @Qwaider:
 * 1. Any particular reason for wanting to default sort by maximum estimated deaths? (The tables are already sortable – just click the triangles in the column headings.)
 * 2. I agree that reliability of estimates is worthy of inclusion in the tables. In all the other tables, this takes the form of mentioning, in the Notes section, challenges made by reliable sources to the accuracy of the estimates or reliability of the methods.  I would suggest changing “See also” to “Notes” in the Wars and armed conflicts section, so that information on reliability can be included.
 * -Wikimedes (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm of the mind that the most conservative estimates should be used in the default sort. A "see also" or notes section is useful for simple explanatory statements and links regarding the topic at hand but extrapolation on sourcing is what footnotes are for. I wouldn't object to such an addition to the top table but it should be formatted in a way to avoid becoming a dumping ground for adjudication of grievances. GraniteSand (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Classification of particular entries Many of the events will necessarily fall into grey areas between single and meta conflicts, and it looks like we have some disagreement on a few of the entries.
 * I would argue that WWI is generally considered to be a single war, with hostilities beginning in July 1914 shortly after the assassination of Arch-Duke Ferdinand, and ending with the armistice on 11 Nov 1918. The Russian Civil War, and various conflicts that continued in Eastern Europe and Turkey into the early 1920s, are generally considered to be separate, but related conflicts.
 * WWII is more ambiguous, primarily because of its overlap with the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, but I still think it is usually treated as a single war with two major theatres. The Second Italo-Abyssinian War and the Spanish Civil War are considered preludes to WWII, but not part of WWII itself.  While the Soviet-German part of WWII is called the “Great Patriotic War” in Russia, I believe in English language sources it is called the Eastern front of the European theatre of WWII, Operation Barbarossa, and similar.
 * The Vietnam War in the table refers specifically to the 2nd Indochina War (as does the Wikipedia article titled “Vietnam War”), which I think is considered to be a single war. It did spill over into Cambodia and Laos, but that doesn’t make the civil wars there part of the Vietnam War.  Although significant American involvement did not span the entire war, I don’t think the 1956-1964, 1964-1973, and 1973-1975 periods are considered to be separate wars.
 * The Napoleonic Wars and the Hundred Years' War are much more ambiguous, but I've already presented my rationale on these above.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as it stands, the WWI high estimate also includes a lot of pathological deaths. To exclude those would bring us to a more concise scope. On the Second world War, this is an issue I wanted to address but got sidetracked by the Indian brouhaha. If I'm not mistaken, we employ statistics here which include events such as the 2nd Sino-Japanese War yet the chronological parameters seem to restrict the scope to the September invasion of Poland through V-Day. We need top decide if that more restricted scope is in fact the one we want and, if so, we probably need to parse the accompanying statistics. If we did that then I could agree that WWII is not a meta-event. I don't have an issue restricting the scope of the Vietnam entry to losses within the DRVN/RVN/US-coalition but we'd have to find more precise statistics. As it stands now the high estimate is a passing reference in the NYT recounting an ill-defined and likely unreliable DRVN statistic that is acknowledged as incomplete. You seem to be much more involved in that topic than I have been for some time; do you know where we could find more precisely targeted data? GraniteSand (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to take so long to reply; the Pacific Northwest rains have given way to the summer sunshine and I'm spending more time outside and less time on my computer. My contributions to Wikipedia will likely be somewhat sparse and superficial for the foreseeable future.  Good points on all three wars.  Coincidentally, I was just finishing reading "The Great Influenza" by John M. Berry when you posted.  It makes a pretty good case that the influenza epidemic was caused by WWI.  On the other hand, many of the deaths occurred after the 11 Nov, 1918 armistice, which muddies the water somewhat.  Also, I expect that many casualty estimates do not include the flu epidemic.  Absent a thorough review of the literature to find out exactly what the general consensus is, I would assume that most sources do not include the flu deaths, and would therefore advocate having both the high and low estimates exclude the flu deaths with a note that one source (the currently-cited CDC report) attributes an additional 50,000,000 deaths to the resulting flu epidemic.
 * I agree that someone should decide whether to include the complete 2nd Sino-Japanese War (beginning in 1937), the portion from the 1939 German invasion of Poland onward, or from the December 1941 Pearl Harbor attack onward (which is when the Wikipedia article on the 2nd Sino Japanese war says that it merged with WWII), and then restrict the casualty estimates accordingly.
 * I looked at the NYT article for the upper casualty estimate for the Vietnam War and agree that a better source is needed.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Absent a consensus for separating meta-events, or at least how to separate them, I went ahead and added a duration column to the table so that a reader can easily see that events of widely disparate duration is included, and can sort the table to separate the longer from the shorter events. This may be enough.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll not stand in the way of enjoying the best spot int the world for the next three months. I very much miss the summers in Ballard. The aforementioned issues seem to be fairly unobjectionable, I'll do what I can when I can. I trust you to do the same when the sun isn't breaking the Grey Wall of Depression. The new column is a bit of hand holding but the objections being raised to recent referenced changes seem to call for such. I've been busy but hopefully we can all find a decent course now that I have a day or two free. GraniteSand (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we include collections?

 * Lets discuss here -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex"> ✆ talk  <sub style="margin-left:-5.35ex"> ✉ email

If the question is, should we include collections of events treated by reliable sources as composite, or interrelated, phenomena, then I'd say yes; this is a list article which includes "anthropocentric disasters". Obvious examples include the Trans-Atlantic and Arab slave trade, the Mongol Conquests, the cultural-demographic decline of American indigenous groups, the Crusades, and the Muslim Conquests, especially in Byzantium, Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Less obvious entries also resident as meta-events include, but are not limited to, World War I and World War II, the collapse of the Yuan dynasty, the Manchu conquest of China, Conquests by the Empire of Japan, the Napoleonic Wars, the Hundred Year's War, the War in Afghanistan, the Vietnam War, the French Wars of Religion, and on and on. As suggested previously, incidents where editors have the numbers on a meta-events' complete composite parts and it makes sense to do so we should breakdown those events. After all, this is a list article where deconstructing data is much simpler than in a full fledged article. A prescription against meta-events would create an article of confounding logic for the reader. GraniteSand (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out, presence of one or two sources is not a criterion for inclusion. The event needs to be treated as one by most sources. So, as I had also pointed out in an above section, the Muslim conquest should not be included as a meta conflict. As for the Crusades, it is widely treated as a single meta conflict. WW1&2 are also treated as one. I think we better first agree to a definition of metaconflict, and how it is different from a simple conflict. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex"> ✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-4.6ex"> ✉ mail  00:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the presence of one or two statistical sources a criterion for inclusion? Many entries utilize one or two sources for statistics. Or are you under the impression that only one source treats the topic at all? I read and responded to your previous justification for not considering the invasions as a single historical topic but not only do I strongly disagree with your reasoning (still) but so do reliable sources, by virtue of their very existence. I'll take this opportunity to reiterate that I'm not yet on board with a "meta-event" table. To group events without reliable sources establishing such commonality is original research as far as I can tell. GraniteSand (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. We have sources that are considered reliable. There exist statistics available for all sorts of events. There are scholars who study all kinds of events from different perspectives. But why should we include an event? Is the event known as such? Is it considered on par with other simpler wars? Do majority of scholars and historians consider it as such? Is it a fringe theory or known widely? If you are referring to the Muslim conquests entry, lets continue the discussion above. "To group events without reliable sources establishing such commonality is original research as far as I can tell." That exactly sums up the concerns, and the necessity of this discussion regarding bundling up some events, grouping all events in a single table, etc. Sorry for being late on this, though! -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex"> ✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-4.6ex"> ✉ mail  14:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenobi has decided to join in the massive edit war to delete well-sourced material, without commenting on the talk page. Although it seems he has no new arguments to add to the already extensive discussion of why this particular entry is so much more contentious than the other meta-conflicts listed, I expect him to at least provide a note of explanation. I find his disruptive drive-by deletion egregious in light of the constructive dialogue that was taking place among three established editors here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I came across the list and deleted material that seems to obviously not fit with the rest, and the bottom discussions on the talk page were all calling for its removal. I just think it's excessive, to sum up 500 years of history as an event with a particular death toll. It's simply not reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The bottom portions of this talk page have been flooded with meatpuppet single-purpose-accounts whose first and only edits were calling for the removal of material offensive to Islam, and as such should be given very little weight when determining consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should establish a rough time of around 50 years, beyond which we separate events into their composite portions. I don't think we should add the death toll from transatlantic slavery since again this was across 300+ years. The crusades were several different crusades and so those could potentially be sorted separately.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More importantly, as far as I can tell the numbers of the Muslim conquests from from one historian, who cannot be seen as a neutral on this topic. See his riposte here, where he states "This has been done by many colonizers and imperialists. Later in the day European imperialists and colonizers just wiped out major sections of indigenous population in America, Africa and Australia. The "aboriginals" in these continents were reduced to microscopic numbers so that the colonizers began to claim that they were the main inhabitants of America and Australia in particular. So also was tried to be done by Muslims in India who began to claim Hindustan as a country of Islam. Indian resistance, however, did not let any such situation develop in India." I think especially for such a dramatic claim and one that will hold the top spot in our list, we need more than one source which covers this and confirms these figures. In any case, it's probably just better to break it into several different conquests.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why 50 years? I see no compelling reasoning to create such an editorial litmus for inclusion. Also, what, exactly, do you find in the provided quote to be disqualifying for Lal's entire body of scholarship? As mentioned, and seemingly agreed upon, several times already up to this point, if an "event" can be reliably broken down to constituent parts and it makes sense to do so then all the better. On the other hand, if events cannot be broken down to smaller component and/or it doesn't make sense to do so then they should be presented as the overarching historical events as identified by reliable sources. Examples already here include, for example, the {{European colonization of the Americas]], the Mongol Conquests and, yes, the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. The issues you've raised here, and so the need to repeat myself almost verbatim, and your edit summaries on the article space indicate to me that you haven't read the substantial discussion and work that's gone into forming consensus here. I'd suggest you invest the time and do so so as to b able to contribute more productively. GraniteSand (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read the discussion I simply disagree with the conclusions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and if you're gong to have a list of 'really bad things people have done to one another sorted by how many were killed', putting a 500 year - eg 2-3x or more as long as ANYTHING else on the list - conquest by ... Who? Muslims! - needs a lot more than one Indian prof's book that has been disputed by other historians and when he is potentially biased. I'd like to see other scholarship - of any origin - that makes their own estimates of the death tolls. The conquests of India can be profitably divided since it was not some undifferentiated mass of 'Muslims' but rather specific people from specific places who invaded at specific times. The estimates given by Lal are based on population decrease, but ascribing that all to the conquests is a stretch and based on debatable methodology, it's hard time to reason about such matters which is probably why no-one else has done such estimates. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as our star entry we need something more than this.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and I just wrote something similar in an earlier section. It seems like major revisionism to go changing the definition of war/conflict to something as broad as all fighting between Muslims and Christians or Muslims and Hindus for the period between 1000 and 1550 CE. There's almost no historians who support this categorization or idea except maybe the one who is cited on this page and can now claim the fame of having created the deadliest war of all time. This is pretty absurd.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7225/1619.extract. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

American Civil War
I was surprised to see that the American Civil War was not included on the list. Approximately 500,000 people died in this war, which is enough to make the list, but it is not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.224.181 (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too, same day. Small world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.74.110 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a bizarre oversight. I'll address it soon. If someone wants to beat me to it, great. GraniteSand (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)