Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 6

Fixed table sorting
I managed to fix the table sorting problem (I think). The problem is that if the first row in a numeric column includes some alphabetic characters, it is read as, and sorts as, an alphabetic instead of numeric column. So that if you include a ref with your number, the column won't sort properly.

Wikipedia help says you can fix this by including "sm=n" in the top row of the column, but no matter what way I tried I couldn't get that to work.

In the end what I've done is create two invisible rows, one at the top and one at the bottom, with only numerals in them - 0 in the bottom row and 500,000,000 in the top row. These rows can't be seen and they ensure the column will always sort numerically (so long as no-one enters a number larger than 500,000,000 in a row, which seems unlikely). Seems to be working anyhow. But if anyone knows how to get the recommended "sm=n" code to work properly, you are welcome to change it.

The other tables will eventually have to be fixed as well, but I can't be bothered doing it right now. Gatoclass 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: The "sortmode" statement apparently doesn't work because it's yet to be implemented on Wikipedia. I'm currently lobbying to see if I can persuade a coder to add the necessary functions. Gatoclass 00:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've turned all your numbers into templates so that it sorts them by number rather than digit; as you had it, 200 would be sorted as higher than 1000000 because it started with a higher digit. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tabling is unnecessary
In my opinion these tables are less lucid and absolutely useless. Wikipedia needs unbiased information, not lengthy tables. Belligero 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I think you'd be very much in the minority on that score. Must editors here have expressed support for tabling the entries. They are a lot neater and more accessible and they also provide additional functionality, such as being able to sort entries alphabetically or numerically, by date, high/low estimates and so on. Gatoclass 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are both right. Tables are neater and more accessible, and do provide useful functional sorting aids, but I think it is highly misguided to concentrate on them when the information involved is nowhere near up to scratch. Jdcooper 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Citations and footnotes" tags
I think that tag about citations and footnotes at the top of the article is absolutely not in order here. The citatiions should be found in the respecitve articles linked to this list. That's where the citations belong but not into this list. --Maxl 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all the citations come directly from other Wiki articles, some of them have different sources.


 * It does seem to be true though that the overwhelming majority of entries have a link to an article on the subject, but some of them still have no citations at all so the template is probably valid. Personally, I'm in favour of having direct citations for all events right at this page because otherwise it forces people to plough through who knows hom much text in other article pages to try and confirm a source. Gatoclass 06:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, there is no harm in duplicating sources anyhow, since they are what gives our encyclopaedia credibility. We are not a paper encyclopaedia, we have no space issues. Jdcooper 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that we could add citations whenever possible, I don't think it's necessary to spam the article with "citation needed" tags everywhere. The link to the main article is most of the time right next to the numbers. We're not a paper encyclopaedia indeed, there are no space issues, but links can be followed as well.Danilo.moret (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed many many times on the talk page of WP:V if citations are asked for simply stating that they are available through an in line link is not adequate. If you do not like the fact template then I suggest that we simply move all those table entries which carry a fact template to the talk page in line with (WP:PROVEIT) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to get it right
''The estimates listed here include 20-43 million victims of the Great Leap Forward famine. Some scholars believe the regime knew about and tolerated the famine, which would thus make it a crime against humanity. The famine high estimate of 43 million is therefore included as a component of the table's high estimate. The table's low estimate similarly includes a famine component, but since it has not been established whether the source in this case also regards the famine as a wilful crime, the estimate is subject to revision and should be treated with particular caution.''

After reading the above phrase, I think the figures of the "Great leap Forward Famines" should not be included in the Genocide and Democide section. Because we already have a section for "Man Made Famines" in which the GLF is listed. There's also a lot of grey areas regarding if a famine is caused by humans. Particularly the Great Leap Forward famine, it's half natural cause, half man made. Oidia 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian war
There was recently added "Russian-Circassian War" with a statement that the whole Caucasian War is part of it. It totally contradict both articles, which state that it was vice versa. Furthermore, the article Russian-Circassian War lacks any interwiki and seems to be a POV-fork from Caucasian War.Garret Beaumain 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Armenian genocide
Does the killing of 1 million Armenians in the early 20th century belong in this article?


 * Yes it does, and it is there, under the "Genocide and democide" section. Jdcooper 02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a particular reason why that entry is now non-existent? Would anyone care to shed light on this, and better yet, put the entry back in? Thank you 220.101.128.220 (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this article precisely, it seems be original research
I understand that this piece is sourced from reliable sources, but it seems to be a synthesis and therefore is original research. Here are a few examples of the numerous bits of unsourced original research:


 * The Great Leap Forward is not a genocide by any known defintion.
 * The deaths of Amercian Indians in the Westeran colonisation were principally caused by smallpox (80% of fatalities). This is well referenced in reliable sources. Therefore to call it a genocide is original research. Although wars of extermination were waged, this is a very questionable claim.
 * 50 million dead from man-made famines in the Raj. Source please. Yes the Bengal famine, but that's 4 million.
 * The Soviet Gulag system is not called a genocide by any reliable source, unless referring to the fate of specific ethnic groups of Tartars.
 * Arab Slavery in Africa - firstly the numbers require sourcing and again where is the reliable source that claims this as a genocide.
 * Upper range of 5 million dead in Auschwitz - source please. Highest Soviet claims 3 million. Current thinking 1.2 million.

Now this is only the areas where I've got a reasonable bit of knowledge. Althought this list is verydetailed, it includes a range of highly questionable POV points. There so much included here that is extremely debatable that it devalues the whole list.

Adamjamesbromley 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've long felt that there are problems of categorization in this list, but I don't believe the specific issues you raise here are valid. We do indeed have definitive sources for the entries you list above, I think if you took the trouble to follow the links you would discover that for yourself.


 * But let me quickly deal with your points one by one:


 * The Great Leap Forward is not a genocide by any known defintion.


 * - The heading is "genocide and democide". RJ Rummel, the originator of the latter term, has called the GLF famine democide, hence its inclusion in the list.


 * The deaths of Amercian Indians in the Westeran colonisation were principally caused by smallpox (80% of fatalities). This is well referenced in reliable sources. Therefore to call it a genocide is original research. Although wars of extermination were waged, this is a very questionable claim.


 * - This is not a figure for North America alone. It also includes those killed during Spanish colonization in South America. If you follow the included links, you will find there are valid refs for these numbers.


 * 50 million dead from man-made famines in the Raj. Source please. Yes the Bengal famine, but that's 4 million.


 * - Again, follow the links, there is a Wiki page dedicated to these famines.


 * The Soviet Gulag system is not called a genocide by any reliable source, unless referring to the fate of specific ethnic groups of Tartars.


 * - Again, the heading does not only cover genocides but democides as well, and Rummel has described GULAG deaths as democides, hence their inclusion here.


 * Arab Slavery in Africa - firstly the numbers require sourcing and again where is the reliable source that claims this as a genocide.


 * - Once again, the figure is from Rummel and is a figure for democide, not genocide.


 * Upper range of 5 million dead in Auschwitz - source please. Highest Soviet claims 3 million. Current thinking 1.2 million.


 * - Not familiar with this entry, I'll have to check the sources for that one. Gatoclass 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In fairness I did check those sources and I don't feel what you've put forward does address the problems. A lot of this table is fine, it's the genocide/democide and the concentration camp stuff that is problematic.Let's look at the points


 * The use of the word 'democide' is not standard so using it here confuses as much as informs.
 * Because Rummel calls the Gulag 'a democide' also doesn't make it a fact, you've presented it here as a fact because it's in a table without any sense that the definition is contraversal. What about other sources for the Gulags, for example Anne Applebaum, Robert Conquest, Simon Sebag-Monetfiore. You'll find references to genocide against tartars etc. But you won't find the Gulag system described as a genocide. Rummel is probably the only historian who does. Pol Pot's Cambodia often is, but not the Soviet Union.
 * Rummel's description of the GLF as 'democide' is also not a generally accepted defintion. Even in Chiang and Halliday's highly critical life of Mao they don't use the phrase.
 * There is no source for 5 million dead at Auschwitz, because that's just made-up I'm afraid. Please check Martin Gilbert's Holocaust or pretty any standard work on the subject.
 * Actually, the source is from Filip Friedman (probably referred from here). It's not original research (it's one of the earliest estimates of the death toll), and since it is higher than any other estimate I've seen hanging around, we have to put that death toll here.
 * More likely, your true dispute (mine too) is that this article is presenting that figure as the actual number of people who died. I think that sorting by maximum/minimum death tolls is the worst way to categorise disasters (and most definitely POV). We could use the median, but that would look too much like this page. --Oshah 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, from that site it appears that more recent estimates range from anywhere between 1 million to 4.5 million. I think we can safely disregard estimates that are more than 30 years old as outdated.


 * On that basis, I think I'll change the estimates and link to the page in question, thanks Oshah. Gatoclass 17:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit: Never mind, I see someone got there before me. Gatoclass 18:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The deaths of the American Indians - yes I wasn't disputing the numbers. My query is the again the inclusion in genocide. Any reliable source will confirm most of the deaths were caused by epidemics, principally smallpox. Some sources call it genocide when talking about certain groups. But it's pretty odd to start including all American Indians together. After all, the conquest took place over 400 years, involved most the Spanish, Portguse, French and British and involved lots of differnt cultures, best known obviously Aztec, Maya, Inca in the South etc. Don't really see how they can just be lumped together
 * Bengal Famine - I'm sure there is a section on the Bengal famine, but this is the first place I've seen the figure 50 million for famines under the Raj - as such it strikes me as an exceptional claim.
 * Arab Slavery in Africa - I'll take a punt on this one and say both the numbers cited and the claim of genocide/ democide are either exceptional claims or original research. Even the definition of Arab Slavery is massively flawed as slavers sold to Europeans etc.

There's plenty in the table as a whole that's uncontraversial. It's really the genocide/democide section that is highly charged. To be honest, that's why I question the value of tables. You end up potentially offending people because it's very hard to say where to draw the line.

I really think this section needs a major rethink. Sorry to be negative. At the moment, you've only quoted Rummel as the sole source for 3 of the most debatable claims. Now I can see that he's published, but it's not OK to put stuff as contraversial as this in from one source. Adamjamesbromley 09:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of the word 'democide' is not standard so using it here confuses as much as informs


 * As I said there is an ongoing problem with categorization. I've never been entirely happy with the "Genocide and Democide" heading but when I've tried to change it it's been reverted.


 * Because Rummel calls the Gulag 'a democide' also doesn't make it a fact, you've presented it here as a fact because it's in a table without any sense that the definition is contraversial


 * That's not true, it's not presented as a "fact", it's clearly only an estimate as demonstrated by its existence alongside a second (low) estimate.


 * What about other sources for the Gulags, for example Anne Applebaum, Robert Conquest, Simon Sebag-Monetfiore.


 * Their estimates don't appear because they are intermediate estimates. The tables on this page present the estimates as a range, low to high.


 * Rummel's description of the GLF as 'democide' is also not a generally accepted defintion.


 * Doesn't matter. He is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and thereby qualifies as a reliable source, we have no brief to exclude the estimates of a qualified source.


 * And believe me, if you try to remove Rummel's estimates you will find yourself fighting a losing battle. There is an army of anticommunist editors on Wiki who will scream blue murder if you try to exclude their preferred figure.


 * There is no source for 5 million dead at Auschwitz, because that's just made-up I'm afraid


 * If the figure is unsourced then change it to a figure for which you have a source and include the source.


 * The deaths of the American Indians - yes I wasn't disputing the numbers. My query is the again the inclusion in genocide. Any reliable source will confirm most of the deaths were caused by epidemics, principally smallpox.


 * The figures here are for genocide/democide only, not for total population decline. The estimates in the latter case are far higher, in the order of 60 to 100 million in some cases.


 * this is the first place I've seen the figure 50 million for famines under the Raj - as such it strikes me as an exceptional claim


 * This is the second time you've made this point, all you have to do is go to the linked Wiki page on famines under British rule and you can confirm the sources for yourself.


 * Arab Slavery in Africa - I'll take a punt on this one and say both the numbers cited and the claim of genocide/ democide are either exceptional claims or original research.


 * I'm not sure what your point is here but some people wanted much higher figures, in the order of 60 million for the high, I successfully argued for the much more moderate (and sourced) figures quoted here. Gatoclass 07:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well thanks replying in detail. To be honest, I'm not sure I want to get drawn into what sounds like a minefield for various reasons. I only question this part of the table. Not the whole thing, which is a good piece of work. Take this bit out and I've got not issues with it.

Seems to me there's an awful lot of politics involved here - particularly in the issue of the Raj, Arab Slavery and GLF etc.

Don't really want to draw the wrath of the anti-commnunist crusaders. Rummel is out there on his own. They like him presumably because he uses the phrase genocide/democide in relation to Stalin and Mao, his numbers are the biggset. Unfortunately no one else agrees.

You'll just have to trust me as a history BA from Cambridge, that studied a number of these areas that citing Rummel as a reliable source, when so many others contradict isn't enough to justify inclusion. Many historians reject his numbers.

Thanks for taking the time. I will respectfully retreat and concentrate on areas less fraught with politics.

Amazing how everything becomes politicised. Even the attempt to just get objective facts.Adamjamesbromley 13:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Genocides and Democides
Genocides and Democides are not the same thing so I have split the list in two. I have done this because with the two combined it is a POV judgement if an event should appear in the list. The list of Genocides should only include events listed as the article genocides in history where there is a demand that any genocide or alleged genocide has those that allege it to be a genocide are cited. This will reduce the POV in this list of genocides.

The list of Democides should only include those that Rummel has called democides. One obvious one that is not listed here and is not considered to be a genocide are the killings in the Congo Free State. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When I made the change to two lists I took a copy and edited it so there is a chance that the figures I have put back are not the more recent ones from the edit clash that I had when I tried to save the page. I know number of the figures are wrong for example the Holocaust was not 26m so please help me fix them. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you should make a wholesale change like that without discussing the matter first on the talk page. The "Genocides and Democides" section has been extant for a long time, and while not entirely satisfactory, has been largely acceptable to all parties up until now. So I've reverted for the time being, but I'm certainly happy to discuss the matter.


 * As I've said numerous times, there is a problem with categorization in this section, and perhaps this would be an appropriate time to try to resolve it. Basically, the section seeks to list mass killings other than in war. The problem is really in the heading "genocide and democide" since some entries don't fit all that comfortably under either heading. What we really need IMO is a broader heading, I'm just not sure what it should be exactly. Gatoclass 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is a problem then it should be fixed or deleted until it is fixed. Would you rather remove section to the talk page until it is fixed? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it should be "deleted until it is fixed". There are plenty of pages on Wiki that are works in progress. In fact, what is ever ultimately "fixed" on Wiki?


 * Removing it to the talk page might be an alternative, but then one has to have someone to talk with. Unfortunately, there are few editors of the article page who ever discuss things here, I seem to be about the only person who consistently posts here. Gatoclass 12:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you want to move it here I suggest that you leave the sections as I have divided them as as the information in both section can now be verified against the article genocides in history where the source making the claim that it was a genocide can be found, or R. J. Rummel can be used as a source for his claims of democide. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the problem is that by no means all the entries listed in the "Democide" section have specifically been termed democides - which is not suprising since Rummel is practically the only scholar who uses the term. So in fact we would need three separate categories, one for genocide, one for Rummel's "democides" and a third for the crimes committed against peoples which have not necessarily been labelled either. But what would we call the third list? And if we can come up with an appropriate name for it, why not simply merge all three into the one list under that heading? Then the categorization problem is solved in any case, and we have a contiguous list by death toll of all such crimes.


 * If Rummel is more or less the only scholar who uses the word democide, then why are we using it at all? Is it not therefore rendered a non-notable neologism? It looks like, judging from the examples in the list, that the three separate categories that you refer to would be named "Genocides", "Rummel's democides" and "List of eras in world history by number of state-committed executions". That third list has by far an excessively broad scope, the second is non-notable, and by placing more weight on the work of just one historian we would be utilising original research. I propose we remove inherently POV and vague pieces of original research which involve picking two years and one place arbitrarily and estimating a wildly broad range for the possible number of deaths in between them, and cutting back to just genocides which are so agreed as such by the wider historian community. Jdcooper 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, because there are clearly many events which are not genocides or have not been described as such which nevertheless are examples of deliberate or culpable mass mortality. And they should certainly be listed on this page. Whether or not they should be listed under the heading "democide" however, is an open question, I must agree. Gatoclass 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe we should let the historians decide. The events of deliberate or culpable mass killing that do not fall under the heading "genocide" are, in practice, of too great scope for us to record. While a specific war, or a specific regime's genocidal campaign, or the number of an individual murderer's victims, are quantifiable and investigatable, and thus listable, examples like the ones currently listed in the "Democides" section constitute original research, simply because for most of them the beginning date, end date and location are artificial cut-off points. For example, why is the genocide of Chinese Muslims included over a period of 17 years, and the political repression of the Great Leap Forward counted over 26 years, while the ethnic cleansing of Circassians is counted over a century and the witch hunts of Europe over 250 years? Who decides what counts as a single area for quantification, and who decides what counts as a single era for quantification? Surely this is original research, and if we are to list these wars and disasters, we must at least confine it to listable items. Jdcooper 17:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The events of deliberate or culpable mass killing that do not fall under the heading "genocide" are, in practice, of too great scope for us to record.


 * I'm sorry, but that is simply nonsense. The point about all these entries is that we have reliable sources which have quantified, or attempted to quantify, these crimes. And there is no reason whatever why their conclusions cannot be listed here. Indeed there are numerous entries for genocide and war that clearly have far greater margins of error than some of the entries currently listed (for want of a better term) under "democide".


 * Who decides what counts as a single area for quantification, and who decides what counts as a single era for quantification?


 * Reliable sources do. At the end of the day, that is where all these entries derive from, so I simply don't understand on what basis you want to exclude some and not others. Gatoclass 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, reliable sources tell us how many people died in a certain era in a certain place. I could find a reliable source saying how many people died in Fooland as a result of state-exacerbated killing between 1115 and 1976, the fact that figures are available for such a time period does not automatically make that era a) defined or b) encyclopaedic. That section of the article, if the historically precise genocides are removed, certainly approaches WP:INDISCRIMINATE, since there are no limits to the domain or means by which to select information included. One way of doing it may be something like List of regimes by number of victims, since this includes limits and a method and procedure by which to filter information. The current system does not. Jdcooper 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I could find a reliable source saying how many people died in Fooland as a result of state-exacerbated killing between 1115 and 1976, the fact that figures are available for such a time period does not automatically make that era a) defined or b) encyclopaedic


 * Perhaps not, but the fact that a reliable source chose to record it in such a way would probably indicate that the source in question did view it as a discreet event.


 * However, I see no point in dealing in generalities. If you have an objection to a particular entry, let me know which one and then we can discuss it. Gatoclass 19:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I say again, all sources have to choose a range of years between which to tally, this clearly does not make the era in question a discreet event. Whether or not you view this as a "generality", it causes a problem for the entire structure of the "democide" section. If you wish I will make a list, but your likely counter-argument that each single entry can be and is sourced does specifically not address my concerns, so, until the scope and limits of the article are defined, I see not point in dealing in minutae. Jdcooper 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So again, the problem comes back to finding an appropriate name for this list, that is broader than just "Genocides and democides". Gatoclass 12:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are not genocides and they are not democides then what are they? BTW a democide and a historic genocide is not necessarily a crime. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, look, I think we should get back to the point, which is your rationale for splitting the list into two. You said you did it because with the two combined it is a POV judgement if an event should appear in the list. But this simply doesn't make any sense. How does merely splitting the list into two different sections remove potential POV judgements? Obviously it doesn't, because disputed entries remain disputed entries, regardless of what heading they are listed under. Gatoclass 14:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are very few incidents in history that have been found by a judicial process to be genocides. There are a lot of alleged genocides which the history of genocides documents with the person making the allegation and usually a POV by others stating that it was not. Far better to build a list from such a Wikipedia source that is itself sourced with an attempt at a NPOV than a list of random entries of allegations that may or may not have reliable sources to back them up.

A list of democides can be created from those which Rummel or one of his followers calls a democide. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't make sense of the first paragraph there. However, you still haven't replied to my question, which was, how does splitting the section into two separate sections lessen "POV judgement[s]" about whether or not "an event should appear in the list"? Clearly it doesn't. It is just moving the POV judgements to a new heading, which gets us exactly nowhere.


 * But what it does do in my opinion is destroy the integrity of the list - which is supposed to be a comparative listing of crimes committed against populations by death toll - by separating it into two sections which make such comparisons more difficult. Gatoclass 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You are introducing a POV not all democides and genocides were crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Democide is by definition a crime. In Rummel's own words, it means "murder by government". Last time I checked murder was definitely a crime.


 * And I can't imagine what you mean by saying some genocides were not crimes. Again, genocide is defined as a crime.


 * But in any case, nowhere have I inserted into the article a statement that the entries listed constitute crimes. Certainly I believe they are - up until a moment ago I thought everyone did - but I haven't said so in the article. The entries are just listed as genocides and democides, that's all. Gatoclass 18:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Genocide is now a crime. It was not a crime before the crime existed. People who committed genocide in previous centuries may or may not have committed one of more crimes at the time a genocide took place. (Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali) --Philip Baird Shearer 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From a legal POV genocide has not always been a crime - indeed it may arguably have been a norm for many centuries. But that doesn't necessarily mean that genocides committed before the criminal statute was written were not heinous acts from an ethical POV. Gatoclass 18:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the previous version for the time being, mainly because it contains a number of longstanding entries 89.104 deleted, such as Congo Free State, Arab/Atlantic slave trades, famines in India etc., which I can't be bothered restoring individually. I've also done this because this is the version of the page we should have been be discussing all along, rather than the one truncated by 89 last night.


 * I've already stated my opposition to splitting the section into separate "genocide" and "democide" sections, at least without a full debate here first, but if someone must split the section, please do so by splitting this version of the page rather than simply reverting to the previous version by PBS which does not contain all the entries. Gatoclass 08:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the split based on the last edit you made. However I am not sure why you insist that another editors edits should be removed. I have deliberately removed two entries: Genocide of Igbo people and  because it is not in genocides in history and "Anticommunist purges in Indonesia because it is not sourced nor does it have a link to an article. If I have missed any others then please let me know --Philip Baird Shearer 09:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Genocide of Igbo people" is a recent addition that I had not had time to confirm in any case. I'm sure however that "anticommunist purges in Indonesia" was previously sourced but someone must have removed the sourcing. There's been quite a bit of disruption to this page in the last few days unfortunately, and I only had time to deal with some of the questionable edits before 89.104 lost his cool and started deleting entries willy-nilly. Gatoclass 10:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless something is done about the other entires in the Democide section that do not carry a citation that they were a democide, they should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which gets back to my earlier point. If we name this section "democide", then the only researcher who technically qualfies to have his estimates cited therein is Rummel, since he is the only one who employs the term.


 * That's why I said we need a broader heading in which to characterize these events. Just because they are not genocides, or have not been labelled "democides" by Rummel, is no reason why these entries and their estimates should be excluded from the page. Gatoclass 11:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added another column to Democide so that the name of the scholar and a footnote can be added for who says it was a Democide. Of course if lots of people claim it then only a couple of the most reliable sources need to be included. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is utterly pointless. There are no other claimants, as I have pointed out above. And we certainly don't need an additional column just to list sources, when we already have numerous links and sources embedded in the existing columns. It's just a waste of space. Gatoclass 11:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not pointless. See WP:V: There needs to be a citation to his work where he claims it is a democide. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently you did not not read the first of my two posts above. I said that Rummel is the only source who employs the term "democide". So it's pointless to include an additional column for "claimants" since Rummel is the only one.


 * It is also a complete waste of space to add an extra column just for sources, when we already have sources embedded in the other columns, usually right next to the estimates themselves. Why do we need to have them listed twice? Space is already at a premium in these tables. If you'd read the earlier discussions on this page, you'd realize that Oidia and I worked very hard to cut down the number of columns to the minimum for readability and neatness. Gatoclass 12:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT not one of the current democide entries cites a source for the claim it is a democide. Once such citation have been added then we can integrate the information from the column back into the other columns. But for the moment this warns anyone who reads the page that these entries have not been verified against sources. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "democide" should be cast away altogether from this article. Why should one historian's work be arbitrarily emphasised? That is original research. Jdcooper 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a legitimate POV, and one I've often considered myself. The main reason I haven't replaced it up until now is because it's a neat and convenient label, and most of the alternative headings I've considered are a bit lumbering and clumsy by comparison. And as long as one treats it as just another way of saying "mass killings of noncombatants" it's just about broad enough to cover the kind of events one is trying to categorize.


 * But if, as Philip is proposing, the listing should be confined only to those events which have specifically been termed democides by a reliable source, then we are confining the listing to Rummel alone, since he is the only one who uses the term. Then all the entries and estimates that are not Rummel's will simply have to be moved to another heading, which not only gives undue emphasis to Rummel's estimates, but also arbitrarily divides the listing up even further and makes it less comprehensible still. Gatoclass 12:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the fact remains that genocides and democides are a different category of thing, they shouldnt't be artificially meshed together. I don't personally have a problem with calling the section "Mass killings of non-combatants", with "Genocides" as a sub-heading. A title being slightly longer or clumsier is nothing like as serious a problem as it being ambiguous or controversial, IMO. Jdcooper 13:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would prefer the genocides to be listed together with the other mass killings because to my mind, one is not necessarily worse than the other. I mean, the distinction between mass killings that end up being labelled "genocide" and those which do not is often quite artificial or phony. For example, as some commentators have pointed out, is Communist mass murder not as bad because it was aimed at a particular economic class rather than a cultural or racial group? So why imply by manner of presentation that those incidents which happen to have been labelled "genocide" are somehow exceptionally bad in comparison to the rest? That's the way I'm inclined to see it. Gatoclass 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It has little to do with what kind of crimes are "worse", that is not the basis for categorisation. A genocide is the systematic distruction of a particular racial group, that is clearly a subset of state mass murder. It is irrelevant which is "worse", the fact is that they are distinct sets. Jdcooper 14:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm still inclined to think it would be best to keep it all under the one heading - this page is primarily designed to compare events by death toll after all - but I can probably live with it if there's a consensus in favour of splitting. Gatoclass 14:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with things being listed together is it makes very difficult to check if the statement is true. For example the number of killings for the Holocust is different than for the Second Word War domocide totals. Further If domocide is not used then what exactly are you trying to measure? Mass murder implies that it was murder when the killings took place, if so, one needs a reliable source that says when the killings took place it was murder. For example until the promulgation of the CPPCG, genocide was not a crime (which is not to say genocides did not take place because the definition does not involve criminalisation). It is also true that during a genocide in different places and at different times crimes could still have been committed during the genocide. One thing we have to bare in mind is that the laws of war as we understand them are between "civilized peoples" (see Hague Conventions (1907) IV: Laws and Customs of War on Land paragraph 8 (Martens Clause). So to be mass murder you will have to find a scholar who can explain why an event was mass murder and not just a mass killing withing the laws as framed at the time and in that society or under international law when the killings took place. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all I think it needs to be emphasized that the problem we have here is with categorization, not with the entries themselves. These killings and excess mortalities took place, regardless of how one chooses to categorize them. So they should certainly be listed on this page in some way, the only question is under what heading or headings.


 * I already said I think democide is a convenient label, so long as we don't take the view that only events specifically termed such by a reliable source will be listed under that heading - because that means in effect the section will be limited exclusively to Rummel's research and estimates. But if you are going to take the narrow view, then democide is simply not going to be a viable label, for the reasons already cited by myself and jdcooper.


 * Assuming we are not going to agree on democide as a label, we would then need to find another one under which these events can be listed. Looking at the current list, the label would need to cover the following areas:


 * Campaigns of political repression;
 * Slavery and economic exploitation;
 * Ethnic violence/ethnic cleansing (including depopulation from such);
 * Persecution of minorities or subgroups.


 * I guess we could have separate sections or subsections for all these categories, but it might be better if we could continue to list them together under one large umbrella heading since this is a page dedicated to listing mass mortalities primarily by death toll, and the more categories we introduce, the more that goal is frustrated. Gatoclass 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Until a defined and unambiguous heading can be found, inclusion of all those categories under one heading, or even in the same article, or being ranked at all, is original research. Why should those things be listed together? Choosing to do so is a breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My suggestion would be creating a separate article for these entries, named something like List of regimes by number of state-endorsed executions, or whatever was the consensus. I know we've crossed these paths before Gatoclass, but I really don't think splitting this article into more manageable chunks would diminish its usefulness at all. It would, on the contrary, be far better for treatment of the separate sections and more meaningfully linked-to. Plus it wouldn't diminish the coherency and scare off the editing of whatever remained in this article. Jdcooper 05:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Until a defined and unambiguous heading can be found, inclusion of all those categories under one heading...is original research.


 * Well, finding "a defined and unambiguous heading" is exactly what we are trying to do at the moment. And if we can't manage to do that, it is still appropriate to list these events here albeit in separate categories such as those canvassed above.


 * I really don't think splitting this article into more manageable chunks would diminish its usefulness at all


 * Perhaps not, but I would be absolutely opposed to the removal of this particular category or categories to another page, as they obviously include major incidences of mass deaths by human agency which is totally appropriate to the article content.


 * As I've said to you before, I am still inclined to be opposed to splitting off other parts of the article either, at least without prior discussion, but there are certainly plenty of other sections a lot more eligible for removal to another article than this one. Gatoclass 05:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, how about this for a heading:
 * Lethal regimes and systems. I think that pretty much covers all the above categories, doesn't it? Gatoclass 08:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all genocides are state sponsored eg Genocides in history --Philip Baird Shearer 09:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, "systems" doesn't necessarily imply "state sponsored". But I'm having second thoughts about this proposal anyhow. For one thing, I can't shake the sense that there should probably be something about noncombatants or civilians in the title, since that's who the principal victims were in virtually every case. Gatoclass 10:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT not one of the current democide entries cites a source for the claim it is a democide - PBS

As I've pointed out more than once, if you are only going to allow estimates specifically termed "democides" into the list, then the only "legitimate" references you will find will be Rummel's, since he is the only scholar who employs the term. But even so, I don't know how you could have come to your stated conclusion, given that several of the footnotes for the current democide estimates link directly to the relevant Rummel page or table. I should know, because I painstakingly tracked down and verified all those references myself. Gatoclass 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Full citations include page numbers etc. See WP:CITE, these should be provided for all democides. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For the death toll for the holocaust, the source of information says that it includes all nazi democides - i think a more accurate source should be needed? or one that exists whithin the defined meaning of genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.195.60 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Man-made famines, 2007
The section starts with a hidden comment:
 * This section is obviously a work in progress. There must be more famines of this type, please add more if you know about them.-->

And then has this as a lead:
 * This section includes famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused partly or wholly by human agency.

I think there are several problems with this list. It does not cite its sources. Who are the researches who say these famines "have been caused partly or wholly by human agency", and who has produced the range of numbers. Also there is a fundamental difference between a famine deliberately caused by a human agency for political expediency and one that was exacerbated through human incompetence and not thorough malignant intent. For example there are hundreds of famines where people have died because of human incompetence that are not listed here. Two that spring to mind are the Biafran famine (probably the first widely televised) and the Ethiopian famine brought to world wide attention by Band Aid. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, August 20, 2007 (UCT)


 * I think the point is that the famines listed are ones that some scholars believe were caused or exacerbated by governments which had the power to alleviate them, but did not do so for whatever reason - and which therefore have some degree of culpability. Did the governments of Biafra or Ethiopia have the power to alleviate the famines you mention, and do we have reliable sources which say so? If so, they should probably be in the list too. Gatoclass 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The scholars who think that the famines were "exacerbated by governments" are not cited. This seems like a very POV list, in almost every famine more could have been done to save people. Why not just have a List of famines because all famines are disasters? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes they are cited Philip. They are cited in the provided links. Although if you insist, I guess we could get some editors at those pages to come and give specific cites here. Gatoclass 12:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They should be cited here. But as I said before why not just have a list of famines as all famines are a disaster for those who suffer them and sidestep the POV issue? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because famines are natural disasters, and this page is a list of man-man mass mortalities. Gatoclass 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But there are famines listed that were the result of natural disasters, and there is no indication that they were deliberately made worse by actions of the authorities any more than many other famines in history. I do not see how they can be listed without presenting a none neutral point of view. Even the Ukraine famine (1932 and 1933) has more than one POV "Russia admits this was an awful tragedy but is angry at claims that it was an attempt to destroy the Ukrainian nation. ". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, so what if the Russians deny it? Do the Turks admit to the Armenian genocide? Does that mean you shouldn't list it on your "genocides in history" page?


 * There is only one criterion for inclusion in the famine list in question - and that is whether or not we have a reliable source which asserts that the governing regime was at least partly responsible for the famine. Indeed that is the criteria for any information on Wiki - that there is a reliable source which states it. And we most certainly do have reliable sources which state that the famines listed here were either caused or exacerbated by the governments in question.


 * That is why these famines are listed here, as opposed to other famines which without evidence to the contrary are assumed to be natural disasters. Gatoclass 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An article such as Genocides in history can be constructed in such as way that a balanced POV can be given. This list allows no such balanced POV to be given. Suppose that reliable sources disagree over an issue (which in several of the examples given here they do), without presenting both POVs this list contains a none neutral point of views. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that is easily rectified by the inclusion of more explanation or notes. Unfortunately, some minimalists on this page have deleted quite a few of the explanatory notes I have tried to put up in the past, but I think you have raised a legitimate reason for the reinclusion of such. Gatoclass 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

When things are controversial and are open to more than one point of view the points of view should be mentioned in the text not buried in footnotes. To do otherwise IMHO is to present an article with a none neutral point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me. By all means add some explanatory text to the Famines section or other sections if you see fit, I have no objection in principle to that. Gatoclass 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To make the list manageable and to make the list less subject to NPOV accusation I suggest that we change the definition at the top from:
 * This section includes famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused partly or wholly by human agency.

to
 * To this section includes famines alleged by most researchers to have been cause by deliberate acts for political or religious reasons.

--Philip Baird Shearer 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, for one thing that is not accurate, for another I think it actually makes it sound worse for the regimes in question IMO.


 * In any case, it's well past my bedtime, I really can't discuss this any further tonight. Hopefully tomorrow. Regards, Gatoclass 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this wording
 * This section includes famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused, or at least exacerbated, by the policies of the ruling regime. Note that in some cases, these allegations may not have achieved widespread acceptance in the broader academic community. In others, the degree of the regime's culpability may still be a matter of debate. For a fuller discussion of the issues involved in each particular case, follow the included links.

and put back This section includes famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused partly or wholly by human agency. without the italics. In my opinion Gatoclass's new wording is even more wooly that the last wording. Almost all famines are exacerbated, by the policies of the ruling regime, because famines that do not happen because of the successful policies of the ruling regime are not mentioned. If this list is to mean anything then it must be a list of famines deliberately made worse by the regime. While the wording below may not be perfect I would like to work on it as a basis for further development:
 * To this section includes famines alleged by most researchers to have been cause by deliberate acts for political or religious reasons.

--Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are no more comments on this then I will alter the wording to the above. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't responded to this proposal because I'm of the view we'd be better off dealing with one issue at a time, and I'd rather try and resolve the other issues regarding this page first. Couldn't this one be left on the back burner for a while? Gatoclass 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The request was for comments from anyone. I think this is an important issue and intend to change the wording unless I get input from other people. If you wish to contribute to the conversation you are of course welcome to do so. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case I'm obliged to say I find this proposal to be unacceptable, either as it stands or "as a basis for further development", for the following reasons:


 * Firstly, "most researchers" is unsupportable. We have no way of knowing what proportion of researchers make these allegations, only that some do.


 * Secondly, "deliberate acts" implies that the regimes in question deliberately caused or exacerbated the famines, but I am unaware of any such allegations being made in the majority of cases. Also, "acts" implies positive actions which worsened the famines, when it was often lack of action which was the problem.
 * This is the nub of the issue, Stalin and Mao are accused of this. The rest that are listed are the same as others where things may have been exacerbated by the acts of some but that is true in nearly every famine. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thirdly "for...religious reasons" is again just plain wrong. In no case that I know of did any of these governments act, or fail to act, for religious reasons.
 * See Xhosa cattle-killing movement --Philip Baird Shearer 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, "for political reasons" just sounds to me like a roundabout and imprecise way to say policy, and IMO can only further serve to confuse the reader.


 * So in essence, there is nothing I can ascertain in this proposed wording that is useful, I'm sorry to say. Gatoclass 12:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The points you make are fair ones but it is equally true that one "swallow does not a summer make." and the wording "This section includes famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused partly or wholly by human agency." says nothing, as all famines to a degree are partly or wholly caused by human agencies. If we can not agree on some wording that implies malignancy and not ineptitude then this section should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Almost all famines are exacerbated, by the policies of the ruling regime, because famines that do not happen because of the successful policies of the ruling regime are not mentioned. If this list is to mean anything then it must be a list of famines deliberately made worse by the regime


 * The problem with this line of reasoning Philip is that it constitutes original research. It's nothing more than speculation on your part that "almost all famines are exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime". Wiki content is not to be shaped on the basis of personal pet theories, as I should not need to remind you.


 * And since your assumption is unsupported - and indeed probably insupportable - I'm afraid the conclusion based upon it is likewise invalid.


 * See Xhosa cattle-killing movement


 * "Xhosa cattle killing movement" is not in the list, so it's obviously irrelevant. Gatoclass 08:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * the wording "This section includes famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused partly or wholly by human agency." says nothing, as all famines to a degree are partly or wholly caused by human agencies


 * Okay, I think I can agree that that particular wording is too vague. Instead, I propose a simplified version of my previous proposal (which I concede was indeed too "woolly" but mainly because I was trying to fully accomodate Philip's concerns), as follows:


 * This section includes famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused or exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime.


 * That gets rid of the vague "human agency" bit, and puts the responsibility clearly at the door of the regimes in question. Gatoclass 09:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that that wording is acceptable 1) As almost all famines are to a greater or lesser extent exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime. For example if Germany had surrendered in 1916 then the German civilian losses in WWI would have been far fewer. 2) why single out ruling regimes? What about other actors? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think that that wording is acceptable [a]s almost all famines are to a greater or lesser extent exacerbated by the policies of the ruling regime


 * I already expressed the opinion that this argument constitutes original research. Didn't you read my previous post?


 * why single out ruling regimes? What about other actors?


 * What other actors? All the entries in the list fit the given description.


 * First of all you said "human agency" was too vague, now you're arguing that "ruling regimes" is too specific. What are the other alternatives? Gatoclass 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) There is no such thing as original research when discussing things on the talk page. Original research refers to text on the article page.
 * 2) Gatoclass you wrote ":"Xhosa cattle killing movement" is not in the list, so it's obviously irrelevant." It is relevant because we are not discussing what is currently in the list, but all those that could be in the list. You said ""for...religious reasons" is again just plain wrong. In no case that I know of did any of these governments act, or fail to act, for religious reasons." I have shown you a case that explains why the use of "deliberate acts for political or religious reasons." But it is not what is in the list at the moment but the set of all occurrences that could be in the list.
 * 3) What other actors -- what about the actions of the British blockading Germany during WWI as an example? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) As I said before in almost every famine ruling regimes are in part responsible. The wording should be changed to one were there it is made clear that a famine was caused by deliberate acts. is "To this section includes famines alleged by scholars to have been cause by deliberate acts for political or religious reasons." --Philip Baird Shearer 10:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 *  There is no such thing as original research when discussing things on the talk page. Original research refers to text on the article page


 * Original research is not allowable on Wiki. What you are doing is seeking to use an OR thesis for shaping the content of the article, which would clearly violate the policy.


 * you wrote ":"Xhosa cattle killing movement" is not in the list, so it's obviously irrelevant." It is relevant because we are not discussing what is currently in the list, but all those that could be in the list


 * I made that comment before I actually followed the link in question, and now that I have done so, I see no immediate reason why it shouldn't be included in the list, assuming that one takes the estimate of 50,000 to be reliably sourced. I was only commenting on the current contents of the list.


 * But in regards to the general question, why refer to the reasons at all? Clearly, they will be unique in every case. We don't discuss the reasons various nations had for going to war in the war section, or the reasons groups had for exterminating other groups in the genocide section, because it isn't practical to do so on such a page, and the same principle obviously applies here.


 * What other actors -- what about the actions of the British blockading Germany during WWI as an example?


 * If you look at the top of the war section, it includes a note to say that the estimates include not only combatant victims but secondary victims, such as famine victims etc. Basically, it just isn't practical to list famines which resulted from wars in the "manmade famines" section, because we would have to end up relisting practically all the wars in the famine section too.


 * The wording should be changed to one were there it is made clear that a famine was caused by deliberate acts


 * I've already expressed my reason for opposing this idea, which is that it implies the famines were deliberate when in most cases if not all, they were not. Gatoclass 11:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the bias comming to the for again "Basically, it just isn't practical to list famines which resulted from wars in the "manmade famines" section, because we would have to end up relisting practically all the wars in the famine section too." The why is the "Bengal famine of 1943" and the "Vietnamese Famine of 1945" listed in the current section. --Philip Baird Shearer —The preceding  signed but undated.


 * The Bengal famine occurred during the war, but according to the sources in question, it was caused only by the policies of the ruling regime. That's why it is in the list.


 * As for the Vietnamese famine of '45 - IIRC this famine occurred primarily after the cessation of hostilities, and has again been blamed on government ineptitude.


 * But if we were to start listing famines "caused by war" - which I'm not convinced would be a viable project in any case - I think it would probably be better to put them in a separate category. Gatoclass 12:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The essay Lists in Wikipedia indicates that this list may be outside the understanding of V, NUE and NOR. eg: From what you have written here, I think that you would consider this list lies outside these parameters. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations
 * Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria
 * Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion


 * Why is making a list of famines allegedly "caused by deliberate acts" of a ruling regime less inherently POV than making a list of famines allegedly "caused or exacerbated by the policies" of a ruling regime"? Gatoclass 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am quite willing to delete all of the list and just leave a main article at the top to list of famines, as I suspect that there can be no scholastic consensus over this list. Many of the events listed in this list are definitely not within the parameters mentioned above because as the introduction says: "famines alleged by some researchers" --Philip Baird Shearer 17:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So your reply to my question regarding whose wording is more appropriate is "I am quite willing to delete all of the list" - which presumably means, if you don't get your way. I take it this means you don't have a meaningful answer to my question.


 * But in answer to your latest concerns - first of all, "Lists in Wikipedia" is only an essay, and its recommendations are not binding on users.


 * In regards to the specifics:


 * Lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations


 * Fine, but the text also says in effect that some categories are inherently prejudicial to their subjects - and that users cannot and should not try to avoid compiling such lists just because some people may not like it. Genocide is an obvious case in point. What makes man made famines as a category essentially different?


 * Set clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria


 * I think the membership criteria I suggested above "these are famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused or exacerbated by the ruling regime" would qualify. We are after all reporting what reliable sources have concluded, not what *we* think.


 * Lists should generally only represent consensus opinion


 * Unfortunately, the text which follows this heading is too vague and contradictory to be much use as a guideline of any kind IMO. Gatoclass 20:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question on "Why is making a list of famines allegedly "caused by deliberate acts" of a ruling regime less inherently POV than making a list of famines allegedly "caused or exacerbated by the policies" of a ruling regime"?

The former can be quantified. X says that Y deliberately caused a famine. But in the second case all most all famines are to some extent exacerbated by actions or inactions of a ruling regime and as such the list can never be close to a complete non bias list. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the third time you have made this OR assertion. Gatoclass 17:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is unacceptable: "This section includes famines alleged by some researchers to have been caused partly or wholly by human agency." Because it does not meet the requirements of WP:NPOV. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then if you think these viewpoints "do not belong on Wikipedia", go and list the pages Famine in India, Holodomor and Great Leap Forward at AFD and see how you do. Gatoclass 10:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section because not one of the entries has had a citation added although fact has been on all the entries in the section since 11 October. The entries should not be put back unless they carry citations with verifiable reliable sources that do not express a minority point of view --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well why not just rename it simply "famines" ? A famine is a disaster, not nessesarily "man-made". Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not against that but there is already such a list, and because others have pointed out that the introduction says "This is a list of wars and man-made disasters by death toll by strange diseases." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't responded to the removal of this section for a couple of reasons - first because I'm undecided about the best direction for this page, secondly - and more importantly - because the kind of sourcing PBS has been demanding requires a trip to my university library that I have neither the time nor the inclination to undertake ATM. It does bug me though that PBS seems to have set the bar for inclusion of data in this article far higher than he has done for other articles he is associated with - in fact in some cases he has deleted or added cite tags for entries here with sources that he himself has used as sources in other articles!


 * Regardless, I am very busy with other Wiki projects right now so until I have the time to chase up the appropriate sources I'm content with leaving this section out, and in fact I quite agree its sourcing was thoroughly inadequate for at least some the entries. When I get time to track down sources though, I will probably eventually be restoring the section. Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See below 

Wars
This list should only include a few wars as it is impossible to include them all. Perhapse a list of more than a million or more than 100,000. But to list wars where only 10,000 died will make this list either impossibly large or a selection that will be a biased list. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it's not "impossibly large" at the moment and I see no reason to start trimming it unless or until it becomes so. Gatoclass 10:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The list is very selective (see List of wars) and hence inherently open to bias. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's only selective because it's a work in progress. I've added a number of entries recently, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Gatoclass 10:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the list should contain every war (and armed conflict) that ever happened in recorded history? -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if it got that long, it would probably have to have its own page.


 * I'm simply saying that it's nowhere near too long yet, so we don't need to start thinking about "trimming entries". Wiki pages are supposed to evolve organically, when a section becomes too long, then its time to start thinking about breaking it out into a new article. But either way, I don't anticipate a need to trim entries. Gatoclass 11:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Open lists from a very large set of data on Wikipedia suffer from a systemic bias. I suggest for that reason we start of by truncating the list to mega deaths and extend it to 100,000 once the full set for that number is known. It should only be extended to 10,000s when that full set is available. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm completely opposed to truncating this list on the basis of some alleged "systemic bias". This alleged "problem" is hardly serious enough to start depriving readers, for an unknown but probably great length of time, of data which might be useful or of interest to them. The page already has a template which informs readers the data set is incomplete (as is the case with countless other Wiki pages) and inviting them to contribute to the page and IMO that is all that is necessary. Gatoclass 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A list of all wars is too large for this article QED it needs to be shortened. The simplest way to do this is to cut the list off at some number that means the list will be of a manageable size. Without that the list will only consist of those entires that wikipedia editors find notable which leads to systemic bias. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Without that the list will only consist of those entires that wikipedia editors find notable which leads to systemic bias.


 * An unwarranted assumption. I am the most prolific editor of this page, and I have no bias whatever toward one group of wars or another. If it's a war, and I have a source for an estimate, it's in. That's how it works for me, and I have no reason to believe it's any different for any other editor. Gatoclass 10:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So because you are editing this page it can not have a systemic bias? You worte in the section above ""for...religious reasons" is again just plain wrong. In no case that I know of did any of these governments act, or fail to act, for religious reasons." yet when I point out a famine that is not in the list, instead of saying Oh that is interesting we should consider instances like that you you write "Xhosa cattle-killing movement" is not in the list, so it's obviously irrelevant," which suggests that perhapse you do have a bias that you are unaware of (hence the point of the essay about systemic bias). --Philip Baird Shearer 10:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See my reply in the famines section above. And I reiterate my position that the existence of "systemic bias" whether real or imagined is not a reason for arbitrarily deleting content. Gatoclass 11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone else objects I am going to rephrase to one million or more and ask for a citation on every estimate. Once that phase is completed I then suggest half a million, then after that is completed, 100,000 which IMHO is low enough for this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do that I will be forced to revert. The fact that you happen to be an admin does not give you a licence to ride roughshod over the wishes and opinions of other editors and generally treat them as if they were second class users. I have already been somewhat disturbed by your apparent willingness to edit without consensus, such as your arbitrary division of the genocide and democide section against my express wishes. Not to mention your apparent unwarranted assumption of a leadership role here.


 * If you are unable to negotiate with other editors on this page in good faith and to compromise with them, I suggest you find some other place to edit. Failing that, I may have to bring your behaviour to the attention of the wider community. I have worked on this page for fourteen months and have over 400 edits here, and am not prepared to take a back seat to pushy editors who think they can simply ignore the views of others. Gatoclass 11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to build a consensus, but to date you are the only one arguing for the status quo and what is more you seem to resist change from anyone who makes any suggestions. I have presented several suggested changes to this page which in my opinion would remove some of the bias that the page shows and to date you are the only one who has raised an objection. In the last month all these users have suggested that this page is not up to scratch Adamjamesbromley, Belligero, Jdcooper, Maxl but instead of conceedning that any one of them might have a valid point you have argued that the list is better than any of the changes they have proposed.

Now in this case of the list of wars. Very little of the information carries citations. I have suggested plan of how this can be rectified, while still keeping the list in existence, but instead of saying "please give me 24 hours to address some of the issues you have raised, I'll add citations" you say instead, "It's only selective because it's a work in progress. I've added a number of entries recently, but Rome wasn't built in a day." and "I am the most prolific editor of this page, and I have no bias whatever toward one group of wars or another." --Philip Baird Shearer 12:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have presented several suggested changes to this page which in my opinion would remove some of the bias that the page shows and to date you are the only one who has raised an objection


 * On the other hand, no-one has supported your suggested changes either. It's basically just been the two of us debating these proposals of yours (which hasn't stopped you going ahead and making, or threatening to make, changes against my wishes anyway).


 * And really, I don't know what you mean by "bias". The only bias I see is that data is available for some events and not for others. But the page is obviously a work in progress, isn't it?


 * In the last month all these users have suggested that this page is not up to scratch Adamjamesbromley, Belligero, Jdcooper, Maxl but instead of conceedning that any one of them might have a valid point you have argued that the list is better than any of the changes they have proposed


 * Yes, but some of them have also agreed with me or disagreed with one another. It's not quite so black-and-white a picture as you are suggesting here.


 * instead of saying "please give me 24 hours to address some of the issues you have raised, I'll add citations" you say instead, "It's only selective because it's a work in progress. I've added a number of entries recently, but Rome wasn't built in a day."


 * Well I think there is something you need to understand Philip. Almost none of the entries on this page have rock-solid sources. Most of the estimates have just been taken from other Wiki pages, and quite frequently the numbers aren't unambiguously cited to a source there either.


 * I, along with most of the other editors who have worked on this page, have taken the view that a less-than-impeccably-sourced entry is better than no entry at all. After all, it's not as though an estimate that turns out to be incorrect is an issue of world-shattering significance.


 * In regards to my own editing, I've taken the view that I will trust that the regular editors of the pages in question have a source for their estimates. In most cases, there is sufficient information available elsewhere to confirm a ballpark figure anyhow.


 * This doesn't mean that I'm content to leave it at that however. As more information and better sources become available, I certainly update the estimates, the ultimately goal is to have impeccable sourcing for as many estimates as possible.


 * But if you are going to insist on impeccable sources now Philip, I'm afraid you are going to have to blank the entire page, leaving behind only a tiny handful of rock solid estimates. And if you do that I dare say it won't be just me who is objecting to your changes on this here talk page. Gatoclass 13:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)