User talk:SpidErxD

November 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bengal famine of 1943. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * You can't use neews magazines and blogs and so on to cite a fact like that. They are on the thin margin of WP:RS in this case, and the sources cited already are incomparably more sound academically. Thanks for listening. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The three sources you cited all take the 3 million figure from one book, Mukerjee 2011. You could cite that source, but before doing so please consider Talk:Bengal famine of 1943 and make your case there.


 * Mukerjee 2011 mentions all of the estimates outlined in footnote C. She attributes the 3 million figure to Sen 1981, who estimated between 2.7 and 3 million. The talk page argument is that in the subsequent years historians have uncovered sources that weren't available to Sen and applied different models to them, resulting in better estimates. According to Ó Gráda 2007, "today the scholarly consensus is about 2.1 million". Sen hasn't disputed the newer consensus. Some academic would have to dispute the 2.1 million figure, and with the strength of their argument persuade the academic community to shift its consensus, for Wikipedia to go with a different figure. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)