Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 30

= March 30 =

Great Clearances
Am reading "The Great Mortality" (John Kelly) and he refers to the Great Clearances, I quote: "As the population went up, the forests came down. During the Great Clearances of the 12th and 13th centuries, Europeans burst out of the enormous woodlands that had held them prisoner since the Dark Ages..." I looked for Great Clearances on wikipedia, but there's just a Chinese coastal evacuation, singular Great Clearance and no disambiguation. Do the European medieval forest clearances go under a different name, where can I find them? --ZygonLieutenant (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Terms such as Old-growth forest and Ancient woodland are broadly used to describe ancient forests, though I don't think the articles at Wikipedia lead you to where you wish to go. Medieval technology is an article that briefly mentions the clearing of forests commensurate with the growth of agriculture due to such technologies as the plough and the horse collar.  Medieval demography also has a single mention of widespread clearing of forests associated with the High Middle Ages.  I can't seem to find any formal name given to the general clearing of forests in Medieval times, however.  The phrase "great clearences" also makes a single appearance in the lead of the article High Middle Ages.  -- Jayron 32 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Briefly mentioned in History of the forest in Central Europe, subsection "Forest development in the Middle Ages": "Two intensive periods of forest clearing can be distinguished. The first lasted from about 500 to about 800 and the second from about 1100 to about 1300, the beginning of the crisis of the 14th century." No citation, alas.
 * Apparently Charles Higounet called them "les grands défrichements" ("the great clearings of the 11th to 13th century") (Deforesting the Earth: From Prehistory to Global Crisis, An Abridgment, Michael Williams, University of Chicago Press, 2010, for reference) . Another keyword for searching might be "pre-industrial deforestation", for example. ---Sluzzelin talk
 * Also briefly mentioned in Deforestation, with a quote from Norman Cantor. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The following document fr ) associates the notion mainly with France considering the medieval period ( En Allemagne, En France, En Angleterre. ). But Bruge (Belgium) as well as other places can also be found associated with the notion when searching the web, following the term in French as indicated by Sluzzelin. --Askedonty (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Michael Williams text cited is reliable on this, while historians who you would otherwise think reliable recycle all sorts of nonsense, to the extent that Oliver Rackham railed against pseudohistory and factoids. Joachim Radkau's Wood is a very readable overview. There are some recent research papers that model deforestation, and they tend to see it as a gradual process. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Mark Lewis for the NY Times notes that Kelly is "too fond of a phrase he borrows" (Malthusian deadlock). The sin is unavoidable for one to maintain "a breezy tone" when writing about a subject like his imho. --Askedonty (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the language is hyperbolic. Forests did not hold anyone prisoner, and the forests were there not from the Dark Ages but from the retreat of the ice sheets. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For the UK, the Forestry Commission has produced a timeline - https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8y5bsy - which rather suggests that most of the clearance had been done, at least in England, by the time of the Domesday survey. Wymspen (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Unwanted/unintended/unplanned pregnancies
First, do researchers make distinctions between unwanted and unintended and unplanned pregnancies? Second, are affluent families immune to unplanned/unintended/unwanted pregnancies even without proper sex education? The high school I went to had several students, about 90% of the student body of about 2000 students, from affluent families, living in spacious houses in American suburbia. No one became pregnant throughout my high school life. . . except one girl who had to change schools because of it and her friends probably circulated flyers to get the girl back. I'm aware that some high schools have so many teen mothers that a day care center is provided for the children. I don't think the sex education at my high school was any better, because I had zero practical knowledge on contraception in high school. So, I assumed everyone probably was sexually abstinent and thus no babies. Are teenagers from affluent families less likely to have sex than their poorer counterparts? Has anybody done a study on the sexual behavior between rich students and poor students? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in this article and the academic paper it links to. Poor women are definitely much more likely to have unplanned pregnancies, but the difference seems to be related more to birth control use (and access) than to promiscuity. -Elmer Clark (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be quoting the same academic paper and notes a higher abortion rate among higher income women, although if you look at it it's only the top bracket this seems to apply, the 200-300% bracket is also higher than the lower ones but not the 300-400%. Of course this means it isn't dealing exclusively with teen pregnancies per se, but it may be the statistics are similar for teenagers from wealthy families. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What sort of time frame is "the high school I went to" and how do you know "No one became pregnant throughout my high school life . . . except one girl who had to change schools because of it"? Perhaps the flyer thing and 2000 students makes this unlikely but I'd note in the past* it wasn't unheard of for pregnant teen girls to disappear from school because they were studying somewhere else (like abroad) or whatever when in reality they were sent somewhere to hide their pregnancy. This sort of charade is generally something the affluent found easier to maintain, at least publicly. Some people may guess what was up, but I'm not sure all students would know especially with 2000 students. *Well I'm sure a small number of people still try this, but it's fairly difficult nowadays. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It was 2004-2008. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * How can you dismiss the possibility that some girls became pregnant but had an abortion? That's not an issue people talk easily about. Hofhof (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that is possible. By the way, the only way I know that someone is pregnant is when they have a persistent protruded abdomen and are female. If both conditions are fulfilled, then I would interpret that as "pregnancy". If there is no persistent, protruded abdomen or the person is not female, then I would interpret that as "normal". People would typically show obvious signs of pregnancy by the 2nd trimester, even though it's the first trimester when most abortions take place. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, then, I'm pretty sure many parents would press their teenage daughters hard into an abortion. Llaanngg (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of ethics, abortion and infanticide are forms of population control. With the human population at this current size, less people on Earth is a good thing, as that means less competition for resources. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see what relevance this is to the RD. You're free to hold your POVs. You had 2 questions, which seem reasonable enough for the RD. The second one at least seems to have been well answered. There are various reasons why pregnancy may be more likely despite similar rates of sex many of which don't relate to the quality of the sex ed. And various reasons why even if a pregnancy occurs, you may not have known about it so your basic assumption, that only 1 person got pregnant during your entire school year is unsupported. BTW, as mentioned the stats raised earlier don't relate exclusively to teen pregnancies. There are various reasons why the stats may be different there including financial issues and different tolerance of such pregnancies. They could for example be more strongly affected by affluence (or less). Other stuff besides your questions and answers are best kept to an appropriate place which isn't the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Totalitarianism and communism
How are these two political movements the same? Why are they mentioned together? Rmaster1200 (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not the same. It's just that most communist governments (on the national level anyway) we've had have been totalitarian. Fgf10 (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a homework question. Even if it isn't, your question is flawed, in that your question assumes they are identical.  Totalitarianism is a form of government that tries to control every aspect of life.  It can include forms of government like Absolute monarchy. Communism is a form of government that aims for common ownership of the means of production.  Some communists are also anarchists, believing that any form of government will try to take control of the means of production.  Anarchy is the opposite of totalitarianism -- anarchist totalitarianism or totalitarian anarchy is, by definition, impossible.  Stalinist Russia was both totalitarian and communist, which has confused many westerners.  Please read our articles on subjects before asking questions about them, the Totalitarianism article mentions non-Communist Totalitarianisms and the article on Communism mentions non-Totalitarian Communisms. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some aspects of Marxism are explicitly totalitarian, such as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Of course, Marx was thinking along the lines of the Paris Commune sort-of leadership, but some states have used the veneer of communist goals to cover brutal absolutist dictatorships as a means to consolidate power for its own sake in the hands of a ruling elite, without regard for actually implementing the social change that Marx was on about (i.e. Stalinism; i.e. Khmer Rouge, etc.)  -- Jayron 32 11:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Creation science outside of the United States
I've noticed that the creation science movement (inclusive of intelligent design) is most influential in the United States and its influence elsewhere is much smaller; about the only other country I can think of with sizable creationist movements is Australia; the UK has a few but they aren't as influential as the ones in the US. Over here in the Philippines (one of only two Christian countries in the region), creation science is virtually non-existent and from experience I can confirm that creationism isn't a big deal here at all; this appears to be the case for other countries in Southeast Asia as well. In Europe and elsewhere (such as South Korea), efforts to introduce creationism in science classes were met with public backlash, which caused these efforts to be stopped or suspended. My question is: how come the creation science movement has failed to become as successful or prominent worldwide as it has in the United States? Apart from the US, the only country I'm aware of with a strong creationist streak is Turkey, but even with these two countries and a few others (i.e. Saudi Arabia, among others), creation science seems not to have gotten much traction worldwide. Why? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the factors is the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution which is interpreted to mean that public schools are not allowed to teach religion. Many Christian Americans don't want schools to ignore Christianity and only teach evolution and other widely supported science so they try to present religious beliefs as well-supported scientific theories which can be taught in science classes, at least as alternatives. Many other countries have both science and religion classes but separate them without much protesting from either side. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * no sources, but the whole religion vs science thing is a proxy for conservative vs liberal. that's why you don't see as much of it in other Anglophone countries. Asmrulz (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Pretty much. American politics is based mostly on "tribal politics" or "Identity politics", which is to say that people primary align their beliefs to the people with whom they socially identify with rather than choose political parties based on their beliefs.  That is, people first identify themselves as "Conservative" or "Liberal" based on whether or not people they identify with (by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc.) and then follow the beliefs that those people have.  There's little regard given to what is true, or best, but rather on what is "like me".   Here is a recent article on it.  -- Jayron 32 13:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you portray "liberal" as "science", how do you explain the anti-science stances of holistic medicine, antivac, and raw food people who are predominantly liberal? You are also assuming that all religious people are conservative. In general, your proxy is very weak. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a good survey about homeopathy in America but in Britain it doesn't seem like political affiliation has much influence on belief in homeopathy. As to the other things what I see is that climate change and evolution are flat out denied whereas fracking and GM crops it is not really science that is denied but more a question of values - the question is more should it be done given the possible effects. If climate change was judged on values the question would be if the economics were okay and whether it was moral to enjoy the good life at the expense of others. We wouldn't have people saying it couldn't happen because God has created a balanced world. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dmcq -- for GM crops, whatever the problems may be with growing them (or with Monsanto's somewhat deserved mustachio-twirling melodrama villain reputation), there is absolutely no scientifically-valid evidence whatsoever that there's any danger in eating them. Some otherwise respectable organizations and individuals have flirted with scientific denialism on this particular point (as in the infamous 2002 incident, when NGOs were basically advising certain Southern African countries to let their people starve rather than accept food aid with GM remnants mixed in, and Zambia significantly delayed its acceptance of available food aid on that basis). AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I realize the particular products so far may be okay. But blanket assurances like in the start of the Genetically modified crops article are simply silly. Just taking the very first section on 'Gene transfer in nature and traditional agriculture' it talks about gene transfer being something that happens often in nature. True enough but GM accelerates it greatly and peoples genes have needed to change in the last ten thousand years to cope with our diets. Even nowadays people in different parts of the world have problems with foods eaten in other places. Then the second paragraph talks about crossing Rye and Wheat. Brilliant idea I'm sure but this sort of thing can cause problems with coeliac disease and how are we supposed to stop plant pollen travelling between fields and perhaps join with corn if it can do such a fusion? At least with animals one can put fences around them. This is why people like to control the introduction and test properly rather than just be assured by some crowd like Monsanto that everything is hunky-dory. And as far as other countries are concerned the American government trying to sell its crops is not the most unbiased source of information. Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Genetically modified food controversies talks about the business in 2002. It doesn't say there but they were happy to accept the grain after it was milled so it couldn't be planted and possibly cause problems there. Dmcq (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I find that section of the article to be unfortunately narrowly-limited and euphemistic. Zambia did not accept milled corn without significant delay, and Levy Mwanawasa was spouting claims that genetically-modified foods were "poison" -- claims which were almost certainly based on what European NGOs and anti-GMO activists were saying... AnonMoos (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even mention they did accept the grain - where is that in your 'narrow minded' grading? And why are you so certain about the safety? What we are talking about here is probabilities and values, not science. America values capitalism and laissez-faire, Europe is more socialist and tries to look after its people. Scientists can't for instance really say that climate change is bad, only predict what its effects will be given various scenarios - saying those effects are bad or acceptable or good is a political issue involving probabilities and values. However climate change deniers deny the basic science. Dmcq (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we are talking about science. No one can give absolute assurances that almost anything will always be absolutely 100% safe in all circumstances whatsoever -- but the fact remains that after 20 years of commercial production there is still no valid scientific evidence that eating food derived from genetically-modified crops is any more unsafe than food from unmodified crops (as it says right in the third paragraph of the Genetically modified food controversies article which you linked to).  This means that expressing an opinion to the contrary is a form of science denialism.
 * And I didn't say anything about narrow-mindedness -- I said that the section is narrowly-limited, since it implies that only the U.S. was subject to criticism in the matter, which is far from being the case. The other countries accepted the grain after it was agreed that it would be milled, but Zambia did not do so, but significantly delayed its acceptance, while Levy Mwanawasa ranted about GM foodstuffs being "poison", nonsense which he almost certainly derived from irresponsible European NGOs and anti-GMO activists who were flirting with science denialism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well on GMO safety, there's Eosinophilia–myalgia syndrome, which may have been (partly?) caused by GMOs - (As a 2007 talk page comment there states - "The whole EMS episode is greatly confusing and to this date, a definitive explanation of what caused the outbreak has not been found.") Steven Druker's 2015 Altered Genes, Twisted Truth: How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public says the same, but considers the preponderance of evidence to point to GMOs. The episode deserves to be better known and linked to more.John Z (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever that incident was, it did not involve crops, grain, corn, or "food" in the ordinary sense, and so is quite marginal to the current discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds awfully like denial to me. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What the heck is that supposed to mean?? The incident raised by User:John_Z is of unclear significance (as far as currently known), and in any case simply does not fall into the main subject-area that this discussion has been about since the beginning ("GM crops" in your message of 15:26, 30 March 2017, "GM crops...food aid" in my message of 15:53, 30 March 2017).  It's a little sad for you that you're so much better at smarmy innuendo than honest argumentation. AnonMoos (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It means that the scientific approach is to investigate possible problems not to ignore or minify them. By the way I just did a whois of sites I got back from a google search on 'GMO problems' and guess what? by far the majority are American. So as to innuendos rather than evidence what does that say about your going on about Europeans and the Zambia incident? Dmcq (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's a meaningful connection between genetically-modified crops/foodstuffs and a doubtful incident involving genetically-modified bacteria manufacturing amino acids, then you need to establish such a connection using honest argumentation based on facts and evidence -- not merely assume a connection by means of smarmy innuendo. Of course, amino acids are incapable of being genetically modified, since they lack any DNA (were you even aware of this?).  As for nationality, it's perfectly true that Jeremy Rifkin was opposing genetic modification back when few people had much real idea that such a thing was even possible.  However, it seems likely that the persons irresponsibly flirting with science denialism who were feeding bad advice to Levy Mwanawasa were mainly European (and the article you linked to, Genetically modified food controversies, implies the same). AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So "were you even aware of this?" you say. I have now looked at what your home page says and formed my own opinion about your credentials on science topics. Dmcq (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's nice; I have a bachelor's degree in a scientific area (if that counts for anything), while you seem to say whatever comes into your mind in the moment. AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you don't like my personal credentials, just look at "107 Nobel laureates sign letter blasting Greenpeace over GMOs"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I did find this . As far as I can see it is saying spiritual people are twice as likely to believe in homeopathy as secular ones. But how that maps onto conservative or liberal I wouldn't want to make a guess. Dmcq (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That supports the claim that religious people tend to be more likely to be anti-science. The argument I made is that you can't take that statement and correlate it to conservative people are mostly anti-science while liberal people are mostly pro-science. While liberals may be more likely to believe in evolution as opposed to creationism, there are many areas of science that they tend to disagree with. My main argument is that the claim religious=conservative and science=liberal is not valid. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * that's not the claim, though. the claim is that politics comes first and all else is made to fit. I don't know why you're triggered. For all you know, I may broadly sympathize and think that this is because liberals have unduly monopolized science and rationality (just as conservatives had once hogged patriotism - before the Russia thing, anyway) in order to foist their stuff on people Asmrulz (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim: "religion vs science thing is a proxy for conservative vs liberal"
 * Perhaps you have a unique definition of proxy. A proxy is normally a representative replacement. The claim is that conservative may be replaced with religion and liberal may be replaced with science. In other words, religion=conservative and science=liberal. I disagree with the claim that science equates to liberal. I do not disagree that in the context of creationism vs evolution, conservatives are likely to be on the creationism side and liberals are likely to be on the evolution side. I disagree with the broader claim created by the use of the word "proxy," which may well have been inadvertent. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In statistics, a proxy is a metric that serves as a metric for something else (sometimes something that is difficult or illegal to ask directly.) For example meat consumption and number of TVs for living standards or SAT scores for IQ, or defaulting on loans in a neighborhood for its racial makeup. Stuff like this. The reasons don't matter, just that the correlation exists. The overlap between being either a Christian or an atheist and having a certain stance on the usual hot-button issues and voting a certain way, exists. If I did use a word imprecisely, it was "science", by which I meant specifically Darwinism Asmrulz (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Changing "science" to "Darwinism" or even just "evolution" is, in my opinion, a valid correlation. "Science" is simply way to wide a term. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, PrimeHunter -- First, those who hope to have any influence on education in the U.S. never speak of "Creation Science" nowadays, since it's been clear for decades that there's no hope of introducing it into public schools under that name. Second, there's a very active creationist movement in Turkey, and the The Atlas of Creation has become rather infamous in some circles. Third, many of the opponents of evolution in the U.S. are not actually fanatical religious fundamentalists, but instead have a perhaps vague but nevertheless deeply-held view that human evolution undermines the foundations of morality (leaving society in a nihilistic void where nothing can said to be right or wrong), so that they want to keep teaching of immorality out of the public schools more than they want strict Biblical literalism introduced into the public schools... AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * From a British perspective, the only open advocate of creationism that I've ever met was a member of an American-based Evangelical church. Otherwise, there is some pressure for the teaching of creationism from conservative Muslims (which ties in with the comments about Turkey above), See How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam from New Scientist. Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Among Christians, creationism is highly correlated with Biblical literalism; a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative is incompatible with Darwinism. Many Christian denominations do not require a belief in Biblical literalism (as opposed to Biblical inerrancy). Those which do not include most Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant denominations, which together cover a large majority of Christians in Europe and many former European colonies, but not so much in the United States since the Great Awakening. Baptists in Northern Ireland are perhaps as likely to be creationist as those in America. I suppose but don't know for sure that the growth of US-style evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Protestantism in many developing countries (e.g. in Latin America and Nigeria) may increase the strength of creationism there. jnestorius(talk) 12:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Jnestorius -- Young-earth creationism is certainly highly-correlated with Biblical literalism, but young earth creationists would be a small and probably not all that influential minority in the United States, if there wasn't broader opposition to the teaching of human evolution in schools from a significant group who aren't really strict literalists or fundamentalists (see my message of 16:04, 30 March 2017 above). AnonMoos (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How Many
How many people have been killed because of organized religion, total? I'm not asking for a 100% accurate estimate or anything, just give me your best answer. Idielive (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Organized religion existed before written history. How is it possible to count all those that died before written history? What do you mean by "because"? If a missionary ship is lost at sea, did those people die "because" of religion? A long-standing claim in the Christian world is that more people have been killed because of the Bible than any other book. In the Muslim world, a similar claim is that more people have been killed because of the Koran than any other book. I have never heard a similar claim based on the Vedas. I have never seen proof for the claims because they are so general that you can weasel your way into justifying your claim. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. I'll be more specific, how many people have been murdered total in the name of organized religion, from 1 AD to now. Idielive (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You could start by totaling all those killed by religious wars, such as the Crusades, with all those killed for religious crimes, like witchcraft and apostasy. Many of the ISIS murders would qualify, as would the Srebrenica massacre.  Whether the Holocaust was based on religion or ethnicity is debatable, though. StuRat (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's still undefinable. You haven't given any qualification for what counts as "killing someone in the name of religion".  Undoubtedly it happens in clear cases (that is, sometimes a Christian kills a Muslim only because he's a Muslim) but most of what you're talking about is trying to decide if, say, The Crusades or the Thirty Years War or the aptly named French Wars of Religion were religious wars (with the aim of massacring those of different creeds) or whether they were fought for primarily political or social reasons (such as giving underemployed Wwarriors something to do (The Crusades), or fighting over the remains of a dying empire (Thirty Years War), or dynastic struggles to replace a monarch with no heirs (French Wars of Religion).  The definitions here are too fuzzy to provide anything meaningful.  -- Jayron 32 18:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You could clearly put some limits on the range of what the answer must be though (for example, the lower bound is clearly greater than 0) and then fight about what the exact number is. shoy (reactions) 19:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I experimented around a bit and my best estimate is over 265,948,126 people, but if takes into mind many BCE period causalities the number is over 268,769,590. Anyone got a better estimate? Idielive (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * My estimate is "somewhat more than 10". Admittedly, that is a low ball estimate, using very restricted parameters (omitting any death that might be attributed to another factor)... but I think it is accurate. Blueboar (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Idielive -- during the so-called "Golden Age of Freethought, several authors produced vaguely-sourced estimates with lots of zeroes. Those works are generally out-of-copyright and often available on the Internet.  (Of course, the standard rhetorical counter-maneuver is to tally up Stalin's and Mao's death toll as "killings due to atheism.) AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of removing the western bias, I would suggest the Indian subcontinent partition and the Taiping Rebellion as candidates for the Religious Wars Hall of Shame.DOR (HK) (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I can not help but admit that every time I think about this subject, my face is fallen. I never thought the number would exceed two hundred million. Idielive (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sure a wide variety of figures could be calculated depending upon definitions, etc. However all of this seems to assume that without religion such large numbers of deaths in war wouldn't have taken place. Sadly I doubt that very much. I expect many of the wars would still have occurred in some form as the underlying factors would still exist, eg economics, ethnic and nationalistic antagonism (xenophobia), dynastic struggles, etc. Doug Weller  talk 11:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You are right, war is apart of life. Even ants war with one another. The very cells in our body wage constant warfare against outside invaders. Idielive (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

attaching body counts to things is stupid. how many were killed in the crime hike following desegregation or deinstitutionalization? we know some were killed that would not have been killed otherwise, this is absolutely certain. Asmrulz (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The book Atrocities by Mathew White, p.554 states that 47 million people have been killed by religion, out of 142 million killed for ideoligical reasons, out of 455 million total killed in the 100 deadliest multicides listed in the book.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"China Affair" 1927?
I have been writing an article about a ship called SS Tyndareus. This source says: "In 1927 she was used with the Bellerophon as a troop and horse carrier during the 'China Affair'". What the "China Affair" was all about and why a British force was needed there eludes me. Can anybody help please? Alansplodge (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Our article on 1927 includes


 * January 19 – Great Britain sends troops to China to protect foreign nationals from spreading anti-foreign riots in Central China. Rojomoke (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, here's: "1926... July: Nationalists, organizing in Canton, launch military expedition to North, sweeping through Central China to Hankow. British return concessions at Hankow and Kiukiang to Chinese. Shanghai apprehensive of Nationalist advance.
 * 1927, February: Nationalists begin advance down Yangtsze Valley toward Shanghai.
 * 1927, Jan.-Feb.-March: British, American, French, Spanish, Italian, and Japanese troops landed in Shanghai for defense of Settlement and Concession."
 * Problem solved! Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See also Canton–Hong Kong strike for some of the background to the anti-British sentiment amongst the Nationalist revolutionaries leading up to 1927. The slogans of the Northern Expedition were anti-warlordism and anti-imperialism, and Britain as the leading foreign power in China at the time bore the brunt of the anti-imperialist part of the revolutionary pressure. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)