Talk:List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We have estimates of the world population dating back to thousands of years, so would someone be able to list the death toll compared to the world popualtion? For example, during the Mongol Invasiosn 10% of the world population was killed. Worl War Two, 3% and etc.

-G

The intro says "The incidents are ranked by the highest estimate given." However, this is not the case. Should the order be changed, or should the intro be changed? bd2412 T 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for changing the intro. Not only is that easier, but I find the list more comfortable to skim when ranges are sorted by their lower value. When sorted by the high value it appears unsorted if skimming. Sethery 02:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Change the intro. I spent considerable time ordering most of the original page, and would hate to see it being for nought. Also, it is obviously easier to change a single word (in the intro) rather than re-arrange the entire page again. ComaDivine 11:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Change the intro it is!!! bd2412 T 15:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the additions and changes by User:144.137.157.234. I discovered him through some vanity entries, and the numbers he posted here are way off. Populations weren't that high back then. Please double check and source them. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what aztec conquests are you talking about? Surely not the New America Conquests. Because if so you have the wrong years, the wrong title, and the wrong death count. But I cant find any other aztec conquests during those years.

^To the above, how is it possible that the Aztecs lost 60,000,000, when at the HEIGHT of Aztec power, Montezuma only had power over around 10-20 million? Even if the denizens of the central Mexican Valley had a death rate of 100%, it wouldn't be anywhere near 60 mil, ESPECIALLY considering the THREE year time span given, and even MORE considering the conquests lead only by Cortes? If anything, the 60,000,000 "Aztec" conquests should go under "the destruction of the Native American population." I'm going to delete that line entirely, and replace it with "Siege of Tenochtitlan", under the appropriate area.

Not going to revert here, but come on Gato... How can you justify moving Stalin so low. Estimated 3 million killed? That is barely more than Pol Pot. You know that is wrong.--JohnFlaherty 09:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Did I say 3 million? I thought I posted 4. Oh well, I think 4 is probably the more reasonable figure for the low.

Haven't got the refs right in front of me, but Wheatcroft maintains that Stalin is responsible for no more than about 1 million purposive killings, and another 3 million or so by deliberate neglect in the Gulags and labour camps, etc.

Wheatcroft maintains however that the victims of the famine were not purposive at all, but due to ineptitude. While the regime is obviously culpable for these deaths, ineptitude is not the same as deliberate murder. Therefore those deaths do not fit the definition of either genocide or democide.

So the low for Stalin must be 4 million, as per Wheatcroft's conclusions.

On the other hand, it occurs to me that perhaps there should be some sort of category on this page for human-made disasters of this kind, which may not fit the definition of genocide or democide but are human-made disasters on a massive scale deserving of inclusion regardless.

As for the Nazi aggression in WWII, it was declared illegal by the Nuremberg tribunal in 1946, whose conclusions have the status of international law. As such it is virtually the only war in history that has been declared illegal, and its victims therefore by extension victims of democide - that is, murder by government, according to Rummel's definition. Gatoclass 10:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Stalin even on this page? Are we accepting Nazi and American propaganda into Wikipedia stats now? Idiotic. -G

It is not propaganda. Stalin has been responsible for millions, if not tens of millions, deaths. Maybe you should stop believing the communist party's "historians".

To quote a sourced section on Stalin - "Regardless, it appears that a minimum of around 10 million surplus deaths (4 million by repression and 6 million from famine) are attributable to the regime, with a number of recent books suggesting a probable figure of somewhere between 15 to 20 million." - This is nothing other than mass murder J.StuartClarke

The page didn't contain famines, one of the worst (directly attributable to Stalin) being the Holomodor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_Ukraine

And just while I'm passing by, I couldn't help but notice that the title of this page does not appear to be a very accurate description of the contents - since the page contains a large number of listings not only of "wars and disasters", but also of genocides, democides and massacres.

While I haven't come up with an alternative yet, I would certainly support a change of some sort. Gatoclass 10:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This section (and the rest of the article) does not cite its sources. Some of the figures are obviously false. For example, the number of American Indians killed include those that died from new diseases from the old world. That was not intentional and thus not genocide or democide.Ultramarine 16:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe this whole page should be deleted. It certainly needs major reworking. I do not want Gatoglass making wholesales changes by fiat that reflect his biases. That also goes for me and other as well however. This could be a huge task.--JohnFlaherty 17:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree U/M. I am working on some tables right now - I think tables are probably the best way to present this sort of data. I intend to include notes where appropriate - disease obviously needs to be mentioned in relation to the Americas, for example. I also agree that the section needs more refs, although I did include a few more last night. Gatoclass 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've got started on it, I'm not sure I agree John. After all, this page I'm sure has its regulars and I doubt they'll be too happy with your proposal.

As I said, I'm working on a table to present this information a bit more tidily ATM. This is how far I've got so far - obviously there's a great deal more to do though:

"ID" under "conquest of the americas" stands for "introduced disease, BTW. Gatoclass 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. At least we are talking again.

I have requested that the page be "Protected" until we can work this out. It is massive and the revert wars could get ugly (especially if others get involved. You and I are on speaking terms with a history and cannot seem to avoid it).

I propose reverting back to the original content before we got involved. It is the only fair thing to do until we can hash this out.--JohnFlaherty 17:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Heck, John, I see no reason to revert all the changes I made. I went to a lot of trouble to add a lot of links to that page already. It's much better than it was before, even though it still needs a lot of work. Didn't Ultra slap a disputed tag on it? I think that should more than suffice for now. Gatoclass 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is enough. Maybe I should not have reverted all the changes. What changes do you think are reasonable? I am willing to go with the low of 4 million for now (as insulting as it is) but the changes on Nazi Germany/WWII are unacceptable to me. That needs to be discussed more.--JohnFlaherty 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Stalin reference back to what you had posted. That was tough for me for the record.--JohnFlaherty 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look, I'll agree to leave out the reference to Nazi Germany for now - though for the life of me I cannot understand why you would want to. Are you so fixated on your loathing of Stalin and Mao that you cannot acknowledge the terrible carnage Hitler unleashed upon the world? But for the sake of peace, and since you've agreed to leave the Stalin ref, as it is, I'll put that aside for now. As long as the disputed sticker is up, I'm cool.

However, what I will try to do is present some refs to demonstrate my case that the Nazis need to be included. It might take me a day or two to dig them up tho.

Meanwhile, I might revert the page back to my last edit, except that I will edit out the reference to Nazi Germany. Then everything else will be essentially the same as before except for the additional formatting and links I previously added. Gatoclass 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Gato...SO MANY of these numbers can be disputed and the ranges are ridiculous. We have the same problem here with Stalin as we did on the Stalin page. $ and 50 million are both ridiculous.

Secondly, that number on the Nazi's in unacceptable. It belong under wars and the Holocaust and other Nazi attorcities under Hitler belong in the Genocide category. Those numbers include millions who are NOT genocide victims. The whole point of the section is to lay out criminal deaths by mosters and criminal regimes. For crying out loud, Stalin was IN on Poland with Hitler! That started the war!--JohnFlaherty 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to turn that ridiculous insult right back at you - are you so fixated on loathing Hitler and defending Stalin that you cannot acknowledge the terrible carnage Stalin and Communism unleashed upon the world? How dare you! I never said Hitler was not a monster! You are the king of straw man arguments sir.

That is one of the things that seperate you and I. I am WILLING to deal in truth and reality with actual WORDS that have MEANING. Of course I loath Stalin. Of course I loathe Hitler. What sane human being would not? I am willing to call Hitler an evil moster. You think it's POV (at least if I say it about Stalin). What kind of Communist apologist are you that you want to whitwash the reality of it's evil so?

I want the truth. You want to whitewash it and dilute it.

How did that feel?--JohnFlaherty 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How did that feel? It didn't bother me at all, because it isn't true.

As for your other comments, you're willing to call Hitler an evil monster. Fine, I never intended to imply that you didn't. The point I am making, however, is that you seem intent on discounting the crimes he committed, for the apparent reason that you want communist crimes to be front and centre on every page you take an interest in - at least, on the ones I've seen. That's why I say I think you are trying to push a POV - whether you are aware of it or not.

Contrary to what you might think, I'm NOT trying to push a POV here because I have no axe to grind, I'm quite prepared to agree that Hitler and Stalin were both guilty of crimes against humanity, but what I'm not prepared to see is people using Wiki to push an anti-communist agenda.

But, let's get back to the point. The point is whether or not the deaths brought about by Hitler's war should be included in the definition "democides".

Here are the indictments from the Nuremberg trials. There were four of them. Take careful note of the first two.

Indictments

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War

This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war.

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"

Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”

Count Three: War Crimes

These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaws weapons.

Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity

This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.

Now if you go to the the following link you will find that a number of the top Nazis were convicted of the second count, that is, of "Waging Aggressive War, or Crimes Against Peace".[1] And they hung for it.

In other words, the war the Nazis waged was a criminal war, waged against international law, and that therefore, the deaths caused by that war amount to democide, ie, murder by government. And those convicted of the crime were sentenced to death by hanging.

BTW, I'm going to bed now, so any response you have I will probably not read until tomorrow. Regards, Gatoclass 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is true. I am not pushing an Anti-Communist POV. I want the record on Communism straight. I am not prepared to allow Communist apologists to use Wikipedia to whitewash history. You are pushing a Communism Apologist POV and an Anti-Nazi POV on every article I have been involved with you on. Why?

As to Nazi war crimes vs war of aggression, as usual, you misrepresent reality and what I want. I am perfectly happy including the numbers in the WAR section. The Genocide/Democide section is for crimes like the Holocaust, Gulag, etc. Your inclusion of "War of aggression" is wealesy. If that is the case we should include all the non-German vitims of the Red army from Poland, and Eastern Europe as all of these countries were conquered. Stalin NEVER had any intention of letting them go. It was the whole point of the pact with Hitler and after. Also the revolution--JohnFlaherty 18:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a communism apologist, and I think my edits prove it. Go back to the Stalin page and have a look at the edits of Nixer's I removed because I thought he was an apologist for Stalin. Go to Ultramarine's talk page and have a look at the message I left for him there, when I complained about commie apologists screwing up the Stalin page.

Or have a look through the Stalin page archive, before you arrived on the scene, and I think you'll find I was always arguing for a moderate position between the two schools of thought. I simply don't have an agenda here John, except to see that apologists of either stripe don't start screwing up Wiki pages.

And for your comments about the Red Army, I'm afraid it's irrelevant because the Soviets weren't on trial after the war. Perhaps they should have been, but that's victor's justice for you. The end result, however, is that the Nazis were convicted of waging a war of aggression but the Soviets weren't. And that therefore the Nazis' war fully fits the definition of democide and should be listed in the democide section, as well as the war section. Gatoclass 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think my compromises also prove I have no agenda.

I don't care about who was charged with what. What a ridiculous argument! 90% the people/nations/regimes on the list were never charged with anything! What a bogus argument. If you are going to insist that German WWII deaths are part of the Genocide section (a ridiculous POV - The U.S. Normandy dead were genocide???) than including Red army deaths qualify as Stalin pushed the kind of military brutality that ended in millions more deaths than were necessary. Heck, he killed his own people by the bushel DURING the fighting. Read Stalingrad and Berlin both by Beevor.--JohnFlaherty 18:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to bed, I won't do anything til you return. I really would not anyway as I think the only way this will work is if we find agreement.--JohnFlaherty 19:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that definition of democide explicitly exclude battle deaths between armed combatants. This follows the pattern that soldiers fighting other soldiers are not accused of murder. If we is going to include battle deaths, then there are many problems? Should the millions of Soviet solider who died due Stalin's executions of almost all senior officers and his denial of the massive information warning of the German attack be counted as due to Stalin? Should all the battlefield deaths during WWI be counted as due to the German Emperor? Should Napoleon be counted as one of the greatest mass murderers in history? Ultramarine 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU for some reason injected into this discussion.

You keep claiming you have no POV in this Gato and yet, as Utlramarine points out, Democide specifically excludes battle deaths between armed combatents. Why are you are trying to massage the categories to get a higher count for Nazi Germany? If you have no agenda then why not split the deaths properly? Why you would do that and muddle things rather than deal in the clear cut accounting and categorizing of the numbers?--JohnFlaherty 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that definition of democide explicitly exclude battle deaths between armed combatants. This follows the pattern that soldiers fighting other soldiers are not accused of murder.

Ah, I see Mr Rummel has very carefully engineered his definition so that it includes practically anything questionable a communist has done, while excluding virtually everything else. No wonder his numbers of "democide" for communist states are so huge. And no wonder the term "democide" has virtually zero currency in academia.

In any case, it doesn't matter. I believe Hitler's onslaught on Russia also fits the definition of genocide. I quote:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Read the Nazis' plans for Russia and it's quite clear their intent was genocidal. Gatoclass 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitler did not intend to kill them all, he needed slaves. Not genocide. On the other hand, Rummel includes deaths of civilians and POWs. But not the battle deaths. Democide is used in over 300 academic articles.[2]Ultramarine 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and probably 299 of them were written by Rummel!

Seriously though, it matters not that "Hitler did not intend to kill them all". I just posted the definition of genocide above, and it's quite clear you don't have to intend to kill all the members of a racial group. Have you ever actually read what the Nazis' plans for Eastern Europe were? I don't have a link handy, but if you do a search I'm sure you'll turn up the appropriate pages quickly enough. And I think you'll realize that it would be extremely difficult to construe those plans as anything but a very serious attempt to completely destroy the identity of a national/ethnic group - several of them, actually. Gatoclass 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect regarding the 300 articles. Please, no original research. Which studies or academic books have stated that Hitler's committed genocide of Russians? Ultramarine 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, how did the page get protected? Did you ask for it? Gatoclass 20:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you I requested it to be protected. And you cannot have it both ways. If "democide" includes Nazi war dead then it must include Soviet war dead as Stalin's plans included the conquest and occupation of Eastern Europe. This is fact.--JohnFlaherty 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And no wonder the term "democide" has virtually zero currency in academia.

Can you cite a source or two for that claim?

Rummel COINED the phrase “democide” Gato, so if you have issues with him or how he defined the word you have no leg to stand on even using it – in which case we are left with Genocide which does not apply to armed uniformed combatants. Or, if you insist to use it it applies to the Red Army as well. I realy think your position is untennable.

Also, those criteria you listed for “genocide” work for the Soviets as well. Both the avg soldier and the government view of German citizens (never mind Poles, Jews, and others) fit them exactly.

a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Red Army did ALL of those to Germans and Poles and others. Particularly, the mass rapes (b) had a DESIGNED secondary purpose of inflicting (d)! Read Beevor (Berlin).--JohnFlaherty 23:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if Hitler's going to get off because not all the folks his armies killed in its war of aggression quite fit the technical definition of victims or either "genocide" or "democide", then I think the section title isn't broad enough. I think it should be "Genocides, democides and wars of aggression". Because I really don't think der Fuhrer ought to be getting off on a technicality. Gatoclass 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You often accuse others of POV and it is all you seem to be about when it comes right down to it.

And, of course, we have yet ANOTHER straw man argument as well.

Der Fuhrer is not getting off in any way shape or form. To even suggest that this is the case is to deliberatly misrepresnt the situation. In FACT, he gets hit TWICE. Once indirectly under Wars and once under genocide. Stalin does not have that dubious honor. There is a whole section on "War" but that is not good enough for you. You are obsessed with making sure that he comes in on top of Stalin. Who has the agenda here?

Adolph Hitler was a monster and the Holocaust represents a very unique and repulsive manifestation of evil. Stalin's was just as unique and no less repulsive, his victim toll's low end estimates just happens to be at Hitler's high end estimates. Including the war dead in Hitler's number is not only disengenuous but it is a diservice to his victims. it lumps in civilian victim's of Nazi genocide, including women and children, with uniformed soldiers from Oklahoma, Stirling, Paris and Moscow.--JohnFlaherty 02:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is insulting and appalling to the millions of people who suffered under Mao, Stalin, and Tojo. How can you trivialize tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of deaths by overrating the Holocaust? Please. The title "Genocide and Democide" alone IMPLY that it was deliberate attempts to destroy CIVILIANS. OUTSIDE of war. Most of the figures do NOT include soldiers. Attempting to put wars of aggression into genocide and democide will completely misconstrue the truth at best. While we're at it, why not include the millions who died in Stalin's wars, or Mao's wars, OR, even MORE, include in Tojo's already high pile of 30,000,000 (which is CITED, unlike this 5,000,000 number I've never seen), the millions of civilians caught in the crossfire, or even more, the millions who died as soldiers defending their homeland. After all, Japan's imperialism in the first half of the twentiest century could undeniably be defined as a war of aggression. How Gatoclass can try to trivialize these atrocities is beyond any sort of mortal comprehension. The only thing I'm surprised about is how you can logically reason out in your brain a motive to defend three of the worst mass murderers in history, but to antagonize one of the (relatively) minor dictators. You're as bad (or, I assume good from your perspective) as those revisionist historians that try to deny that any sort of genocide ever happened.--69.117.38.223 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with some of Gato's commenst and positions, I do not for a second agree that we are overrating the Holocaust OR that Hitler was a "(relatively) minor dictator". THAT is ridiculous and insulting and beyond any rendering of reality. Hitler was just as evil and destructive as Stalin & Mao. The Holocaust is the worst single attemp at systematic genocide ever attempted. I also know that he is not defending Stalin. Mao has never even come up yet. I do not doubt his beliefs or motives on these points.--JohnFlaherty 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, are you kidding me? If you raise Hitler beyond what he truly was, you're in effect making the other relatively trivial by reducing the gap. In reality, Hitler is overemphasized in the West enough already, but simple popular belief does not make truth. If you look at the facts and the actual numbers, Mao, Tojo, and Stalin were worse, and to even try to make Hitler match up or even go beyond is just ludicrous. It trivializes the other three.

--69.117.38.223 02:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You really should read Beevor's "Stalingrad" and "Berlin". The one thing that will become clear to you is that the best thing that could have happened for the world is if the Soviets and the Reich had anihilated each other. There is no one which is "more evil" than the other. Naziism and Communism are the two most misanthropic, destructive, oppressive ideologies in human history. Maybe we should just combine their deaths - Communist and Nazi - under Socialist Oligarchies. Course that does not solve the "death toll" issue.

Oh well.--JohnFlaherty 02:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What's with the total brushing off of Asia to the side? I just noticed another MAJOR error in the treatment of Tojo by placing the years at 1930s-1945. Please, the Japanese were beginning a systematic policy of ethnocentrism beginning at the dawn of the 20th century, notably marked by the takeover of Korea. I cannot find why it isn't absolutely mindboggling to everyone that we are basically defecating over the graves of tens of millions of Asians. If we're going to even CONSIDER Nazi "wars of aggression," we should increase the upper cap for Japanese War Crimes severalfold. Oh, and I'm still wondering why 5,000,000 was even considered as a viable number?--69.117.38.223 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We are not brushing off Asia. We will get to that. We are stuck on Stalin/Hitler first is all.--JohnFlaherty 02:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's insulting that you're even debating an obvious argument while not even considering one of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen! This is the same type of ethnocentrism that led to these war crimes in the first place!

--69.117.38.223 03:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir or Madam,

May I suggest two things?

First, if you want to participate in these debates, I recommend registering a Wikipedia name first and signing in.

Second, I recommend listening for a while. A few of us have been working on this and related issues for a while. Your input will carry more weight if you can lay back a bit at first.

Just suggestions.--JohnFlaherty 03:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir or Madam, why not stop patronizing me? Just cause I'm NOT someone who's registered, thus NOT someone whose agenda is to proliferate my own inner bias? And whatever the "few of [you]" have been doing, it obviously hasn't been accomplished anything except a bunch of people arguing over their inner biases at the expense of the truth.

--69.117.38.223 03:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not patronizing you and if you cannot tell that "JohnFlaherty" is not a madam than I am certain your editing skills are not required here.--JohnFlaherty 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clever joke. Of course, my comment wasn't deliberate at all.

--69.117.38.223 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to include some qualitative data on how people died and some extra comments to add dimension to the death figures. I have been thinking about how to vizualize them. Certainly it would be cool to have it in 3D too, and superimposed over googleearth, but i don't have that much free time on my hands. A timeline control interface would be cool too as there are quite a lot of wars and deaths.