Talk:List of wars by death toll/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

European colonization of the Americas

European colonization of the Americas should be removed it is not a war and is being used to demeaning Americans, espicalky white Americans. This is political bias and should be removed.--2601:3C5:8200:B79:646C:629:25E3:7400 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is biased, but I would not consider it a war, there were wars as part of the colonisation effort that should be listed, but these cannot simply be all grouped together, wars fought against native Americans in the 1800s constitutes a very different set of wars, to the Spanish conquests of the Inca and Aztecs for example. We already list the Spanish colonization of the Americas, which can be seen as a single series of conflicts, unless we find substantial sources quoting the other wars in the Americas as being part of a single conflict, it should not be included. Instead the wars should be listed individually, or grouped in cases where references treat them as one conflict. Many of the references for the current inclusion of the European colonization of the Americas, includes deaths that were not the result of wars, so the entry becomes misleading as it includes deaths from disease and the slave trade. Either this entry does not belong on the list, being not references to the deaths from ware fare, or references need to be found that list specifically the total estimates of dead from ware fare, which would include the dead on the colonists side.--DSBennie (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe it is being biased either, but agree that the European colonization sections should be removed and replaced with their individual wars. Listing the death toll is misleading, because it includes deaths from diseases, multiple different wars, slavery etc. The death toll from the Spanish flu isn't included in the total deaths in World War One, but rather as a seperate event after the war. Spekkios (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Death toll of the Korean war seems to be too low

The number of 1.2 mio deaths seem to be much too low, looking at other sources collected in the german article in wikipedia, the number is well above 4 Mio.:

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/politik/stalins-unerklaerter-krieg-1359099-p2.html => 4.5 Mio. from 1 Mio. South Korea, 2.5 Mio. North Korea, 1 Mio. China US: 36914 soldiers Rolf Steininger: Der vergessene Krieg. Korea 1950-1953. Olzog Verlag, München 2006. 247 S., 24,90 [Euro].

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB10.1.GIF => a weird list with lots of estimates around 4.5 Mio dead, different sources

http://www.monde-diplomatique.de/pm/2004/12/10.mondeText.artikel,a0034.idx,8 => an article of Bruce Cumings giving details about the horror of this war.

The English wikipedia seems lack a lot of information about the Korean war. This should be reviewed and improved.

Pyroman1337 (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Chaco War

Please, include Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay. From 1932 to 1935. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkoinsfran (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Muslim Conquest of India

Including all the conflict between Hindus and Muslims from 1000 to 1525 as a single "war" seems highly dubious. 129.72.147.184 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

This information lacks precision, since it's critical to has a trusted source of information far away from extremism and misleading. Balqam (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding calling it a "war", given that "Mongol conquests" is second on the list, I would think Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent would qualify. Regarding precision, there isn't going to be precision with something that started around 1000 years ago, but that doesn't seem to be an issue, given that the number three on the list started around 2000 years ago. I've done research and have found estimates between 6 million and 80 million. I've been unable to find anything that has denied a whole, whole lot of people were killed; and certainly no one who suggests under 1 million, the threshold number for this article. Is anyone familiar with estimates under 6 million? If not I'm planning on putting in an entry with 6-80, pending discussion here. I am uncomfortable with the wide range; it's significantly more than the current "winner", Conquests of Tamerlane with a 13 million spread for a 35 year conflict. But if you extrapolated that out to the number of years of the Muslim / Indian subcontinent conflict, the Muslim conquests' 74 million spread over ~500 years doesn't look so bad. --Djbclark (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No less an authority than Will Durant called the Muslim conquest of India the bloodiest in history. So it certainly seems to deserve a mention in this article, especially if a non-war like the Stalinist purges is included.The Sanity Inspector (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if the page should be split into "wars" and "campaigns". The Reconquista would also make an interesting entry. Cameron Nedland (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

seems most mentions of Islamic Conquests have been purged from the list....ideology and Wikipedia do not mix.

Consistency Error in Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire?

It say 24,300,000 dead, the source provided tell it's for the whole conquest of mexico. Furthermore, most of them are death from smallpox, when black death isn't used in the death count of mongol invasion. I couldn't find acceptable figures for Aztec Empire population, but the biggest number I found was 20M. And I've seen people arguing that with it's level of development, Aztec Empire could only host up to 5 millions people.

Anyway, why using smallpox in the Aztec death count and not in the Mongol one? (or the opposite)? There is a lack of consistency in the data provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.130.112.175 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not only is this list inconsistent. It is made on a bunch of unreliable sources. The source for the 24,300,000 dead is a private website. Not in any way a source, that should be recognized. But the list has a bunch of stupid claims, and it would be cleaned up. Fightdane (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

So like some of the "wars" depicted on this article are legit like 400 years long, like c'mon this is suppose to represent blood and anger. Chronicles of Riddick.

~~James Watson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.131.124 (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no way this is objective. This kind of comparison has to come from secondary sources, we cannot take it upon ourselves to synthesize it ourselves. The "geometric mean" idea is interesting, but just pulled from thin air. Taking the geometric mean between a high and a low estimate isn't a replacement for gauging scholarly consensus.

Also, it is clearly misleading to treat a century of Spanish colonialism, or 170 years of Mongol invasions, or 400 years of Germanic migrations, as a single "war" on equal footing with "Dungan Revolt 1862-1877" or "WWI 1914-1918". If this is the way experts have treated it, fine, but the appearence here is that this was just dreamed up for Wikipedia.

Suggestions, it has to be broken up by period (ancient, medieval, early modern modern) and it has to be broken up by campaigns under a single ruler or leader. The alternative is just to take the grand total and list it as "the great Holocene war". --dab (𒁳) 18:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of wars by death toll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430155253/http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/HMCHART_2.pdf to http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/HMCHART_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219212651/http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/Revised%20Casulaty%20Data%20-%20Press%20release.doc to http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/Revised%20Casulaty%20Data%20-%20Press%20release.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430155253/http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/HMCHART_2.pdf to http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/HMCHART_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130628013259/http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/datasets/ucdp_battle-related_deaths_dataset/ to http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/datasets/ucdp_battle-related_deaths_dataset/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170605125852/http://www.w3r-us.org/history/rosters/frgraves.htm to http://www.w3r-us.org/history/rosters/frgraves.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130103013015/http://www.guinguinbali.com/index.php?lang=en&mod=news&task=view_news&cat=3&id=1392 to http://www.guinguinbali.com/index.php?lang=en&mod=news&task=view_news&cat=3&id=1392
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015171527/https://www.radiodabanga.org/ to http://www.radiodabanga.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070503235314/http://olvia.idknet.com/ol166-12-06.htm to http://www.olvia.idknet.com/ol166-12-06.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529140050/http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Feb/1/musharraf-claims-kargil-was-a-big-success-militarily-for-pak-46.asp to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Feb/1/musharraf-claims-kargil-was-a-big-success-militarily-for-pak-46.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140802211733/http://mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=597 to http://www.mfa.gov.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=597

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Why was the Taiping Rebellion removed?

It was previously on this list. The most conservative figures for the death toll of Taiping are around 20 million (from the American consulate I believe) and estimates go as high as 80 million. The Wikipedia article on the Taiping Rebellion gives an estimate of 30 million so it should definitely be here and at least above WWI.

Figures of population decline in Qing in this period also suggest that currently accepted estimates might be too low, but that is a different discussion. Either way, there is no reason for it being removed. The Urge to Purge (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If the range for the Taping rebellion is 20-30 million then how can the geometric mean be 45 million?

Ottoman wars in Europe

Even on your own pages you have criticism of that claim by only one professor. Should you be removing it?20:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)198.24.6.220 (talk)

The claim of 5.5 million casualties was made by a single professor,who has been described numerous times as pro-Turkish and has been accused of genocide denial.which makes it quite unreliable.Additionally his estimates do not include non-Ottoman casualties,so even by his claims the information presented is inaccurate and it's obvious it must be removed.Maybe somebody wants to make a more thorough analysis but seeing how we're not talking about a single war but a large number of them taking place in a stretch of several centuries,I'm not sure it's necessary for the list.

Aspflcn (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Israel Wars

this page is missing yom kippur war on the less than 25000 deaths section. also the reference for six days war (117) is about the kurdish conflict in iran that is irrelevant to the 1967 six days war between israel, egypt, syria and jordan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.192.229.140 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Original Research in "Ancient Wars" Section

The "Ancient Wars" section lists almost no sources and some numbers are obviously wrong. Could anyone provide some information on where these data come from? Esiymbro (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

Add:

Irish War of Independence: Death Toll: 2,014

Irish Civil War: Death Toll: 1,226 Nfitzm (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Geometric Mean

A lot of the averages in the Article, are the Arithmetic Mean, and not the Geometric Mean, and Geometric Mean is what the column header says, and so I was wondering whether there was any way that we could make sure that all of the averages are always the Geometric Mean, because we currently have mixed mixed averages, which make the comparisons less useful. Is there for example a way to get Wikipedia to calculate the Geometric Mean automatically? ŠotiBriti (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any way of getting Wikipedia to calculate it automatically. But I have now fixed them all manually. - 173.171.160.127 (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but some of them are quoted to 5 significant figures, which is inappropriate precision for what is a ballpark figure. 2 sig figs would do nicely. Also I've tidied up the layout of the first table a bit; the same needs to be done to the other tables.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian War is missing

The Franco-Prussian war is missing from the the Modern section of the list of wars. Would be useful to see guidelines for how casualties are counted (sickness, death from wounds incurred in battle ...) Mheising8 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SITH (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War 144,000+ casualties should earn this war a place on the "list of wars by death toll" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheising8 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This request makes sense to me, but I'm not sure what all goes into the counts here, or why it might've been excluded from this list to begin with. I've requested assistance from the members of Wikiproject Military History. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

Expand list by including South Sudanese Civil War. 129.206.38.139 (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done you need to provide a reliable source to go with it. Iggy (Swan) 18:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Add the Rwandan Genocide to the Modern Wars section (500,000 to 1,000,000 killed in 1994). 2600:1:9321:B2C8:395E:985D:7CA:8DA (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done you need to provide a reliable source to go with it. Iggy (Swan) 18:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I was able to find a reliable source that says 800,000, so I've gone ahead and  added the Rwandan Genocide to the article, see Special:Diff/885226834. @Iggy the Swan: Since you originally declined this request, I'm pinging you to make sure that you don't have any objections now that I've added a reliable source along with it. Cheers and thanks for the request, 2600:1:9321:B2C8:395E:985D:7CA:8DA.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 19:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2019

I would like to add notes to some of the nicknames of wars, namely WW1 and would like to add "The war to end all wars" Tsouke (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

chechen wars, yugoslav wars request!

i believe a few wars haven't made the list and they should.. First Chechen War, 90.000+, 1994-1996, Russia vs either chechen republic of ichkeria or chechen rebels,... Second Chechen War, 90.000-230.000, 1999-2000 (however insurgencies across russia lasted until 2009),https://sites.tufts.edu/atrocityendings/2015/08/07/russia-1st-chechen-war/#Fatalities https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/world/europe/chechen-official-puts-death-toll-for-2-wars-at-up-to-160000.html http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/First_Chechen_War many sources available and they all vary, but they were indeed huge wars..well above 25000.. must be added. croatian war of independance 25.000+, 1991-1995, croatia and allies vs republic of serb krajina and allies https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/hrvatska-ljutski-gubici/28976312.html https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/koliko-je-ljudi-poginulo-u-domovinskom-ratu/197806/ second one only counts croatian deaths, its still higher than mentioned in the "modern wars under 25000" toll, but it was higher it even says so on the wiki page, kosovo war, 28.000+, 1998-1999, fr yugoslavia vs albanians and nato allies http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/drustvo/209031/predstavljen-popis-zrtava-sukoba-na-kosovu.html < civilian deaths only https://www.vreme.com/arhiva_html/463/05.html also sources vary, but should be added it was also a big war!..... smaller wars: Turkish invasion of Cyprus - 12.200 says on the wiki, nato bombing of yugoslavia 5000+ also on wiki and http://www.hlc-rdc.org/?cat=282, ... Aleksa.glendza (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

The wars should be ranked by death toll, not in chronological order. Entire point of this page is knowing quickly which were the deadliest wars in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.119.68.246 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You can click on the title of the relevant column of each table to change the table's display to the order for that section, ascending or descending, as indicated by the small up and/or down pointing arrows. So to display the table by death toll, just go to the top of the table and click 'Death Range' or 'Geometric Mean' once or twice. Then to switch to chronological view, click the box where it says 'Date'. Hope this helps :) Devgirl (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Moorish Wars citation

While looking through the chart of military conflicts with over 2,000,000 dead, I noticed that the Moorish Wars, that being the Byzantine conquest of North Africa under Justinian, had a stunning 5,000,000 deaths. I looked through the list of Medieval conflicts, and sure enough the Moorish Wars were listed as having 5,000,000 deaths. There was no citation attatched to this estimate, and I find the estimate incredibly unlikely, as 5,000,000 was quite a high number for population at the time, and I have seen no sources that indicate widespread death during the Moorish Wars. As a result, I would like that conflict to either be removed or provided a credible source for the 5,000,000 number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.101.202 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion?

Is there a reason the Boxer Rebellion is missing, and would there thus be a problem if I were to add it? Devgirl (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. Oranjelo100 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Needs new name

This article desperately needs a new name. The wars are listed chronologically rather than listed by death toll which is not what one would expect when clicking on this article. Plus there is already an article (List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll – with an extremely similar name) that does list by death toll, making the purpose of this one confusing. Any ideas? Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Well, I don't know. The tables are sortable; and listing wars by era gives a good sense of how the most devastating conflicts compare to contemporary conflicts. A more problematic issue would be the apparent OR of some of these selections (for example, listing the crusades all together seems like an odd choice, since the dates are known and they were separate conflicts spanning, as the article does point out, well over a human lifetime - while we're at it, why not list the two world wars (and the preceeding Franco-Prussian war) all together?)... The 'geometric mean' column is also absolutely meaningless and does not add any value: the best we have is estimates, and the given numbers wildly overstate precision (see significant digits)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok I've removed the offending column from the tables and I have tried to fix the excessively precise numbers (if you have a margin of error of several thousands, then listing extremes down to the individual casualty is pointless...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: that was a good call, those numbers are indeed meaningless. Perhaps this list could be renamed "Chronological list of major wars" and then "Major war" could be defined as one with more than 25,000 deaths in the lede? (Since these all seem to have more than 25,000) - Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Two wars that should be added on this list.

Red Turban Rebellion of 1854 (1854-1856) over 2,000,000 deaths.

Miao Rebellion (1854-1873) 4,900,000 deaths. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

CAN someone add these wars to the list that has not been stated here?

I am new at this and I do not how to edit this in. Can someone do it for me? Here the list.

Miao Rebellion (1954-1873) 4,900,000 dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miao_Rebellion_(1854%E2%80%931873)

Red Turban Rebellion (1854-1856) 2,000,000 dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Turban_Rebellion_(1854%E2%80%931856)

Punti-Hakka Clan War (1855-1867) 1,000,000 dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punti%E2%80%93Hakka_Clan_Wars

Second Dungan Revolt (1895-1896) 100,000 dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungan_revolt_(1895%E2%80%9396)

Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901) 100,000 dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

1911 Revolution (1911-1912) 220,000 dead. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911_Revolution TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

    Added Miao Rebellion and Punti-Hakka Clan War, Red Turban couldn't find a estimated death toll. KingEid (talk) 02:23, 14 
    May 2021 (UTC)

Countries involved with NATO

goto the wikipedia site: List of wars by death toll

Why are we not putting the USA as an involved country in wars,(or Canada, or UK or any nato or china or ussr), like vietnam, korean, etc??? Like really? This is censorship, and on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be reader neutral. Why is that? Speak the truth here please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.234.13 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

If you think a war needs to be added please add it with sources. Spekkios (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Guatemalan Civil War

Why is the Guatemalan civil war not included? It's one of the bloodiest modern conflicts in the hemisphere.

Then please add it with sources Spekkios (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Mfecane

There is a lot of apartheid era 'history' on Wikipedia, however this stood out: "Mfecane 1,500,000–2,000,000 1815–1840 Ethnic communities in south Africa". Problem: according to Statista, the entire population of South Africa in 1800 was 1.44 million. This would imply that the entire population of South Africa, including the Zulus, was wiped out, during the consolidation of the Zulu Empire. "In 1800, the population of the modern era of South Africa was approximately 1.44 million." Source: Statista, Population of South Africa from 1800 to 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2022

change "Allied powers (Big 3: USA, UK, USSR." to "Allied powers (Big 3: USA, UK, USSR.)" 2600:6C4E:53F:7900:D557:93CD:8067:3EDF (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I've removed the whole list and linked to respective articles instead. hemantha (brief) 09:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Russo-Japanese War

Is there a reason the Russo-Japanese_War is missing or is this just an oversight? 108.245.59.135 (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

You wish as come true

TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Personal opinion

We've crushed and killed each other to the point of destruction in History! Personal opinion. I am a Bulgarian and what the Ottomans have done is an incredible crime to the peoples of modern Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Albania/Kosovo, Serbia and Croatia. We have tortured and killed and the History probably was way bloodier than desired by many people. We could've been 10 billion, haven't we not lost 1 billion, even 2 billion in generations' wars, diseases and total genocide. Not only led by Ottoman Empire, but also China is surely for blame with the most modern and the biggest population, that they couldn't help the people in these regions. Also for blame are Italy, Spain, Germany and Great Britain, because they've higher populations and had them before in History and should've helped the people here and organised proper Crusades to stop the Ottoman invasion in Europe in time and to preserve the Medieval Balkan Empires, so that the Rennaissance and Baroque aren't only Western European value and "goodness". Our countries could've developed and experienced such strengths and values, had only other countries helped Bulgarian Empire, Byzantine Empire, Serbian Empire and Kingdom of Albania, against the Ottoman Invasion, and to have lesser but more identical countries in Modern Age. Personal opinion, once again: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the article. Spekkios (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Spekkios And If we Shine a Light towards Common Sense

Why Should have these Empires in the above mentioned countries Fought for Kingdoms and Empires in Balkans Considering the fact That all these were autocratic Institutions Headed by Imbeciles And There was no reason for them, Especially China I would say to Fight Ottomans for Balkanic kingdoms SPARTES123 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why that is relevant to a list of wars based on death toll. --Spekkios (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

‎Modern wars with fewer than 25,000 deaths by death toll - removing non-state conflicts

- This section currently has a substantial number of entries that are essentially gang wars or organized crime fights amongst themselves, with an emphasis on biker gangs. It looks like this began 12/19/20 with an IP editor. There are also Appalachian clan feuds, etc. in there e.g. Greene–Jones War. I propose removing at least most and probably all entries in this section where neither party is a state actor (i.e. a government). I'd do it myself now, but it looks like this page has multiple active watchers, and there doesn't seem to have been much discussion of this question, so inviting a discussion.

- Relatedly, this page might benefit with providing more clarity either at the top or under section leads in just how a "war" is being defined. CAVincent (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

30 years war

Anyone know why the 30 years war is not added, considering the high amount of death involved in it? With estimates ranging between 4 to 12 million dead. Thirty_Years'_War 2A02:8071:2283:5B80:0:0:0:B852 (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It is on there and it always was on there. You must of missed it. TaipingRebellion1850 (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Partition of India

Should death occurring as a result of Partition of India not find a place in this list? As per this page Partition of India death estimates vary, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 2,000,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UdayanBanerjee (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also a note, it says "Pakistam" which is presumably a typo. page is locked currently. 73.221.126.47 (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Partition of India was not a war exactly as such it was just mass riots and lynching from both sides, as such a massacre or genocide. It doesn't count as a war ParthNaik1605 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Polish Soviet War

I can't find this on this list. Shouldn't Soviet invasion of Poland be mentioned in the list for 25k+?

Maybe there's a reason it wasn't mentioned, but i thought I'd bring it up just in case. 82.18.192.211 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear which of the List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia you suggest adding, but if you mean the 1939 invasion, that's not generally considered a separate war. CAVincent (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Mahabharat and Ramayana war

I just wanted to note to everyone the addition of the Ramayana War and the Mahabharat War in the article. However many are disputing this simply because they are coining it off as "Fake" and "Mythological". Allow me to just clarify this for everyone here that both wars are real and deserve a spot on this article. Reason being is that I have cited substantial evidences to show that both wars indeed happened along with Archeological evidences and studies which prove that both happen. Although the death count for both wars may seem a problem, I have found additional sources for both in order to prove both. For those who wish to remove this due to it being "Mythological" please I highly highly suggest to go through all the sources cited and prove them otherwise before removing them. If you are able to I will personally remove both additions but for now, as per research conducted, these two wars were real and their heavy death counts makes them worthy of being on this list. If you wish to challenge this in any sort of way please do by replying to this and not directly removing it from the article. ParthNaik1605 (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Three of those sources are works of literature and are not meant to be taken as historical fact. The other two references are proof that the peoples existed, not proof of the war. Troy being real doesn't mean that the Trojan War literally happened as described in "The Iliad". Outside of the whole religious angle, academic consensus is that there were not a billion people in South Asia circa 8,000 BCE. Occamsrazorwit (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

These works of Literature as you call them are the actual recordings of the Ramayana itself by Valkimi. Considering that he lived around the 4th century BCE, he would have had great access to actual records of families as well as records of the time in order to construct this. He has done so in this format which is due to the fact he wished to convey more than just a "Story" but rather lessons on how to live life, forming one of the bases for current Hinduism. But anyway, if you still feel that Ramayana is not real and not a fact, allow me to present you even more evidence.

1. Hanuman's footprint in Lanka.

As per Ramayana, Hanuman enlarged himself and flew all the way to lanka in order to spy and get valuable information about the Kingdom and primarily to see where Sita is being held bondage (Which was the primary reason the war happened). The evidence that he actually did land in Lanka is proven by his footprints found in Lanka as well as Lepakshi in India (You can find them on google). Lepakshi is on the way from Ayodhya to Lanka and near Bengaluru, where the Kishkindha kingdom was located. This is proof about Rama's travels to Lanka along with Hanuman as depicted in the Ramayana.

2. Ram Setu Bridge

As per Ramayana, in order to get Ram's army into Lanka, the soldiers built a bridge by writing "Sree Ram" on the bottom of it and making them float, creating a bridge all the way to Lanka. Well, in fact there is a land connection between India and Sri Lanka and as per geographical, botanical, and folkloristic evidences that this was indeed a full land bridge connecting the two land bodies built prehisorically. Moreover, in Rameswaram, Tamil Nadu there are actual floating stones (Which I personally have had the pleasure to see myself) which point in the direction of Lanka. Hence, the presence of the bridge proves the war as the bridge was built by the same army that went on to fight Ravana in Lanka. This bridge is known today as "Adam's bridge"

3. Ashok Vatika

As per Ramayana, Sita, the wife of Ram was held captive at the Ashok Vatika, where in Hanuman landed and presented himself to her and gave a message saying Ram will come soon. The Ashok Vatika, also contains giant footprints close to the size of the ones in Lepakshi. This proves that Hanuman did indeed come to Lanka as per Ram's request and hence, if Hanuman actually came to the Ashok Vatika, this is proof that Sita was present at the place and meaning that the war did take place as she was freed from the area later on.

These are physical proofs of Ramayana. I think that these are now beyond academic sources so try and prove these wrong if you still think Ramayana was a "Fake Mythology" that if included in this list would "Insult all Hindu Historians". Till then, Ramayana and Mahabharat stay as official wars that took place with high death counts that deserve a spot on his list.

Oh and as for the population estimates, let me just tell you that these population estimates were made by the Babylonian Empire which at the time of the Ramayana, did not even exist. Hence by what justification can you coin the death toll as not matching with the census? ParthNaik1605 (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In under 48 hours, your attempts to add these wars have been reverted by four different registered users and two IPs. I'd say that indicates a strong consensus against inclusion, even if few bother to engage your various arguments. (The reason I'm not responding to your arguments is not because I think that they are strong, but because I think that they are too weak to be worth rebutting.) Extraordinary claims do not stay in the article until someone proves you wrong to your satisfaction. You need to build an actual consensus for their inclusion, which appears unlikely to occur. Please stop these disruptive additions to the article. CAVincent (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)