Talk:List of wars by death toll

Partition of India and Bangladesh War

whoever reverted my edit clearly doesnt know that the indo-pakistani war of 1971 was of 1 week while bangladesh liberation war was of months.

The Indo-pak war of 1971 is a part of bangladesh liberation war and not the other way around.

Partition of india was organised by princely states,

Partition of India#Princely states

Partition of India#Regions affected by partition

Kindly give this and this a read.

Also it was called India's civil war by British Pathe

https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/79339/ (according to wiki guidelines this is a valid and reliable source.) 2405:201:200F:71E7:9D8D:125F:9F8:EC82 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

there was 'no formal military' , Pakistani military was involved.

Several princely states even fought each other. 2405:201:200F:71E7:9D8D:125F:9F8:EC82 (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@EarthDude JingJongPascal (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, the Bangladesh War and Indo-pakistan war thing was an error on my part. My bad, I fixed it tho, it says Bangladesh Liberation War now.

Regarding the Partition. That was not a war. I believe refugee crisis or ethnic cleansing or something along those lines define it better. It included lots of massacres and such, but there was no formal armed or military conflict between any state EarthDude (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Then how would you define a 'war'?

Already told that Pakistani Army , Militants of Pashtun , Kingdoms of Punjab all were simuntanously doing (sure ethnic cleansing), but there were armed conflicts between Different sikh factions and muslim militants.

As i have already linked 2 sources

the first being wiki page of the article , give it a read and other being the british pathe (an reliable source) calling it a 'indian civil war' JingJongPascal (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I looked into it, and it only confirmed how the partition wasn't a war. The conflicts that happened were fragmented and localized skirmishes. The absolute vast majority of the deaths and destruction that occured were due to migration crises and genocide. Also, even if the British Pathe called it a civil war, that's not accurate according to most historical interpretations, and it may have been more of a journalist choice EarthDude (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Got it, sorry for wasting your time, also i was about to ask, that can we classify various battles fought for the same porpouse and between same enemies into a single war. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@EarthDude JingJongPascal (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Second Parthian Kushan war is debated but that doesnt mean you will undermine my sources for the casaulties and straight away push your POV @EarthDude JingJongPascal (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and I want to clarify that my concern is simply about ensuring that the list is as historically accurate as possible, and I'm not trying to push any POV. From what I’ve researched, including only some of the many sources I cited in the edit summary, the occurrence of the Second Parthian war is still debated among historians. Given that this page has previously had issues with unverified entries (like religious and mythological wars), I believe we need to be cautious about including wars that may not have happened. Though I'm definitely open to further discussion about this as I think we both want to make sure the article is historically accurate and reliable EarthDude (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened???

This page is such a mess now. So many wars are even missing, like the Vietnam War. It's even listed by lowest estimate instead of by the highest estimate, which is the common convention, and while I was trying to fix the completely broken listing, the page was reverted halfway through my edit. What the actual fuck?! Im gonna revert the page back to yesterday, and then add all the new wars in an orderly way. Do we need to semi-protect this page??? EarthDude (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I reverted your edit, I added a few wars and I reordered it by highest estimate like you said. There is no need to revert the changes that I have made, Vietnam war is a part of the indochina wars, which I believe should be included as just one because they took place right after the other. Those edits were made by another user. Teotzin190 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh alright thanks. I wasn't gonna remove any wars, I was just gonna fix the order of it. I was mid-edit and basically almost done though so that was a bit annoying lol EarthDude (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any idea of the amount of wars you would be deleting if you keep reverting the edits? I spent some time yesterday adding them, and it would suck if someone just reverted them because "he found it messy". If you want to reorder them to make it less messy, go ahead, but do not revert it: you can just edit the casualties' column.

Also the Vietnam war is part of the Indochina wars, being the Vietnam war considered the Second Indochina War. Potestade (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, I wasn't going to delete any wars. Just order them by the highest estimate, which is common convention. I wasn't doing it just because I "found it messy" EarthDude (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right on one thing, though: we should separate the Indochina wars into three since they took place one after the other (the First Indochina war, the Vietnam War and the Third Indochina War). I will do it in a couple of hours, since right now I don't have the time. However, if you yourself want to do it already go ahead. Potestade (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Indochina Wars

I think the Indochina Wars should be reframed, and wars such as the First Indochina War, the Vietnam War, etc. should be listed as separate wars EarthDude (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea.

But I don't really know if we should do the same to the "Independence of Spanish colonies" one... It looks good just like now, but I could be wrong. Potestade (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, splitting those wars up will help with specifics but I recommend the list doesn’t grow over 100 wars. Teotzin190 (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the edits! I wanted to do it but couldn't cuz I got busy EarthDude (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine to be added?

I mean yes, the confrontation between Russian and Ukraine began in 2014, but the 2014-2022 war had much less fatalities than the 2022-present one. Sources say that the former had around 14,000 total fatalities, which, as far as I understand, does not qualify it as the war to be added to the list in question, while the latter phase already incurred an order of magnitude more deaths on both sides. Gorgedweller (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The Donbas war and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are both events in the larger Russo-Ukraine conflict. While specifying and detailing the complexity of these events are important, especially in larger wars (that's why we need to separate the Indochina Wars or the Punic Wars into their three respective armed conflicts), I don't see why complicating this one would do any good, especially considering it is a rather recent conflict which doesn't even surpass the million (or even half a million, for now) deaths.

In this article we must simplify some wars when necessary (like when two conflicts are inseparable, causally related and temporally contiguous), and this is such case. It would be bonkers to further break down the war into each individual battle, for example. In the previous "List of wars by death toll" article they weren't separated, since the Donbas war "only" claimed the lives of 14,400 people, was contiguous with the Russian invasion and is literally the same conflict.

The thing is, your proposal only sounds intuitive if we consider it is a recent conflict engraved in the geopolitical common knowledge and some think it would make sense to further detail it, but if we do it, we would need to follow the same reasoning into several other really complex wars of the past (some of those almost forgotten by the public) which most scholars group into a single conflict, which wouldn't seem so intuitive. Think about how bonkers it would be to separate the Second Sino-Japanese War with the Second World War.

Your approach is sensible and reasonable, but I don't think we should apply it in this particular conflict and create a different entry for a rather small war. Potestade (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

categorization on lower-end or higher-end ?

@EarthDude

categorize on basis of lower end estimate or higher end? this has been alot confusing, as many people categorize it on lower-end while others on higher end , we should clear this out for no confusions later and present in the list,

i personally think higher end. JingJongPascal (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean?

It is already categorized by the higher end estimate EarthDude (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

many are not , and its alot confusing JingJongPascal (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

They're all categorized the same way. If some war has same highest estimate, then in that case, the lower estimate is taken into account. Could you give specific examples of those which aren't? EarthDude (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

War on terror

So the list categorizes a broad set of different conflicts under the umbrella term of "War on terror". But is it wise, for example, to categorize Syrian Civil War under this term? I mean sure, terrorist factions played and to some extent continue to play an important role in the conflict, but it was so much more than "terrorists-anti-terrorists" dyad. IMO, at least this particular war we could include the war as a separate entry. Gorgedweller (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The War on terror is a loosely defined umbrella term, true. In this list it unifies the Syrian Civil War, the Iraqi conflict, the Libyan civil wars, the Algerian civil war, the Filipino conflict, the Yemeni civil war, the Somali civil War, the Boko Haram insurgency and the Insurgency in the Maghreb...

If you want to separate them, go ahead, but keep in mind that you would need to create an entry for each of them: not just the Syrian Civil War and delete the "War on terror"; and some of them, like the Insurgency in the Maghreb, don't even reach the 100,000 deaths, which is the lowest "highest estimate" included in this list for now. Potestade (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. I alredy fixed it. Potestade (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Number of wars

I feel like 100 is a good maximum number of wars. We should remove the excesses. If we find more wars with higher death tolls, they should be included and the least deadly should then be removed, to keep the number at 100. If we keep going without any limit, the list is going to get absurdly big. Thoughts? EarthDude (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we should end the list once we ran out of wars which maximun death toll isn't higher than 0.1 million, specially because the table would end up becoming really weird if we add a conflict with "0.001 million deaths". I actually don't think we have a lot left, or even any left. At least I can't find the numbers for other wars which were not well documented, but even if someone in the future does, those are just a few and won't increase the length of the article by a lot, even in the worst-case scenario the list won't exceed the 110-ish conflicts.

If most editors agree, we could make another list below which contains wars with less than 100,000 casualties (maximun death toll). If I remember correctly, the previous article had one like that... However, this could quickly lead to chaos. What's even a war? Thousands of skirmishes, revolts, terrorist attacks or incursions into adjacent territory would need be included if we create another list for "smaller conflicts", and there are A LOT of them, many not even relevant. Potestade (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The only exception would be if we decided to delete the War on terror and separate it into its individual smaller components like @Gorgedweller said: the Syrian Civil War, the Iraqi conflict, the Somali Civil War, the Boko Haram insurgency, the Insurgency in the Maghreb, the Yemeni Civil War, the Civil conflict in the Philippines and the Algerian Civil War would add an additional 7 conflicts to the list.

But yeah, apart from that, NO MORE. Potestade (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh and the Libyan civil wars, too. Potestade (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that even that seems a little too much. Also yeah, adding a separate list of wars with death toll less than 100,000 would clutter the article a lot, especially cuz it's already so big EarthDude (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

121 wars is definitely too much @Potestade, @Teotzin190 EarthDude (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The only way I see of solving that is merging the Burundian Civil War with the Second Congo War, since they are practically the same conflict and happaned at the same time in the same region. Potestade (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I say it should be no more than 120 Teotzin190 (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Denevan's figures reference not valid

William Denevan, a notable geographer and author born in 1931, has made significant contributions to the field of population estimates, particularly regarding the indigenous populations of the Americas in the year 1492. His work is often cited alongside that of Charles C. Mann, particularly his book "1491," which has gained considerable acclaim. However, critical examination of Denevan’s population estimates reveals inconsistencies that prompt skepticism about their validity. It is essential to engage in a rigorous analysis of his figures, as highlighted in the document "The Pristine Myth," which is readily accessible online. Such scrutiny is crucial in addressing the historical narratives surrounding indigenous populations and ensuring a more accurate understanding of their demographic histories. However, it is imperative to approach his estimates with a critical lens, recognizing that they may reflect the biases of his methodology rather than a definitive representation of historical realities. This reflective approach allows for a more nuanced discourse on the population data and its implications for understanding historical genocides.

I am grateful to Denevan for taking the trouble to specify his figures by country. According to him, in 1492, there were 3.8 million Indians in ‘North America’ and 17.2 million in Mexico. Denevan stated that the population fell by 90% in the 16th century. To sum up: ‘North America’, i.e. USA + Canada. 1492: 3.8 million Indians 1600: 380 000 Indians (10% of what there were in 1492 according to Denevan). 2023: 11.8 million indigenous people between Indians and mestizos. Mexico 1492: 17.2 million 1600: 1.7 million 2023: 118 million mestizos alone. 25 million of them are indigenous according to Statista (90% of the Mexican population, 118 million, are of indigenous descent). In other words, according to Denevan, the indigenous and mestizo population in ‘North America’ would have increased 31-fold in 423 years (from 1600 to 2023); while Mexico's natives and mestizos would have grown by a factor of 69 to 1.

In 1492, he estimates 3.8 million Indigenous peoples inhabited what is now the United States and Canada, while Mexico had a significantly larger population of 17.2 million. His findings indicate a catastrophic decline in Indigenous populations during the 16th century, with a dramatic 90% reduction, which suggests that by 1600, the Indigenous population in North America had dwindled to approximately 380,000. In stark contrast, the population of Mexico had plunged to about 1.7 million by the same year. Fast forward to 2023, the data tells a different story. In North America, the combined Indigenous and mestizo population reached approximately 11.8 million, signifying a remarkable recovery that represents a 31-fold increase since 1600. Meanwhile, in Mexico, where the mestizo population has ballooned, there are now an estimated 118 million mestizos, with about 25 million being of Indigenous descent—illustrating a growth factor of 69 times the original population within a span of 423 years.

The data presented by Denevan suggests that the indigenous populations of the regions in Mexico experienced population growth at rates exceeding those in North America by more than double. This assertion adds to a remarkable narrative regarding demographic trends since the 16th century. Notably, the global population has escalated from approximately 700 million to over 8 billion, indicating an increase by a factor of 10 to 12. In contrast, indigenous populations in Mexico are purported to have expanded almost 69 times faster than the world average. Meanwhile, those in North America displayed growth rates that were still significant, at three times the global average.

When projected over centuries, the implications become profound. Denevan posits that descendants of indigenous Mexicans could potentially multiply their numbers by a factor of 70 every 400 years. This translates to an increase of approximately 17.5 times every century, leading to an estimated population of 2.065 billion descendants by the year 2124, tracing back to the indigenous communities around 1492. Such projections invite deeper exploration of historical and socio-economic factors influencing these demographic trends.

The implications of Denevan's figures suggest that, rather than perpetuating acts of genocide, the Spanish colonial powers facilitated a demographic increase among indigenous populations at a rate purportedly seven times greater than that of other human communities. However, such claims warrant critical scrutiny. If Denevan's assertions hold validity, this would imply a significantly anomalous growth rate for indigenous groups, a proposition that appears fundamentally implausible within the broader context of historical demographic trends. Such assertions raise important questions regarding the accuracy and interpretation of the data presented. 194.38.172.194 (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Figure for the An Lushan rebellion

@EarthDude, the 36 million figure should be removed and the number should be solely 13 million instead, here’s why:

1. The author of the original figure, Matthew White, later revised his claim of 36 million (taken by calculating the difference between the prewar census population and the post war census population, I will explain in the last reason why this is not considered reliable at all for the page) down to 13 million (taken as a result of the factors I will explain down below and calculating how much of the loss in census population was attributed to deaths from the war), making the previous number obsolete.
2. Steven Pinker, the person that is cited for that number in the page, got it from White and later stated that the figure itself was controversial.
3. White’s new figure of 13 million is the currently accepted figure for the death toll of the An Lushan rebellion and is repeated by many historians.
4. Historians also argue that the claims of massive depopulation are incompatible with contemporary accounts from the war, further invalidating that number.
5. The war itself was fought for a short period of time in three to four provinces and so the figure is far-fetched.
6. The census loss from before the war and after the war can not solely be attributed to the war itself but from a breakdown in census gathering. For example postwar registers reflect a breakdown of accuracy of the census and the removal from the census figures of various classes of untaxed persons, such as those in religious orders, foreigners and merchants. Not just that, several of the northern provinces that held a quarter of the empires total population, were no longer subject to the imperial revenue system and thus not counted in the census. For these reasons, census numbers for the post-rebellion Tang are considered unreliable.

And this is all cited information I found from the An Lushan rebellion page itself. Teotzin190 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked deeper into it, and yeah, and keeping it to only 13 m makes sense. I edited the page and fixed the death toll to just that EarthDude (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for making the edit. Teotzin190 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

Inherli has come in and made repeated reverts of the article to its months old version, disrupted the extensive amount of work done by many editors to better the page.

They gave no reason for their edits. When I tried to suggest opening a discussion over what they wanted, they completely ignored it, and continued on with their disruptive, and non-constructive reverts. This is definitively vandalism.

I reverted their vandalism, and Inherli began edit warring. Even though what I was doing followed WP:IAR, both of us were given edit warring notices.

What should we do? EarthDude (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The first thing to do is leave a message on @Inherli's talk page and invite him/her to come here to the article talk page and explain why the old version of the article is so important. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I already left a message on Inherli's talk page a while back, suggesting discussing the changes they want made in the talk page of this article, nothing how u constructive their reverts were. They've completely ignored it, and after that, kept reverting the page even after that EarthDude (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. Well in their absence, explain here why you think the old version that he/she restored isn't valid any more. What bits of Wikipedia policy or manual of style does it contravene and why is the current version (which ever version that might be) the right approach. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's not valid

The old version @Inherli restored doesn't have sources for most of its entries, has a LOT of original research, it doesn't even define what a war is and what the criteria for inclusion is, and overall, doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for quality, and an insane amount of the info is straight up inaccurate. Worst of all, list of wars by death toll inherently means that wars should be listed from most to least deadly, but the version restored by @Inherli lists them chronologically.

A lot of editors, like @Potestade and @Teotzin190 came together to better the article and all of us did so over weeks and weeks of extensive work, so that the article becomes a reliable source of historical information. And then @Inherli comes in and repeatedly vandalizes the entire page. In what world is that valid? EarthDude (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Not only was he vandalizing the page, but he is now targeting all of my edits trying to revert them without reason, I believed that he should be blocked from editing Wikipedia as a whole for a certain period. Teotzin190 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

File a report at WP:ANI (and don't forget to notify him) 10mmsocket (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly useful source

While looking at the article references I came across this source[1], it's currently only used for the Iran-Iraq war but page 154–155 has estimates for many conflicts between 1945–1995. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems pretty useful. I looked through the ref, and found 5 wars that could be added that aren't already on the list, namely the Cambodian Civil War, the Angolan Civil War, the Mozambican Civil War, the Soviet–Afghan War, and the Rwandan Civil War (Including the Rwandan genocide) EarthDude (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Overall problem with max. estimates

Some entries do not give the maximal estimate for a given conflict, which can be misleading. For example, an extremely generous and optimist estimate was given for the Iran-Irak war which is not in accordance with the war's article and with the commonly accepted v. high casualties of this conflict. Same goes for the Roman-Jewish wars. 193.253.106.228 (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The article for the Iran-Iraq war says 450,000 – 500,000 total casualties and the list says 0.45–0.50 million, which is the same. Similarly the Jewish-Roman wars 350,000 – 1.4 million, which again matches the list. So I'm unsure what mismatch you mean? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Another useful resource

Archive.org have The great big book of horrible things by Matthew White available for borrowing, you just have to sign up for an account. Starting at page 529 is a long list of what the author calls 'multicides', many of which are wars, which could make it a good source for this list. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Noticing an inconsistency to this

on the Wikipedia page for the 30 years war, it lists at most on the side panel 4.5-8 million deaths, yet in the chart here it places it at 4-12 million. is it possible someone can fix the chart to ensure the proper totals are listed here? this doesnt seem like a topic you would want to misrepresent 67.149.96.49 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it. The war was using the Red Cross as it's source for the death toll, and the war's page was using scholarly sources. The latter seems much more reliable so I replaced the original citation with that and fixed the death toll EarthDude (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Mass revert

Just to say I obviously object to the mass revert of the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Same here EarthDude (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by it, Inherli doesn't appear to want to discuss it (per previous sections) and they don't have any prior involvement with the article other than edit warring. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems like they just want to vandalize Wikipedia pages and are giving random reasons for it. Looking at their edit history, they've been involved in countless edit wars before, and don't appear to have ever engaged in any discussion EarthDude (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM is very specific, and I'm sure Inherli isn't trying to deliberately harm Wikipedia. However consensus is against them, so unless they engage and try to convince people of why their version should be kept their actions are pointless. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also Inherli (as you at least appear to be reading this) just because something can be verified doesn't guarantee inclusion, see WP:VNOT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the size of the reversion and lack of communication, I can't figure out if Inherli has any point or rationale to these edits, or is purely being deliberately disruptive. Even if not *intended* to be disruptive, that seems to be the effect. Given their history and that past sanctions seem to have been ineffective at changing behavior, it looks like a permanent project-wide block may be in order for Inherli at this point. CAVincent (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorting table by date by date

When I sort the list by date, several of the top wars occurred in the CE (AD) but are listed among the earlier wars that occurred in BCE(BC). Can this be fixed?

Screenshot here. https://ibb.co/2d3J21P 2600:1700:7D06:9000:83C:A299:9F85:F2B8 (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears that the table isnt identifying the BCs, and isn't taking them at all when it is sorting. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I am going to ping some other editors, to see if they do: @ActivelyDisinterested, @Potestade EarthDude (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest asking at WP:VPT the editors there should know. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I asked it there and got the answer! I've fixed the issue now. Thanks for the suggestion to ask it over there EarthDude (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, thank you all for working on this so quickly. 2600:1700:7D06:9000:C0F8:C842:546C:D8E8 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Problems

1st problem: "This list broadly defines war as an extended conflict between two or more armed political groups."

Why? Something such as World War II has absolutely zero similarity to Mongol invasions and conquests. One is a continuous war, the other is indeed as mentioned an "extended conflict". This personally makes no sense. Just because there seems to be dedicated pages and sources which go on about all of this does not make the Mongol invasions fair to include. That's as if I were to say to include Russian Empire conquests and wars, it makes quite literally zero sense. This list is very poor at showing just how deadly wars were if it includes conflicts that went on for centuries. A war is a war, one intense armed conflict, not the history of an empire and its atrocities committed. Quite simply, this page should only have continuous wars, not things that happened over a period of time. This would include for example splitting off conflicts like the Chinese Civil War and Hundred Years' War. Perhaps some conflicts here (such as the latter just mentioned) don't have casualties for exact periods, although I personally think that just means they shouldn't be included.

2nd problem: Strange judgement.

Why are death tolls based on the highest estimate? For example, the Nigerian Civil War has quite close estimates, 3.04 million to 4.1 million. However, the Vietnam War which has 1.1 to 4.2 million is above it. This feels like a really strange way to judge what the rankings should be, the range is so big that obviously we can't predict what is the right amount. Just imagine if Vietnam War's true death toll was 1.1 million, that'd put it quite a few positions down. I feel like there should be a better way of ranking by death toll, perhaps based on most agreed on death toll or just the general median.

3rd problem: Other random things.

Why do the Northern Wars have a death toll of 0.57 million when one of the wars part of it (Northern War of 1655–1660) has a death toll of 3-4 million already?

Why are there groupings such as Uganda-Tanzania War and Ugandan Bush War OR Cuban Wars of Independence and Spanish–American War, I'm not sure why they are exactly included. Yes they do correlate, but once again, they aren't the same wars, nor ever grouped as one series of events.

Why does the list end at 119? Insanely random number, might as well just end it at 100, otherwise this list could go on and on and on.

Overall, there are some quite radical changes I've proposed, and I doubt many will agree, but I would like to hear what others think. Perhaps some might disagree with all, or even agree with some. Setergh (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude I see you seem to do a lot of work on this page, figured I should mention you. Setergh (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

1. I get the issues you've mentioned. I do work on this article regularly, but most of the inclusion of wars, wasn't added by me, but by other editors such as @Potestade. I do see your point on the definition of wars. The page previously used to use dictionary definitions of wars, but it doesn't anymore. We could bring that back with consensus. I've also previously worked on bifurcation conflicts. For example, the list previously used to have Afghan conflict noted all the way from the 70s to 2021, and I bifurcation that into the Soviet–Afghan War and War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). We may need a broader discussion on what wars to bifurcate or keep.

2. Regarding your second point, you can click on the death toll tab at the top of the table to change how it lists wars, from lowest to highest, from lower estimates, etc.

3. Your third point seems to be quite valid. I've removed the last 19 wars, to have the list end at 100 wars. EarthDude (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

1st point: I'd gladly try and see what the consensus could be from others!

2nd point: Fair enough, didn't know, sorry!

3rd point: Glad we agree on this, and thank you for the change!

I see that @Nillurcheier has decided to revert the change though, so I would like to say to them: There is no point in keeping the content, even if it is well sourced. It doesn't make very much sense to just randomly leave it at 119 and then keep it because someone put effort into it. End it at 100, simple as that. Setergh (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've just fixed the "insanely random number" and, in order not to delete useful information and reliable sources, I rounded up the number up to 130.

What's your source so as to claim the Northern Wars had +3-4 million deaths?

The wars in Cuba; the wars in Uganda; the wars in India; or the wars in Sierra Leone that are glued together are contiguous and interdependent conflicts, which causally escalate into the other. You could think of them as different stages of a broader armed conflict. It's the same reason we don't add the "Russo-Ukranian War" in addition of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine"; or the reason we don't divide the Arab-Israeli conflict further (that would actually be insanely chaotic, and we need to prioritize tidiness and clearness in this article), for example.

You may find an issue with this when considering the Mongol invasions and conquests. We just consider it one conflict since there is alredy a Wikipedia article about that, and there is also alredy an in-depth analysis of the destruction caused by said period at the Destruction under the Mongol Empire article.

However, I'm open to reach some sort of consensus with you and the rest of the editors in this page. I'll gladly hear what you have to say.

Also, even if you want to round up the number back to 100, please don't revert the last edits I just made. We can deliberate and remove some particular wars but I really don't want to write the additional 11 wars all over again. Thanks beforehand. Potestade (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Im fine with the list having 130 wars. Seems like a nice round number. Also, @Potestade, should we add a note in the lead for the criteria by which wars have been added or not, for clarity and to avoid confusion in matters like this. I don't think the current definition on the lead is sufficient here EarthDude (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand what the lead is implying. My point is that I don't think the system should work this way, not that it's not understandable. Setergh (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

"I've just fixed the "insanely random number" and, in order not to delete useful information and reliable sources, I rounded up the number up to 130."

Seems good to me.

"What's your source so as to claim the Northern Wars had +3-4 million deaths?"

The Deluge is quite literally part of them, no?

"The wars in Cuba; the wars in Uganda; the wars in India; or the wars in Sierra Leone that are glued together are contiguous and interdependent conflicts, which causally escalate into the other. You could think of them as different stages of a broader armed conflict. It's the same reason we don't add the "Russo-Ukranian War" in addition of the "Russian invasion of Ukraine"; or the reason we don't divide the Arab-Israeli conflict further (that would actually be insanely chaotic, and we need to prioritize tidiness and clearness in this article), for example."

I understand that, but either way my main point was that series' of conflicts shouldn't be included on here, instead just independent conflicts (such as WW2).

"You may find an issue with this when considering the Mongol invasions and conquests. We just consider it one conflict since there is alredy a Wikipedia article about that, and there is also already an in-depth analysis of the destruction caused by said period at the Destruction under the Mongol Empire article."

I made this point in my original complaints, I do find this to be a poor way of classifying wars. And either way, most of those casualties come from straight up massacring, which I'm pretty sure is against this article's policy, no? It's basically just the history of the Mongol Empire just based on the atrocities they committed.

"However, I'm open to reach some sort of consensus with you and the rest of the editors in this page. I'll gladly hear what you have to say."

So am I!

"Also, even if you want to round up the number back to 100, please don't revert the last edits I just made. We can deliberate and remove some particular wars but I really don't want to write the additional 11 wars all over again. Thanks beforehand. "

Yeah, I get that. I perhaps could see 150, but thinking about it, the casualties by then would be incredibly low, which is why I think we should try and round it up to 100. However, for now, I'm fine with keeping your additions. Setergh (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You were absolutely right. I just corrected that first thing and merged the Northern Wars with the Deluge.

I think the wars in Uganda, Cuba, India or Sierra Leone that are somewhat merged together are too intertwined and continuous to separate them (and some of those separated wars wouldn't even reach the 0.1 million deaths on their own), same with the Russo-Ukranian War: they are just commonly understood as part of the same specific conflict, broadly speaking. Things like the Chinese Civil War or the Hundred Years' War are so trivially accepted as a single conflict with small "pauses" in between the fighting, academically speaking, that it doesn't make much sense to separate them; and their individual "phases" don't even have their own Wikipedia articles on their own. The wars that make up the Arab-Israeli conflict don't face the first issue, but they are not deadly enough on their own so as to reach the aforementioned 0.1 million deaths neither.

We could, in theory, separate the smaller campaigns that make up the Mongol invasions and conquests. The article would reach some 140 total wars in total by doing this, probably. However, I don't see it necessary considering Wikipedia has a Destruction under the Mongol Empire article alredy, which doesn't look into the smaller wars that make up that period even if some of those massacres didn't happen during wartime, instead analysing the destruction caused by that entire period altogether. Similarly, I don't know how we could divide the Reconquista, since there isn't much information (or any, for that matter) about how many deaths were caused by the individual campaigns that make it up. The Northern Wars may be a bit easier to divide, though, considering the larger amount of sources about its individual wars' death tolls.

However, if you wish, we could proceed, and try to figure it out ourselves somehow. I'm curious what @EarthDude, @ActivelyDisinterested or @Nillurcheier think about this.

Are there any other conflicts you think we could split up (if we actually end up splitting them up)? Potestade (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with quite a lot of your points, the wars mentioned are either trivially accepted by one or link with each other enough to count together. However, I feel like the Mongol Empire should not be kept as one. The campaigns of theirs have tons of casualties themselves, so I feel like they could easily be separated.

I also don't know how much I wanna just keep things together as one such as the Reconquista just cause of lack of data, but hey, it's not only up to me, we'll see.

I might look into other conflicts to separate further tomorrow as I'm already writing this at a bit of a late time where I just don't want to (especially on mobile).

Just wanted to also say thank you for participating in the discussion so far, it's gladly appreciated! Setergh (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree for the Mongol wars specifically. Theyre generally seen as a continuous broaded conflict instead of a connection of smaller wars. I think theres no problem with Mongol invasions and conquests being a single entry on the list EarthDude (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)