Content deleted Content added
you can't force 60 million on the bottom line because you think it's right |
|||
Line 249:
::It qiute clear that many of these figures are estimates and that the total is "about 72 million", we can only list the casualties from the sources and add down the numbers. To tweek the numbers and list our own estimates would be original research--[[User:Woogie10w|Woogie10w]] 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not original research, because 90% of other sources say that it's a bit over 60 million. Technically, what we have is original research as well because we don't have a source backing up that 72 mill. I agree with Kapranoff. (my apologies, I'm not trying to sound rude)I see that you have been dominating the information that goes into this article, but right now in all fairness its 2 v 1 on changing that. So if no one comes to your aid for agreement, we'll put a note in there about this.--[[User:LtWinters|LtWinters]] 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
::If you dispute a number of any one country please let us know, but you can't force 60 million on the bottom line because you think it's right. The sources here back up 72 million. Your "sources" are a list of numbers that add down to 55 million. The figures are not backed up with verifiable sources. The number gets bumped up to 72 million because of the 12 million war related famine deaths in Asia. In any case the reader is told that the numbers range from 50 to over 70 million and there is a link to the Matthew White list of casualty estimates.
| |||