Jump to content

Talk:Great Chinese Famine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kate-Pure, Rchabes (article contribs).

Infobox

[edit]

Kenixkil (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant, but it was not an event of the Cultural Revolution, so I wouldn't include the navbox on the page. Remsense 22:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll table

[edit]

The table is very long and mixes statistical estimates with guesstimates by historians. Would it make sense to split the table into two, or convert all non-statistical estimates into paragraph format? SocDoneLeft (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how would you distinguish the two? Gawaon (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gawaon: Papers or books which ran some kind of regression vs those which did not. SocDoneLeft (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that a historian who made an estimate after carefully researching the situation on the ground is somehow less qualified than a mathematician who put an arbitrary formula together to derive a result that's mathematically sound but largely unrelated to the actual situation? If so, I would be unconvinced. Dividing better from more or less arbitrary estimates could be useful, but I doubt it's primarily a question of maths. Gawaon (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try two replies:
1. To divide more from less arbitrary estimates: Would you accept a divided version of the table, with one section for estimates where the method of estimation is known (and listed in the table), and one section for estimates where it is not?
2. I admit, "only regression models" went too far. But consider: When you look at, eg, the death toll of the Jewish Holocaust, the high-quality estimates almost all come from internal Nazi killing estimates; other list / tabular datasets, like payments to Deutschebahn; or demographic comparisons of pre- and post-war Jewish populations. For this famine, we have no killing estimates (because it was not an orchestrated mass murder), nor obvious tabular datasets. We're stuck with demographic estimates. High-quality demographic estimation of mass death is inherently based on mathematical models: Why? Because you want to estimate the "abnormal" or "excess" deaths. To do so, you need to estimate the counterfactual (population without the event, not including births prevented by the event). Then you subtract the actual from the counterfactual. This requires estimation (or guesstimation) of {population, birth rates, and death rates} - {before, during, and after} the event. Non-mathematical historical evidence can inform which guesses are best, of course! But any estimate which does not provide their demographic model has failed to inform the reader, IMO. SocDoneLeft (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that dividing "high-quality" from low-quality estimates seems to require OR, which we can't do here. Gawaon (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gawaon: I agree and disagree. We can't choose "high-quality sources". But we can divide sources by their methods without OR, no? (Or, at least, add that column to the table.) SocDoneLeft (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but how? Above you have already noted that the distinction is not so easy to make. Gawaon (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]