Talk:World War I casualties

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 3 as Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 2 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

China

I have dug up this [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. This is the kind of thing we should be looking for, A million may be a statistic, its still encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis

To keep synthesis out of this article I will not be accepting any casualty total that involves synthesising totals from individual incidents to give a total, or estimated total, that has not been published by a secondary source. References for individual incidents are insufficient, since there is no guarantee that the incidents claimed form the correct total. For example it is claimed the total for China is 101 based on adding 98 for Siege of Tsingtao to 3 for 1915 Singapore Mutiny to give a total of 101. Even ignoring that the BBC say only 40 people killed at the siege were Chinese labourers, who is to say these two incidents represent the total Chinese civilian death during the conflict? Adding up death tolls of incidents that have Wikipedia articles is inadequate research. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission lump the Chinese Labour Corps members who died in with Commonwealth figures, but what of other deaths? The SS Athos was sunk before the Chinese Labour Corps were formed, and I can find no mention of the Athos in their CWGC's record of deaths or memorials. So are the 400 to 600 Chinese labourers who died on the Athos included in the CWGC's figures or not? This is precisely why we can only use totals published in secondary sources. FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering about those Chinese people killed in Singapore. Were they Chines nationals or were they ethnic Chinese (with likely another nationality)? The Banner talk 11:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Further to the CWGC/Chinese Labour Corps/Athos deaths, a search of the CWGC's death records for the Chinese Labour Corps sorted chronologically doesn't include the Chinese labourers killed on 17 February 1917 when the SS Athos was sunk. I hope this underlines the futility of attempting to compile our own totals for any country? FDW777 (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally we can close all of this now, wp:consensus is clear we do not keep on until we all give in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You'd hope so, but knowing the IP they'll just ignore anything that doesn't suit their argument. I've no problem with any reliably referenced changes being made to the article, but for the reasons explained above I'm not willing to accept synthesis of references about individual incidents to form a total, or estimated total, for a particular country. We need country totals published by secondary sources. FDW777 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Then we take it elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This page can be a good start https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses.

The issue of war losses is an intricate one, involving several crucial points. First, words matter. The meaning of words such as “killed in action”, “wounded” or “casualties”, which are the main headings in table columns in books or articles dealing with war losses, are misleading. Take the wounded: some died, others did not, meaning that the total number of soldiers who died as a result of war should include those who died from their wounds. This leads to the questions: How did statisticians calculate their estimates? What period of time did their calculations cover? What parameters did they define? Such questions are seldom discussed. However, it is impossible to propose an even somewhat rigorous estimate of war losses without discussing them.

Civilian Losses

Military losses tend to be much better documented than civilian deaths in wartime. As armies needed as precise an estimate as possible of the men available for combat, they counted only soldiers. Civilian administrators had to care for the sick and bury the dead, whatever their cause of illness or death. No office, anywhere, registered civilian war-related deaths. These numbers have been drawn from very different sources, using various assumptions and definitions. Surely, the dead from air bombings were war victims, but they were not numerous. The central difficulties come from the influenza epidemic and the blockade.

The whole world was struck in 1918-19 with an epidemic of Spanish flu. The author’s calculations include soldiers who died from illness when wearing the uniform, for one could argue that their resistance to illness had been weakened by life in the trenches. Soldiers who died from the Spanish flu – about 32,000 in the French army, among them the poet Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918) – are considered fallen soldiers. But what about civilians? Most estimates of civilian losses include dead from the Spanish flu, but there are no reasons to do so. The epidemic appeared in the USA, which was not directly affected by the war in mid-1918, where it killed more than half a million people. Are they war victims? The author believes not, which is why American soldiers who died in the USA before leaving were not included in his war loss estimates. For the same reasons, it seems difficult to attribute the heavy toll of the flu in belligerent countries to the war, as long as their medical situation remained normal. If the war had not happened, these inhabitants would have caught the flu anyway and would have died in the same numbers. To include these dead in the calculation would only serve to increase the number of civilian losses and to make the face of war more hideous. Pacifism does not need such a sleight-of-hand.

The second difficulty lies in the blockade. The Central Powers suffered heavily from cold and malnutrition, due to the shortage of coal and food. This situation was a result of bad and incompetent administration. In Russia, as in Turkey and the Balkans, administrative and economic disorganization and inefficient transportation produced starvation, and bad nutrition made sickness often fatal. In Germany, the War Office (Kriegsamt) created chaos with respect to the food supply and contributed to the development of the black market. This is a first explanation, though not a sufficient one. The shortage of coal, raw materials and food was another, perhaps more important, reason. The shortage was mainly a result of the Allied blockade, maintained until the signing of the peace treaty in late June 1919. Hence, it seems logical to attribute a number of civilian deaths to war conditions.

But it is difficult to count Germans who died of hunger and still more difficult to say whether they were victims of the Allied blockade or of the black market and the German administration’s disorganization. Huge figures have been proposed. For example, in Central and Balkan Europe, some have offered estimates as high as two million. In the Ottoman Empire, quite apart from the one or more million people killed during the Armenian genocide, the figure has been advanced of at least 1,500,000 civilian deaths from famine or malnourishment.[21] These figures probably include dead from the Spanish flu. It is possible that such figures have been exaggerated, but it seems very difficult to make clear estimates from evidence so thin. Anyway, the human cost of the war for civilians is undisputed, though impossible to calculate with precision.

As the reader ought to be given the best possible estimate, the author has collected the figures usually proposed in Table 3 below, though he is not at all convinced they are valuable.[22] These numbers are but suppositions. Figures for Great Britain or France, in particular, seem contradictory with what is known of wartime living conditions in these countries. In Great Britain, Winter has shown the paradoxical improvement of infant mortality rates during the war, and other scholars have given additional evidence of a lessening of poverty. In France, even if the Spanish flu was considered as a war-related catastrophe, 300,000 or 600,000 civilian dead in France would be astounding figures. The estimate given by Wikipedia of 408,000 dead from the Spanish flu for France is an evident miscalculation: in the unoccupied territory, the total numbers of civilian dead were 583,000, 722,000 and 617,000 for the years 1917, 1918 and 1919 respectively. Thus the surplus civilian mortality of 1918-19, due to the flu, cannot exceed 175,000. These statistics do not prove anything but the will of their author to present the war as a greater massacre than it was. The only certain point is that there is a wide contrast between countries where people died of illness and starvation by the hundreds of thousands, such as Russia, the Balkans, the Central and Ottoman Empires, and those where the government succeeded in maintaining a minimum supply of food, housing and medical care.

To conclude: these statistical insights suggest an asymmetric double contrast. On the front line, the Allies paid the highest price, both in terms of those killed in action and those wounded. But on the home front, the Central Powers and Russia paid a much higher toll. War was not only a military matter; it was an ordeal for whole societies.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A Global War – A Global Project "1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War” is an English-language virtual reference work on the First World War. The multi-perspective, open-access knowledge base is the result of an international collaborative project involving more than 1,000 authors, editors, and partners from over fifty countries. More than 1,000 articles will be gradually published. Innovative navigation schemes based on Semantic Media Wiki technology provide nonlinear access to the encyclopedia’s content. The co-operation partners support the project in several ways: Some partners fund staff to edit the articles, while others employ staff to research and write on the lesser-known topics; some partners organize conferences where the content of the encyclopedia is prepared and discussed; a number of partners have also allowed the encyclopedia to make use of their rich collections of photographs, maps and posters on World War I.https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/project/partners/Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And this Project has 1117 Contributors https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/contributors/.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We should never rely on one source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

yes but now. We have one source that we can use, we need to find more that are reliable.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We have the article has loads of them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Note my laptop is broken so I can no longer contribute substantialy. But to clear something up, if you read the WW1 casualties article, they say Chinese Labor Corps losses are counted among the Brits and French. And in the China source, if you read carefully, the dead mentioned is not from the siege itself, but from the Japanese "on their way to Tsingtao." So there is no connection between the chinese labor dead with the germans and the chinese civilians. And chinese laborers are counted as military losses, not civs because they were drafted. Think Askari soldiers. Slater, FDW, Banner, best of luck fixing this article and adding stuff. I'll check up when my laptop is better. 2601:85:C101:BA30:A985:1173:EE5F:238D (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can go to a computer shop to get it Fixed faster.Also Africa is in a new section.Driverofknowledge (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

During pandemic unlikely, but thanks. :) 2601:85:C101:BA30:A985:1173:EE5F:238D (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

if you read the WW1 casualties article, they say Chinese Labor Corps losses are counted among the Brits and French, you just don't get it do you? This isn't in the current version of the article, but the text in question can be seen on your preferred version here. It reads Chinese laborers who died while serving under the British and French in the Chinese Labour Corps are counted among the British and French losses. This is referenced to this CWGC document, which makes absolutely no mention of Chinese labourers being included in French losses. It doesn't even explicitly say they were classed as Commonwealth losses, the closest it gets is The labourers who died were classified as war casualties and great pains were taken to mark their graves in an appropriate way. All headstones, which are of the Commission's standard war pattern shape... But since the Chinese Labour Corps are listed in the CWGC's database that's not a problem. However, as I've already stated and you ignored (like normal), the Chinese labourers who died in the sinking of the SS Athos weren't members of the Chinese Labour Corps and they aren't listed on the CWGC's database at all as far as I can see. As such, all we're left with is the text that you wrote reading Chinese laborers who died while serving under the British and French in the Chinese Labour Corps are counted among the British and French losses, except as I've already said this is an unreferenced claim. So no, you can't use unreferenced text that you wrote yourself to claim the Chinese labourers that died on the SS Athos are covered in the French losses, and neither could you use a general reference (not that you've even provided one of course) saying Chinese Labour Corps deaths are included in the French losses due to WP:SYN (especially as they weren't even members of the Chinese Labour Corps), you'd need a reference explicitly saying how the Chinese labourers that died on the SS Athos are classified. FDW777 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also if the 40 Chinese labourers from the Siege of Tsingtao are completely different from the 98 civilians killed (and where's the evidence that in 1915 Chinese labourers were classed as military? You can't use the 1917 Chinese Labour Corps to retroactively claim they were military) then it still completely undermines your total of 101, as it should be 141. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Overseas labor units serving with the British and French forces. The UK employed about 300,000 Indian, Chinese, native South African, Egyptian and other nations as laborers during the war. By the end of 1917, there were 50,000 Chinese workers in France, rising to 96,000 by August 1918 (with another 30,000 working for the French). 100,000 Egyptians were working in France and the Middle East, alongside 21,000 Indians and 20,000 South Africans, who were also in East Africa.[12] A total of about 140,000 Chinese workers recruited in the Beiyang government, served on the Western Front during and after the war with the British and French Armed Forces.[154][155] According to the Commonwealth war Graves Commission "In all, nearly 2,000 men from the Chinese Labour Corps died during the First World War, some as a direct result of enemy action, or of wounds received in the course of their duties, but many more in the influenza epidemic that swept Europe in 1918–19"[13] One historical controversy is the number who died in the war. Some Chinese scholars say the number was as high as 20,000 but records kept by the British and French recruiters, show just under 2,000 lost their lives, many from the flu pandemic that swept the world starting in 1919.[156] According to the Commonwealrh War Graves Commission, "The African combatant troops raised for the East African campaign numbered 34,000. The non-combatant porters, stevedores and followers of the Military Labour Corps 600,000. Almost 50,000 of these men were lost, killed in action died of sickness or wounds"[11] According to The Africa Research Institute official British figures the death toll exceeded 105,000 native African troops and military carriers[157]

From the text currently on the article. I'll assume good faith FDW, what I wrote was based on what Woogie wrote, so I'm not to blame. So calm down. "Upon investigation, the Peking government determined that the Japanese army had caused losses to the Chinese government and its people in its passage across Shandong to invade and occupy Qingdao" In passage. So the dead were not in Tsingtao, and not the laborers. But yeah if you want Chinese laborers to the total, I guess you could. The page is in your hands now. Once you guys are done with China, you all should add Liberia (4 civ dead from shelling on Monrovia), that's pretty straightforward. 2601:85:C101:BA30:A985:1173:EE5F:238D (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What sources did you use for the investigation?Driverofknowledge (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

There is Woogie10w's version. I will document every instance of China or Chinese, whether it appears in the main body or reference titles.

• More recently the research of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) has revised the military casualty statistics of the UK and its allies; they include in their listing of military war dead personnel outside of combat theaters and civilians recruited from Africa, the Middle East and China who provided logistical and service support in combat theaters
• Vietnam (1914 known as French Indochina) (only included for the sake of completeness
• Voice of America (VOA) (26 April 2010). "chinas-world-war-one-effort-draws-new-attention". VOA. Retrieved 26 April 2015.
• Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
• Britain recruited Indian, Chinese, native South African, Egyptian and other overseas labour to provide logistical support in the combat theatres. Included with British casualties in East Africa are the deaths of 44,911 recruited labourers. The CWGC reports that nearly 2,000 workers from the Chinese Labour Corps are buried with British war dead in France.
• Overseas labor units serving with the British and French forces. The UK employed about 300,000 Indian, Chinese, native South African, Egyptian and other nations as laborers during the war. By the end of 1917, there were 50,000 Chinese workers in France, rising to 96,000 by August 1918 (with another 30,000 working for the French). 100,000 Egyptians were working in France and the Middle East, alongside 21,000 Indians and 20,000 South Africans, who were also in East Africa. A total of about 140,000 Chinese workers recruited in the Beiyang government, served on the Western Front during and after the war with the British and French Armed Forces. According to the Commonwealth war Graves Commission "In all, nearly 2,000 men from the Chinese Labour Corps died during the First World War, some as a direct result of enemy action, or of wounds received in the course of their duties, but many more in the influenza epidemic that swept Europe in 1918–19" One historical controversy is the number who died in the war. Some Chinese scholars say the number was as high as 20,000 but records kept by the British and French recruiters, show just under 2,000 lost their lives, many from the flu pandemic that swept the world starting in 1919.
• "World Lijssenthoek Military Cemetery, Poperinge, Ypres Salient Battlefields, Belgium(The Chinese Labour Corps was used to clear battlefields, dig graves, trenches and carry out other such tasks which were often difficult and dangerous.)". Retrieved 2 May 2015.
• THE CHINESE LABOUR CORPS AT THE WESTERN FRONT (In all, nearly 2,000 men from the Chinese Labour Corps died during the First World War, some as a direct result of enemy action, or of wounds received in the course of their duties but many more in the influenza epidemic that swept Europe in 1918–19" (PDF). Retrieved 26 April 2015.
• WW1 Photos Centenary Website: 2014–2018 By Paul Reed (26 April 2010). "Chinese Labour Corps 1919". Paul Reed. Retrieved 26 April 2015.

Nowhere does the claim that the Chinese Labour Corps dead appear in the French totals appear in that version of the article. So your claim that what I wrote was based on what Woogie wrote is not supported by the available evidence. Therefore you are to blame despite your claim of innocence.

But yeah if you want Chinese laborers to the total, I guess you could. No. As pointed out, repeatedly, I do not accept any totals made by synthesis. I only accept totals published by reliable references. FDW777 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing If this is a RS, then someone should mention it in the lede. Maybe as the higher range. 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Which figures are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Read the source, it gives 8.5 million total military dead and 13 million total civilian dead. So 21-ish million total dead. Is it a RS? 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, IP is pointing at some guesswork, not hard evidence. It has been estimated that the number of civilian deaths attributable to the war was higher than the military casualties, or around 13,000,000. These civilian deaths were largely caused by starvation, exposure, disease, military encounters, and massacres. The Banner talk 18:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Estimated by who would be the obvious question. FDW777 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We do not second guess RS, and the EB is an RS. Its an upper limit.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

FDW, Banner, you don't need to shoot down everything I do. Britannica is an RS. Thank you Slater, is it okay if I make that addition when May 5 passes? 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not without consensus, however this seems to be a valid edit, and I would ask that others take into account it is the edit, not the user that counts.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it. 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Make what edit? You've provided no details about what you plan to change. If, as I fear, all that's going to happen to this article is that the casualty totals are going to constantly creep up I'll have to point out that the lower totals need to be kept in the article too. FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The I will suggest to obvious change "The total number of deaths includes from 9 to 11 million military personnel. The civilian death toll was about 8 million, " to "The total number of deaths includes from 8.5 to 11 million military personnel. The civilian death toll was about 8 to 13 million, ".Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

What sources are saying. The civilian death toll was 8 to 13 million just asking?Driverofknowledge (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Assuming consensus is met, I would do what Slater did, keeping a range of numbers. Why would I get rid of the lower bound? Question Slater, where would I add the reference in that sentence, after the 8.5 and 13, or at the end of the sentence? 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, here you go Driver https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a good source. Its been around since 1768 I still have the big book set they use to make and update.Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

So now we have to good sources https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses. Possible new source we can use in the Classification of casualty statistics part? https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fmb-2018-0323Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You could try reading the source provided more than once, which gives an upper limit (not a range) of 13 million.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Brittancica gives guesswork without solid footing. The Banner talk 09:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is an RS with a good reputation for fact checking, if you disagree take it to wp:rsn. "I do not agree with the RS" is not a valid objection. I will wait 24 hours for one, and if one is not presented I will make the change.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This one is a RS can we use both https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_lossesz?Driverofknowledge (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We already give a range, because there is not single authoritative number. If we have a range we give the highest that appears in an RS, so again unless you want to take Britanica to RSN there is no real objection to its use.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to go against consensus. I was just giving a suggestion, since the other source gives a range to why not use both. I'm sorry if I came off like I was. Sorry if I got anyone mad for my suggestion to use two sources for the number on the chart.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What we do when we have differing opinions in RS is to give them all. Thus (in this case) we would go for the lowest and the highest. We do not give "all ranges" we give a range.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Slater, I think we misunderstood each other. I know there isn't a range of 13 million. The upper bound for civilians would be 13 million, per the source. So I think we can reference that? And would we add 8.5 million military and 13 million civilians from the source to get 21.5 million total as a total upper-bound (assuming that's the highest number, of course), or would that be OR or WP:SYNTH? 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4C6:D43C:D787:34A5 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems OK to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4C6:D43C:D787:34A5 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the opinion on this source with the numbers https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses? I am just asking not trying to go against Britannica I think Britannica is a good source.Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a good source. We can mention it maybe not in a range, but as one given estimate. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4C6:D43C:D787:34A5 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok that sounds good.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I made the edit. 2601:85:C101:BA30:9047:B5F5:878B:1137 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the opening. Need a rewrite now do to the new source?Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh maybe. I only changed the first sentence and the total # in the chart. 2601:85:C101:BA30:9047:B5F5:878B:1137 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you the same Ip that has been on this page?Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup, same IP (sorry it changes a lot). Quick look shows that the entire lede needs a rewrite. Most of it is unsourced and refers to the chart. I don't want to make the edit because I know Banner or FDW will find something minor to crucify me for. Driver/Slater, you think you can do it? 2601:85:C101:BA30:9047:B5F5:878B:1137 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything. Wrong with you doing it for the lead since a new source was put by you.Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Two changes made without consensus reverted

Firstly this change changing The civilian death toll was about 8 million to The civilian death toll was about 13 million. While the Brittanica reference and the 13 million were talked about in general terms, there was never any proposal to make that specific edit. If there had been, the objection would be a complete and total violation of WP:NPOV, since we're not just going with the total from one reference. The Brittanica reference isn't even that useful for the civilian death toll. Unlike the table that contains breakdowns of deaths/wounded/missing etc by country (cited to U.S. War Department in February 1924. U.S. casualties as amended by the Statistical Services Center, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Nov. 7, 1957, the civilian death toll is given as It has been estimated that the number of civilian deaths attributable to the war was higher than the military casualties, or around 13,000,000. As I said earlier in the discussion, who has estimated this? This is en estimate that needs further research and direct attributing, not stating as fact given there is clearly no academic consensus on the total number of deaths. The change makes the article completely contradictory, since the table at World War I casualties#Casualties in the borders of 1914–18 gives a total of 2,250,099 civilians killed due to military action and crimes against humanity and 5,411,000 to 6,100,000 due to malnutrition and disease. So if we're saying ‭7,661,099‬ to ‭8,350,099‬ in the table, why are we saying 13 million in the text????

Secondly this change changing the upper limit on military deaths from 10,824,236 to 20,824,236. I'm struggling to consider this to be anything other than vandalism. The table gives the Allied military death toll as 5,186,854 to 6,433,692, and the Axis military death toll to be 3,386,200 to 4,390,544. This gives a total, excluding Neutral nations, of ‭8,573,054‬ to ‭10,824,236‬, which is what the article said before. So why has 10 million suddenly been added to the total?????

In order for consensus to be clear for any edits, I request that any future changes are made explicitly clear as to what exactly figure(s) are going to be changed from and to and which references support the change. Talking generally about Brittanica and 13 million then increasing the death toll by 5 million and making the article contradictory was never actually proposed. The IP editor did the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do here, Assuming consensus is met, I would do what Slater did, keeping a range of numbers. Why would I get rid of the lower bound? Question Slater, where would I add the reference in that sentence, after the 8.5 and 13, or at the end of the sentence? So I really do have to ask the question. Why, given the IP editor explicitly said they would not be removing the lower bound did they do just that? FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think all this needs taking to wp:dr now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Just look at the last paragraph and compare what they said they were going to do, and what they actually did. FDW777 (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this has to go to AN/I as IP is simply unwilling to comply to all the discussions here and to give reliable sources. The Banner talk 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Frankly it is not just the IP, there have been many issues here. I am not sure anymore who is in the right, hence why I think DR is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to be constructive with this editor, I think the last paragraph of my post here is the best way forward. A straightforward "I propose to change x to y" complete with a reference. Look at #Synthesis. You said The I will suggest to obvious change "The total number of deaths includes from 9 to 11 million military personnel. The civilian death toll was about 8 million, " to "The total number of deaths includes from 8.5 to 11 million military personnel. The civilian death toll was about 8 to 13 million, ". The IP responds with the reply I've mentioned above, Assuming consensus is met, I would do what Slater did, keeping a range of numbers. Why would I get rid of the lower bound? Question Slater, where would I add the reference in that sentence, after the 8.5 and 13, or at the end of the sentence? The change they made was the opposite of what was discussed, that's absurd. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have said what I have to say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

To clear things up, I only made two edits to this page, and I never edited the Central Powers numbers (not Axis). SO thank you FDW for reverting that vandalism. FDW, I was in a rush while making the edit (see above, my laptop is broken), so assume good-faith. I forgot to keep the range and would be happy to maintain it. My reasoning at the time, if you look at my discussion with Driver above, was that the lede is mostly unsourced (one issue you've been aiming at) and refers entirely to the chart (which you yourself said is completely unreliable). So I got rid of "8", and I think the whole the lede needs to be deleted and rewritten, something you can do. Excuse my haste. I will add back the 13 number but keep the 8. But my question to you, and Banner/Slater, can you provide a source for 8 million civilian dead? It would make the lede more sourced in that matter. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F421:B237:377F:9C58 (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I found some sources. So far that say its about 6-7 million civilian dead, but that's it on my end.Driverofknowledge (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the very first external link in the section and supports a low end estimate of 6 million, and inclusion of country estimates in the table where appropriate. Obviously the first column in the table is useless, but the second and third columns are exactly what we are looking for. Estimates broken down by country by specific studies are what I've been calling for all along. FDW777 (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned this source beforeDriverofknowledge (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. With all the background noise on this page, it's easy to miss things. FDW777 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, half of this page should be archived by now. FDW, the source you provided is good, where exactly is it used in the article, and what does the 6 million refer to specifically? It would be good to add it in the article. 2601:85:C101:BA30:D475:54CE:FC6C:FDD (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change

The sentence in the lead The civilian death toll was about 8 to 13 million is changed to give a lower figure of 6 million. This is supported by the third column for civilian deaths in this reference and a 6.5 million death toll would also be referenced by the second column of that reference and the last reference listed in the section at World War I casualties#Classification of casualty statistics. I lost track of how many changes I'd need to make to the tables to take this reference into account, so dealing with one issue at a time. FDW777 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The range should be lowest to highest, so yes I support the change.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The Banner talk 14:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair change. 2601:85:C101:BA30:8820:2F1A:F49F:F4AC (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done FDW777 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I (same IP as before) propose to add Liberian civilian losses to the chart. 4 civilians dead. Using this source:

Shellum, Brian G. African American Officers in Liberia: A Pestiferous Rotation, 1910-1942. University of Nebraska Press, 2018, pp. 108.

Any questions? 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to give a quote from that book? The Banner talk 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Object The book says First, it seized and scuttled the Liberian schooner RLS President Howards, then sent the Liberian crew ashore with a demand to haul down the French flag and destroy the French cable station. When President Howard refused his demands, German Korvettenkapitän Herman Gerche opened fire with his 150-mm deck gun, destroying the French wireless station and damaging the cable station. The hour-long shelling caused extensive damage to buildings and killed four people, three of them children. I have previously objected to methodology such as that as not acceptable, we should be relying on published totals. FDW777 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So, the fourth victim could have been military as it is not better described. In that case, I have to object too. The Banner talk 22:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    • For transparency since your reply I have amended two erroneous instances of "Liberation" to "Liberian", I'm not used to typing the latter word obviously. FDW777 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically Banner, they could all be military by that logic, due to child soldiers and what not. I believe it is referring to civilians, as the book goes into detail on military matters separately, but I'm not interested on quibbling about semantics as before.

FDW, if this methodology is unacceptable, should we delete the chart? Personally, I wouldn't oppose that at this point. Secondly, I believe a footnote of Liberian dead, though very small, is worthy of mention. What are your thoughts, and if you agree with me, how do you think we should go about it? 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"I believe"... nope. We need facts here, not believes. The Banner talk 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, it is referring to civilians, not military or space aliens. Liberia incurred zero military losses during the war. Regardless, do you have an opinion on my questions? 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, considering the state of the article and FDW's ideas, I think it would be best if we just got rid of the chart altogether and relabel the footnote section to something like "Losses by country." That way we can avoid adding up stuff (FDW), while keeping important information about various countries, major/minor. 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

My preference with the charts would be something similar to this reference, although split charts are not important. Instead of trying to jam every single variation of casualty figure for a particular country into a chart, each study such as Westmoreland, Overmans, Winter etc has its own column. Any countries not included in this table could be covered in however many paragraphs of prose are needed in a section titled "Other casualties" or something like that. FDW777 (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. So I don't misunderstand, do you mean that there would a table of each study (basically like the reference)? I'm assuming that would include the major countries. And then the Other losses section would include minor nations like Haiti and Siam that aren't included in the major studies. If that's the case, I'd think that's ok, but to be honest, I don't think I can handle all that editing, maybe only the Other losses section. And also, would the footnotes bit be kept or no? 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

"German causalties in World War I" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect German causalties in World War I. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3#German causalties in World War I until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Deaths as % of population in the table

In the table, it says deaths as a % of population, but shouldn't it be deaths and missing? I think that's the number that's being divided by population. Chaptagai (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent Additions

I'm glad that after a few years the article is adding back some of the information that was removed in the mass revert. Could still use a lot of cleanup, but it's coming along. Maybe in the next decade... 2601:85:C100:46C0:498:2748:D8A9:B774 (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)