Jump to content

Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Avoiding self-reference

I've altered the public-facing text of this article to remove the references to the Wikipedia, the article's talk page and to our internal processes. Wikipedia:Avoid self-references requires that editors avoid doing so as this limits use for people using our content.

Instead, I have changed the warnings into hidden comments in the page. These warnings are now positioned next to every casualty figure and are visible to all editors when they click the "edit this page" link.

Therefore, everyone should note that changing these figures will be considered vandalism unless the change is discussed here and a source is provided for the new figure. If you can't provide a source, you shouldn't change the figure. If you change the figure without knowing a source for it, no matter how convinced you are that you're right, you can expect to receive a Vandalism Warning on your talk page from someone.

If anyone has any questions on this, or would like any advice, please contact me on my talk page. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand War Dead- Official sources are in conflict

The 1922 official UK report lists 16,711 New Zeland war dead
The New Zeland War Memorial Project lists 18,038 war dead.[1]
The CWGC currently lists the names of 18,050 New Zealan war dead on line[2]

I believe the current figures of the CWGC should be posted to replace the data of the 1922 report since it reflects the research of the past 80 years to identify 1914-18 war dead.--Woogie10w 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This also looks good. Please, if you have CWGC numbers put them in the article and add a citation. Carom 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggest the reason for the discrepancy is the UK report lists only New Zealand Army dead, (as much as members of the NZ army often seem to believe they are the only armed service that was not the case in WWI let alone since :-) ).

Ukrainians/Ruthenians (& Poland)

There is no breakdown of the ukrainian death toll. Ukrainians fought for both Russia and Austria-Hungary. At least 3,5 Million "Ruthenians" lived in the austro-hungarian empire, primarily in Galicia and Bukowina. A significant number of ukrainians must have fought and died for the Habsburgs. But Ukrainians/ruthenians are the only ethnicity of the austro-hungarian empire that isn't mentioned anywhere. But I think they deserve to be mentioned.

The number of polish casualties also doesn't state for what army they lost their lives.

I would be nice if someone found realiable information about this.

--2003:D1:B3D0:E301:D8EA:DF47:7B4D:517 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I posted the estimates of Vadim Erlikman re:Belarus and Ukraine. Bear in mind that these are not the official figures for these nations since they were formed after 1918. Also figures are for the territory of Belarus and Ukraine, not the casualties by ethnic group.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Chinese War Dead

Mention could be made of war dead from the Republic of China, which declared war on Germany in 1917. Chinese nationals served in the Chinese Labour Corps of the British and French armies on the Western Front, the former being registered under the Commonwealth War Dead. Figures for deaths of those in British service are available - see Wikipedia article on the CLC.Cloptonson (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

the Chinese were not in any combat.... those in Europe had civilian roles-- so "war dead" & "casualty" does not fit them well. No doubt in a huge population millions of people died every year. and the flu doubtless hit them too. Rjensen (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the article on the CLC, in a sentence cited to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, I quote: The members of the CLC who died were classified as war casualties.. I was using 'casualties' in a loose sense, not strictly confined to deaths at enemy hands.Cloptonson (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I added mention of the foreign nationals in the the service of the UK Labour Corps. The Beiyang government was a nominal ally during WW1, the government in Peking did not have effective control of China at that time and did not send units to Europe to serving under the Chinese flag, they served with the UK and France.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I see. I wrote my question after reading the CLC article for first time today and then scanning this article (with some haste, I was about to go to church) but not spotting it among the detailed text. According to the CLC article a number (unspecified) died by enemy action, but many died in the Spanish flu epidemic and 15 members were shot after court martial for murder. The term 'casualty' I used loosely, not confining the criteria to death at enemy hands. It would be illuminating to acknowledge that these were nationals of sovereign China as distinct from Hong Kong, French Indochina and the Chinese diaspora elsewhere.Cloptonson (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Per CWGC The call for volunteers was spread by public proclamation and by British missionaries in the field. The rewards offered were tempting enough to encourage thousands of men, mainly poor peasants from the northern provinces of Shantung and Chihli, [3].
The blowback to the CLC was the May Fourth Movement after the Paris peace conference because the western allies and Japan refused to end the humiliating treatment of China after the support they had offered during the war. At that time Mao and other Chinese intellectuals turned toward Russia and Marxism. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem is that in a war of attrition like WWI, "casualty" is a major determinant of victory. ie: "Germany ran out of soldiers in 1918 and therefore lost." That is how military historians use it. However a century later we also have the war of commemoration, where the definition of "casualty" is stretched in order to honor civilians and give them more prestige, as in the case of the Chinese workers. The genocide issue is also important in this case, and the death by starvation of civilians in Germany. The problem becomes especially acute when you're dealing with the flu epidemic, that killed millions of people in and out of uniform, including millions of people in entirely neutral areas. This article uses both definitions of casualty, and therefore may be confusing to readers. Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The 2,000 Chinese workers were direct war casualties, shellfire ect. (excluding flu deaths), [4]. bear in mind U.K. that supply and transport regiments are included with British Army casualties. You wrote definition of "casualty" is stretched in order to honor civilians and give them more prestige. In Serbia famine and disease directly caused by the war took the lives of at least 400,000 civilians, more lives than the Somme and Verdun combined. We need to present the facts and let the readers decide if the definition of "casualty" is stretched in order to honor civilians and give them more prestige You wrote and the death by starvation of civilians in Germany. The German figure widely quoted of 763,000 civilian deaths was propaganda estimated in Dec. 1918, subsequent research put the death toll at 424,000. There were excess civilian deaths caused by the war in the Allied nations also, these losses were detailed in the study by Hersch La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7. No 1. which is detailed in the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The flu epidemic, that killed millions of people in and out of uniform, including millions of people in entirely neutral areas. These deaths are excluded from the figures of WW1 casualties per Hersch La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale--Woogie10w (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, with regard to those it commemorates, appears to have semi-liberal criteria for "casualty". I have noticed their website apply the noun "casualty" in descriptions of graves of servicemen in the UK who died of natural causes while in service. (It only commemorates civilian deaths, by enemy action or in enemy captivity, for World War II.)Cloptonson (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I contacted the CWGC about five years ago regarding their methodology, their reply was as follows The war dead totals are based on the research by the CWGC to identify and commemorate Commonwealth war dead. The statistics tabulated The Commonwealth War Graves Commission are representative of the number of names commemorated for all servicemen/women of the Armed Forces of the Commonwealth and former U.K. Dependencies, whose death was attributable to their war service. Some auxiliary and civilian organizations are also accorded war grave status if death occurred under certain specified conditions. Cloptonson since you are in the UK you might be able to obtain more information from the CWGC.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

David Fromkin , A Peace to End All Peace

I checked Google books re David Fromkin , A Peace to End All Peace, p. 213 [5]
1- The source is reliable
2- On page 213 Fromkin makes it clear that Turkish spokesmen currently deny the Armenian genocide
3-Wikipedia is not censored. We are only reporting the reality that the Turkish sources are genocide deniers. Wikipedia is not denying the Armenian genocide
4-I have recently read the The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History by Raymond Kévorkian. I definitely am not denying the Armenian genocide--Woogie10w (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Woogie10w is inserting fringe and off-topic material into the article [6]. This article is about WW1 casualties as recorded or estimated in acceptable sources. The inserted content is about Turkish denials of the Armenian Genocide. Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide is off-topic for this article, and the subject is a fringe viewpoint. No credible sources, sources suitable for Wikipedia, deny the Armenian Genocide. The footnote above the added material states unequivocally that "The total number of resulting Armenian deaths is generally held to have been 1.5 million". This has a source from 2008 - not a "distorted work of wartime propaganda". Similarly, none of the hundreds of books dealing with the study of the Armenian Genocide published in the 2010s, 2000s, 1990s, 1980s, etc., can be called "wartime propaganda". It is a gross distortion of reality to have wording that implies that texts about the Armenian Genocide are "distorted work of wartime propaganda". The fact that the Turkish state has denied and continues to deny the Ottoman Empire committed genocide is not in dispute - but it is off-topic for this page. Armenian Genocide denialist sources can't be used to estimate numbers of Armenian dead - so there is not a valid reason to mention these denials here, and to have them here at all implies that the "generally held to have been 1.5 million" is incorrect or is subject to legitimate dispute. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
No, Wiki is an encyclopaedia so it should recognise all views that are found in the RS. That Turkish regimes have denied the crimes is as indisputable as the conclusion that "they would, wouldn't they?". To record that few take the claims seriously requires their mention. It seems to me that the claims are given the prominence they deserve, a passing mention. Keith-264 (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. This material is indeed relevant to the topic. We are merely reporting what is a current reality, that the Turkish government currently denies the Armenian genocide. This denial cannot be denied. The statements of the Turkish government are not a fringe viewpoint.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Explain why this material is relevant for an article detailing with WW1 casualty numbers. Are you alleging there are sources usable for this article that state the Armenian Genocide did not happen and that the 1.5 million casualties figure is grossly inaccurate? Is David Fromkin stating that the Armenian Genocide did not happen and that the 1.5 million figure is grossly inaccurate? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
On Wikipedia I do not allege anything, I merely report what reliable sources are telling us. Please check the source on Google books, the author relates an account of the Armenian genocide and the Turkish denials. The issue of the Armenian genocide is related to WW1 casualties and is currently a bone of contention between France and Turkey.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not about the Fromkin source - it is about whether this content from it is topically-valid material to use in this article. Are you stating that there are sources usable for this article that say the Armenian Genocide did not happen and that the 1.5 million casualties figure is grossly inaccurate? If you are not (which I presume is the case), why are you wanting a mention of those sources inserted into the article? This article is about World War I casualties and Armenian Genocide denialist claims cannot be used to define these casualty figures. So why should there be a mention of the denial in the article when all it does is falsely imply a legitimate academic dispute exists over the victim figures or the reality of the genocide? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I reiterate my suggestion that you change your approach this time. Keith-264 (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I made an edit The overwhelming majority of historians as well as academic institutions on Holocaust and Genocide Studies recognize the Armenian Genocide, this will balance the article to report the facts from a NPOV. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Your balance, it seems like just more off-topic material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
It is on topic on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=armenian%20genocide.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is not just a list of numbers. Readers need to be informed about the relevant issues related to the topic based on reliable sources that can be verified. On Wikipedia I strive to report both sides of the argument from a NPOV. The Armenian genocide is not a mere statistic, the issues relating to the topic are relevant in this article. Here we cover the issue of Armenian genocide denial from a NPOV and insert links to the Wiki articles on both recognition and denial. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Having taken my advice and slept on it I read the footnote attached to the exposition of Ottoman casualties and found it unacceptable; there was a wayward colon, which I have backspaced accordingly. I think that a reasonable person reading the section will conclude that lots of Ottoman civilians died, many deaths were caused by genocide, the evidence is compelling and that a minority of writers question the genocidal aspects of the deaths. While it is right to note their existence, it is also right that they get no more than the coverage they deserve, a passing reference in a footnote. I think this part of the article gives due weight [7]. Should anyone want more, there are two Wikilinks to pages where the matters are discussed specifically. Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Keith-264, On Wikipedia we can only report what the sources are telling us. The figure of 1.5 million Armenian deaths and total civilian deaths of c. 2 million in the Ottoman Empire is accepted by historians. Is this correct? Population data for the Ottoman Empire before and after the war is fragmentary. At best Ottoman casualties are rough estimates. The standard reference works listed in the footnotes put the number at c. 2 million civilians including 1.5 million Armenians. Do you have other reliable sources that detail civilian losses?--Woogie10w (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, it's not really my field but c. 2 million deaths, 1.5 million being Armenian seems about right. Keith-264 (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I just made some edits that I hope will put this issue to bed. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Woogie, you need to inform yourself on WP:UNDUE. If a viewpoint is only recognized by a small group, with an obvious political agenda no less, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I know you have good intentions but it's clear you have no knowledge on this subject and should stay out of it. Consider this Holocaust denial. One unknown Russian claiming there is no info on casualties when the rest of the article contradicts this doesn't belong, nor does the handbook when the numbers are obviously too small. And stop putting three wars that happened after WW1 on the article, they clearly don't belong. --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Erlikman is a a professional historian who has published works on losses in the wars in the 20th century. ru:Эрлихман, Вадим Викторович Google will translate for you if you do not read Russian. I have a hard copy of the work I cited by Erlikman and will provide jpgs if requested. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It didn't say before that the figure doesn't include the genocides, now I'm fine with it. --Oatitonimly (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World War I casualties. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Iran Losses

Iran lost 2 million due to the war in the Persian Campaign(see article Persian Famine of 1917-1918). This should be added to the neutral list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.116.204 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

This claim is not supported by reliable sources. The famine in Persia was caused by a drought and the Flu epidemic, not the war.
See Abrahamian, Ervand (2013) "A contemporary Iranian historian recently made the wild accusation that British food exactions to feed its army of occupation during World War I resulted in 10 million dead—half the population. He accuses the British government of “covering up” this “genocide” by systematically destroying annual reports. In fact, no annual reports on Iran were written from 1913 until 1922; the British expeditionary force of some 15,000 would not have required that much grain; and although as many as 2 million may have lost their lives in these years, the vast majority died not because of food exactions but from cholera and typhus epidemics, from a series of bad harvests, and, most important of all, from the worldwide 1919–20 influenza pandemic."--Woogie10w (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. Try this?(in a rush) from the aforementioned article

According to Touraj Atabaki, "successive seasonal droughts caused widespread famine during 1917/1918. Requisition and confiscation of foodstuffs by occupying armies to feed their soldiers added to the famine".[1] In The Cambridge History of Iran, it is stated that speculation and hoarding made the situation worse.[2] Michael Axworthy believes that the famine was "partly as a result of the dislocation of trade and agricultural production caused by the war".[3] Tammy M. Proctor comments that the cause for food shortage was a combination of army requisitioning, war profiteering, hoarding and poor harvests.[4]

In November 1915, the price of one kharvar (100 kilos) of wheat increased to twenty tomans, "if there [was] any to be found," after the total granary of the south-east province of Sistan was sold off to the British troops. Russian troops blockaded all the roads in the north-east province of Khorasan, prohibiting any transfers of grain, except those destined for the Russian army. The requisitioning of pack animals, mules and camels for the oil industry in Khuzestan, and for the British and Russian armed forces, left the country’s transport network in serious disarray, and disrupted the distribution of foodstuffs and other goods throughout the country – with disastrous consequences. During the war, it often cost more to transport grain than to grow it, in many parts of Iran. All this made the living conditions of the poor even more dreadful.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C101:6669:E9C6:B178:26D8:B348 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your case needs support from mainstream academic sources, this is Iranian propaganda. I suggest that you go to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and make you case. There is no source of WW1 casualties that includes 2 million Iranians.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I checked the population figures for Iran [8] There is no indication of a 2 million decline in WW1, In fact the population increased by 400,000 from 1914-18!--Woogie10w (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Touraj Atabaki does cover the war in Persia [9]. He does not give us a figure of the dead due the famine and flu epidemic, the figure of 2 million lacks a reliable source that we can cite. In any case Touraj Atabaki believes the causes of the loss of life was due to local famine and disease, including the flu epidemic, the war only made the situation worse. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)--Woogie10w (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Moberly, Frederick James (1987) [1929]. Operations in Persia 1914–1919. History of the Great War Based on Official Documents. Compiled at the Request of the Government of India, under the Direction of the Historical Section of the Committee of Imperial Defence (facsimile, Imperial War Museum and Battery Press ed.). London: HMSO. ISBN 978-0-11-290453-3. I'll have a look in here tonight. Keith-264 (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that such a claim would require strong sourcing. It doesn't seem likely given that Persia wasn't a theatre of the war, or heavily involved in other ways. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


Moberly has famine, relief work and fear of famine in the index.

  • 229 "...arrangements had been made by the Government of India to relieve the famine conditions prevailing in Shiraz by the dispatch of flour from India, the first consignment reaching Shiraz on the 12th of March."
  • 260 "For Teheran was not only in the throes of a campaign of political assassination, but was afraid of famine; the Treasury was empty and a large portion of the grain-producing areas were occupied by Russian troops, whose necessities practically forced them to pillage....But ministers...preferred the risk of famine to acceptance of financial assistance at our hands...."
  • 277 "...H. M. Government...sanctioned expenditure of British money on famine relief work in Khurasan and thus alleviated much local distress."
  • 300 "The distress in the famine-stricken capital, as in the surrounding country, was still very great, though a good deal had been done by British and Americans to alleviate matters."
  • 320 "At Meshed...famine conditions prevailed, six thousand people daily being fed there by the British Consul-General."
  • 334 "In the early part of June [1918] reports indicated that the Bolsheviks dominated Russian Turkestan, though the whole country was famine-stricken and in a chaotic state." Hope this helps. Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
For those that doubt the Persian Campaign was a theater of the war, here you go (interesting read, but no stats)

http://www.turkeyswar.com/campaigns/persia.html

I think we can agree on a few points: 1) A famine occurred in Iran between 1917-1919 2)The war exacerbated, or partly led to the famine.(Flu included) 3)8-10 million Iranians WERE NOT LOST (Majd is unreliable) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C101:6669:E9C6:B178:26D8:B348 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are some (hopefully) reliable sources citing 2 million

Katouzian 2013, p. 1934: "Russian Revolution of 1917 brought much relief to Iran after a century of imperial interference and intimidation. But it was followed by severe famine and the Spanish flu pandemic which, combined, took a high toll of around two million, mostly of the Iranian poor." Katouzian, Homa (2013). Iran: A Beginner's Guide. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 9781780742731.

Rubin 2015, p. 508: "Despite Iran’s official neutrality, this pattern of interference continued during World War I as Ottoman-, Russian-, British-, and German-supported local forces fought across Iran, wreaking enormous havoc on the country. With farmland, crops, livestock, and infrastructure destroyed, as many as 2 million Iranians died of famine at the war’s end. Although the Russian Revolution of 1917 led to the recall of Russian troops, and thus gave hope to Iranians that the foreign yoke might be relenting, the British quickly moved to fill the vacuum in the north, and by 1918, had turned the country into an unofficial protectorate." Rubin, Barry (2015). The Middle East: A Guide to Politics, Economics, Society and Culture. Routledge. ISBN 9781317455783.

Ward 2014, p. 123: "As the Great War came to its close in the fall of 1918, Iran’s plight was woeful. The war had created an economic catastrophe, invading armies had ruined farmland and irrigation works, crops and livestock were stolen or destroyed, and peasants had been taken from their fields and forced to serve as laborers in the various armies. Famine killed as many as two million Iranians out of a population of little more than ten million while an influenza pandemic killed additional tens of thousands." Ward, Steven R. (2014). Immortal, Updated Edition: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 9781626160651. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C101:6669:E9C6:B178:26D8:B348 (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this is good enough for a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C101:6669:93D:9723:17F6:C6A8 (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

add Iran?

Since there's apparently evidence of an obviously little regarded famine in Iran during the war with a conservative estimate of 2m dead, why not include Iran in the table with the neutral countries. On the wikipedia page on 'casualties of ww2', India and the 2-3m starvation deaths due to the war are included as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources-Wikipedia:RS to support your claim of 2million war related dead in Iran--Woogie10w (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

But Woogie10w, you claim that various sources are Iranian propaganda, even though some of them are not Iranian and disagree with Majd's views; they are scholarly. You seem to be making unsubstantiated claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.225.77 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Also your logic is kind of faulty. In the "Iran Losses" section, you claim that Iranian population increased during the war years. I rise in population does not mean that no one died. US population rose during the Iraq War, but does that mean no US soldier died? I hope you think otherwise. You simply dismiss any source as propaganda, even though some of the authors, such as Steven R. War and Kenneth M. Pollack are CIA analysts. Moreover, you simply insert Majd, who is accepted as unreliable, as a straw man to attack. Surely we should dismiss propaganda, but that is not the main argument. This shows bias on your part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.225.77 (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Error in the first paragraphs?

These say

"There were over 18 million deaths and 23 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history.

"The total number of deaths includes from 9 to 11 million military personnel and about 5 to 6 million civilians."

Those figures do not add up. And looking at detailed totals, I think it has left out 'Civilian Deaths' (killed) and added just deaths indirectly caused.

I don't like to change it without confirmation. --GwydionM (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Now the lead agrees with details on the main schedule--Woogie10w (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

East-Africa

Currently, the table states that the casualties for the "Central-East African Campaign" were 750,000. When I checked the source, it said that it was 750,000 for the entire African theater, including West, North, and South Africa. So either someone needs to change the name to "African Theater" or specify which region of Africa. I lack the knowledge of such editing, so it would be beneficial if someone made this change instead of me.

Thanks, I missed that--Woogie 10w (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Iran Revisited

Considering the wealth of material provided in previous discussions, I believe 2 million Iranian dead should be added to the neutral list.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/world-war-ii-fact-1941-russia-and-britain-invaded-iran-61467

That above link also says 2 million died in Iran during the wartime food shortage. The National Interest is a reliable source. For the skeptics:

1) A military campaign did take place in neutral Iran during World War I between the Russians, British, Germans, and Ottomans, with some minor support from Iranian irregular troops. Look it up. This is mentioned in numerous places on the Internet and in various books and scholarly sources.

2) Food shortages did occur due to seasonal droughts, like most wartime famines, but these were exacerbated by army requisitioning, war profiteering, hoarding, and other wartime conditions.

3)The Spanish Flu certainly played an important part in the deaths, but one cannot simply write off the deadly effects of the famine and disease epidemics prior to the spread of the pandemic starting in late August 1918. The famine began in 1917, and it is beyond reasonable doubt that there were deaths due to the famine and diseases that were unrelated to the Spanish Flu.

4)There is a source, Majd, that is unreliable and gives inaccurate and false information, such as the occurrence of a genocide and the British being responsible for the famine, which is all untrue. None of the above points rely on any of the false information he provides.

Here is a list of sources that discuss the famine, its causes, and the death toll, among other things:

P. Avery; William Bayne Fisher; G. R. G. Hambly; C. Melville, eds. (1990). The Cambridge History of Iran. 7. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521200950.

Ward, Steven R. (2014). Immortal, Updated Edition: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 9781626160651.

Proctor, Tammy M. (2010). Civilians in a World at War, 1914-1918. NYU Press. ISBN 9780814767153.

Katouzian, Homa (2013). Iran: A Beginner's Guide. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 9781780742731.

Rubin, Barry (2015). The Middle East: A Guide to Politics, Economics, Society and Culture. Routledge. ISBN 9781317455783.

Pollack, Kenneth (2004). The Persian Puzzle: Deciphering the Twenty-five-Year Conflict Between the United States and Iran. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 9781588364340.

Quotes from the sources:

Rubin 2015, p. 508: "Despite Iran's official neutrality, this pattern of interference continued during World War I as Ottoman-, Russian-, British-, and German-supported local forces fought across Iran, wreaking enormous havoc on the country. With farmland, crops, livestock, and infrastructure destroyed, as many as 2 million Iranians died of famine at the war's end. Although the Russian Revolution of 1917 led to the recall of Russian troops, and thus gave hope to Iranians that the foreign yoke might be relenting, the British quickly moved to fill the vacuum in the north, and by 1918, had turned the country into an unofficial protectorate."

Ward 2014, p. 123: "As the Great War came to its close in the fall of 1918, Iran's plight was woeful. The war had created an economic catastrophe, invading armies had ruined farmland and irrigation works, crops and livestock were stolen or destroyed, and peasants had been taken from their fields and forced to serve as laborers in the various armies. Famine killed as many as two million Iranians out of a population of little more than ten million while an influenza pandemic killed additional tens of thousands."

Katouzian 2013, p. 1934: "Russian Revolution of 1917 brought much relief to Iran after a century of imperial interference and intimidation. But it was followed by severe famine and the Spanish flu pandemic which, combined, took a high toll of around two million, mostly of the Iranian poor."

The Cambridge History of Iran 1990, Vol. 7, p. 209.: "Adding to the disruption and discontent was a terrible famine in 1918–1919, which as usual was worsened by speculators and hoarders."

Proctor 2010, p. 91: "In Persia, as army requisitioning, war profiteering, hoarding and poor harvests combined to decimate the food supply, famine conditions ravaged the area. Reports from foreign officials in Tehran in 1916 and 1917 note shortages of bread and other essential foods, long lines, and rioting by women."

I would like to note that Woogie10w in the above discussions has repeatedly made the erroneous claim that various sources concerning the Persian Famine of 1917-1919 occurred are unreliable and supposed "Iranian propaganda." Perhaps he was referring to the source Majd. In that case, he is correct, as Majd is unreliable and comes up with bogus numbers. However, Woogie10w has made other false claims about the famine. To refute them:

1)"No deaths took place! I checked the population stats for Iran and found that the population increased." This is especially preposterous. The total population of Iran does not need to have a net decrease if 2 million people die. This is similar to stating that no Iraqis died during the Iraq War because Iraqi population actually increased during the war years. There were 100k-500k Iraqis excess-deaths during the 2003-2011 Iraq War, yet Iraqi population steadily increased throughout the whole time. So, according to Woogie10w's logic, no Iraqis died! The whole population does not need to decrease in order for people to die. Thus, it is clearly possible that 2 million people died in Iran while the population increased.

2)"This is Iranian propaganda." This claim, particularly, I don't understand. The sources above contain Western authors and are reliable sources. For example, Kenneth M. Pollack, one of the above sources, was a former CIA analyst and worked for the reputable Brookings Institute; Pollack certainly isn't a fan of Iran, if you look him up. Steven Ward is a Western source as well. And I highly doubt the Cambridge History of Iran to be Iranian propaganda. Woogie10w's claims about propaganda cannot be taken seriously unless he provides some convincing rationale, not just platitudes, as to why these sources contain false information. In addition, none of the sources I've put above claim that the British are singularly responsible for the famine (it had many causes), or that a genocide occurred (none took place). As an aside, it is worthy of mention that the famine is understudied, so finding sources of any kind may be difficult if you would like to check my claims. Note: Both Woogie10w and I agree that Majd is Iranian propaganda and an unreliable source, but I don't rely on Majd to support my argument.

3)"The war only made the famine worse and wasn't the direct cause, therefore it shouldn't be counted." Most wartime famines that are counted in death tolls are caused by natural processes. For example, the Bengal Famine, counted with WWII war dead, can be heavily chalked up to a cyclone that occurred in 1942. The Vietnamese Famine during WW2, which killed some 1-2 million, was due to a typhoon, but the Japanese occupation and subpar French colonial administration hindered famine relief. That famine is counted among the war dead in the WW2 casualties article. The crucial part is that wartime factors considerably worsened the famine and its effects, and famine deaths are thus counted as part of the war. Thus, there is a convincing reason to put the Iranian famine dead in WWI casualties article.

I find my above arguments sufficiently convincing to change the article. If there is no response within a week or so, I will take it upon myself to change the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.220 (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds sensible
If somebody agrees with my conclusion and knows how to edit the page in response, that would be beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
So I've made the edits as good as I know how. The only issue is the source citation (I didn't do that part). If somebody could put one of the above sources instead of Wikipedia into the citation, that would wrap things up. 2601:85:C101:BA30:9006:51BD:DFA2:C6DF (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

by cause of military casualties

Are there any source to break down military death / casualties during action by cause: such like, say, shelling, gas, machine gun, snipping, gunfire, hand-to-hand, sinking of ships/downing of planes...? I read that Artillery was responsible for most of the killing, and this is sensible, but how much? Gem fr (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Mismatched Numbers

A lot of the numbers on the losses chart just don't add up. I've fixed a couple of them, but there's is too many mistakes for me alone to fix. If someone could pitch in, that would be great. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Finland, China, and Sweden

Finland was the scene of a civil war in 1918 during World War I. The German Army intervened on behalf of the Finnish Whites in the context of their involvement in the Eastern Front. I'm looking into whether I should add the country or not, depending on its date of declaration of independence, and whether its casualties in the civil war are part of Russian losses. If anybody has anything to say on this topic, please contribute. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

From what I've read, Finland was a sovereign country recognized by multiple states after its declaration of independence in December 1917. The war lasted from January-May 1918, meaning that it began during the final stages of the Eastern Front in WWI and ended after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which closed the Eastern Front. As to whether German participation into the civil war is grounds for the losses to be an addition to this article, I believe there is a reasonable case for such an addition. Germany effectively ruled over Finland until Nov. 11 as captured military territory (see Rudiger von der Goltz) and engaged in multiple decisive battles. The Finnish Civil War wasn't an independent conflict, as it received support from the Germans (to the whites) and Soviets (to the reds). Moreover, it should not be considered part of the Russian Civil War as the Soviets weren't attempting to reassert control over Finland; Finland's independence went essentially uncontested. On a separate note, this article has a section on Finnish casualties among Russian troops while the nation was still part of the empire as a grand duchy. Thus, there is a convincing case for adding Finland and its 1918 casualties in respect to its civil war specifically. I will make such an addition once I compile enough information. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm having trouble deciding whether Finland as described above during the civil war should be placed in the Allied, Central Powers, or neutral section. If anybody has an informed opinion as to which I should choose, please contribute. In addition, before I add Finland, I will add Chinese civilian casualties during the early Japanese campaigns in the war. These do not include Chinese laborers and workers who died while serving with Allied powers and are counted among the Allied powers' losses. The Chinese source I will be using is located at the bottom of the article. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've wrapped up China, footnotes and source included. My next take is Finland, once I decide in what belligerent category to place it in. 165.230.224.247 (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've "finished" the Finland section. The numbers there are a rough estimate, I spent hours trying to figure them out with some modicum of specificity. Military and civilian losses may need to be revised later. Help would be appreciated. I'm might make some changes to Sweden, since I discovered that Swedish Brigade volunteer losses aren't counted among the Swedish civilian losses on this page. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Swedish additions have been made to compensate for Swedish volunteers during the Finnish Civil War. This wraps up Finland, Sweden, and China. Finland's numbers probably can be changed if better data is retrieved. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Spain

I am going to add neutral Spain next since it lost civilians due to the German U-boat campaign. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I finished Spain, with footnotes and source included. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, "98.221.136.220"

A great improvement, adding useful details. --GwydionM (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Your welcome, GwydionM. It's taken some time. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Latin America, The Netherlands, Liberia, and Switzerland

I'm looking into neutral powers and Allied powers from Latin America to see whether those states lost any casualties, probably due to the U-boat campaign. The First Caco War in Haiti seems questionable because I don't know if it could be counted as part of the war. In addition, I will continue to add neutral powers, such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, and any other states that lost men or women during the war. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I've finished the Netherlands and Switzerland sections, complete with footnotes and sources. On to wrapping up Latin America to the best of my ability. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
While researching Latin America, I found that Liberia suffered losses as an Allied power. Adding that first. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The Liberia section is finished, complete with source and footnotes. So far the only Latin country other than Cuba that is of interest (other countries lost ships but sometimes no casualties) is Haiti, which may have lost a boat to the Germans in 1917 or 1918. Looking into that. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The Haiti section is finished, complete with source and footnotes, though I had to estimate the 1914 population by subtracting the Dominican population from the total for Hispaniola (a better number is probably needed). I personally can't find any more info on losses for any other Latin American country, but there might be some more information that I haven't found. A review or more input on the region would be helpful, especially on Cuba. I also found no military losses for Liberia, but that also might be subject to change. That pretty much wraps it up. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Allied U-boat Losses, Arabian states, and Others

So I've pretty much covered every state I can find. The only other additions I can think of are Allied U-boat losses, which I'll probably have to scrounge around various sources to compile a list, particularly Americans; the Emirate of Nejd and Hasa, allied with the Brits, and the Emirate of Jabal Shammar, allied with the Turks, who fought the Battle of Jarrab, which resulted in losses; and any other losses I or someone else can find, perhaps due to strategic bombing or malnutrition or whatever. Other than these I think I've pretty much exhausted every other country in the world during WWI. This part will probably take a long time since it's hard to find sources regarding these losses. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've revised the Finnish section to match the higher numbers in the War Victims database (I misread the numbers earlier). In addition, I tweaked the Swedish section to match the true number of Swedish losses in the Finnish Civil War (also misread this part too). Still trying to find some number on Finnish wounded, help would be welcome. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I've added all the American U-boat losses I can find, the Prager lynching, and the Black Tom incident to the America section, plus footnotes and sources. I also added Irish civilians casualties to the UK section from the Easter Rising. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I made an addition to the Russian section to account for the Central Asian revolt of 1916, complete with sources and a footnote. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I will not put up Irish casualties until the discussion at the Easter Rising talk page is resolved. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Irish casualties will not be added since the discussion at the Easter Rising proved fruitless. Yawn. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I added more Dutch losses due to the 1917 Potato riots, with source and footnote included. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

1917 Potato riots

Recently, an IP added the victims of the 1917 Potato riots to this article as victims of the war. By contrast, the Netherlands was a neutral country, so the riots were not another battlefield nor an accident by belligerents. The riots were caused by food shortages/poor distribution.

Adding the victims to this overview seems completely wrong to me and I suggest removal ASAP. The Banner talk 21:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP seems to think that every incident in the time frame 1914-1918 is automatically war related. So the facts should be checked too. The Banner talk 21:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The Banner is, unfortunately, a liar in this specific case: I don't think every instance of death between 1914-1918 is part of WW1, and I can name numerous examples of such unrelated losses (I don't know where he got that idea honestly). He also has stalked me from the Easter Rising talk page, where he illogically argued (really POV-pushed) that the rising was not part of WW1. Now, to the matter at hand, I support his decision to revert my edit; civil unrest, even if created by the war, should not be counted among the losses. Thus, I agree with him in this instance. As soon as the page becomes unblocked, I will revert my potato edit, as well as my addition of the death of Prager in America. Those instances fall within the range of the Banner's criticisms, and will therefore be removed. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The above losses mentioned have been removed, along with their sources and footnotes. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I hope you can remove the personal attacks too... The Banner talk 19:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Additions for the Article

Here is a list, if anyone is interested in helping, of additions that can be done for this article.

·The Emirate of Nejd and Hasa and the Emirate of Jabal Shammar, concerning the Battle of Jarrab

·Wounded numbers for the Finnish Civil War

·U-boat losses for Canadian civilians

·Any "Indian" losses that are due to the Hindu-German Conspiracy during the war, in which case those losses would be put under Indian civilians

·Neutral Ethiopian losses due to the coup and civil war caused by the war

These are the only remaining things that can be added to this page. Finding these numbers will probably take time scrounging around for sources. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

None of them is even remotely relevant. The Banner talk 19:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your unconstructive trolling. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
It is a very old and useless trick to hide a lack of arguments behind a wall of insults and harassment. The Banner talk 23:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
As you so often do. Tell me please, since you know so much, how are Canadian civilians killed by U-boats not part of WW1? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Why did you change the text after I replied to it? Now it states something else. Remember this?. The Banner talk 23:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC

"U-boat losses for Canadians" was referring to Canadian civilians lost to u boat attacks. I thought, assuming (wrongly, apparently) that you would understand that; try for once to assume good-faith on my part. Honestly, Canadian military losses are already listed on the chart; there is nothing I can add there that wouldn't already be part of the total number. I was operating under the assumption that Canadian civilians that died during the war weren't listed, thus the only addition for Canada I could do would surely be civilian-type. Why? Because the British civilian losses number didn't seem to add up when considering the Canadians who died on the Lusitania. I edited it afterward to clarify for you and others.

Anyways this is just noise. My edit to the list, at least to someone interested in making constructive contributions to this page and understanding the numbers involved, did not dramatically change its meaning. You are only posting stuff here due to some animus towards me. And, for the record, I believe the items in the list are part of WW1, and I suggest you educate yourself about their connections to WW1 before you make another useless quip.98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

1915 Singapore Mutiny

The 1915 Singapore Mutiny fall in the time frame of the First World War but was not a battleground between the belligerents. The Banner talk 22:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning is that it was a rebellion seriously influenced and caused by the Central Powers' efforts to complicate the Brit war effort; I don't think an event only can take place between the British and Germans directly on the Western Front to be part of WW1. In addition, the mutiny was part of the larger Hindu-German Conspiracy, which is listed under the Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I campaign box, so I wouldn't consider my edit OR. So that was my reasoning for this particular edit. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Nice, but that is no proof that is was part of the First World War. The Banner talk 03:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
If the Hindu-German Conspiracy, which the mutiny is part of, being in the Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I campaign box isn't enough to include it in the First World War, then I don't know what is. Also, casualties don't have to be accrued on a battleground to be counted here. Internal rebellions and genocides are counted in this chart. And I wouldn't consider the mutiny similar to 1917 potato riots, because the mutineers' cause was significantly influenced by the Central Powers attempts to cause rebellion with the Brits to take pressure off the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I (especially the Ottomans). Look into the German and Ottoman pressures to create rebellion during the war. It's interesting. 128.6.36.165 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
You want to connect everything in that time frame as part of the war... The Banner talk 19:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Not true. I can name many things in that time frame that's not part of WW1, a Kru rebellion in Liberia being one of them, or the Mexican Revolution. 128.6.36.223 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
As an aside, it would be helpful if you could help me find some numbers on Canadian civilian losses during the war, cuz I'm having a tough time with that. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Your toy, your research. So make sure to find reliable sources. The Banner talk 07:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Will do. 128.6.36.165 (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Turkey: biggest casualties of Central powers ...

...just because the victims of Armenian genocide were included (!) - what ?! --129.187.244.19 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the IP added several unrelated events to the numbers. The Banner talk 11:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
what especially sticks out is this distorting circle-diagram...(btw, that is if one adds German Holocaust Victims to German WW II casualties and produces a similar diagram then). --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The Armenian Genocide was part of WW1. Undisputed fact. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Definitely disputed (...) carried out (...) between 1914 and 1923. As far as I kn ow WW1 ended in 1918. The Banner talk 22:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why casualties from the genocide in this article only concern the years 1915-1918. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Plus, self-inflicted deaths, ie Holocaust victims, from Germany are included with German dead in the World War II casualties page. My work isn't original, just copying what other people have done. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
it's very misleading to do so. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps. Try the MilHistory talk page, they're more relevant to your query. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Like counting the victims of the 1917 Potato riots as war victims, while The Netherlands was a neutral country? But I must admit, in the end you did back-pedal from that. To my opinion, the whole article is now unreliable. The Banner talk 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The MilHistory talk page is more relevant to your query. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, I would appreciate some help with finding some numbers for Canadian losses. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you have to do your own Original Research. The Banner talk 16:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Help would still be appreciated. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong numbers

Total casualties “Maths” are wrong change to Min:8,573,054 + 2,250,099 + 5,411,000 = 16,234,153 Max:10,824,236 + 2,250,099 + 6,100,000 = 19,174,335 I’ve also changed the bulgarian population to from 5.5 to 4.3 so the total should be 959.5 Meyers guerras (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Total losses adj. I forgot to make adj after 750,000 in East Africa was was added.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Re: footnote Russia- please read the entire entry. The official figures per the field reports published in 1925 put the total reported dead at 775,400. If you read on Urlanis believes that the figures for those killed were considerably underestimated, because a large part of the reports were lost in retreats. Urlanis estimated the actual total military war dead at 1,811,000 (killed 1,200,000, died of wounds 240,000, gassed 11,000, died from disease 155,000, POW deaths 190,000, deaths due to accidents and other causes 15,000) --
Population numbers need to be checked, The World War One Source Book figures used on the page were wrong in the case of Bulgaria. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just learned about world war 1 in school and they said 17 million people died Puppylover1124126 (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

UNITED STATES POPULATION: the chart lists the US population as 92.0 million; it was 103.27 million [rounded] in July of 1917 and 103.21 million [rounded] in July 1918 according to the US Census Bureau data (https://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt) and Multpl (https://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table/by-year), and "Singularity Hub" (https://singularityhub.com/2017/02/15/how-the-world-has-changed-from-1917-to-2017/) states that in 1917 the US population surpassed 100 million, debunking that it was 92 million as the table claims, in reference to the 103.27 million figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkvark (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Effectively all numbers are unreliable. The Banner talk 08:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The Dutchman hath returned...
Seriously though, the population stats do need tweaking. They refer to the 1914 population I believe, so later populations as above aren't exactly needed (unless someone wants to change the chart altogether), but I don't trust some of the pop. #s here. Previous editor Woogie10w said similar. Help appreciated, if possible.2601:85:C101:BA30:B8FE:920A:1A16:1739 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, mr. 98.something. I am really convinced that you made the article unreliable by adding victims from unrelated events to it. The Banner talk 19:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Elucidate if you wish. Do you fly? 2601:85:C101:BA30:B8FE:920A:1A16:1739 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro

Serbia and Montenegro losses are reported separately in the footnotes and chart, but the losses for Serbia include both countries. I've been thinking about changing this for some time. Perhaps, I can merge them and have Serbia and Montenegro as one section, or should they stay separate as they are? I would appreciate some advice. 2601:85:C101:BA30:51C9:BD8:897B:1020 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian casualties

The article currently states that the Austro-Hungarian forces lost 1,016,200 who died with the armies, and another 478,000 who died in captivity. But neither source bears this out. Both give low and high figures for the dead-- 539,633 dead and 1,016,200 dead respectively. Neither clearly states that the 478,000 who supposedly died in captivity are in addition to the 1,016,200 dead. And the difference is close to 478,000. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you specify which sources you're speaking of? I know the 1.4 million number is coming from this source: Österreichischen Bundesministerium für Herrswesen (1938). Österreich-Ungarns letzer Kreig, 1914–1918 Vol. 7. Vienna.VII, Beilage 37. Is that, including the John Ellis source, the problem? 2601:85:C101:BA30:89C:EE57:EB77:186 (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Both sources. I'm using the Stan Hanna translation for the former, but neither source clearly indidates that the 478,000 should be added to the 1,016,200. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, but I just checked the Austrian source. On page 977, it actually explicitly says 1,016,200 were killed and 478,000 men (8k officers and 400k regulars) died in captivity. Here's the quote directly: "Austria-Hungary fielded 8,000,000 soldiers. 1,016,200 were killed (12.7%) and 1,691,000 taken prisoner (21.1%) for a total of 2,707,200 permanent casualties. The figure for prisoners doesn’t include men taken during the final collapse (12,000 officers and 425,000 men)756. Of the troops taken prisoner (including the latter category), 8000 officers and 470,000 men died in captivity." Note that there is a difference between "killed" and "died." "Killed" means dies in combat or wounds. "Died" means the soldiers were not killed by any belligerents, but died passively (disease, malnourished) as POWs. So it makes sense that the total is 1.4 million. Hope that clears stuff up. 2601:85:C101:BA30:350E:8CE:7401:6401 (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Sources vary in how the use these terms. The German text lists "Tote," and "Gefangene," and then adds them. That seems to suggest these are supposed to be all-encompassing and non-overlapping categories. So on the one hand, that speaks against the interpretation that these prisoners are counted as both, and on the other, it speaks against the narrower definition that the killed only refer to those killed in action, not, for example, those who died of wounds and/or disease. https://digi.landesbibliothek.at/viewer/image/AC01351666/130/LOG_0107/ It's still unclear which column they are supposed to go in. Entente sources like the Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire claim more than 2 million prisoners, so it's not implausible that they could under "Tote." I certainly don't think the sources are clear enough to say we can confidently add these 478,000 dead to the 1,016,200 dead, without double-counting. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I mean that these 478,000 could have been counted under "Tote" and not under "Gefangene." 138.88.18.245 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not exactly opposed to you changing the article, but the discussion isn't over. The source I used (which is the source used in the article) was in English; that is where the numbers are derived from. It says "Of the troops taken prisoner, [so and so] died in captivity." That is clearly differentiating between killed (1,016,200) and POWs (1,691,000), some of which died (480,000), so the official history does indeed give 1.4 million dead, at least in the English language version.

Now the source you gave is the German-language edition of my source, and it is not used in this article... but there's nothing wrong with that. From what you showed, the numbers do seem to be ambiguous and different, since Tote means dead, with apparently a total of 1,016,200 dead instead of killed. Since there is a range of losses in the chart, having a lower bound will be totally fine. The only thing you need to do is add text in the footnote saying there is a discrepancy in the different language versions, and reference your German source. So in essence, I agree with you in that your addition would be helpful. Cheers. 2601:85:C101:BA30:350E:8CE:7401:6401 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Footnote 74 lists the original German text. I'd initially used the English translation for convenience because I don't think either the German text, or the English translation, justify the current version. Ellis's summary table does favor the current version. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
So, the 1.4 million deaths is WP:SYNTH, as there is no sources that directly supports that number? The Banner talk 08:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The Banner, not really, because the English version, as I stated above, supports the 1.4 million numbers. IP 138, I can add mention of the lower 1 million # and the German-language version in the footnote to note the discrepancy. Would that be good? 2601:85:C101:BA30:B56F:55FF:50B4:5EEF (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
When one source gives different numbers in translation, you have two choices: 1) go back to the original language and use that version as source; 2) replace it by another reliable source. The Banner talk 15:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I would do option 1, but the issue is that the difference is not a direct translation between the same passages. The English version has the number on one page in a paragraph, cited above. In the German version that IP 138 gives, the number is in a chart, which is on another page. That's the issue, the paragraph and chart are reasonably clear but have different numbers, which I suspect is because the chart is a bit vague regarding POW dead (IMO), or because simply we are looking at two different pages.
Another source mentioned in the footnote is this: International Labour Office, Enquête sur la production. Rapport général. Paris [etc.] Berger-Levrault, 1923–25. Tom 4, II Les tués et les disparus p.29 OCLC 6445561. This source gives a number of over 1.5 million dead from all causes. Meanwhile, the US War Dept. (also in the footnote) gives 1.2 million killed and died with another 2.2 million prisoners and missing. Prisoner and missing doesn't necessarily mean 2.2 mil dead, but the "missing" part does imply that some died while POWs. Which is odd because they should be included in "killed and died" then. Then again, perhaps killed and died only refers to deaths while in service and not in captivity. At any rate, the 1.4 mil figure is probably closer to true losses. If IP 138 or Banner could perhaps find the same (or similar) German page as the English version (pg 977), that would definitely clear up any confusion. 2601:85:C101:BA30:B56F:55FF:50B4:5EEF (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it sounds rude, but why do you try to prove that this source is unreliable? The Banner talk 18:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

LOL it's ok. I don't think its unreliable, it's just that we're looking at two different pages, one of which is ambiguous. That causes the discrepancy. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F440:50C:1E3B:438F (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying that the source is unreliable. The Banner talk 19:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not. 2601:85:C101:BA30:6D94:D135:2C3F:695B (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Adjustments and Additions

I hope this to be a final list of things that should be added/adjusted on this page. They are all difficult to find in terms of sources and specific numbers, so I list them here in order of easiest to hardest to find.

This is it. Hopefully. Cross the bullet point out if it is resolved. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This is IP 98. Albanian losses have been added with footnote and source included. I couldn't find any numbers for Durazzo, but surprisingly I found a good source that gave overall losses throughout the war, including a population number. Preliminary research shows that sources for Ethiopia will probably be easier to find than for Finland, so I rearranged the list. 2601:85:C101:BA30:39EB:29A4:9175:7668 (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
That good source of you gives the victims of the period to 1920, way after the war ended. So sorry, but not a reliable source for the war-victims. The Banner talk 11:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually not true. It says (paraphrasing) by the end of the Great War Albania was in ruins, then states the casualties, implying the losses are from 1914-1918. Be a bit more careful next time, you don't want to look like you're lying. 2601:85:C101:BA30:39EB:29A4:9175:7668 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The source does not state that. The Banner talk 20:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It does, but whatever floats your boat. 2601:85:C101:BA30:39EB:29A4:9175:7668 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've changed Finnish losses again (I had misinterpreted the numbers, I believe), to match the fact that the majority of losses in the civil war was military and not civilian. All the relevant numbers have been changed in accordance. 2601:85:C101:BA30:350E:8CE:7401:6401 (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Greek losses during the National Schism have not been included. I am compiling sources now to make an addition. 2601:85:C101:BA30:51C9:BD8:897B:1020 (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added Greek military and civilian losses from the National Schism with several sources and footnotes. 2601:85:C101:BA30:6D94:D135:2C3F:695B (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yup, another internal conflict upgraded to part of the war. The Banner talk 08:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Yup, because it was. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4A6:A3C5:7101:41D (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Nope, as "related to" is not the same as "part of". And I have told you that many times before. The Banner talk 15:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. The National Schism was not tangentially related to WW1, it's events were directly shaped by it, including the Allies intervening to Greece in the war. I don't know what exactly makes something "part of WW1" for you. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4A6:A3C5:7101:41D (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Off course, just like the Easter Rising and food riots in a neutral country. The Banner talk 20:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Like a broken record... our conversations would be more constructive and beneficial to this page if you replied to the last section on this talk page. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4A6:A3C5:7101:41D (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Apples and oranges can't be counted the same way

I note in virtually every version of this page apples (exact figures) and oranges (inexact figures) are being added together. For example the United Kingdom figure given is 744,000, this is being added to more precise figures to give a total of 953,104 for the British Empire. Is the 744,000 really an exact figure or an estimate? Similarly 1,150,000 for France? 5,000 for Greece? 460,000 for Italy? 300 for Japan? 3,000 for Montenegro? 1,700,000 for Russia? These are all extremely likely to be estimates, so they can't be added to what are apparently exact figures to come up with a total of 8,042,189 combat deaths/missing in action. FDW777 (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree. in the case of the great war we need a full (attributed at both ends to RS) range.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like to note that I came upon this article this way, if it is wrong it is not my fault. But to the point, I agree with FDW and Slater that RS can likely be found for a range of total numbers. In that case, the World War II casualties article needs to be changed as well, and we would have to do away with the chart completely, because it is after all simply a compilation of estimates.2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Slater, I replied in the above talk section about German dead. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
For the WW2 chart it says.

Compiling or estimating the numbers of deaths and wounded caused during wars and other violent conflicts is a controversial subject. Historians often put forward many different estimates of the numbers killed and wounded during World War II.[15] The authors of the Oxford Companion to World War II maintain that "casualty statistics are notoriously unreliable."[16] The table below gives data on the number of dead and military wounded for each country, along with population information to show the relative impact of losses. When scholarly sources differ on the number of deaths in a country, a range of war losses is given, in order to inform readers that the death toll is disputed. Since casualty statistics are sometimes disputed the footnotes to this article present the different estimates by official governmental sources as well as historians. Military figures include battle deaths (KIA) and personnel missing in action (MIA), as well as fatalities due to accidents, disease and deaths of prisoners of war in captivity. Civilian casualties include deaths caused by strategic bombing, Holocaust victims, German war crimes, Japanese war crimes, population transfers in the Soviet Union, Allied war crimes, and deaths due to war related famine and disease.

The sources for the casualties of the individual nations do not use the same methods, and civilian deaths due to starvation and disease make up a large proportion of the civilian deaths in China and the Soviet Union. The losses listed here are actual deaths; hypothetical losses due to a decline in births are not included with the total dead. The distinction between military and civilian casualties caused directly by warfare and collateral damage is not always clear-cut. For nations that suffered huge losses such as the Soviet Union, China, Poland, Germany, and Yugoslavia, sources can give only the total estimated population loss caused by the war and a rough estimate of the breakdown of deaths caused by military activity, crimes against humanity and war-related famine. The casualties listed here include 19 to 25 million war-related famine deaths in the USSR, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and India that are often omitted from other compilations of World War II casualties.[17][18]

The footnotes give a detailed breakdown of the casualties and their sources, including data on the number of wounded where reliable sources are available. 

   Figures are rounded to the nearest hundredth place.
   Military casualties include deaths of regular military forces from combat as well as non-combat causes. Partisan and resistance fighter deaths are included with military losses. The deaths of prisoners of war in captivity and personnel missing in action are also included with military deaths. Whenever possible the details are given in the footnotes.
   The armed forces of the various nations are treated as single entities, for example the deaths of Austrians, French and foreign nationals of German ancestry in eastern Europe in the Wehrmacht are included with German military losses. For example, Michael Strank is included with American not Czechoslovak war dead.
   Civilian war dead are included with the nations where they resided. For example, German Jewish refugees in France who were deported to the death camps are included with French casualties in the published sources on the Holocaust.
   The official casualty statistics published by the governments of the United States, France, and the UK do not give the details of the national origin, race and religion of the losses.
   Civilian casualties include deaths caused by strategic bombing, Holocaust victims, German war crimes, Japanese war crimes, population transfers in the Soviet Union, Allied war crimes, and deaths due to war related famine and disease. The exact breakdown is not always provided in the sources cited.
that was also made by Woogie10w https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_casualties&diff=43168978&oldid=43168066 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_casualties&diff=915222826&oldid=915220388 2006-2019 wow he did a lot.Driverofknowledge (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I know he basically made these two articles. So either we wipe clean this article and the WW2 one down to bare bones, as FDW recommends, or we keep it as it has been for over a decade. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
And also these two I found https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=914461554&oldid=914260253 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union&diff=391767275&oldid=382987329 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_casualties_of_Poland&diff=827397080&oldid=795867221 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II_casualties_of_Poland&diff=514013110&oldid=514013036Driverofknowledge (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So again, we either torch and burn all these articles FDW-style, or we keep them as is, which is what most users have agreed to. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So lets keep it as it has been for over a decade,then we all can move on from this?Driverofknowledge (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with that trust me. Just convince Banner and FDW to drop their campaign on this page. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
OK Since you are fine with (keeping it as it has been for over a decade) this seems like a reasonable solution since two other editors agreed with it.Driverofknowledge (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So the IP doesn't want the article to be changed, except the changes they want to make of course. To be blunt - not a fucking chance. FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I could not care less about the World War 2 article. It is completely irrelevant. What matters is the figures on this article, and whether they accurately report the range of casualty figures estimated by reliable references. My point, never refuted, is that it is impossible to add estimates to exact figures and report totals such as 953,104. FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
First of all FDW, watch your language, none of us here have gotten that mad. Second of all, the WW2 article is in fact relevant to this discussion, as it shares many similarities with this one. What you're advocating is a complete rehaul of several pages, that's a big charge. Considering you're just as new to Wiki as I am, it's odd you're acting like you have some authority to decide how this Wiki runs ("not a f* chance"). We discuss, however heatedly. And thirdly, that number can be reached, excess deaths are by nature estimates, so when added to events that have definite numbers, let's say air raids of Germany with 720 dead, you get a mix of estimate and definite numbers. If you hate that, you better be ready to change several article all the way through. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't discuss. You ignore anything you don't like and keep insisting your changes are correct, no matter how much opposition there is. If you'd like to discuss, I suggest you do so in a manner that is sensible, without bludgeoning the discussion. FDW777 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Could we all just agree. To leave the article the way it is, since it's been fine for about a decade and since nobody really complained about it. so we're not fighting here for more months?Driverofknowledge (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Except the IP does want to make lots of changes... FDW777 (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Define "the way it is." I will not accept the current glaring errors that I had worked very hard to fix last year, namely Africa as an Allied power, Balkan Wars being part of Serbian losses, etc. I'm afraid Banner and FDW won't stop their campaign on this page. Maybe Africa really is an Allied power guys. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps FDW you can take your campaign to the World War II casualties page. Blow off some steam there. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What "campaign"? Perhaps you can provide evidence to support your claim I have suggested that we "burn" or reduce to "bare bones" this article? Like usual, there is no evidence to support your false claim. I haven't actually made any suggestion about how the problem can be solved, I've only identified the problem. One suggestion would be to simply remove the largely fictional totals created by adding estimates to real numbers (while leaving in place both the estimates and real numbers), that could hardly be described as "burning" or reducing to "bare bones"? FDW777 (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Could we all just agree. To leave the article the way it is, since it's been fine for about a decade and since nobody really complained about it. so we're not fighting here for more months?
FDW, by taking out the totals, you would need to delete the chart because its purpose is to compile the country totals and add them up. How do you think historians arrive at totals you deem reliable? They take country totals, which are estimates and definites, and add them together. There is literally no other way around it. Hence the "burn" comment. And the article as it is is shoddy at best, outrageously ahistorical at worst. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The issue is not estimated figures being unreliable, merely the fictional totals this article presents by adding exact figures to estimates. FDW777 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I meant the "fictional totals" are the way all totals are estimated. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes by they are done by RS, not us. We can all go to "the big book of WW1 deaths and go "ahhh yes it does say that", we may not all agree on how you came by your figures (as I think you can see).Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
As was pointed out by another editor, who I subsequently quoted to emphasise their point, the figures may also incorporate a misleading sense of precision. Adding apparently exact figures to obviously imprecise numbers and coming up with a total like 8,573,054 to 10,824,236 total military deaths (to give just one example out of the many problematic totals) gives a misleading sense of precision, unless you can cite secondary sources that have come up with those totals? FDW777 (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Protection

I have requested a semi-protection for this talk page. I do not want so see anyone explode in anger for an IP that does not get the point. The Banner talk 21:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you mean FDW, who happens to think that subjects of the Chinese government are not Chinese... I suspect your only purpose in this entire campaign is to get rid of me no matter what. If that entails ruining this article with Africa as an Allied power, among other things, yeesh... No need to be petty. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
No, the purpose of this is to get a reliable Wikipedia. You can change your ways and start providing proper proposals with proper verifiable source. That is all. The Banner talk 22:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
That's why you want to semi-protect this talk page? You have had a bias, animus, or what have you against me since the Easter Rising thing, and you've done a whole lot of WP:HOUNDING. It's not that either of us are perfect, I have admitted errors in my editing, you have made errors as well, but you are incapable of giving and taking. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
What about harassing from your side? See, this older talk page full of warnings The Banner talk 22:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You've done similar Banner with WP:HOUNDING. Nothing new. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Things might speed up round here if a certain editor would stop wasting time misrepresenting my position and instead address the policy based objections to their own edits. FDW777 (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok then FDW, let's blast through this. We agree that Africa (the entire theater and not just east africa) with 750k dead should be put in the neutral section and not Allied section. Since the page is still blocked, I think you can handle editing that.

Also the first addition would have to be China. We agree that the source I gave is referring to Chinese civilians, right? That's our first issue to discuss. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest losing your attitude problem before making any requests of me. It's your interpretation of the source that it refers to only Chinese civilians. That interpretation isn't consistent with basic English though. FDW777 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So you complain I make no request, and when I do, you tell me not to make requests? Who has the problem here? The text from the source is already present on this page, explain please how it does not refer to Chinese or civilians. You can claim there is an issue, but that claim is meaningless if you don't explain why. Who else is it referring to, Martians? 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
So what are we on now. In coming to a conclusion to this?Driverofknowledge (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:AN/I is my conclusion. The Banner talk 08:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Enough, we do not whine about users here we either do it at their talk pages or at an admins notice board. Either report them or shut up.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Brazil and Siam

Brazil lost civilians during World War I due to German U-boat attacks, and declared war in 1917 against Germany. I think it should be added.98.221.136.220 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I found a source[1] that I can use. Let's see what I can do. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The Brazil section has been completed, footnotes and source included. If anyone has better sources for Brazil, please help yourself to adding them. I think I'll do Siam next, as it was mentioned in one of the archived talk pages. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I have completed the Brazil and Siam sections, footnotes and sources included. Seems pretty solid to me. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Francisco Verras; "D.N.O.G.: contribuicao da Marinha Brasileira na Grande Guerra" ("DNOG; the role of Brazilian Navy in the Great War") (in Portuguese) "A Noite" Ed. 1920

Unreliable

Due to the creative use of sources, I have marked the article as unreliable and needing an expert. The Banner talk 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the warning because it is erroneous. Please give specific reasons for future warnings. And if you believe there is such a large issue, alert the MilHistory group, they'll have a better opinion on this than either of us. 2601:85:C101:BA30:8560:48BC:2A07:81B0 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I've alerted the MilHistory guys on their talk page, they're going to take a look at this stuff. 2601:85:C101:BA30:8560:48BC:2A07:81B0 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I have restored the tags, as the issue is not resolved. The Banner talk 04:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Ow, and by incorrectly removing the tags (the discussion is still ongoing) you prevented that the MillHistory guys were alerted automatically. So leave the tags in place. The Banner talk 05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I share The Banner's concerns regarding this IP's "creative use of sources." Specifically, it appears that the IP is synthesizing multiple sources and combining events tangentially related to World War I rather than merely practicing calculation or relying on the secondary literature to produce the lede figures of "20.7 to 22 million deaths and about 20 to 22 million wounded military personnel"—while I am not an expert, these figures are considerably higher than those found in secondary sources that I am familiar with, contradict Wikipedia's main article on World War I, and may also incorporate a misleading sense of precision. Consider the earlier thread "Adjustments and Additions," in which the IP announces, without regard for The Banner's objections, that he is upgrading the Greek National Schism to a part of the broader war and adjusting the casualties accordingly. The Banner retorts that "'related to' is not the same as 'part of'," but the IP continues on unfazed, effectively demonstrating ownership of this article. Ultimately, why should any Wikipedian on either side of this or other disputes make the final determination as to which casualties are included in the total for a major war that ended more than 100 years ago and has been studied in voluminous detail ever since? The same applies to the IP's listing of Iran (or Persia) in the lede as one of the countries most impacted by the war based on the Iran-centric sources cited in "Iran Revisited"; it seems clear that the excess deaths in Iran were overwhelmingly due to the Spanish flu pandemic, but even stipulating that the cited sources/numbers are reliable and sufficient to justify inclusion in this article, I don't believe that any major histories of World War I specifically single out Iran as a major player in their opening paragraphs. Whenever a Wikipedia article, under the heavy influence of a single determined editor who has worn everyone else out, diverges so far from the secondary sources that it is supposed to be summarizing, that is a red flag and justifies The Banner's request (if possible) for an expert reassessment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, I won't remove the tags so better users can revise the page as necessary. With regards to Persia, you can claim that the deaths are "overwhelmingly" due to Spanish Flu, but where are your sources? I provided a list of sources that stress that the famine from 1917 onwards was a primary cause, though the Spanish flu may have added to it. And I don't understand your labeling Kenneth Pollack "Iran-centric." Removing mention of Iran from the lede would be ok however, or the last paragraph in the lede entirely (which I wrote), since Persia wasn't really a main player in the war. I would also not mind revising the total numbers in the lede and replacing it with sourced numbers. And with regards to the Banner, he has been saying "related to" is not the same as "part of", but he honestly never mentions what criteria differentiate the two. Still, I would be happy if somebody specify those criteria, and then users can go about removing or adding whatever is necessary. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
If you do not know the difference between "related to" and "part of"... goody. Houston, we have a problem. The Banner talk 18:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Your mocking isn't helpful. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

And at any rate, the Balkans theater campaignbox lists the National Schism as part of it, meaning part of WW1! Note: I never edited the campaignbox. So I'm not the one making these connections. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


I came across this. I looked back through the history, all the way to 2016 it looks like one person was working on this page. For a number years so I put it back to, the last edit they did since it looks stable hope this helped sorry if it didn't.Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Examples of the user who was working on this page. For a number years from 2007-2019 looks like they knew there stuff, seems like the expert was here but left.Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=97780595&oldid=97280140

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=903871465&oldid=903868842

You deleted things that were indisputably part of WW1. Brazil had declared war on Germany late in the war and lost soldiers from disease, but you deleted that? If you have an issue, don't simply revert everything. Look at the above discussion, most of what the Banner is claiming is hogwash. 2601:85:C101:BA30:85AA:4FD2:627D:4738 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

But the general line of Driverofknowledge is that your edits are unreliable what gave him reason to revert. Your campaign of insults does not change that. The Banner talk 13:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Your campaign of insults does not change that either. 2601:85:C101:BA30:85AA:4FD2:627D:4738 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
And as expected you start editwarring... The Banner talk 13:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Now can we all talk and come to a new consensus.The ip user can you post what the numbers say in the books? and sources, so I can possibly verify them.Driverofknowledge (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Gladly. Here is a list of sources I used for my edits. It might not be complete (it is lengthy though) because I've made many edits, but it's about as many as I can remember. One or two were already present on the article (which I'll label with an asterisk), some I found on other language versions of Wikipedia, the rest I added:

  • "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12. (46 mutineers killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
  • Farwell, Bryon (1992), Armies of the Raj: From the Great Indian Mutiny to Independence, 1858–1947, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-30802-2 p. 244 (47 mutineers executed after the 1915 mutiny)
  • Strachan, Hew (2001), The First World War, I: To Arms, Oxford University Press USA, ISBN 0-19-926191-1 p. 802 (6 Ghadarites killed during Hindu-German Conspiracy)
  • http://www.rmslusitania.info/people/lusitania-victims/ (2 Indians killed in sinking of the Lusitania)
  • Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (16 civilians killed in 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
  • Donato, Hernâni "Dicionário das Batalhas Brasileiras" ('Dictionary of Brazilian Battles') (in Portuguese) IBRASA 1987 ISBN 8534800340 Page 153 (156 Brazilian soldiers who died of disease while serving in WW1)
  • Francisco Verras; "D.N.O.G.: contribuicao da Marinha Brasileira na Grande Guerra" ("DNOG; the role of Brazilian Navy in the Great War") (in Portuguese) "A Noite" Ed. 1920 (3 Brazilian civilians who died from uboat attacks)
  • (*)Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (98 Chinese civilians killed during Siege of Tsingtao)
  • Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (3 Chinese civilians killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
  • Steamer Chaparra, in: uboat.net. (6 Cuban civilians who died from uboat attack)
  • Abbott, G. F. (2008). Greece and the Allies 1914–1922. London: Methuen &Co. ISBN 978-0-554-39462-6. Page 160-161. (Greek military dead from Noemvriana)
  • Damianos Athanasiou (10 July 2014). "Εγινε χθες η παρασημοφόρηση της ένδοξης σημαίας της 1/38 Διοίκησης Ταγμάτων Εθνοφυλακής Ευζώνων (φωτορεπορτάζ)". Dimokratiki.gr. Retrieved 16 January 2018.

Honest mistake with this source, WP:AGF. This is for 59 Greek dead during the French occupation of Thessaly. Here is the correct source: "12 Ιουνίου 1917(*): Η „μάχη της σημαίας" και η βίαιη κατάληψη της Θεσσαλίας από τον Γαλλικό στρατό" (in Greek). Θέματα Ελληνικής Ιστορίας. 12 July 2013.


  • Η Ελλάς του 1910-1920, Γεωργίου Βεντήρη: Αθήνα 1931, Identifier: 000074165, σ.σ.106-131 (listing 12k Greek civilians killed during Bulgarian occupation during WW1)
  • "Tα ξεχασμένα Νοεμβριανά". Kathimerini (in Greek). 18 November 2006. Archived from the original on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 18 August 2009. (35 Greek civilians killed during the Noemvriana)
  • https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/caribbean-theater-haiti-and-first-world-war (haitian civilian dead from uboats)
  • Shellum, Brian G. African American Officers in Liberia: A Pestiferous Rotation, 1910-1942. University of Nebraska Press, 2018, pp. 108. (liberian civilian dead from German shelling)
  • "Commission Calls 1916 Tsarist Mass Killings Of Kyrgyz Genocide". Radio Free Europe. (Central Asian revolt of 1916 dead)
  • Sokol, Edward Dennis (26 June 2016). The Revolt of 1916 in Russian Central Asia. JHU Press. p. 158. ISBN 9781421420516. (ditto last source)
  • Whyte, Brendan; Whyte, Suthida (2008). "THE INSCRIPTIONS ON THE FIRST WORLD WAR VOLUNTEERS MEMORIAL, BANGKOK" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. 96: 175–192. Retrieved 29 August 2018. (Siamese dead (19) during WW1)
  • Traxel, David (2006). Crusader Nation: The United States in Peace and the Great War, 1898-1920. Random House, Inc., New York. ISBN 9780375724657 (US civilians dead from uboats)
  • "THE BLACK TOM EXPLOSION.; FOUR BODIES FOUND THE SUPERINTENDENT MISSING". The New York Times. 18 January 1875. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
  • (*)Prost, Antoine: War Losses, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (Bulgarian excess deaths)
  • "Causes of war death 1918 according to the political affiliation of the killed persons". War victims in Finland, 1914-22. Retrieved 7 December 2019. (Finnish dead from Finnish Civil War)
  • The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice 1918–1919 Bane, S.L. 1942 Stanford University Press page 791. (100,000 deaths in 1919 during the continuation blockade)
  • Gregory, Adrian (2016). "Imperial Capitals at War: A Comparative Perspective". The London Journal. 41 (3): 219–232. (Ottoman civilians killed by Allied strategic bombing)
  • "Six unexpected WW1 battlegrounds". BBC World Service. BBC. 26 November 2014. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
  • Schatkowski Schilcher, Linda: The famine of 1915-1918 in Greater Syria, in: Spagnolo, John P. (ed.): Problems of the modern Middle East in historical perspective, Ithaca 1993: Cornell University Press, pp. 229-258. (ottoman civilian dead from great famine of mount lebanon, the number includes Syria and Lebanon)
  • Tucker, Spencer C. (2006). World War I: A Student Encyclopedia. New York: ABC-CLIO. p. 113. ISBN 9781851098798. (Albanian dead)
  • Bjarnason, Gunnar Þór (2015). Þegar siðmenningin fór til fjandans. Íslendingar og stríðið mikla 1914–1918. pp. 236–38, 288–89. (Danish dead that is counted among Germans, given as footnote)
  • Faber, Ernest (1932). Luxemburg im Kriege 1914–1918 (in German). Mersch. p. 155. (Luxembourg dead from air raids)
  • Lith, Hans van. Plotseling een vreselijke knal. Zaltbommel: Europese Bibliotheek, 2001, pp. 176–177. (862 Dutch fisherman killed by the German U-boat Campaign)
  • Lith, Hans van. Plotseling een vreselijke knal, pp. 91–95. (3 Dutch civilians killed by accidental British bombing)
  • http://www.rmslusitania.info/people/lusitania-victims/ (persian civilians killed on the lusitania)
  • Ward, Steven R. (2014). Immortal, Updated Edition: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 9781626160651., p.123: "As the Great War came to its close in the fall of 1918, Iran's plight was woeful. The war had created an economic catastrophe, invading armies had ruined farmland and irrigation works, crops and livestock were stolen or destroyed, and peasants had been taken from their fields and forced to serve as laborers in the various armies. Famine killed as many as two million Iranians out of a population of little more than ten million while an influenza pandemic killed additional tens of thousands."
  • "Olof Palme (1884 -1918). Mannen som kunde ha blivit en svensk fascistledare". Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). 26 November 1995. Retrieved 3 January 2016. (Swedish volunteer dead during finnish civil war)
  • "Name lists on war victims". War victims in Finland, 1914-22. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
  • "Gefallen 1916 an der Dreisprachenspitze". www.suedostschweiz.ch (in German). Retrieved 9 December 2018. (Swiss dead)

And by the way, thanks to the mass revision, Africa is now listed as an Allied power in the chart. Great job Banner. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean "Africa" just above Belgium? Did you ever click on that link? It will bring you to East African campaign (World War I). And as you added/changed the numbers and footnotes, you should have noticed that. If that was wrong, you only have to blame yourself. The Banner talk 17:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Stop lying! How is the East African campaign an Allied power? My edit with regards to that was to put Africa among the neutral countries, because the 750,000 number refers to all the theaters in the African campaign (southern, western, eastern, and northern). Did you even click on the linked source?! Did you even read the footnotes? 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A question, how is it being creative?Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven The Banner TheTimesAreAChanging By putting a source from 1875, on a World War I casualties page its source 21 they put.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)https://www.nytimes.com/1875/01/18/archives/the-black-tom-explosion-four-bodies-found-the-superintendent.html
Huh. That's odd. Honest mistake with that one. WP:AGF. But what about all the other sources? Making an accidental mistake is no reason to revert months of constructive edits, as well as putting Africa as an Allied power. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
So, one source does not explain the mass removal of material.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I consider this to be revisionist history of the highest order. Look at all the ancient news reports cited, and 1942 books such as The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice 1918–1919. Do you not think the various organisations and/or authors that have compiled casualty totals were aware of them? Attempting to revise the total upwards using references such as that is simply wrong on every level. FDW777 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If we give a range we give all the range RS have.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. And: [10] This is the source for Africa, referring to all theaters in the African campaign. The Banner ignored looking at this link and resorted to pinning the blame on me. The number given is 750k, but east africa suffered only around 300k, if you check. Yet Africa is listed as an Allied power, which is something that I didn't do, yet the Banner blames on me. In addition, I actually edited Africa [11] after noticing this error in 2019 and put it in the neutral nations section to make it more accurate, because "Africa" in this case is referring to African civilians, and thus cannot be a belligerent. But again Banner lies and implies that this is my fault. The Banner is not being constructive on this page. To be honest, the Banner and FDW are only here because we had a disagreement on the Easter Rising talk page. They are not interested in improving this article, as evidenced by the Banner lying that I added the Armenian Genocide and Maritz rebellion to the article when in fact I did not. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven Do to the concern of creative use of sources and accuracy of what the Ip user put. by both The Banner TheTimesAreAChanging,I looked back through the history, all the way to 2016 it looks like one person was working on this page. For a number years so I put it back to, the last edit they did since it looked stable. Examples of the user who was working on this page. For a number years from 2007-2019.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=97780595&oldid=97280140 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=903871465&oldid=903868842
What do you mean Africa is listed as an allied power, where?Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: The trouble is the IP editor isn't giving the range that RS have. Look at the list of references provided. Things like "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12. (46 mutineers killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny) should jump right out at you. The IP is using 1915 news reports to increase the range that published references have given many years later, despite them likely being aware of things like the Singapore Mutiny. FDW777 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The IP also seems to have some valid objections too, this looks like 6 of one half a dozen of the other.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
FDW, some of the Indian dead, such as the Ghadarites, were civilians and not counted. And it's equally likely the Brits didn't count rebellious colonial soldiers among their dead. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd love to know what the supposed "half a dozen of the other" is. There have been many published casualty estimates for the conflict, we don't need people trying to revise those by using 1915 news reports do we? FDW777 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
FDW, civilians would not be counted among military statistics usually. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe maybe not, its still wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough and I'd be willing to change that if I could. But still no need to revert everything. Look at the rest of the talk page, I made a lot of constructive edits. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you go to the chart on the article right now, Africa is listed above Belgium. And those "concerns" were unfounded. The list of sources I provided are RS.2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It goes to the East African campaign.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Which did not only feature the allies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I added a see Footnote for it should help with the concernDriverofknowledge (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Not really, as it is still not an allied power.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, most of these "criticisms," (how I wish they were valid) are unfounded. This mass reversion seriously screwed up so much with the article. If changes need to be made, we should revert to the last edit I made and work from there, changing what needs to be changed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We usually revert to the last stable version, which wouldst be the version before your first edit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Huh? Why is there the assumption that every edit I made since last year is unstable? I am perfectly willing to make changes (but no mass reversion that lists Africa as Ally) to the article to make it better. Top-down reversion, not bottom-up. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be optimal if the mass reversion is undone, and then everyone can help remove what's necessary. The latest action has made the article poorer in quality. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Africa

  • [12] IP discovered that Liberia was neutral instead of involved
  • [13] Ethiopia was suddenly not neutral any more
  • [14] While the link is only to the East Africa Campaign, IP mentions the number for the whole African war theatre
  • [15] IP changes the African theatre in Africa
  • [16] IP changes the East Africa Campaign into the African theatre of World War (i.e. much wider) with the same number of casualties as the East Africa Campaign

So far.. Note that the sources did not change in this. One of that point that made me cautious.The Banner talk 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Liberia declared war on Germany. Liberia in World War I, there. Ethiopia refers to a coup that took place in 1916 that the Allies tried backing. I have never made any edit regarding adding Ethiopia numbers on the page, so the Banner is deceptively trying to lie here that I made such an edit. And as I stated above, the source given for Africa [17], which the Banner refuses to elaborate on because it negates his argument, is for excess deaths from famine and disease and not violent deaths, and is for all of Africa and not just East Africa, thus my edits. Seriously, read the source. Your criticisms are baseless. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, [18], you forgot this part Banner where I wrote that Ethiopia was neutral during the war. Flies in the face of your argument, doesn't it? 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it just proves that you were making a mess of it. And the more you start screaming about lying, the less reliable you make yourself. The radical revert was clearly right. The Banner talk 19:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Umm, so I'm guessing you never checked the source since you're resorting to personal attacks. Edits are made progressively, if you didn't know. Your radicalism have made this article inaccurate. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
In know, I know. Even when it rains it is my fault... The Banner talk 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Africa is not a nation, and was controlled by more than one. So each nation should be listed not the whole continent. Ethiopia was not a combatant, seems to be both versions are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is Africa still in the list of countries it was never and is not now one country.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Because of the mass reversion. I had to fix the Africa bit early on when I started improving the article. This was the way I found it.2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It should be removed as it was not even a nation, let alone an allied one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
OK I shall go ahead and remove it unless someone can produce one RS that says Africa was a nation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we put it in the Neutral nations?
If someone can provide an RS saying it was one nation yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this good Country of Africa in the Neutral nations?Driverofknowledge (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_africa https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/making_sense_of_the_war_africa

It was not one country, find a source that says it was. I am removing it now. When you find a source that says Africa was one single country (country no continent) we can discuss re-adding it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
What about now Neutral nations and The continent of Africa?Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Why, do we give the totals for Europe or Asia? Why should Africa be singled out? Now if you want to create a new table (a new one) that lists casualties by continent fine, that might be OK. But we should not single out Africa for special attention.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a footnotes section, why does Africa's footnotes have to be serrate?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought it would go better like that. I put it to say Casualties by post-war (1924) borders and African theatre of World War I good or no?.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Why? How is it better to single out Africa? We do not break down any other theatres, there is not reason to do it with Africa..Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:brd and wp:consensus if an addition if objected to it should not be reinstated until consensus is reached.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we have a by theatre or by continent section, which would include the casualty totals for those (not break downs just totals). Footnotes stay in the footnotes section.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Ok that's understandable can I put it back to the last edit you did wp:compromise.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The last edit I did remove it, so what edit do you mean if you mean this [[19]] no as it does not address why Africa should get special treatment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


This was the edit I was talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=953887551&oldid=953887299Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes that is the version I think works as it allows (assuming anyone can find the figures) for other continents to be added and gives no special significance to Africa. But this is it, nothing more.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
OK I will put it back to your last edit.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
So what else is a Concern on the page anybody?Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, " But this is it, nothing more", you made more changes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven I put it back to that one the last one you did for Continents part you put?.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=953887299&oldid=953886394

Sorry, I did not pick up on "Neutral nations and The continent of Africa", which of course should have been removed (as Africa is no longer in that section), my apologises.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I Accept your apology it happens.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So its not a country, so cannot go in the country section, and now we cannot have a section on death by continent (note there was nothing to stop users adding totals for others).Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That is useless, and was described by someone else as a "half-assed section which made it harder to read the page". If it can be improved, then improve it. If there's a need for including the 250,000 soldiers, surely it can be done with the information already in the article at World War I casualties#Footnotes? FDW777 (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Making progress again

To improve the article from it current point, I suggest that mr. IP makes short proposals about how to chance the article, with reliable sources to back it up. The Banner talk 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

See section below. I would suggest any proposals include quotations from the references. FDW777 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
That is a fair suggestion. 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Unseen not unreliable may be the real issue

The 1875 reference to "THE BLACK TOM EXPLOSION.; FOUR BODIES FOUND THE SUPERINTENDENT MISSING". The New York Times. 18 January 1875. Retrieved 5 June 2019 above intrigued me, so I decided to do some investigating. As can be seen by the relevant footnote, this citation is in the IPs version of the article. This citation was obviously copied from the Black Tom explosion article, where that particular citation was removed on 11 January. Had the IP editor actually read the original article it is impossible to see how the 1875 error would not have been noticed, since there was an 1875 explosion at Black Tom as well.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that the IP editor isn't writing from source material or checking sources, just copying citations from other articles that may or may not be accurate. FDW777 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps it was a one-off mistake. WP:AGF, I'm sure you and the Banner have made mistake as well. I can assure you most of the other sources have the numbers I quote. Seriously, I'm being open, check them. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I was assuming good faith. I assumed you copied the citation without checking it, as to assume otherwise would mean you deliberately lied about the citation. I love how you slip in the word "most" like it's some badge of honor, when what it really means is none of your references can be trusted until it's demonstrated they do contain the correct numbers, and crucially that those numbers form part of the war casualties figures. And even if they do, there's still potential original research issues. FDW777 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
These concerns need to be addressed if we are to move on.Driverofknowledge (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that was why I was critical about his understanding of Dutch, Swedish, German and Greek, English and some language I do not recognize. This is not impossible, but not very common. The Banner talk 22:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Mr.IP are you knowledgeable in Dutch, Swedish, German and Greek, to help with the sources?Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Given that we know that the IP has not verified this content himself, and it is unfair to shift the burden of verification to the community, I see no issue with acting on the presumption that the IP's large-scale changes are unsupported by the reliable sources until proven otherwise. Therefore, the recent rollback to a prior revision seems appropriate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a Plan that can work, lets hope all this does.Driverofknowledge (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There's something called google translate, and if you all didn't know, numbers translate easily. So the language barrier was never really an issue. Anyone can google translate the foreign language sources, that's what I did. And please mind that you guys are extrapolating from one source all of my edits. Please go over them, you will see they are reliable and contain the numbers I provided. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Even so, I checked your first given source: "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12". By now, Singapore is not longer mentioned in the article. And you claim 46 mutineers were killed. Strange enough, 1915 Singapore Mutiny is mentioning 47 mutineers executed. And sepoys are soldiers, not civilians. Civilian casualties are no high then 20: 14 British civilians, five Chinese and Malay civilians and one German internee. And that is just in English... The Banner talk 08:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Google Translate may work well for numbers, but it doesn't work so well on more complicated sentences with subtle nuances, such as whether a reference says deaths should be included as part of casualty figures. I will echo what @TheTimesAreAChanging: said earlier, these figures are considerably higher than those found in secondary sources that I am familiar with, contradict Wikipedia's main article on World War I, and may also incorporate a misleading sense of precision. There have been numerous studies on the number of casualties, and it is these and these alone which should be cited in my opinion. The IP editor's standard tactic is to use the presence of a navigation template on an article, whether it was placed there by themself or another editor, and use the presence of the template as justification for included particular figures in this article. Whether the historians or organisations were aware of these incidents and chose not to include them in casualty figures or they were completely unaware of the incidents (much less likely option) is not relevant, it is not our place to right perceived wrongs and published inflated casualty figures (is there a single reference that supports the "20.7 to 22 million deaths" claim, rather than combining many, many different references to arrive at that figure?) that are substantially higher than the total figures published by reliable references. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree, Google translate may be OK for giving a vague idea, but I have also seen that it cannot produce accurate (only approximate) translations, thus any such translation would fall foul of wp:or because whilst Google might translate it the same way someone who is bilingual might not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
To clear up some confusion. For the Singapore Mutiny, I was differentiating between those killed in combat while fighting the Brits (Strait Times), and those executed by firing squad afterwards. But as FDW stated above, the sepoys, as mil units, are probably stated among the dead already listed, so they probably didn't need to be added in the first place. But the Ghadarites, on the other hand, were civilians who rebelled and should be added IMO. So there is a difference. And with google translate, the translations (and they were few) were rough but definitely clear. I only put numbers where it was clear the word was "killed" and not something like "lost," which might include wounded. And FDW, a quick search by me showed total dead ranging from around 15ish to 19, but not 21-22. The reason for the difference is because, I've found, most sources do not include 2 mil civilian losses from the Persian Campaign, i.e. the Persian famine of 1917-1919 (yes famine deaths went past Nov 11, 1918, but German dead from past 1945 are also included in the WW2 casualties article). But since all this, as you stated above FDW, might be under the purview of WP:OR, then I'm assuming your argument is to just not include it. I would also like to note that the World War II casualties article includes as an upper bound 85 million dead. I have never read that amount in any source (and I don't believe it either). If we're going to rely on secondary source only, then both articles need major changes. My stance remains: undo the mass reversion, and work our way down from there. It would be easier to keep all the constructive edits that way, and if you guys identify an issue, we could remove it without disturbing the entire article's structure.
But if you guys are intent on redoing the several months of constructive work (which I must stress was progressive, no article was perfected in a day) that I did, then I advise that you go back to the last version of the article I edited, and see the footnotes I wrote and click on the links provided in that version. I was in a rush so most of the sources I provided above don't have links. That way it will be easier for you guys to get a full picture of what I did. If I may, please re-add the China, Brazil, Siam, Haiti, Liberia, Persia, Netherlands, Spain, Albania, and Finland numbers (since Russian losses in the article are only for 1914-1917). I believe the sources I provided will vouch for their inclusion. I will be busy, so I might not respond in time to everything. Good luck. 2601:85:C101:BA30:D08B:B40E:D312:BCFD (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I have seen the number quoted 85 million in academic literature such, as with the work of Victor Davis Hanson. Also a new statistics book for World War II, (World War II infographics) quotes it.

Well that's surprising. If I were you, I would cite that source at the WW2 casualties page then, make it known. A short query by me brings up some sources which claim more than 20 million dead in WW1, though their reliability I admit is questionable.

https://ww1facts.net/quick-reference/ww1-casualties/ (20-22 mil, this source I wouldn't exactly bet my money on)

https://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/introduction/key-canadian-events/ (Canadian War Museum apparently and I don't know if it is a RS, gives 9 mil soldiers dead and 20 million civ dead for a grand total of 29 mil dead (?). Much higher than anything I ever put or believe in, but this is just on one source so...)

https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing (Britannica, again I don't know if you consider the encyclopedia an RS, but it gives over 8 million dead soldiers and 13 million dead civilians = ~21 million. My last version of this page [20] gave around 9-11ish million soldiers (the amount those numbers specifically changed due to my edits can't be more than 40,000, so I didn't come up with those numbers mainly) and 11 million civilians. So I'm not far off from the Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of the numbers I provided)

https://www.army.mil/article/210420/worldwide_flu_outbreak_killed_45000_american_soldiers_during_world_war_i (Gives 20 million total, which is higher than the 19 million currently on this article)

This is by no mean definitive, and the best thing for this article would be to give a range (you guys can decide what the lower bound is). The above sources (for me only britannica) show that the total numbers I came to isn't a crackpot estimate. It's probable. 2601:85:C101:BA30:D08B:B40E:D312:BCFD (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


Also Deep AI is better for translations. https://www.deepl.com/en/translatorDriverofknowledge (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
When this page block is over, I will attempt to revert the mass reversion and take out numbers that the above users have deemed unreliable. That way is a compromise, in which the constructive edits are kept and unconstructive edits are removed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:5480:897B:4BDE:CB4 (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That was not discussed. With everybody else@TheTimesAreAChanging: @The Banner: @FDW777: we need to see what they say.Driverofknowledge (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Also since two other editors agreed with the mass revisionism.Driverofknowledge (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with the reversion to the 2019 version, and wholly object to the reinstation of the IP's version for reasons made clear already. FDW777 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, IP, but earlier in this discussion you make clear that you are not sure of your own numbers. And that is exactly why I stated that your edits were unreliable and needed to be checked. Reinstating them is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Another case of : WP:IDNHT. The Banner talk 07:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not in favor of keeping the version of my last edit, things need to be changed as discussed above. But also the article as it is (mass reversion and all) is shoddy (ignores certain countries and events) and can be improved. So can we discuss what to remove and what to keep? From this discussion, we've come to the agreement that the sepoys of the 1915 mutiny should not be counted, and that a better source for the Black Tom incident is needed. Encyclopedia Britannica, which I assume here is an RS, floats a total of 21 million, so I believe it deserves mention in the article (unless there is an issue with the source). The other sources, which are reliable, and numbers I provided above should be kept. There is nothing factually inaccurate or WP:SYNTH by stating that 4 civilians died in Liberia due to German shelling. Or that 98 Chinese civilians were killed during the Siege of Tsingtao. I provided RS for these statements and it would be absurd to keep them out of the article. 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

For Australia what data do you have on that, for the deaths? I am interested in what you have.Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that you make a separate proposal for each and every bit (i.e. country) that you want to add again, with reliable sources. And not more then two proposals a week. That sounds harsh but you have messed up big time and you have to regain confidence by delivering proper work. The Banner talk 17:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Potential ways forward

At present, there seems to be two potential ways forward. I'm not suggesting these are the only ones, so if someone has any ideas add away.

  • The article is written based on published accounts of casualty figures, using their totals and breakdowns of figures.
  • Editors conduct their own research into casualty figures and compile their own using all kinds of primary and other sources.

While the latter might not go against the letter of WP:NOR as calculations are allowed, it certainly goes against the spirit of the policy. I also believe it would go against the letter of the policy if the figures, be they breakdowns or totals, differ from published accounts and breakdowns of casualty figures. For that reason I can only consider the first option to be correct for this article. Anyone else have thoughts on this? FDW777 (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say it goes against the letter as well. As we are not only dealing with adding up raw figures, but also deciding what figures count (as well as the fact that separate sources may include the same casualties).Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I am mixed on this need to here more, to make a decision.Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
My confidence in IP is crushed. So, I have the following proposal: IP shall make a separate proposal for each and every bit (i.e. country) that IP wants to add again, with reliable sources. And not more then two proposals a week. That sounds harsh but IP has messed up big time and has to regain confidence by delivering proper work. The Banner talk 17:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I get some clarity on what "reliable sources" would mean? Does it mean ones mentioned in my first point, ones that publish totals and breakdowns? Or is it things like "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12. (46 mutineers killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)? FDW777 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That seems fair. Do to the situation that happened with, all of this.Driverofknowledge (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
At least sources conform WP:RS. For the rest, depending on the changes. Customized. The Banner talk 18:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait, firstly, I don't remember adding anything to Australia. Secondly, to be honest Banner with regards to "confidence," the fact that you had difficulty understanding with Austria-Hungary that we were dealing with two different pages of the same document, yet you framed it as me trying to say the source was unreliable even though I was using it... well let's just say we are on equal footing, everybody makes mistakes and articles are improved progressively. Thirdly, FDW, I love how you focus on only one source that we already agree on needs to be removed. Seriously, did you even check the other ones? A RS would be, for example: Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (98 Chinese civilians killed during Siege of Tsingtao). Or this: "Causes of war death 1918 according to the political affiliation of the killed persons". War victims in Finland, 1914-22. Retrieved 7 December 2019. (Finnish dead from Finnish Civil War). Or this: Shellum, Brian G. African American Officers in Liberia: A Pestiferous Rotation, 1910-1942. University of Nebraska Press, 2018, pp. 108. (liberian civilian dead from German shelling). Do you consider Radio Free Europe an unreliable source?

That being said, if the above users are interested in redoing of all this by scratch, then I guess so be it. I'll make the "proposals" or whatever, with source, etc. But I believe two per week is a silly requirement, this can all be fixed up quickly if we take this step by step (depends, however, if I have time because I am quite busy). And I would also like to make the edits personally (with your knowledge, of course), because most editors tend to forget (a simple mistake really) that when you change one number in the chart, a lot of other numbers need to be changed. For example, if you add civilian dead to let's say the US, then you have to change numbers for total Allied dead, total Allied civilian dead, total civilian dead, total dead, etc. I'm used to that, so I can do the work for you guys.

My first addition, when May 5 passes, would be China with 101 dead. Sources:

Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (98 Chinese civilians killed during Siege of Tsingtao)

Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (3 Chinese civilians killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny) 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you already forget your attempts to add the Easter Rising and the 1917 Potato riots and your claim that they were part of the war because they were influenced by the war? The Banner talk 19:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
For example, if you add civilian dead to let's say the US, then you have to change numbers for total Allied dead, total Allied civilian dead, total civilian dead, total dead, etc. I'm used to that, so I can do the work for you guys Do you listen to anything anyone says? What you've just said is a complete non-starter. You aren't amending any published figures to include additional dead based on your own research. FDW777 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Listen, that was a hypothetical example. Get over it. There is nothing wrong with making edits to the chart complete and not half-ass, that was my point, which apparently went over your head. And the 3 reliable sources I listed in my last text, why don't you comment on that? You think that's unreliable? 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Before going forward it might be useful to know where we are coming from. We need to decide what is and is not part of the Great war.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems like the right approach, Slater, and I've been asking for this for some time. I believe the U-boat attacks waged by Germany was part of WW1, so therefore civilian dead from U-boats should be counted. Thus, Haiti, Brazil, Spain, Persia, and the Netherlands should be readded because they suffered dead from that. I believe the Siege of Tsingtao is part of WW1. Brazil declared war on Germany and I believe that makes it part of WW1, including the military deaths from disease it suffered. The Finnish Civil War is part of WW1, so the dead from it should be added because Russian dead in this article only pertain to 1914-1917. I believe the Persian Campaign and the famine left in its wake is part of WW1. I believe the Central Asian revolt of 1916 is part of WW1. And much to the chagrin (and probably the root cause of all this) of Banner and FDW, I would be willing to argue that the Easter Rising is part of WW1, though I won't make any attempts to add it to this page unless other users agree with me. How I would love to know what the Banner and FDW think is part of WW1, because they seem to define the war in terms of what it is not. Really, what do you guys think is part of WW1 (not isn't). 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Och, not to my chagrin. Just look at the talkpage: Talk:Easter Rising#Not part of World War 1. But it looks like you are still not accepting that. We start running around in circles again, you wanting us to do your research. Why don't you try to make clear what was part of the war? The Banner talk 20:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you try to make clear what was part of the war? 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Because it is up to you to do your homework. Not up to me/us. The Banner talk 08:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
And by the logic of some of the users here, they would probably argue that the Arab revolt is not part of WW1, because it was only influenced by the war. Of course, Arab nationalism was present before the war, so therefore the revolt is unconnected... right. 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
And there is the problem "I believe", it doers not matter what you or I believe what matters is what RS believe.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Miswording. Take out "I believe". These events "were" part of the war. I'd like to see some users here try to say that the German Uboat campaign isn't part of WW1.2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Slater, what do you think is part of WW1 and isn't? A third opinion is needed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The page covers U-boat deaths? The figures listed below include about 6 million excess civilian deaths due to war related privations, that are often omitted from other compilations of World War I casualties. The war brought about malnutrition and disease caused by the U-boat Campaign and the Blockade of Germany which disrupted trade resulting in food shortages. The civilian deaths in the Ottoman Empire include the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, and Greek Genocide. Civilian deaths due to the Spanish flu have been excluded from these figures, whenever possible. The figures do not include deaths during the Russian Civil War and the Turkish War of Independence. This us under Classification of casualty statistics just wanted to point this out.Driverofknowledge (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah it covers all deaths from WW1, hence WW1 casualties. U-boat attacks, strategic bombing, malnutrition, etc. And another thing that got screwed up with the mass reversion, Serbia now has inflated numbers from the Balkan Wars. 750k is mainstream view, 1.25mil includes both the Balkans Wars and the difference due to a lower birth rate. Plus, the lower-bound numbers under "Total deaths" in the chart don't even add up. The article has been reverted to trash status. And I had added more text in that section, Driver, to exclude certain events. I think my tweaked version should replace what is currently there because it is more specific. Here is the text that I had edited before the reversion:
"Civilian deaths during the First World War are "hazardous to estimate" according to Michael Clodfelter who maintains that "the generally accepted figure of noncombatant deaths is 6.5 million."[16] The figures listed below include about 8 million excess civilian deaths due to war related privations, which are often omitted from other compilations of World War I casualties. The war brought about increased malnutrition and disease caused by the Central Powers U-boat Campaign against the Allies, and the Allied blockades of the Central Powers, both of which disrupted trade and resulted in food shortages. The civilian deaths in the Ottoman Empire include the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Greek Genocide, deaths due to Allied strategic bombing, and deaths due to famine and disease. Civilian deaths due to the Spanish flu have been excluded from these figures, whenever possible. The figures do not include deaths during the Balkan Wars, the Russian Civil War, the Turkish War of Independence, the Finnish Kinship Wars, the German Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, or any of the various wars and revolutions that took place in the aftermath of World War I." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the unreferenced methodology. FDW777 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What? You just mass deleted an explanatory note that explains how the chart is set up and how it doesn't include the Russian Civil War. You do know that Woogie10 made that addition, so deleting it won't satisfy any personal bias you have against my edits.

And Banner, don't be childish again and don't talk down to me, it is not my "homework" to decide what is part of WW1. This is a conversation, and you are supposed to give your opinion, an opinion which Slater and not I asked for. So, FDW and Banner, will you be constructive and answer what you think is part of the war? 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I put the note back. Do to the new concern what do others sources say about what dead, are part of the war. I do have the book Wars & Population that is used on the page.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the explanatory paragraph. BTW, I expect your book to name major combatants, a lot of my additions added very small nations with very small losses, like Liberia and Haiti, so I wouldn't expect the book to mention them specifically. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Either the note refers to a specific reference used by the article, or it refers to completely arbitrary methods used to compile the data. Which? FDW777 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It's supposed to explain how the article is structured. It doesn't need a reference. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Given it decides which incidents are and aren't included, it does need a reference. FDW777 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Due to this I no longer assume good faith with this editor, and I will not accept any changes they suggest that are not 100% compliant with both the letter and spirit of WP:NOR. FDW777 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This has reached now the level of wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. I wouldn't normally give such paranoid accusations the oxygen of publicity, but I will address one point. I entered into this dispute as a direct result of the IP editor's request for more participation at this article they made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I was not aware the invitation to participate was restricted to people that agree with the IP editor... FDW777 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So why don't you state what you think is part of WW1 so we can get on with repairing this article? This is not a one-way conversation and this is not my "homework," I literally need your opinion. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If you had read anything I have said so far (unlikely I know) you would know your question is not in any way compliant with WP:NOR and as such I will not be answering it. My own opinions about whether any death were part of WW1 are not relevant, and more importantly neither are yours. FDW777 (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK let me put it this way, do RS say X was part of the Great War, if not neither can we. It dopes not matter what we think, what matters is what RS think.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Perhaps my wording is off. What do the RS say is part of the war, Banner, FDW? Certainly the Siege of Tsingtao, Liberia and Brazil which declared war on Germany, Haiti losing civilians to U-boat attacks, and so on. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
A response would be helpful guys. We share more common ground than we would like to agree. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
No references with total figures and/or breakdowns = no discussion. Stop trying to bludgeon the process and provide the necessary references. FDW777 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of this talk page is to have a discussion. I am not bludgeoning anything, I have in fact been essentially powerless throughout this entire process. Slater asked a question. Will you not even reply to him? And honestly 4 dead Liberian civilians can be added since I provided an RS for it, even if a "total figures" source overlooked just four deaths. And seriously FDW, excuse my language, but I don't need a damn reference to say that the Russian Civil War or the Balkan Wars aren't part of WW1. That's absurd to demand a reference for that. The whole point of the paragraph is a quick summary with of structure. Slater, can you, perhaps, directly ask FDW and Banner what their "RS" say is part of the war and isn't? I do not think they will respond to my questions. It is better you ask them instead of me. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
What do you guys think of this source, specifically: Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks reliable https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_and_reparations_china .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) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So adding Chinese dead as I did would make sense, right? Because 98 Chinese dead is rarely notable or mentioned in large overviews of the war, so it would make sense to add this. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
China’s war losses during World War I were primarily composed of 1) public and private losses amounting to approximately 21.5 million yuan, caused by the Japanese army during its passage across Shandong in the assault on Qingdao (Japan refused to pay reparations); and 2) losses caused by Germany due to the hostilities, such as the slaughter of Chinese laborers at sea, loss of funds and materials for the Longhai Railway, and the losses of foreign-based Chinese nationals and Chinese factories. After the negotiations between China and Germany, Germany was willing to offer reparations: China received approximately 116 million yuan in total. Overall, China’s financial gains from its participation in World War I were greater than its war losses.https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_and_reparations_chinaDriverofknowledge (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
A simple question, Germans war dead, does it only include white Germans?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you possibly referring to colonial peoples? As the article is right now, the 2+ million military dead number for Germany includes over 1 thousand "colonial troops." France's total includes colonial troops as well, as does the CWGC estimate for the UK. If you mean noncombatant, then probably no. Civilian deaths for French and German colonies in Africa, as well as all civilian deaths in Africa, are (or should be) simply listed in Africa, which totals 750k dead. German civilian dead, as currently seen in the article, is 720 Germans killed in air raids over Germany, and over 400k dead due to malnutrition.
Its simple, do the figure we have already include the figures you want to add? If German possessions are already included that may include those killed in German possessions. You need to show that these figures are not included.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh I see. Well the answer is no, Chinese dead from Tsingtao is not counted among German losses. The only German civilians listed killed under enemy action in the chart is referring to 720 killed in air raids in Germany. Hope that clears things up. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

NO as your source does not say how these Chinese were killed. They may be included under the stats for civilians killed not by allied bombing. To be fair its unlikely, but not wholly impossible. Now do we know of they were Chinese nationals or just Chinese in ethnicity but German subjects. So should they be under Germany or China?Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not even funny anymore. You haven't even read the friggin article. I will quote at length: "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. These were divided into private losses and public property losses. Request for Reparations for Casualties and Loss of Life from the Japanese State: It was estimated that Japanese troops killed nintey-seven people and severely wounded twenty-eight, and also raped a certain number. There were fifty-two cases in all, and 9,624,908 yuan was requested as reparations. Request for Reparations for Casualties and Loss of Life from Private Japanese Subjects: It was estimated that Japanese subjects killed one person and wounded two. There were three cases in all, and 50,687 yuan in silver coins was requested as reparations." The Chinese government is explicitly saying the Japanese killed during the battle their subjects, "its people," not Germany's people. What is there to not understand? 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes I did read it, what not does not say is that these are not already included in other totals. Firstly it does not say "civilians" it says "people", secondly maybe the Chinese are saying that, it does not make it so. |As I said it quite likely this is not the case and these are "Chinese" deaths but we need to be sure (wp;v means other users have to come to the same conclusion you do, I can see this is not clear cut enough to ensure that). So what do other sources say about Chinese deaths in the great war? Lets not rely on one source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh and here is why we need more than one source [[21]] "Germany eventually capitulated. An estimated 450 men died in the siege, 40 of them were Chinese labourers.", so this does indeed lump them in with the Germans, so maybe other sources do as well (note also 40 not 97).Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And can we please do away with this silly nonsense with the "original research" tag over the classification section. It's emphatically not OR that the Russian Civil War is not part of WW1. This is pettiness of the highest level FDW, I even think we agreed on the Easter Rising talk page that the Russian Revolution/Russian Civil War is not part of WW1. Tomfoolery. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have made a number of assumptions, chiefly that the tag or my objection refers to a single sentence and not the overall methodology as to what incidents are and aren't included. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_I_casualties/Archive_2&oldid=1215864783"