Talk:World War I casualties

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

message: Firstly this change changing  to . While the Brittanica reference and the 13 million were talked about in general terms, there was never any proposal to make that specific edit. If there had been, the objection would be a complete and total violation of WP:NPOV, since we're not just going with the total from one reference. The Brittanica reference isn't even that useful for the civilian death toll. Unlike the table that contains breakdowns of deaths/wounded/missing etc by country (cited to , the civilian death toll is given as . As I said earlier in the discussion, who has estimated this? This is en estimate that needs further research and direct attributing, not stating as fact given there is clearly no academic consensus on the total number of deaths. The change makes the article completely contradictory, since the table at World War I casualties#Casualties in the borders of 1914–18 gives a total of 2,250,099 civilians killed due to military action and crimes against humanity and 5,411,000 to 6,100,000 due to malnutrition and disease. So if we're saying ‭7,661,099‬ to ‭8,350,099‬ in the table, why are we saying 13 million in the text????
Secondly this change changing the upper limit on military deaths from  10,824,236 to 20,824,236. I'm struggling to consider this to be anything other than vandalism. The table gives the Allied military death toll as 5,186,854 to 6,433,692, and the Axis military death toll to be 3,386,200 to 4,390,544. This gives a total, excluding Neutral nations, of ‭8,573,054‬ to ‭10,824,236‬, which is what the article said before. So why has 10 million suddenly been added to the total?????
In order for consensus to be clear for any edits, I request that any future changes are made explicitly clear as to what exactly figure(s) are going to be changed from and to and which references support the change. Talking generally about Brittanica and 13 million then increasing the death toll by 5 million and making the article contradictory was never actually proposed. The IP editor did the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do here,  So I really do have to ask the question. Why, given the IP editor explicitly said they would not be removing the lower bound did they do just that? FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the last paragraph and compare what they said they were going to do, and what they actually did. FDW777 (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I think this has to go to AN/I as IP is simply unwilling to comply to all the discussions here and to give reliable sources. The Banner talk 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly it is not just the IP, there have been many issues here. I am not sure anymore who is in the right, hence why I think DR is needed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to be constructive with this editor, I think the last paragraph of my post here is the best way forward. A straightforward "I propose to change x to y" complete with a reference. Look at #Synthesis. You said . The IP responds with the reply I've mentioned above,  The change they made was the opposite of what was discussed, that's absurd. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

text: To clear things up, I only made two edits to this page, and I never edited the Central Powers numbers (not Axis). SO thank you FDW for reverting that vandalism. FDW, I was in a rush while making the edit (see above, my laptop is broken), so assume good-faith. I forgot to keep the range and would be happy to maintain it. My reasoning at the time, if you look at my discussion with Driver above, was that the lede is mostly unsourced (one issue you've been aiming at) and refers entirely to the chart (which you yourself said is completely unreliable). So I got rid of "8", and I think the whole the lede needs to be deleted and rewritten, something you can do. Excuse my haste. I will add back the 13 number but keep the 8. But my question to you, and Banner/Slater, can you provide a source for 8 million civilian dead? It would make the lede more sourced in that matter. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F421:B237:377F:9C58 (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I found some sources. So far that say its about 6-7 million civilian dead, but that's it on my end.Driverofknowledge (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the very first external link in the section and supports a low end estimate of 6 million, and inclusion of country estimates in the table where appropriate. Obviously the first column in the table is useless, but the second and third columns are exactly what we are looking for. Estimates broken down by country by specific studies are what I've been calling for all along. FDW777 (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned this source beforeDriverofknowledge (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. With all the background noise on this page, it's easy to miss things. FDW777 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two changes made without consensus reverted 

message: The sentence in the lead  is changed to give a lower figure of 6 million. This is supported by the third column for civilian deaths in this reference and a 6.5 million death toll would also be referenced by the second column of that reference and the last reference listed in the section at World War I casualties#Classification of casualty statistics. I lost track of how many changes I'd need to make to the tables to take this reference into account, so dealing with one issue at a time. FDW777 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The range should be lowest to highest, so yes I support the change.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree. The Banner talk 14:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair change. 2601:85:C101:BA30:8820:2F1A:F49F:F4AC (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change 

message: I (same IP as before) propose to add Liberian civilian losses to the chart. 4 civilians dead. Using this source:
Shellum, Brian G. African American Officers in Liberia: A Pestiferous Rotation, 1910-1942. University of Nebraska Press, 2018, pp. 108. 
Any questions? 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to give a quote from that book? The Banner talk 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "I believe"... nope. We need facts here, not believes. The Banner talk 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it is referring to civilians, not military or space aliens. Liberia incurred zero military losses during the war. Regardless, do you have an opinion on my questions? 2601:85:C101:BA30:2001:115C:431D:A5C6 (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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