Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 1

message: I removed section editorializing on causes for casualties, this is simply a list.--Kadett 06:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section editorializing

message: I'm not totally sure where to put these graphs... They look a bit awkward there right now. -- Booyabazooka 19:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphs

message: There is a list of casualties in the article World War I that has different figures than this. Pehaps someone might know the reason and maybe, like the WW II article, the casualty list could be a link to this article too. JillandJack
* I have fixed these issues. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 11:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Different figures

message: It would be better to give just a few sources, from which the casualty numbers are taken.
Example: investigations in germany had the result of at least
2.037.000 german military dead in WW I - including around 200.000 army missing (presumed dead),                                           and some 30-40.000 navy dead !
...the ~200.000 soldiers who remained missing (= not officially declared dead until 1934) are usually ignored; as a result one can often find the (incomplete) number of ~1,8 Mill. german WW I dead in literature and media statements - like here in "wikipedia".
At a smaller scale, the widely accepted number of german navy dead in WW I (~34.000) seems also
incomplete as some 4-5.000 remaining missing (mostly drowned !) are ignored, too.
Further reading:
Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministerium: "Sanitaetsbericht ueber das deutsche Heer, deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer, im Weltkriege 1914-1918" (Volume 3), 1934. 
Gerhard Hirschfeld (Ed.), "Enzyklopaedie Erster Weltkrieg", Paderborn, 2004; esp. article 
"Kriegsverluste" by Ruediger Overmans
Boris Urlanis, "Bilanz der Kriege", Berlin, 1965. 
WernerE (german-wiki), Feb. 18, 2005
* I have added the references you mentioned to the article. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 11:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources ? / Example: Central powers casualties

message: I have just repaired some heavy false info. Sargeras 11:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: False info

message: It feels pretty strange that only 40,000 French civilians died, knowing that most of the battles on the western front happened in France. And there is no link to the data where this comes from, too. Jules LT 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  French casualties 

message: What the h*** does that mean? I find it perfectly understandable that we have separate figures for the dead, but why o why don't we have the casualties on the casualties page?? We have them in the one source site that's here and we have the figures on the World War I page, but not here. That's silly!
Btw, the one source here looks kinda bloggish, so it would clearly be an improvement to have a couple of reference sites instead of just one. Jules LT 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the World War I casualties article does not include casualties: <strike> no </strike> comment

message: Are the arabs who rebelled against the Ottoman Empire (ala Lawrence of Arabia) considered as casualties, on either side?  It would be great if someone was knowledgeable enough to include this. DirectorStratton 01:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabian Casualties

message: The casualty charts don't match the figures given. Example: Serbia lost 400.000 military personell and 950.000 civilian, USA lost 116.516 yet on the chart the percentage of US troops lost is larger than that of Serbia. The figures are correct but the chart isn't and it MUST be fixed. Also I propose that we put in a casualty chart that compares the percentage of the genereal population of each country that was killed in the war (so a bar graph). Reasons for this being that the smaller countries get highly overlooked in the sacrifices they made in this war. For example Serbia lost around a third of its general population, the most in the war, but it looks like they sacrificed less than the French.
User:69.194.57.22, 03:51, 4 October 2005
* The issue of the error in the piechart regarding Us/Serbia is fixed. The other idea you mentioned is good, but we need the population numbers for the countries to begin with, otherwise we can not make such a chart. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 10:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty Charts

message: Are British Empire and United Kingdom duplications?--Berndd11222 17:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it seems the British Empire was a subtotal. I have removed it from the table, and now countries are listed separately. My regards, Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication? 

message: The schedule does not foot. It needs to be corrected--Berndd11222 00:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno what you mean. Regards, Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's OK now. Last night it did not foot.--Berndd11222 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math error 

message: I was wondering if we shouldn't add a column for casualties as a percentage of population since there is one for WWII casualities?
Bureaucromancer (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties as % of population

message: I was given the Canadian Virtual War Memorial's complete database of fallen Canadian soldiers (in all conflicts from the Nile Expedition to the Korean War). The exact number of Canadian fatalities is as follows:
1914 - 197, 1915 - 5,135, 1916 - 16,974, 1917 - 20,563, 1918 - 14,741, 1919 - 1,960, 1920 - 871, 1921 - 459, 1922 - 187, Newfoundlanders - 1,656, Merchant Navy - 579, Total - 63,322. 
I'll double check the numbers this week and will make sure there were no problems on the data import that would lead to missing soldiers.
::On Wikipedia all information we post must be verifiable, how can we verify those figures?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Woogie10w, I'm working on getting the database online so you can view the records. ErikH6 (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exact Canadian numbers

message: hello The Belgian number is almost certainly too low.  They fielded a sizeable army and I expect the deaths to be between the high 20's to as much as 40,000.  Other numbers for wounded etc. would increase as well.  John Mosier lists two different numbers (thus creating a question on his sources) but both are much higher, ie. 35,000 and 24,729 dead.  He also lists 63,000 missing, and no number for wounded.
12.june 2006: My history book says the total amount of belgian casualties (both military and civilian) is 115.000
Response by Woogie10w
Official Belgian government figures for military losses in Europe were 26,338 killed, died of wounds or accidents and 14,029 died of disease or missing. The total in Europe is 40,367. In Africa: 2,620 soldiers killed and 15,560 porter deaths, for a total in the African campaign of 18,270. The combined total for Europe and Africa is 58,637 
Source: l'Annuaire statistique de la Belgique et du Congo Belge 1915-1919. Bruxelles. 1922.
What are the figures of John Mosier and what are his sources? 
After 1914 the Belgians were given a quiet section of the front and were not engaged in the major offensives of the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Belgian Casualties

message: I ask becasue the American figure of 100,000 + seems to include non-battle deaths. This conflicts with the note at the end of the civilian section:
*Note that there is some debate if indirect deaths, like those killed by the Spanish Flu should be counted. If so, 25 million to 40 million more civilians should be added to the WWI death toll.
See for example the breakdown of US deaths in various wars on this page : http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html. Which gives battle deaths of 53,000 and non-battle of 63,000. These figures are ultimately sourced from the US Department of Defence.  
We need to be consistent between all the countries.  Does anyone know where these figures orignally came from? Lisiate 05:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do the death figures contain Influenza deaths

message: I don't think the Canadian casualties are accurate.  172,905 is the number of Army wounded (stat from the Canadian Army Official History, which would mean that there were no one was wounded in the Navy or Air Force.  08:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite an over-simplification, and innately false. By definition military action requires some active participation on the part of the enemy, and as far as is know there were no enemy anywhere near Halifax when the accident happened. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree the Halifax Explosion was the result of an accidental collision between two ships in friendly territory, it wasn't "military action" or "crimes against humanity". There were many accidents in munitions factories, or explosions on military ships due to mishandling, none of these others are listed, and rightly so. As such I'm removing this reference.Gymnophoria (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian Casualties

message: What are the sources of those civilian losses? Can you back up those numbers?--Berndd11222 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Barney. I didn't enter the numbers, and I personally can't back them up, but the numbers are apparently from WWI casualties - which in turn has used the source: Tucker, Spencer C. The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia, Garland Publishing, New York, 1996. My regards, Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Hi wikipedians! I have made a major update - the main thing is that the civilian numbers are now incorporated into the table. This makes it easier for overviewing, checking etc. (no new values, just some error-fixing - e.g. someone had changed Russias dead from 1,700,000 to 1,300,000 without sourcing it). Furthermore I have attempted to introduce better sourcing (see World War I casualties#Table sources). I have also added a section called World War I casualties#Debated numbers in order to shed light on why numbers differ.
I have also added this note in the intro:
Please do not change any casualty numbers until it has been suggested/discussed on the talk page. Sources should also be stated.
Hopefully this will yield better sourcing and discussions in the future.
My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major update 

message: The Entente Powers were Russia, France, and the United Kingdom. Do not refer to members of the allied powers as part of the Entente Powers.
* I've fixed it. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. There is a tradition in history books (at least, in italian history books) to refer to the alliance as the entente; probably some contributors are used to that tradition. Please sign your comments. gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 04:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entente Powers 

message: Beyond known casualties, many soldiers were missing after the war. The number of missing men exceeded the number of deaths. I thing we should cite this numbers on this page. For sure, the bulk of men missing, died during the battles. A negligible percentage came back years later or went to live in other countries (notably, the grandfather of a friend of mine came back to Italy from France about 50 years after the war :-)) ). gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, by all means, be bold and contribute!. But remember, we need figures with a source that can be checked. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 04:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This link (already in the external links section) provides some references. I think that those numbers are quite reliable. I did not edit yet, since I could do a mess with the page format: there is not much room left on the page (horizzontally speaking). gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I need some help with this. If I add a missing column, some conflicts occur. The number I add in the country list takes the place of the wounded number, the missing column still beeing empty. Thank you. gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing soldiers 

message: How in the world did the Ottoman Empire lose so many civilians? According to the figures, the Empire lost more civilians than Russia. Is it because the civilian figures include civil turmoil, ethnic cleansing and other atrocities?--Secret Agent Man 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure but it does appear that this figure includes killings in the Armenian genocide. No doubt the general chaos that attended the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire also contributed to the high civilian casualties. Lisiate 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottoman Empire

message: HERE IS THE LINK TO OFFICIAL US LOSSES IN WW1
, THE ERROR ON THIS PAGE HAS BEEN HERE FOR MONTHS AND NEEDS TO BE FIXEDWoogie10w 20:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE FIX US CASUALTIES--THE MISTAKE MAKES THE WHOLE PAGE LOOK BAD 

message: The numbers in the allied section do not foot. The whole schedule lacks credibility because of this mistake.Woogie10w 23:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duh numbers don't add-  

message: How come so many civilians for the Ottoman Empire died. Is the Armenien Genocide counted in that number or something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaptainP (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number undoubtedly includes Armenian genocide victims. The folks who prepared this page just copied numbers that they did not understand and cannot explain. The numbers here need to be backed up with a detailed explanation of their composition. --Woogie10w 23:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wonderin'.... 

message: What needs to be done on this page is to post the data only from official governmemt sources for casualties with a breakout of their components. For example the UK forces lost X number of men. In the footnote give a breakdown of killed in action, missing after the war and declared dead, died of wounds, POW deaths and died of disease. List the primary source used with a proper reference so that others can verify the data.--Woogie10w 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs to be done on this page 

message: Recently I posted comments to this page pointing out that the data presented here should have official sources to back up the numbers . The military losses needed to be broken out listing killed or missing in action /died of wounds and deaths due to disease and accidents. The numbers on the page did not foot. In the case of the US the losses listed of 126,000 did not agree to the footnote. The page was neglected and in pathetic state. I did not get a single reply to my comments. The page was in dire need of attention</br>
The data presented here is from official sources, there is a breakout listing combat and non-combat losses. The sources for the changes are listed.--Woogie10w 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I made the changes 

message: The 1922 official UK report lists Canadian 56,639 war dead</br>
The Canadian War Museum Lists " over 60,000 war dead.</br>
The CWGC currently lists the names of 64,944 Canadian war dead on line</br>
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)
replies: text: That works for me, the current figures are probably more accurate. Carom 17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note Well all material posted to Wikipeia must be backed up by a reliable source.  Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources All material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source can and will be deleted. You have not given a source for your posting Please provide a reliable source that we can verify or I will delete what you have posted.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian war dead- Official sources are in conflict 

message: The 1922 official UK report lists Australian  59,330 war dead</br>
The Australian War Memorial Lists 61,720 war dead.</br>
The CWGC currently lists the names of 61,928 Australian war dead on line</br>
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)
replies: text: This works for me as well. Carom 17:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian War Dead- Official Sources are in conflict 

message: The 1922 official UK report lists 7,121  South Africa  war dead</br>
The CWGC currently lists the names of 9,463 South Africa  war dead on line</br>
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)
thread_title:  South African War Dead- Official Sources are in conflict 

message: The 1922 official UK report lists 64,449 Indian war dead</br>
The CWGC currently lists the names of 74,187 Indian war dead on line</br>
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)
thread_title:  Indian War Dead-Official Sources are in conflict 

message: The 1922 official UK report lists 702,917 UK war dead plus an additionl 1,204 from Newfoundland </br>
The CWGC currently lists the names of  886,342 war dead from UK and Colonies on line</br>
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)
thread_title:  UK & Colonies- Official sources are in conflict 

message: The CWGC lists the names of 15,632 Merchant Navy personnel and 460 civilians who were killed in WW I. This can be verified at the CWGC website ‘’Debt of Honour Register’’</br>
The figure of 30,000 civilian deaths seems to me to be an estimate that cannot be supported by official documentary evidence. Can anyone provide support  that 14,000 additional UK citizens were killed by U-Boats in 1914-18?--Woogie10w 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK-Commonwealth Civilian Casualties 

message: An accurate and verifiable primary source is needed that lists the total UK civilian losses due to U Boat attacks--Woogie10w 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Civilian Casualties due to U Boat attacks 

message: There's an AfD for that article, please express your opinion. NikoSilver 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe the article should be deleted but cleaned up. There were huge losses in the Ottoman Empire during WW1. The article is biased because it ignores the massacresof  Armenians and other Christians that ended in 1923. The Allied blockade caused food shortages and famine plus the Spanish Flu caused additional losses. The numbers of dead are difficult to determine and are a topic of intense debate.  What is need is a person who is familiar with the literature on this topic to step in and clean it up and eliminate the one sided POV that deals only with Muslim losses. The section on military casualties was relevant to the WW1 Casualties article so I included the link.--Woogie10w 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; thank you. So you mean rename I guess. NikoSilver 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rename and cleanup to eliminate the one sided POV dealing with losses by one ethnic group. --Woogie10w 17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Does anybody have a reliable source on the numbers of WW One dead in the Ottoman Empire broken down by ethnic group? I mean reliable, a source that can be verified.--Woogie10w 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One point to Woogie10w: The empire, even its last day of its existence did not get the idea of "ethnic group" as you are using. They had their own "world view" and responded/acted using their world view. PS: I do not support this: "but some people (including British intelligence of its time) used the word (Turk = Muslim millet). In a way this article is the casualties of Ottoman Empire if you look from their world view." Ottoman Armenian statistics originate not because they were looking for ethnic group but it was a "Armenian millet, patriarch statistics", as explained in the millet concept. Thanks for your considerations.--OttomanReference 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am from Missouri show me! Are there reliable statistics that we can verify?--Woogie10w 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not understand what U are asking for, it is not clear. If you use the appropriate terminology, the clarity would improve drastically. If you want total western source on population statistics, which covers how the population is analyzed by the Ottoman Empire and not biased on war issues; check the article "A Note on Some Nineteenth-Century Population Statistics for Lebanon." It takes a lot of work on the individual to shift centuries and civilizations. It gets harder if ones world view originates from western civilization. --OttomanReference 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am from Missouri, show me a reliable source with verifiable statistics on population losses in the Ottoman Empire from 1914-1918.--Woogie10w 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I will post some material from Erikson's book that I hope will satisfy everyone while I am chilling to the beat of XM 82--Woogie10w 23:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I]] 

message: Where does the current number originate? It seems, it is under represented. OttomanReference 03:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need is an analysis that explains the loss, not just a statistic that we are forced to accept on blind faith.--Woogie10w 03:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please share with us your source for Ottoman losses in WW1. The statistic of 2.1 million on the WW1 page has no supporting analysis. It is a statistic from a secondary source( Grey- Chronology of WW1 Vol 2, P 292) that lacks solid documentation. If you know of a Turkish demographic study of 1914-18 please let us know --Woogie10w 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It was published by Facts on File, thats why. I have a Russian source Vadim Erlikman with civilian losses of over 3 million, it is an estimate. What about Turkish sources, what do they say? I want to see the correct figure that is supported by analysis--Woogie10w 04:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 5 million from James L.Gelvin is more reliable; I can say it is recent.OttomanReference 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your efforts, greatly appreciated; Until a better reference is found, it seems there is no solution to this problem. OttomanReference 10:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman empire civilian losts is under represented. 

message: Are figures for the Czechoslovak Legions included here, possibly under Russia and France? Just curious. Grant | Talk 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Czechoslovak Legions

message: Joseph Guyton ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_William_Guyton ) was the first American casualty in Europe. Should this be mentioned somewhere on here do you think? (I'm only asking because that page says nothing links to it and didn't know where else this would work.)
Thank you, Good Tidings - Navarro 07:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. Try American Expeditionary Force. Grant | Talk 08:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First American Death in Europe

message: The article Gëlle Fra says:
:Although Luxembourgers left under German occupation at home could do little to aid the Allies, those overseas, outside Germany's control, could volunteer to serve against Germany.  In total, 3,200 Luxembourgian nationals served in the French army, of whom, 2,800 died.  As Luxembourg's pre-war population was only 266,000, this death toll amounted to more than 1% of the entire national population, which is a relatively greater percentage for many combatant nations (see: World War I casualties).
However there is no mention of Luxembourg in this article. Grant | Talk 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Gëlle Fra article they list 2,800 dead with a Ref [3] that leads to no actual reference, the German article says 2,500 total dead in French forces. The official French data list 4,600 foreign war dead in the Foreign Legion. I would like to see an official source with the data --Woogie10w 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This French website lists The following data  948serving  in Allied Armies(including France) and 201 dead in French Foreign Legion.Vadim Erlikman in his Russian language handbook of of statistics cites Fremy Quid as listing 1,800 dead in the German Army. We have conflicting sources. The Wikpedia site in Lexbourgish is only partialy intelligble to me, I wish somebody from Luxembourg could help.--Woogie10w 09:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My hunch is that these men were residents in France when the war broke out and that they volunteered for the French forces.--Woogie10w 10:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I was thrown by the link to this article, but in hindsight I guess the author only intended it as a reference point. I have found an editor who is a Luxemburger and asked him to comment. Grant | Talk 13:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will check whether I can find anything. Offhand the 2800 casualties number seems high, but it could be correct. And yes, many of the Luxembourgers serving in the French Foreign Legion lived in France of Belgium, though some at least must have traveled via the Netherlands or Switzerland.--Caranorn 11:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed that reference in the Gëlle Fra article, the 2800 casualties number seems to stem from the inscription on the monument (been a while since I read it) and is used in both the Luxembourgish article (directly listing the number from the monument) and that Richard Doody article. The numbers in the Anovi article (cited by Woogie) seem to be too low. Unfortunately the WWI Sourcebook I have doesn't give any numbers or even information on Luxembourgian volunteers. Considering how none of the other entries give ranges I'd opt for the 2800 value (the monument, while certainly a propaganda piece (to a certain degree), was after all erected by the government, so it would the the official source) and then possibly list the lower 201 estimate in the footnote (2800 seems very high, 201 terribly low and 1800 under German service improbable). Note if I understand things correctly, foreign volunteers could opt for the French nationality on enlistment in WWI, which could explain the low official French listings.--Caranorn 11:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway the link ,now in the footnote, from the Luxembourg national military museum says over 2,000. The Wikipedia articale in Luxbourgish, which is only partially intelligble to me says 2,5000, the German article which is based on the Luxbourgish also says 2,500 dead in the French Army. The whole issue could get way out of had, let me explain. These men were more than likely residents in France who volunteered for French service. The US had many foriegn nationals in their Armed forces. Poles served in German, Austrian and Russian Armed forces.  Military casualties should be listed under the flag that that they served, not by ethnic group.--Woogie10w 12:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the 2500 number in the Luxembourgish language article (I corrected my edit thinking I'd made a typo). And yes, considering how Polish or Czech troops are not listed individually it seems justified to exclude the Luxembourgers too.--Caranorn 12:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Luxembourg]]

message: The Armenians were part of the Allies of World War I. They supported the war with the military units under the French Empire {French Armenian Legion)and Russia (Armenian volunteer units). Later before the end of the war Democratic Republic of Armenia had won a major battle Battle of Sardarapat giving 30,000 Martyr. I do not understand why it is not listed in these tables.--Seemsclose 14:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenian military losses are included with France and Russia. They did not have a seperate Army. Armenia was not an independant nation during the war.--Woogie10w 14:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Armenia was declared at 28 May, 1918 and was part of Paris Peace Conference, 1919 with an equal seat like other nations. I can see how your point can be valid to Centrocaspian Dictatorship, which Armenians were also part of it but ... Also the military force of Democratic Republic of Armenia was not part of any other army like French Armenian Legion. I do understand states like Czechoslovakia (1918) or Brazil (1917) that became part of the bigger Allied units, however Armenia had its own independent core. I think there has to be a way to include or at least present the Armenian efforts alongside the Allies, which they had their support in the victory. For the Democratic Republic of Armenia a generation of youth had been sacrificed. Don't you think it would be unfair not to represent these people? I feel that it is already unfair that has not been included. --Seemsclose 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Democratic Republic of Armenia]] 

message: Any thoughts to formatting the page similar to the WW2 casualties page. ?  It would make camparisons much easier and I find the  % of population killed a powerful measurement of impact.-—Graymc 13:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just copy it on an Excel spreadsheet and edit to yours hearts content.--Woogie10w 00:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Make table more like WW2 Casualties page?

message: yet the grand total for the central powers are there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.221.34 (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers for ottoman empire are missing 

message: I was looking up the ratio of men mobilised to men killed in WWI and was shocked to read on another WW1 site that of all soldiers from Austria Hungary mobilised, 90% were killed.  This seems unusually high!  Can anyone confirm this?
Anna wilder (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you read this? What is the source?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The web page you are refering to does not list the source for its post of 1.2 million Austro-Hungarian war dead. The footnotes on the Wikipedia page give readers the sources for all the data. Austro-Hungarian war dead of 1.1 million is from a source that can be verified. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN LOSSES 

message: UK official casualty figures  for 1914-18 lack credibility. An analysis of the 1922 War Office report on casualties and current CWGC figures revealed the following  
1-	The total figures for British Empire war dead were given as 908,371. The detailed tables in the report do not support this figure. The  authors of the report did not provide any backup for  the often quoted  figure of 908,371 war dead.  The figures on supporting schedules  are poorly organized and do not tie out to a final total. There is no reconciliation of  the figure for missing in action
2-	 The schedule that lists the figure of 908,371 British Empire war dead refers only to ‘soldiers’. The implication is that the RN, the RAF and the Merchant Navy are not included.
3-	The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties give us statistics on page 12 that add down to 876,084 Army war dead and missing. If you add the RN war dead figure of 32,287 from the 1922 report you arrive at 908,371. 
4-	 The RAF casualty figures in the 1922 report are not summarized
5-	The 1931 official Medical History figures on total Army casualties do not include Dominion losses in the Dardanelles campaign.
6-	The CWWC figures for 1914-18 war dead are 1,114,914. This is an increase of 206,543 compared to the 1922 figures. The CWGC does not give us an explanation for the increase.
7-	The names of the dead posted to the CWGC website add down to 1,057,648 not 1,114,914. 
8-	The number of civilian deaths on the CWGC website  is given as 459, however the 1922 War Office report on casualties lists 1,260 UK civilians killed in air raids. Perhaps the newspapers from that era will give us the identity of the victims.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does this leave us? The article currently says 885,138 British military deaths plus 61,928 Australian, 18,050 New Zealand, 74,187 Indian, 1,204 Newfoundland, 9,463 South African. This makes 1,049,970, or some 7,678. This British figure does not agree with any of the figures Woogie10w has stated above. I also cannot derive either 88,138 or 1,049,970 from the comments in the footnotes. So generally I am confused about what figure should be in the article. The Land (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently I miscalculated. So as the article stands, the figures used are the CWGC figures, and the UK total is the Empire total less the other contributions. The discrepancy between the CWGC figures and the 1922 figures and the 1931 figures is unexplained, but is noted in the article. Is there any good reason for us not to use the CWGC figures? The Land (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I strongly suggest that readers obtain a copy of the official 1922 UK report(it has been reprinted) and do their own audit of the figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK casualty figures 

message: The Footnote 4  method is obsolete. So I propose changing completely to standard ref markup. To this end, the use of ref markup for the table notes needs to move to a different system. The Footnote 3 method ref/notelabel is still accepted by wikipedia and works relatively easily. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, I look forward to the finished product.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing markup 

message: Ottoman casualties of 5 million are wrong.  The Ottoman Empire lost 5 million true, but you forgot that one million Greeks were expelled and there was fighting there from 1919-22. Get your act together WW1 dead were 3 million tops.  Wikipedia needs to check it facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.205.34 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The person has a valid point, read this Wikipedia article on Population exchange between Greece and Turkey there was a net loss for Turkey of 1 million due to post war transfers.  not taking into account the fighting in 1919-22 and the Pontic Greek genocide The Chronicle of WW1 published by Facts on File gives Ottoman civilian losses as 2,150,000 for WW1 only. Should we make an update?--Woogie10w (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman casualties  

message: The article states that Bulgarian military casualties (KIA, MIA, died from wounds) is 87,500 and civillian deaths (due to starvation and deseases) are 100 000. I'm not familiar with the source of these numbers (Urlanis, Boris, Wars and Population, Moscow, 1971) , but every Bulgarian research and records I've seen (for example Colonel Yotov, Petko, The Bulgarian Army in World War One 1915-1918, MoD "St.Georgi Pobedonosets" Publishing, Sofia, 1995) show more than 105 000 dead in combat, over 150 000 wounded (60 000 of them crippled). I'm still searching for reliable source on civillian casualties, though from memory I believe they were more than 100 000. It seems that the current number of military deaths is mixed up with those of the First Balkan War , and not World War I. The number of wounded seems to be correct, though. Would anyone be able to check the older, russian source and confirm that the given number is correct? Otherwise, I think we should base this on official Bulgarian records and accept 105 000 + military deaths as the correct number. 
The number of Bulgaria's population is also incorrect. According to census from 1910 the country had a population of 4 337 513. Even with the addition of more territories with large Bulgarian population and mass exodus of Bulgarian from Serbia and Macedonia after the Balkan wars, this is offset by the huge casualties of the Balkan Wars, which are more than 100 000 military deaths alone and in 1915 was just over 4.3 million. 
  
Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.255.223 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please give an ISBN reference on the book. I took a peek at Bulgarian Wikipedia(Bulgarian and Russian are similar languages), it seems that Colonel Yotov, Petko Петко Йотов is the director of the national military museum--Woogie10w (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia all information must be verifiable  and reliable. Statistics without a reliable and verifiable source will be deleted. I snoop around Wikipedia a lot and find statistical data without sources and data attributed to a source that cannot be verified. Unfortunately statistics posted by an editor can be changed and the source cited remains the same.  Editors should keep a close watch on the information that they post.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian casualties  and population - 

message: Since the conflict invloved multi-ethnic empires such as Russia or Germany and they are scholary studies and information on ethnic groups who perished they should be included in the article.
--Molobo (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be done, in the footnotes only, not the main table. The deaths in WW1 have been broken out for each nation of Europe within the borders 1946-1991 by a Russian source that I have. The losses for Poland within 1919-45 borders also are given in a source published by the US census. The losses are for countries, not by ethnic group. The only problem that I have with this approach is that the sources are not easily verifiable, it could be confusing to readers, and such a presentation is not given by any other source in the English speaking world. In my opinion this is mere trivia. Today there are no Polish war memorials for the fallen in the German, Russian and Austrian armies. The Irish celebrate the 1916 uprising. The "Romanians" serving in the Austrian army invaded the country in 1916. The Ottoman Empire included the mid East, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq--Woogie10w (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we plug Poland, we should also give credit to all the African nations that contributed to the French and UK armies. Our Russian source has data for 67 nations in WW1, using Soviet era statistics.  Even Vietnam will get a line, we can't forget Ho Chi Min over there in France during the war. We would open Pandora's Box --Woogie10w (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Well since Wikipedia is the sum of all knowledge and such information is seen as valid by scholary resources then this shouldn't be a problem. A seperate chapter or information in footnotes is in order. As for losses for countries-you will have a an issue with the losses for military and civilian deaths if A:they were losses for example for joint Austro-Russian Polish military who rebelled against both sides and joined together to fight them, B:They were civilian deaths outside of power authority(see Destruction of Kalisz), but this is for later. Right now a general information would be ok.  Today there are no Polish war memorials for the fallen in the German, Russian and Austrian armies
I wouldn't be so sure about that. In German no, but I could search for Polish formation from France, Russia and Austro-Hungary. There is certainly a street named after Pulawski Legion that fought for Russian Empire after promise of autonomous Polish state in Russian Empire. And here we have a monument to them--Molobo . You also have specific memorials to Polish formations fighting in France, the soil from beneath that memorial was used in construction by IIPR in Lviv Eaglets Cemetary so they definetely reckognised them.--Molobo (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note well they were NOT Polish military losses they belong with Russian and French casualties --Woogie10w (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not treated so by scholars, but as seperate Polish losses. Likewise the French clearly distinguish them from solely French formations. And what about Polish formations who rebelled and fought against Austro-Hungary/Russia ?. Anyway the point is scholars do point out Polish losses in WW1 seperately in several works. So it is verifable. --Molobo (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: No, the casualties listed on the main table are listed for the nations that fought in the war. The ethnic losses deserve a mention only in the footnotes. Otherwise the article will turn into a confusing mess. The numbers add down to a total, we cannot under any circumstances crete a foolish duplication by adding Poland. If you add Poland, we  need to add the other nations created in Europe after 1919, including Asia and Africa. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Today there are no Polish war memorials for the fallen in the German, Russian and Austrian armies. Incorrect. I have seen at least memorials for WWI Austrian and WWII Russian soldiers in modern Poland, and would not be surprised fing WWI Russian as well (German, after WWII, I wouldn't be so sure, but I wouldn't be surprised, neither).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not Polish losses, the losses of WW1 are listed under the flag the men served under. Otherwise the article would become a confusing mess with every other country created since 1918--Woogie10w (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Simple logic dictates that the numbers add down to a total. We cannot duplicate losses. Sources in the English speaking world list WW1 casualties within 1914 borders, not 2008 borders--Woogie10w (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this Wikipedia:Handling trivia. The losses of Poland and other nations created after 1918 in WW1 are borderline trivia in my opinion.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish or Czech nation were not created after the war, do not confuse nations with countries/states. The national/ethnic issue was one of the causes of the war so I certainly wouldn't call it a trivia in this context. Nearly 1,5 million Czechs fought in the A-H uniforms for the Czech king aka Austrian emperor (cca 150,000 KIA) and over 100,000 in the Czech legions on the Allied side (cca 5,000 KIA). Trivia? Don't think so. Qertis (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrzej Chwalba notes that Polish ethnic losses in military are within 387.000-450.000. This certainly is not trivial number(as well as the 155,000 Czechs who died-a significant number). And neither Poles or Czechs were 'created' after First World War.--Molobo (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Poland and Czechoslovlkia did not exist as nation states during the war. They did not have armed forces. The casualties of the waring powers are reported for the nations that existed in 1914, not by ethnic group. An attempt to allocate casualties by ethnic group is a gross effort in trivial pursuit. Historians in the English speaking world do not allocate WW 1 casualties by ethic group.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: It is Czechoslovakia not Czechoslovlkia. 
*They did not have armed forces
Please see Czech Legion, Polish Legions, Blue Army that acted on their own in several phases of the war.
*The casualties of the waring powers are reported for the nations that existed in 1914, not by ethnic group
The article's title is about general casualties of WWI not of waring powers only. Additionally Armenians are already liste despite being a warring power.
*An attempt to allocate casualties by ethnic group is a gross effort in trivial pursuit
This is your opinion and original research. Several scholars pursue this research as it is important to history.
*Historians in the English speaking world do not allocate WW 1 casualties by ethic group.
Can we have a source for that statement or is this a personal view ?  Anyway that wouldn't be important-Wikipedia is sum of all human knowledge and does not restrict itself to Western histography-several topics on Wiki are concerning subjects Western histography neglects or does not write about.Correction:Norman Davies writes about population losses in Poland during First World War.Correction #2:US Congress report notes that Polish losses in First World War were  were three and a half times less than those suffered in the
Second World War.--Molobo (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The fallacy of your argument is that there were other ethnic groups besides Poles that served in the war. Using your logic we would need to add lines for the other nations created since 1918 and delete the figures of the borders of 1914, that is why your argument makes no sense whatsoever, Poles were not the only ethnic group in Europe, we would need to add a line for each not just Poles. The end result would be original research.  Historians of WW1 never ever breakout casualties by ethnic group. Poland’s losses belong in the footnotes or on a page of Polish history, --Woogie10w (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

text: We can't rebuild Rome, WW1 casualties are reported within 1914 boundries.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we add a new subhead to the table: ethnic groups. The current note on Poland seems out of place and style (and why does it talk about Russian casualties?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the subhead as requested.
--Molobo (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths by ethnic group 

message: The current edit by Woogie is ok mostly by me. There is room for improvement but it is a good start of description. Of course we still need Czechs in seperate section-as it seems this has also been studied per above comment.--Molobo (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please put a redirect to the main note, I dont know how to do it.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current edit by Woogie is ok by me mostly. 

message: According to this source (an article by the Czech historian Ivan Šedivý), the estimated number of deaths form the ethnically Czech districts of Bohemia (present-day Czech Republic) is around 138,000, this one gives the number of cca 175,000. Considering the fact that ethnic Germans formed about 1/3 of the population of Bohemia back then, the total number of deaths from the territory of present-day Czech Republic only could be well over 200,000. Qertis (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have three suggestions:
1-Do not delete what is posted there now. Let readers compare the different sources and make up their own minds.
2-Your sources from the internet can be taken off the internet at any time, a dead link will be deleted. A source in print is always prefered.
3-Your figure of 200,000 is original research, do not post it.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My Hunch:
I can't post this original research but the 26% of the Austo-Hungarian population went to Czechoslovakia in 1919. 1,100,000 military dead times .26 = 286,000. But we need a verifiable source.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Ethnic identification can be tricky, some of the ethnic Germans in the Waffen SS could also speak Czech or Slovak. I used to drink with these folks forty years ago, real cool guys--Woogie10w (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czechoslovakia 

message: Casualties of WWI needs to redirect here.--189.102.200.171 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Casualties of WWI]] re-direct needed 

message: whats the source for german wounded ? the western front article listed an higher number for german wounded on this front than this article about overall german wounded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.167.134 (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  is there an estimate for wounded on the western front?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.121.123 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is yes and no. German official data is broken out between eastern and western fronts from Aug 1914 until July 1918 for each month of the war. The data for the period Aug - Nov 1918 is incomplete, however the German military historians in the post war era did compile the total number wounded during the entire war.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Was wollen Sie? Welcher Nummer? --Woogie10w (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  german wounded 

message: The figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WorldWarI-MilitaryDeaths-CentralPowers-Piechart.svg does not match the data.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.131.129.98 (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military deaths - Central powers 

message: The section of Allied Dead military personal Pie chart is outdated it was creted from the data in the page from 2007.It should be Updated with the actual information of 2011.
Acording to the actual data the new(should be) data is far diferent from the actual data.
I recomend to someone with experience in pie-charts to update the chart for allied and Entente dead personel with updated information from the charts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OUTDATED GRAPHICS 

message: where--Karesu12340 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian causalities? 

message: The civilian death total for Portugal seems extravagant,   as Portugal was effectively remote from any of the war zones.   Did someone just make that number up ?Eregli bob (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not have called Portugal too remote from war zones. In addition to the contingent serving on the Western Front after it entered the war on the Entente Allied side, Portugal also had to defend two major African colonies, Mozambique and Angola, which bordered the then German South West Africa and German East Africa respectively.Cloptonson (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  German resistance in German Southwest Africa had ended prior to Portugal's entry into the war. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal civilian deaths 

message: Brazil contributed both soldiers and ships to the allies, but I have not been able to find any details on their total casualties. Anyone know where such information can be found?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil 

message: I read in the DK eyewitness book World War 1 that the total number of deaths was 22 million.
It said 8 million were killed in action, 2 million died of diseases, 6 million civilians perished and 6 million went missing, presumed dead. Wiki answers also shows 22 million.
1- DK eyewitness book World War I is a childrens book and not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia.
2- I suspect the figure of 22 million includes Spanish Flu deaths not caused by the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Total number of deaths

message: The Siamese Expeditionary Force lost 19 soldiers in Western Europe during WWI.  Their names are listed on the Monument to the Expeditionary Force in Bangkok.  The number of dead is also supported by the Wikipedia pages on Siam in WWI and the Royal Thai Army.
They served under their own flag.
69.126.206.152 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the link used to cite the number on the Royal Thai Armed Forces entry page.  http://thaimilitary.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/90th-anniversary-of-world-war-i-this-is-the-history-of-siamese-volunteer-crop/
69.126.206.152 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: looks OK--Woogie10w (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siam 

message: The description used in this article for India - India(British Colony) doesn't make sense. First India wasn't a colony; colony is a term with specific meaning. India was an imperial political structure comprising (a) Presidencies and Provinces, directly governed by the British Crown through the Viceroy & Governor-General of India, and (b) Princely States, governed by Indian rulers, under the suzerainty of the British Crown exercised through the Viceroy & Governor-General of India. Second, British India included territories not within the modern borders of India, obviously Pakistan & Bangladesh, but also Burma, Yemen etc. It excluded territories whivh are part of modern India but which were then under French or Portuguese control.  
It would be better to use either British India or Indian Empire - both of which were in use at the time and accurately reflect the political entity that the figures relate to. 
Dorset100 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That would definitely be an improvement :), thanks Dorset100 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: I propose that we update the figures for military dead to reflect the ranges that are listed in the footnotes. A range is given for losses on the World War II casualties page. I believe that this should also be the case here on the World War I casualties page. Overall the page needs to be reviewed because the 100th anniversary is just around the corner. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes 

message: Why are some column headings right-aligned while others are not? This does not match guidelines in MOS:TABLE. Also, why do the sections for Allies of World War I and Central Powers contain headings for each individual column, but Neutral nations does not? Also, the Neutral nations sections does not span the entire width of the table, and underscores ("_") are used in the Military wounded column instead of horizontal bars ("—"). These issues were corrected in my edit, but were then undone by User:Nikhilmn2002. AldezD (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also missing spaces before the parenthesis in the column headers for "Military deaths(from all causes)". AldezD (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Other than the width of the column in my revision, is there a reason why the other issues are present? AldezD (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table headings 

message: Please see my post at Talk:World_War_II_casualties#UK_civilian_deaths_-_higher_in_WWI_than_in_WWII.3F for the discussion of a possible error in the table here. PS. The ref for the number here is Hersch, L., La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7.Pages 47–61 - seems a bit dubious; both due to age and due to needing 20 pages range for a single number. Can anyone verify it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The civilian death toll in the UK of 107,000 was caused by the U-boat blockade that disrupted trade in the war.  The statistic was computed by comparing the total annual civilian deaths in 1912-13 to the period 1914-19. Total civilian deaths in 1914-19 were roughly 4.1 million, this was 292,000 greater than the prewar level including 183,000 influenza deaths, the excess deaths due to the war (excluding influenza deaths) was 107,000 civilians.  This is about 2.5% higher than the prewar level.  The source for this statistic is a demographic study published in an academic journal. Contact me by Email and I will be glad to provide a PDF of the section in the article in Metron- The International Review of Statistics. When one considers the fact that Europe depended on imports of food in 1914 this statistic makes sense. The poor in Europe suffered disproportionately because food prices were inflated because of the disruption of trade during the war.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another study Losses of Life Caused by War by Dumas published by OUP in 1923. The author put excess deaths in England & Wales from 1915-18 at 281,000 of which 100,000 were due to influenza epidemic. This study is available online at the internet archive. (see pages 150-53) It is is cited in the article. See World War I casualties#Sources--Woogie10w (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK civilian deaths - higher in WWI than in WWII? 

message: Hello,I'm Miloskula. This is official information about casaulties of Serbia in WW1.Source is Rebuplic of Serbia Ministry of Defence.
I propose a change abouth military (402,435) , civilian (845,000)  and total deaths (1,247,435) of Serbia in WW1 (28% of Serbia polulation). Follow next link for confirm that information. If page open in Serbian language, turn on English option language. Cheers. http://www.mod.gov.rs/sadrzaj.php?id_sadrzaja=7222
The source of this information is not the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Defense but a doctor who made the claim at a conference that of Serbia lost 1,247,435 in WW1 (28% of Serbia polulation).  In any case this Wikipedia page presents all the published figures for WW 1 casualties that are supported by reliable sources. The statement by this doctor could be included in the article but it cannot be the only figure for WW 1 casualties of Serbia.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The figure of 1.247 million includes about 500,000 children not born and losses in the Balkan Wars, the census figures in 1921 indicate that losses were closer to 800,000 see Demographic history of Serbia#1921 census (excluding Vojvodina, including Kosovo and Macedonia)  , See also A demographic study put total the war dead for Serbia and Montenegro at 750,000 (300,000 military and 450,000 civilians). The overall population deficit from 1912–1920, based on the prewar level, was 1,187,000 less 150,000 killed in the Balkan Wars and a decline in the number of births of 336,000, in addition there were 47,000 deaths from 1914–1920 related to the war that were included with deaths by natural causes Hersch, Liebmann, La mortalité causée par la guerre mondiale, Metron- The International Review of Statistics, 1927, Vol 7. No 1.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casaulties of Serbia in WW1 

message: Hello, today I added a map of European deaths by percentage I made yesterday. The map I used is from 1914, so it is a map of countries going into WWI not out of it. The map for example includes the Austria-Hungary empire, which was disbanded in 1918. The map is used to show how the nation's populations were affected by WWI.
I personally think this map fits this page well (I made it so I am very biased). If anyone feels the map is not relevant/needed you can take it down.
Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI European percentage map 

message: The divisional history by Douglas Jerrold (1923) gives 445 officers 7,102 OR killed, subdivided as Antwerp, MEF and BEF. 19 O and 647 OR "Died", 1,364 O "Wounded" and 29,528 OR. p. 338.Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RND 

message: It says 6,700 POWs died, but on p. 331 it is more like 10,000. Are these figures overlapping or separate?
CJK (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So where did the 6,700 figure come from (you appear to have deleted it)? CJK (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced those preliminary figures with the March 1921 Army report data for each theatre of the war, it makes sense because the figures tie out to the official total--Woogie10w (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK POW confusion 

message: The war involved multi-ethnic empires such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary and Turkey. The diverse ethnic groups in these multi-ethnic empires were conscripted for military service.
I have changed the definite article boldened in the above passage to Many, because there was no conscription throughout the war in the British Indian Empire (aka Undivided India pre-Pakistan).Cloptonson (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Conscription of Ethnic Groups

message: Anyone looked into San Marino's losses?  The People's Almanac The Book of Lists 2, (authors David Wallechinsky, Irving, Amy and Sylvia Wallace) (first published 1980) under the "The 6 Smallest Countries on Earth", mentions: "During WWI San Marino sided with the Allies and lost two soldiers". It is unclear if the two were serving in San Marino's own tiny army or in the Italian forces.Cloptonson (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the History of San Marino article; San Marino remained officially neutral throughout the war, which caused considerable tension between them and Italy. Some Sammarinese did volunteer to serve in the Italian army; but these volunteers did not have the official sanction of the San Marino government and therefore were not San Marino soldiers. The article does not state casualties, but considering the Italian casualty figures it is quite likely some were killed. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting but it seems trivial IMO.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The publication referred to is US and compiled by Americans, whose state was neutral, then Entente Allied. Correction I owe - it was the "Book of Lists 3", Sylvia Wallace was not one of the joint authors, and it was published 1983. (I had Book 2 out to consult as well.)Cloptonson (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic of San Marino

message: I know that because of the way of counting losses and the different array of sources some casualties could have a diff range of some thousands, but the Case of Belgium & Greece its a Scandal, the lower and higher numbers of military killed have a difference of 3 to 4 times. Especially in the Case of Belgium. This in the end gives a 1.5 million difference between the lower and higher Allied Overall Killed. Witch is in my Point of View too disproportional.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disproportional range of losses. 

message: Australia's mean population 1914-1918 was 4,984,432. See  Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3105.0.65.001 - Australian Historical Population Statistics, 2014. The figures are in the "Population Size and Growth" spreadsheet, which you will find under Downloads. 86.187.52.18 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian population 

message: This interesting report on some recent Australian research highlights the general difficulties in interpreting WWI casualty figures. 
For example, a casualty tally based on hospital admissions will tend to be high because the same soldier was often admitted to hospital more than once. A wounded soldier who went on to die is likely to be counted under both dead and wounded. And so on.
It is not WP's job to correct the figures in its sources, but it might be worth adding a general caveat in the "Classification of casualty statistics" section about the limitations of the data and the ways in which it can be flawed. 86.187.52.18 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the study mentioned in the article "it is now estimated that 62,300 died (+/- 400)"  this is in agreement with the figure of the CWGC of 62,081. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The OP didn't mention the Australian death toll. The point being made was more general than that. 94.119.127.254 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  General caveat 

message: Blammed a few typos and added missing bibliographic details. The Sources section overlaps with Further Reading, could they be merged? Just a thoughtKeith-264 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection I think you're right, the references aren't uniform, some are <> short version, some long and there are a few  ones too. It might need a comprehensive revamp which will need consensus to attempt.Keith-264 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the Further reading section into alphabetical order and had another look at the references, which I do think would benefit from a uniform short form of notation, because much of the detail in the footnotes is duplicated in Further reading and because many of the sources referred to are used several times. See Battle of Sidi Barrani, which has the short footnote inside squiggles form, to link lots of footnotes to the same source and Western Desert Campaign which uses <> references. Both avoid duplication and overlaps (the long form <> system is also available but I'm useless at it). Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: Currently the article cites a figure of 155,000 deaths in the Belgian Congo during WWI. This sounds absurd to me (considering the tiny participation of the Congo in the war) and the dubious claim that this is "based on sources published in the Soviet Union and Russia". One of the classic problems in Congolese historiography is that there were no censuses in the country until the mid-1920s anyway, so I'm really sceptical of this. Unless another source can be provided, or the academic reputation of Mr. Erlikman confirmed, I'm proposing to delete this section as a fringe theory.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to keep this, why? Erlikman is a professional historian with a Phd. 2- There are sources from the west to back this up The conflict in East Africa caused enormous civilian casualties. The Oxford History of World War One notes that "In east and central Africa the harshness of the war resulted in acute shortages of food with famine in some areas, a weakening of populations, and epidemic diseases which killed hundreds of thousands of people and also cattle."--Woogie10w (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a doctorate does not necessarily make you an reliable source, especially on something that is clearly not his primary research area. How are 20,000 soldiers and porters supposed to eat so much that 155,000 people die of famine? There obviously were casualties, but that figure is still absurd. I've searched Google books in English, French and Dutch (the primary languages for the study of the Congo, unlike Russian) and can find not the faintest evidence to support it. Again, do you have any additional evidence? Can you clarify how Erlikman explains his methodology? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Please provide a source for your remarks. The Oxford History of World War One supports the argument that there was a population loss due to famine in central Africa. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1914-1918 Online Encyclopedia (which is a WP:RS and academic source) which describes figures for the Congo as "unrealiable" and which does not even attempt to provide an estimate-by-colony. With all respect, the Oxford History you cite just says lots of people died in Africa during the war - something I do not dispute. Also note that the encyclopedia provides an estimate of 50,000 casualties for the whole of North Africa, a region which (like the Congo) was also not a warzone. It cites 18,200 Congolese porters and soldiers killed (about 8% of your estimate!) which sounds considerably more reasonable.—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text:  "sounds considerably more reasonable" is you OR without a source, just your opinion. The figure of 150,000 is 2% of the total population of 6 million in the Congo, in Italy there were 589,000 excess deaths due to shortages 2% of the population. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: @ Piron: to rubbish a source because it is Soviet is as absurd as rubbishing it for being American. Unless you apply the same criteria to all of the sources in the article, you risk riding a hobby-horse and proposing a fringe theory of your own. Keith-264 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is not Soviet, it is Russian published in 2004. The author has academic credentials as an historian. Erlikman in fact disputes the Soviet era figures for the victims  of Stalin.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I beg your pardon, I assumed it was a Soviet-era source because of Piron's comment. As for our opinion of such figures as exist, it's irrelevant but for me, if 20,000 fit young men were removed from the farm labour pool in Congo, wouldn't their labour productivity have been supporting quite a large population of children and old folk? Keith-264 (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On these issues a result far from ordinary requires a reliable source to carefully explain how he got his results--what primary sources he used, what assumptions he made.  History professors in Russia have limited resources to work with (I know because I used to be a history professor in Moscow) so the issue of sources is critical. Even more important is the approval or critique of Erlikman'a findings by other experts as in journal reviews. Rjensen (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1914-1918 Online Encyclopedia  "" cited the estimates by Erlikman.  We do in fact have academic sources outside of Russia that support the inclusion of his figures. Rather than delete Erlikman, we need to provide background on his methodology --Woogie10w (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the souce used is Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke: spravochnik  [. Population Losses in the twentieth century: a handbook]  Moscow 2004.   see https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=https://books.google.com/books%3Fid%3D5E3mAAAAIAAJ%26q%3Disbn:5931651071%26dq%3Disbn:5931651071&prev=search  It is a compilation of other sources--Erlikman himself is not an expert on Africa. The issue then is what RS on Congo did he use?  Rjensen (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: See The 1914-1918 Online Encyclopedia  "". Erlikman based his figures on the work of the demographer Urlanis. I have a hard copy of the Erlikman book and will provide jpgs if requested. In any case we have a reliable academic source that cites his figures.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The  Erlikman figures got posted here because Wikipedia editors from Poland demanded to see the Polish war dead back in 2008. Since Poland was not a separate nation in 1914-18, I put the Erlikman figures here.  The 1914-1918 Online Encyclopedia also cites Erlikman. What do propose? Deleting Erlikman. I propose keeping him but alerting readers that the figures are rough estimates. We are not saying Erlikman has definitive figures on civilian losses. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Given the provisional nature of the numbers of war dead and the causes in the bureaucratic states of northern Europe, it's not surprising that the fate of quasi-slaves in the colonies can only be sketched in general terms, which I think the article makes clear. If you want to make it more pointed I don't suppose it will do any harm but I hope we don't underestimate the general reader.Keith-264 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgian Congo casualties 

message: In the table of casualties I believe you need something like
   data-sort-type="number"
added to each column's descriptor.  As is, "100,000" is treated as SMALLER than "40,000" (since "1" is smaller than "4"  :-)
Look at the similar table for WW II casualties to see what I mean.  Jamesdowallen (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Thanks for pointing that out.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable table doesn't sort correctly 

message: There seems to be an error on the grand total upper bound for military wounded, “23,6665,873”. I’m assuming the editors intended value is “23,665,873”. However, I’m struggling to figure out the method of calculation for the upper bound: 12,812,271 + 8,751,805 = 21,564,076 ? If this is something obvious, excuse my ignorance. Soulred205 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo on Grand Total upper bound 

message: Hi!
What do you think about that? Because there are only percentage about the total death per population ratio.
--Blemse (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: New column needed: "Military deaths as % of the enlisted soldiers"

message: This is mathematically impossible.  Something is wrong somewhere.  (I'm referring to the Casualties by 1914–18 borders table.)  EJR~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Deaths as a % of the Pop" in the Subtotal for the British Empire is larger than in any of the individual countries.