Talk:World War I casualties

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

Two changes made without consensus reverted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed change

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deaths as % of population in the table

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

Recent Additions

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

Brazil

In Brazil_during_World_War_I (unsourced) it says three Brazilian civilians were killed by a German sub. Is this an oversight, or has it been excluded from the page? If so, why? Nyonyatwelve (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Civilian casualties in Serbia due to military activity

Hello,

Table is wrong in many ways, Nations are listed wrongly. But for me personally, biggest concern is following.

Article table suggests that there were no civilian casualties in Serbia due to military activity and crimes against humanity and puts all of the Serbia's civilian casualties under the malnutrition and disease. I will link just the Wikipedia article about Austrian occupation of Serbia in WW1 with reliable sources linked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_occupation_of_Serbia

It states tens of thousands of victims. Combining massacres perpetrated by other occupying armies, multiple scholars came to various numbers. Some of those theories are even stated and linked to sources in this World War I casualties article.

Given that many of the massacres are verified with photos, a very scarce resource in WW1 Serbia, we can be positive that number of victims of massacres is very high. Also, thousands of Serbian civilians died in concentration camps across the Austria, Hungary and Austrian occupied Bosnia and Romania, which is also mentioned and linked in above mentioned article.

Given all the facts that I stated and which are very easily checked, it would be necessary to change the numbers regarding Serbia and use any of the sources linked for estimated number of victims. Table is unfinished, but given the fact that most of Wikipedia readers are just scrolling through articles, short glimpse to the table would give wrong impression and contribute to many wrong ideas resurfacing public space about the very same topic this article is all about. Thank you. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

So how many civilians died? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Number is in tens of thousands. I am researching reliable sources for exact number. For now, only these sources claim exact number of civilians killed directly by occupying forces for first year of war to be 30000 :

Demm 2019, p. 50.

Numanović 2014.

So number should be more then 30000. This is still closer to truth according to sources then 0 which this table suggests.

If I do not find an academia author that combined all the figures I will list here all of the sourced events together with number of victims for each individual event so someone smarter can check and calculate total combined approximated number. Also, I will try to find older sources that prove that those numbers are not made up recently as academia deteriorated in last few decades. Thank you. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Well then prolbem is we already say 450,000 to 800,000, in total, so does this include this or not? Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources linked to 450000 and 800000 cite these numbers as total number of civilians killed in war so these numbers include those killed in war crimes. Also, number 800000 is for period of 1912 to 1918 which makes that figure non usable for this article. Very few articles divided number of casualties as per this division in article. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Then we canont add figures, if we already have them. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

But they are added wrongly, table suggests no Serbian civilian casualties due to military activities or war crimes while sources claim at least 30000 civilian casualties only in massacres so there were even more victims when we include victims of bombardment of Serbian towns and cities. I am not saying we should add 30000 to 450000-800000. I am stating that the way this table is envisioned, figure of at least 30000 Serbian civilian casualties due to massacres should be stated + unknown figure of victims of military activities. Also, number of 800000 is for period of 1912-1918. Not for period of 1914-1918. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think its time for others to chip in, I have stated my concerns. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)