Talk:World War II casualties

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) Baltic states military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Chinese military history task force Dutch military history task force French military history task force German military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Japanese military history task force Korean military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Nordic military history task force Polish military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Latin American military history task force South Asian military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

"deadliest"

Several Wikipedia pages parade around the "deadliest military conflict in history" meme as if it was relevant or objective. There are several things deeply wrong with this airy claim.

• the adjective "deadly" does not convey the idea of "largest total number of casualties". Something is "deadly" if it presents a threat to life. A cemetery isn't "deadly". A high voltage wire is.
• Even if a less dramatic, more objective terminology was chosen, dryly stating "the military conflict with the largest cumulative number of casualties", there are several problems.
• what is "a military conflict". Is the Hundred Years' War "a military conflict"? Are the Mongol invasions "a military conflict"? Then certainly, WWI and WWII taken together, spanning a mere 30 years, are "a military conflict". In other words, conflicts aren't discrete or countable, hence your statistics just measure the arbitrary definition of "a military conflict"
• conflicts are "deadly" if the populace runs a great risk of dying. Naturally, this risk is measured per individual. Hence the "deadliness" must be measured in terms of the total population affected by the war.
• before anyone calls WP:CITE, no, I am not pulling these objections from thin air. As noted in the article, Steven Pinker (2011) claims that your generic pre-modern tribal warfare was "nine times as deadly" as anything that went down during the 20th century.

In conclusion, the "deadliest" thing is both misleading and unnecessary. Just say "60 million dead", perhaps adding "2% of world population" or so, and be done. --dab (𒁳) 19:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I agree. But the plug about tribal warfare does not belong in the Lead paragraph. IMO it seems out of context in relation to the article. In an article on wars in general yes, but not here with WW2 casualties. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like this plug about "tribal warfare" either, this is something that occurred in a very different societal context...statistically death from illness, injury, and starvation were all radically more prevalent in that context...and that's not to mention the phenomenal difference in the psychology behind these wars and the means by which they were fought. --Illiustrope (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, DEADLY IS A SUITABLE ADJECTIVE. Why? Because, for the first and only time in history, man used a weapon that could jeopardize its very existence. --Illiustrope (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to include a mention of what was the deadliest war relative to human population, the An Lushan Rebellion in china — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgalatola (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo - correct it and delete me

Figure of 15.9 million ..... ny Nazi Germany.

should read Figure of 15.9 million ..... by Nazi Germany.

figure caption

It seems in-appropriate to mention the 100,000 US deaths prominently, as countries where the fighting occurred suffered so much more.

Table inconsistency

There seems to be a inconsistency in the format for the tables under Holocaust deaths. The first table is labelled 'Jewish Holocaust deaths', the second 'Roma losses by country'. I would suggest changing the second table's title to 'Roma Holocaust deaths' which is probably most appropriate as the 'by country' is implied in the table (though not familiar with Wiki style). Thoughts? FZY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.250.59 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add a link?

I wanted to ask first. Seeing as the CWGC is mentioned and cited here, would it be ok to add a link for search engine created to "googlize" their data? It makes it much easier to browse the CWGC by unit, country of the commonwealth etc? I know we can't use the data taken from it on the grounds of IR/SYNTH etc, but it might be helpful for others interested. ZiptheWatsit (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Geoff's 1939-47 Search Engine" ZiptheWatsit (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The CWGC has their own search engine, why use this one?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It has more search options. For example, if you're looking for someone from a specific country (rather than the country they're buried in or unit they belong to, which is what the CWGC lets you search), this search engine allows you to do so. For example, if you wanted a list of citizens from Trinidad or Sudan, this would provide names of those killed (as long as its mentioned anywhere in the entry). It's not perfect, and certainly the data drawn from it would fall under personal research, but it would be a resource for those who visit the article and are looking for more info on the Commonwealth. ZiptheWatsit (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the CWGC give you explicit permission to use their data? In other words is there a potential copyright issue that may come up on Wikipedia? I don't want Col. Blimp and his friends to show up with bats and chains.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless the CWGC has granted the site owner permission to re-use its data, that site would infringe the CWGC's copyright and so doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for external links (please see WP:ELNEVER). Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know. I didn't make the engine, but it's been around for a couple of years without being taken down. But more importantly, who is Col. Blimp? ZiptheWatsit (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)