Jump to content

Talk:World War II casualties

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.248.246.39 (talk) at 20:26, 25 June 2013 (→‎Hungary Deaths and the Holocaust). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeWorld War II casualties was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Hungary Deaths and the Holocaust

A question. The table for WWII deaths gives a total # of deaths for Hungary that is below the estimate for Hungarian deaths in the Holocaust alone, given in another table. I was under the assumption that total WWII deaths included Holocaust deaths. Can this discrepancy be explained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.246.39 (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noe above Holocaust deaths reads-included in the above figures of total war dead are the victims of the Holocaust.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that being the case, how do we explain the discrepancy between the two charts (and indeed one of the pie graphs) where Hungary's total deaths are lower than the Holocaust deaths alone? 99.248.246.39 (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 February 2013

On this page, very often some total numbers were shown: like total number of victims in tables. These numbers were obtained by summing from different sources with different precisions. Therefore, by math rules the precision of result is very low, at least lower than lowest precision in the sum. However, the total numbers were presented and repeatedly mentioned with higher precision. For example, sum of 500,000 and 123,465 **is not** 623,465 but simply 600,000. Please have this in mind, and correct it until more precise references are found! VLukovic (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What figures are you referring to? In any case the numbers add down to the total of the all figures. We cannot have a column of figues that do not add down.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. And per what Woogie10w said. Vacation9 03:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's a good idea. I am so used to preparing financials that add down to the penny. But this is Wikipedia not a bank--Woogie10w (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 6 June 2013

I was looking at the total world wide casualty list and did a quick calculation and what I found is that the high end figures come out right about 85 million total deaths.

I know this may sound like a bit of a nitpick but personally a difference of 5 million is a pretty big difference to me.

Either a "+" should added after the larger total or it should be changed to "85,000,000" for more accuracy.

~ Carson

Gigabytelord (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I pasted it into a spreadsheet and it totalled just over 85 million, so I altered it, with this edit. Thank you. Begoon talk 09:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I put total world wide casualty list into Excel, the total was over 84 million--Woogie10w (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India Flag

WW2_casualties#Charts_and_graphs here in that picture the flag provided for India is not suitable, this tri-colour flag is of Republic of India, not of British India, any one can change it? Any reply?Ovsek (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user from Denmark prepared that file 7 years ago, I dont have clue on how to edit it--Woogie10w (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use India or the British Raj?

British India was involved in WW2, not India, generally India is used to mention current republic of India. British India was undivided.Ovsek (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#World War II Casualties use of India or British Raj. Please take the time to review and comment on this dispute.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Casualty figure

The figure of 37,000 Indian war dead in WW2 was a preliminary number from 1945 and is not correct. The current 2011-2012 Commonwealth War Graves Commission figure is 87,000. Since 1945 the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has been able to clarify the fate of those men who were missing in 1945, died as POW or died of wounds. The more recent figure of 87,000 is correct since it is based on 60 years of research. You can check the CWGC figure on page 43 of CWGC report [1] You can find self published web pages on the internet that still pick up the older incorrect 1945 figure.

Please note that The bharat-rakshak.com states More than 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict, [2]--Woogie10w (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian population pyramid

Under the Russian population pyramid it states "Huge population losses of Russia influence the country's population pyramid. Russian male to female ratio is one of the lowest in the world (especially, in older generations), and pyramid shows distinctive age fluctuations due to the loss of a generation during the war."

The pyramid shows nothing of the sort. To have fought in the war - and as the legend refers to excessive male deaths - you would have had to have been 16 in 1945, so 80 by 2010 when this population pyramid is dated. Female life expectancy is approximately five years greater than male life expectancy anyway - see List of countries by life expectancy - in Russia this is twelve years, largely a result of alcohol. The only thing this pyramid shows is the differing life expectancy, which has nothing to do with wartime deaths.

The pyramid should be removed as it adds nothing and - worse - is at best misleading and at worst completely wrong! Now, a population pyramid for 1950 might indeed show the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincefish (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Quincefish. The pyramid should be removed because it is misleading. What we need are two pyramids, one-1939 and two-1946. The gender gap was 8 million in 1939, in 1946 it was 23.5 million according to Andrev, Darski and Kharkova study of 1993. Is there anybody out there watching the article that wants to keep the Russian population pyramid? Otherwise in two weeks time I will delete.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 25 June 2013

Hate to bring the casualty figures up again, but I seemed to have ran into yet another error, this time right there in the header sentence and also in the first sentence of the first paragraph.

The first states, "World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses." I'm not even really sure if that sentence is even required given the obvious purpose of the topic, at least not the second half of it anyway. Perhaps it should be rewritten to give more accurate figures? Truthfully I'm not entirely sure how you would about that. The main sticking point with me is matter of factly stated figures.

The second issue is a just a numbers adjustment.

"World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 70 million.[1] The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that range from approximately 60 to 80 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population."

As you can see the paragraph kind of contradicts itself stating that total casualties range from 50 to 70 million in the first half of and then giving a figure of 60 to 80 million in the second. I would also like to point out that the paragraph is also redundant, perhaps it should be shortened to,

"World War II fatality statistics vary, however The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that ranges from approximately 60 to 85 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population."

The grammar suggestions are just that, suggestions, But I believe that the information given should at least match the figures shown later in this very same article.

Gigabytelord (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Please see my reply to your other request at Talk:World War II#Edit request on 25 June 2013. Let's wait until that discussion is finished before introducing any new complications, and then revisit this if necessary? Begoon talk 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II_casualties&oldid=561571398"