This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 13:42, March 26, 2017 (JST, Heisei 29) (Refresh)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I have just separated in the info box the estimated numbers for "British" and "Indian". In addition I wonder why Aussie troop strengths (at the very least) are not included. Or are these included in Hastings rather glib journalistic aside as British? Juan Riley (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Pacific War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Michael Clodfelter 2000. p. 556":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
On this and other pages, a Mr. Binksternet has been removing all uses of a page, http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/2687/siryo/siryo16.html, listing combined Japanese casualties as well as final strengths during the Second World War, citing the 'self-published' geocities URL. I understand the concern, but in this case it seems hardly necessary. In most, if not all cases, can the figures be found elsewhere (usually individually), and Japan's own Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery, located near the (in)famous Yasukuni Shrine, published a pamphlet (http://www.zephyr.dti.ne.jp/~kj8899/chidorigafuchi.jpg) using numbers that are virtually identical. The difference is that they are scattered around a Japanese-language map and not neatly arranged in table format. Given this supporting evidence it appears the geocities link checks out.
No. It does not concur with RS standards of WP. Indirection is not acceptable I believe. Insert the info with the RS sources you contend exists as underpinnings of the your geosites citation and then will all be fine. Juan Riley (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Juan Riley that the geocities self-published website cannot be used. Instead, the numbers must come from some reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This obviously isn't a reliable source, and should not be used. There are reliable sources on this topic, and they should be used instead. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I will go about replacing the geocities link. To do so will be a bit tedious, though.
Good work Pittsburgher, as Columbo would say "one more thing". What is the time span of these 1964 figures, 1937-45 or Dec 1941 to 1945?-Woogie10w (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
'37 to '45 I would think. The original document describes the table as representing all losses including Koreans, Taiwanese, and civilian employees, over the course of the whole war, including 188,700 China casualties prior to December 1941. Other (less detailed) breakdowns I have seen give a similar figure for this period.
I wish we had a Japanese Wikipedian who could dig up the original 1964 source. According to the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare Japanese war dead totaled 3.1 million persons including 2.3 million soldiers and Army/Navy civilian employees, see Ishikida, Miki (2005). Toward Peace: War Responsibility, Postwar Compensation, and Peace Movements and Education in Japan. iUniverse, Inc. (July 13, 2005). p. 30. and the Yasukuni Shrine figure of 2.3 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
My hunch is the difference of 200,000 is due to conscripted civilians dead or missing on China mainland and Manchuria--Woogie10w (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The "disposition date" for each of the regional sets of figures is late August 1945, but the start date isn't listed. It's worth noting that a significant number of Japanese military personnel in the South West Pacific died in the months after the war as a result of the malnutrition and diseases they suffered prior to the surrender, so the total casualties will have been higher than the August 1945 levels. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I would also venture that the discrepancy mainly comes from estimates of postwar deaths being factored into the total, in a similar manner to how many Holocaust victims and Prisoners of War succumbed to their condition even after their liberation and thus were counted in the overall death toll. I wish we had another, more recent breakdown with this level of detail on hand so as to compare and contrast the figures, but based on what I've seen the 1964 numbers are probably the best we've got at the moment.
Given the mass-destruction of Japanese military records in August 1945 and the destruction of many front line units during the war, there don't seem to be any comprehensive figures on Japanese military or civilian casualties. Estimates of the numbers killed in the air raids on the country in 1944-45 vary considerably, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
In the side panel, the Canadian prime minister W.L Mackenzie King's name is beside the flag of the British Raj. When you click on the flag, it's a link to Canada. This seems to be an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)