Talk:World War I casualties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Brazil and Siam[edit]

Brazil lost civilians during World War I due to German U-boat attacks, and declared war in 1917 against Germany. I think it should be added.98.221.136.220 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I found a source[1] that I can use. Let's see what I can do. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The Brazil section has been completed, footnotes and source included. If anyone has better sources for Brazil, please help yourself to adding them. I think I'll do Siam next, as it was mentioned in one of the archived talk pages. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I have completed the Brazil and Siam sections, footnotes and sources included. Seems pretty solid to me. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Francisco Verras; "D.N.O.G.: contribuicao da Marinha Brasileira na Grande Guerra" ("DNOG; the role of Brazilian Navy in the Great War") (in Portuguese) "A Noite" Ed. 1920

Unreliable[edit]

Due to the creative use of sources, I have marked the article as unreliable and needing an expert. The Banner talk 15:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the warning because it is erroneous. Please give specific reasons for future warnings. And if you believe there is such a large issue, alert the MilHistory group, they'll have a better opinion on this than either of us. 2601:85:C101:BA30:8560:48BC:2A07:81B0 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I've alerted the MilHistory guys on their talk page, they're going to take a look at this stuff. 2601:85:C101:BA30:8560:48BC:2A07:81B0 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I have restored the tags, as the issue is not resolved. The Banner talk 04:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Ow, and by incorrectly removing the tags (the discussion is still ongoing) you prevented that the MillHistory guys were alerted automatically. So leave the tags in place. The Banner talk 05:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I share The Banner's concerns regarding this IP's "creative use of sources." Specifically, it appears that the IP is synthesizing multiple sources and combining events tangentially related to World War I rather than merely practicing calculation or relying on the secondary literature to produce the lede figures of "20.7 to 22 million deaths and about 20 to 22 million wounded military personnel"—while I am not an expert, these figures are considerably higher than those found in secondary sources that I am familiar with, contradict Wikipedia's main article on World War I, and may also incorporate a misleading sense of precision. Consider the earlier thread "Adjustments and Additions," in which the IP announces, without regard for The Banner's objections, that he is upgrading the Greek National Schism to a part of the broader war and adjusting the casualties accordingly. The Banner retorts that "'related to' is not the same as 'part of'," but the IP continues on unfazed, effectively demonstrating ownership of this article. Ultimately, why should any Wikipedian on either side of this or other disputes make the final determination as to which casualties are included in the total for a major war that ended more than 100 years ago and has been studied in voluminous detail ever since? The same applies to the IP's listing of Iran (or Persia) in the lede as one of the countries most impacted by the war based on the Iran-centric sources cited in "Iran Revisited"; it seems clear that the excess deaths in Iran were overwhelmingly due to the Spanish flu pandemic, but even stipulating that the cited sources/numbers are reliable and sufficient to justify inclusion in this article, I don't believe that any major histories of World War I specifically single out Iran as a major player in their opening paragraphs. Whenever a Wikipedia article, under the heavy influence of a single determined editor who has worn everyone else out, diverges so far from the secondary sources that it is supposed to be summarizing, that is a red flag and justifies The Banner's request (if possible) for an expert reassessment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, I won't remove the tags so better users can revise the page as necessary. With regards to Persia, you can claim that the deaths are "overwhelmingly" due to Spanish Flu, but where are your sources? I provided a list of sources that stress that the famine from 1917 onwards was a primary cause, though the Spanish flu may have added to it. And I don't understand your labeling Kenneth Pollack "Iran-centric." Removing mention of Iran from the lede would be ok however, or the last paragraph in the lede entirely (which I wrote), since Persia wasn't really a main player in the war. I would also not mind revising the total numbers in the lede and replacing it with sourced numbers. And with regards to the Banner, he has been saying "related to" is not the same as "part of", but he honestly never mentions what criteria differentiate the two. Still, I would be happy if somebody specify those criteria, and then users can go about removing or adding whatever is necessary. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
If you do not know the difference between "related to" and "part of"... goody. Houston, we have a problem. The Banner talk 18:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Your mocking isn't helpful. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

And at any rate, the Balkans theater campaignbox lists the National Schism as part of it, meaning part of WW1! Note: I never edited the campaignbox. So I'm not the one making these connections. 2601:85:C101:BA30:780A:6933:9DC2:38D2 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


I came across this. I looked back through the history, all the way to 2016 it looks like one person was working on this page. For a number years so I put it back to, the last edit they did since it looks stable hope this helped sorry if it didn't.Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Examples of the user who was working on this page. For a number years from 2007-2019 looks like they knew there stuff, seems like the expert was here but left.Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=97780595&oldid=97280140

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=903871465&oldid=903868842

You deleted things that were indisputably part of WW1. Brazil had declared war on Germany late in the war and lost soldiers from disease, but you deleted that? If you have an issue, don't simply revert everything. Look at the above discussion, most of what the Banner is claiming is hogwash. 2601:85:C101:BA30:85AA:4FD2:627D:4738 (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

But the general line of Driverofknowledge is that your edits are unreliable what gave him reason to revert. Your campaign of insults does not change that. The Banner talk 13:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Your campaign of insults does not change that either. 2601:85:C101:BA30:85AA:4FD2:627D:4738 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
And as expected you start editwarring... The Banner talk 13:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Now can we all talk and come to a new consensus.The ip user can you post what the numbers say in the books? and sources, so I can possibly verify them.Driverofknowledge (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Gladly. Here is a list of sources I used for my edits. It might not be complete (it is lengthy though) because I've made many edits, but it's about as many as I can remember. One or two were already present on the article (which I'll label with an asterisk), some I found on other language versions of Wikipedia, the rest I added:

  • "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12. (46 mutineers killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
  • Farwell, Bryon (1992), Armies of the Raj: From the Great Indian Mutiny to Independence, 1858–1947, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0-393-30802-2 p. 244 (47 mutineers executed after the 1915 mutiny)
  • Strachan, Hew (2001), The First World War, I: To Arms, Oxford University Press USA, ISBN 0-19-926191-1 p. 802 (6 Ghadarites killed during Hindu-German Conspiracy)
  • http://www.rmslusitania.info/people/lusitania-victims/ (2 Indians killed in sinking of the Lusitania)
  • Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (16 civilians killed in 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
  • Donato, Hernâni "Dicionário das Batalhas Brasileiras" ('Dictionary of Brazilian Battles') (in Portuguese) IBRASA 1987 ISBN 8534800340 Page 153 (156 Brazilian soldiers who died of disease while serving in WW1)
  • Francisco Verras; "D.N.O.G.: contribuicao da Marinha Brasileira na Grande Guerra" ("DNOG; the role of Brazilian Navy in the Great War") (in Portuguese) "A Noite" Ed. 1920 (3 Brazilian civilians who died from uboat attacks)
  • (*)Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (98 Chinese civilians killed during Siege of Tsingtao)
  • Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (3 Chinese civilians killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)
  • Steamer Chaparra, in: uboat.net. (6 Cuban civilians who died from uboat attack)
  • Abbott, G. F. (2008). Greece and the Allies 1914–1922. London: Methuen &Co. ISBN 978-0-554-39462-6. Page 160-161. (Greek military dead from Noemvriana)
  • Damianos Athanasiou (10 July 2014). "Εγινε χθες η παρασημοφόρηση της ένδοξης σημαίας της 1/38 Διοίκησης Ταγμάτων Εθνοφυλακής Ευζώνων (φωτορεπορτάζ)". Dimokratiki.gr. Retrieved 16 January 2018.

Honest mistake with this source, WP:AGF. This is for 59 Greek dead during the French occupation of Thessaly. Here is the correct source: "12 Ιουνίου 1917(*): Η „μάχη της σημαίας" και η βίαιη κατάληψη της Θεσσαλίας από τον Γαλλικό στρατό" (in Greek). Θέματα Ελληνικής Ιστορίας. 12 July 2013.


  • Η Ελλάς του 1910-1920, Γεωργίου Βεντήρη: Αθήνα 1931, Identifier: 000074165, σ.σ.106-131 (listing 12k Greek civilians killed during Bulgarian occupation during WW1)
  • "Tα ξεχασμένα Νοεμβριανά". Kathimerini (in Greek). 18 November 2006. Archived from the original on 20 July 2011. Retrieved 18 August 2009. (35 Greek civilians killed during the Noemvriana)
  • https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/caribbean-theater-haiti-and-first-world-war (haitian civilian dead from uboats)
  • Shellum, Brian G. African American Officers in Liberia: A Pestiferous Rotation, 1910-1942. University of Nebraska Press, 2018, pp. 108. (liberian civilian dead from German shelling)
  • "Commission Calls 1916 Tsarist Mass Killings Of Kyrgyz Genocide". Radio Free Europe. (Central Asian revolt of 1916 dead)
  • Sokol, Edward Dennis (26 June 2016). The Revolt of 1916 in Russian Central Asia. JHU Press. p. 158. ISBN 9781421420516. (ditto last source)
  • Whyte, Brendan; Whyte, Suthida (2008). "THE INSCRIPTIONS ON THE FIRST WORLD WAR VOLUNTEERS MEMORIAL, BANGKOK" (PDF). Journal of the Siam Society. 96: 175–192. Retrieved 29 August 2018. (Siamese dead (19) during WW1)
  • Traxel, David (2006). Crusader Nation: The United States in Peace and the Great War, 1898-1920. Random House, Inc., New York. ISBN 9780375724657 (US civilians dead from uboats)
  • "THE BLACK TOM EXPLOSION.; FOUR BODIES FOUND THE SUPERINTENDENT MISSING". The New York Times. 18 January 1875. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
  • (*)Prost, Antoine: War Losses, in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (Bulgarian excess deaths)
  • "Causes of war death 1918 according to the political affiliation of the killed persons". War victims in Finland, 1914-22. Retrieved 7 December 2019. (Finnish dead from Finnish Civil War)
  • The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice 1918–1919 Bane, S.L. 1942 Stanford University Press page 791. (100,000 deaths in 1919 during the continuation blockade)
  • Gregory, Adrian (2016). "Imperial Capitals at War: A Comparative Perspective". The London Journal. 41 (3): 219–232. (Ottoman civilians killed by Allied strategic bombing)
  • "Six unexpected WW1 battlegrounds". BBC World Service. BBC. 26 November 2014. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
  • Schatkowski Schilcher, Linda: The famine of 1915-1918 in Greater Syria, in: Spagnolo, John P. (ed.): Problems of the modern Middle East in historical perspective, Ithaca 1993: Cornell University Press, pp. 229-258. (ottoman civilian dead from great famine of mount lebanon, the number includes Syria and Lebanon)
  • Tucker, Spencer C. (2006). World War I: A Student Encyclopedia. New York: ABC-CLIO. p. 113. ISBN 9781851098798. (Albanian dead)
  • Bjarnason, Gunnar Þór (2015). Þegar siðmenningin fór til fjandans. Íslendingar og stríðið mikla 1914–1918. pp. 236–38, 288–89. (Danish dead that is counted among Germans, given as footnote)
  • Faber, Ernest (1932). Luxemburg im Kriege 1914–1918 (in German). Mersch. p. 155. (Luxembourg dead from air raids)
  • Lith, Hans van. Plotseling een vreselijke knal. Zaltbommel: Europese Bibliotheek, 2001, pp. 176–177. (862 Dutch fisherman killed by the German U-boat Campaign)
  • Lith, Hans van. Plotseling een vreselijke knal, pp. 91–95. (3 Dutch civilians killed by accidental British bombing)
  • http://www.rmslusitania.info/people/lusitania-victims/ (persian civilians killed on the lusitania)
  • Ward, Steven R. (2014). Immortal, Updated Edition: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 9781626160651., p.123: "As the Great War came to its close in the fall of 1918, Iran's plight was woeful. The war had created an economic catastrophe, invading armies had ruined farmland and irrigation works, crops and livestock were stolen or destroyed, and peasants had been taken from their fields and forced to serve as laborers in the various armies. Famine killed as many as two million Iranians out of a population of little more than ten million while an influenza pandemic killed additional tens of thousands."
  • "Olof Palme (1884 -1918). Mannen som kunde ha blivit en svensk fascistledare". Dagens Nyheter (in Swedish). 26 November 1995. Retrieved 3 January 2016. (Swedish volunteer dead during finnish civil war)
  • "Name lists on war victims". War victims in Finland, 1914-22. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
  • "Gefallen 1916 an der Dreisprachenspitze". www.suedostschweiz.ch (in German). Retrieved 9 December 2018. (Swiss dead)

And by the way, thanks to the mass revision, Africa is now listed as an Allied power in the chart. Great job Banner. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You mean "Africa" just above Belgium? Did you ever click on that link? It will bring you to East African campaign (World War I). And as you added/changed the numbers and footnotes, you should have noticed that. If that was wrong, you only have to blame yourself. The Banner talk 17:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Stop lying! How is the East African campaign an Allied power? My edit with regards to that was to put Africa among the neutral countries, because the 750,000 number refers to all the theaters in the African campaign (southern, western, eastern, and northern). Did you even click on the linked source?! Did you even read the footnotes? 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A question, how is it being creative?Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven The Banner TheTimesAreAChanging By putting a source from 1875, on a World War I casualties page its source 21 they put.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)https://www.nytimes.com/1875/01/18/archives/the-black-tom-explosion-four-bodies-found-the-superintendent.html
Huh. That's odd. Honest mistake with that one. WP:AGF. But what about all the other sources? Making an accidental mistake is no reason to revert months of constructive edits, as well as putting Africa as an Allied power. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
So, one source does not explain the mass removal of material.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I consider this to be revisionist history of the highest order. Look at all the ancient news reports cited, and 1942 books such as The Blockade of Germany after the Armistice 1918–1919. Do you not think the various organisations and/or authors that have compiled casualty totals were aware of them? Attempting to revise the total upwards using references such as that is simply wrong on every level. FDW777 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If we give a range we give all the range RS have.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. And: [1] This is the source for Africa, referring to all theaters in the African campaign. The Banner ignored looking at this link and resorted to pinning the blame on me. The number given is 750k, but east africa suffered only around 300k, if you check. Yet Africa is listed as an Allied power, which is something that I didn't do, yet the Banner blames on me. In addition, I actually edited Africa [2] after noticing this error in 2019 and put it in the neutral nations section to make it more accurate, because "Africa" in this case is referring to African civilians, and thus cannot be a belligerent. But again Banner lies and implies that this is my fault. The Banner is not being constructive on this page. To be honest, the Banner and FDW are only here because we had a disagreement on the Easter Rising talk page. They are not interested in improving this article, as evidenced by the Banner lying that I added the Armenian Genocide and Maritz rebellion to the article when in fact I did not. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven Do to the concern of creative use of sources and accuracy of what the Ip user put. by both The Banner TheTimesAreAChanging,I looked back through the history, all the way to 2016 it looks like one person was working on this page. For a number years so I put it back to, the last edit they did since it looked stable. Examples of the user who was working on this page. For a number years from 2007-2019.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=97780595&oldid=97280140 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=903871465&oldid=903868842
What do you mean Africa is listed as an allied power, where?Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: The trouble is the IP editor isn't giving the range that RS have. Look at the list of references provided. Things like "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12. (46 mutineers killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny) should jump right out at you. The IP is using 1915 news reports to increase the range that published references have given many years later, despite them likely being aware of things like the Singapore Mutiny. FDW777 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The IP also seems to have some valid objections too, this looks like 6 of one half a dozen of the other.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
FDW, some of the Indian dead, such as the Ghadarites, were civilians and not counted. And it's equally likely the Brits didn't count rebellious colonial soldiers among their dead. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd love to know what the supposed "half a dozen of the other" is. There have been many published casualty estimates for the conflict, we don't need people trying to revise those by using 1915 news reports do we? FDW777 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
FDW, civilians would not be counted among military statistics usually. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe maybe not, its still wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough and I'd be willing to change that if I could. But still no need to revert everything. Look at the rest of the talk page, I made a lot of constructive edits. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you go to the chart on the article right now, Africa is listed above Belgium. And those "concerns" were unfounded. The list of sources I provided are RS.2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It goes to the East African campaign.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Which did not only feature the allies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I added a see Footnote for it should help with the concernDriverofknowledge (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Not really, as it is still not an allied power.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, most of these "criticisms," (how I wish they were valid) are unfounded. This mass reversion seriously screwed up so much with the article. If changes need to be made, we should revert to the last edit I made and work from there, changing what needs to be changed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We usually revert to the last stable version, which wouldst be the version before your first edit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Huh? Why is there the assumption that every edit I made since last year is unstable? I am perfectly willing to make changes (but no mass reversion that lists Africa as Ally) to the article to make it better. Top-down reversion, not bottom-up. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be optimal if the mass reversion is undone, and then everyone can help remove what's necessary. The latest action has made the article poorer in quality. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Africa[edit]

  • [3] IP discovered that Liberia was neutral instead of involved
  • [4] Ethiopia was suddenly not neutral any more
  • [5] While the link is only to the East Africa Campaign, IP mentions the number for the whole African war theatre
  • [6] IP changes the African theatre in Africa
  • [7] IP changes the East Africa Campaign into the African theatre of World War (i.e. much wider) with the same number of casualties as the East Africa Campaign

So far.. Note that the sources did not change in this. One of that point that made me cautious.The Banner talk 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Liberia declared war on Germany. Liberia in World War I, there. Ethiopia refers to a coup that took place in 1916 that the Allies tried backing. I have never made any edit regarding adding Ethiopia numbers on the page, so the Banner is deceptively trying to lie here that I made such an edit. And as I stated above, the source given for Africa [8], which the Banner refuses to elaborate on because it negates his argument, is for excess deaths from famine and disease and not violent deaths, and is for all of Africa and not just East Africa, thus my edits. Seriously, read the source. Your criticisms are baseless. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, [9], you forgot this part Banner where I wrote that Ethiopia was neutral during the war. Flies in the face of your argument, doesn't it? 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it just proves that you were making a mess of it. And the more you start screaming about lying, the less reliable you make yourself. The radical revert was clearly right. The Banner talk 19:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Umm, so I'm guessing you never checked the source since you're resorting to personal attacks. Edits are made progressively, if you didn't know. Your radicalism have made this article inaccurate. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
In know, I know. Even when it rains it is my fault... The Banner talk 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Africa is not a nation, and was controlled by more than one. So each nation should be listed not the whole continent. Ethiopia was not a combatant, seems to be both versions are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is Africa still in the list of countries it was never and is not now one country.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Because of the mass reversion. I had to fix the Africa bit early on when I started improving the article. This was the way I found it.2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It should be removed as it was not even a nation, let alone an allied one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
OK I shall go ahead and remove it unless someone can produce one RS that says Africa was a nation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we put it in the Neutral nations?
If someone can provide an RS saying it was one nation yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Is this good Country of Africa in the Neutral nations?Driverofknowledge (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_africa https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/making_sense_of_the_war_africa

It was not one country, find a source that says it was. I am removing it now. When you find a source that says Africa was one single country (country no continent) we can discuss re-adding it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
What about now Neutral nations and The continent of Africa?Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Why, do we give the totals for Europe or Asia? Why should Africa be singled out? Now if you want to create a new table (a new one) that lists casualties by continent fine, that might be OK. But we should not single out Africa for special attention.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a footnotes section, why does Africa's footnotes have to be serrate?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought it would go better like that. I put it to say Casualties by post-war (1924) borders and African theatre of World War I good or no?.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Why? How is it better to single out Africa? We do not break down any other theatres, there is not reason to do it with Africa..Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:brd and wp:consensus if an addition if objected to it should not be reinstated until consensus is reached.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we have a by theatre or by continent section, which would include the casualty totals for those (not break downs just totals). Footnotes stay in the footnotes section.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Ok that's understandable can I put it back to the last edit you did wp:compromise.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The last edit I did remove it, so what edit do you mean if you mean this [[10]] no as it does not address why Africa should get special treatment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


This was the edit I was talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=953887551&oldid=953887299Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes that is the version I think works as it allows (assuming anyone can find the figures) for other continents to be added and gives no special significance to Africa. But this is it, nothing more.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
OK I will put it back to your last edit.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
So what else is a Concern on the page anybody?Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, " But this is it, nothing more", you made more changes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven I put it back to that one the last one you did for Continents part you put?.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I_casualties&diff=953887299&oldid=953886394

Sorry, I did not pick up on "Neutral nations and The continent of Africa", which of course should have been removed (as Africa is no longer in that section), my apologises.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I Accept your apology it happens.Driverofknowledge (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So its not a country, so cannot go in the country section, and now we cannot have a section on death by continent (note there was nothing to stop users adding totals for others).Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That is useless, and was described by someone else as a "half-assed section which made it harder to read the page". If it can be improved, then improve it. If there's a need for including the 250,000 soldiers, surely it can be done with the information already in the article at World War I casualties#Footnotes? FDW777 (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Making progress again[edit]

To improve the article from it current point, I suggest that mr. IP makes short proposals about how to chance the article, with reliable sources to back it up. The Banner talk 20:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

See section below. I would suggest any proposals include quotations from the references. FDW777 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
That is a fair suggestion. 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Unseen not unreliable may be the real issue[edit]

The 1875 reference to "THE BLACK TOM EXPLOSION.; FOUR BODIES FOUND THE SUPERINTENDENT MISSING". The New York Times. 18 January 1875. Retrieved 5 June 2019 above intrigued me, so I decided to do some investigating. As can be seen by the relevant footnote, this citation is in the IPs version of the article. This citation was obviously copied from the Black Tom explosion article, where that particular citation was removed on 11 January. Had the IP editor actually read the original article it is impossible to see how the 1875 error would not have been noticed, since there was an 1875 explosion at Black Tom as well.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that the IP editor isn't writing from source material or checking sources, just copying citations from other articles that may or may not be accurate. FDW777 (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps it was a one-off mistake. WP:AGF, I'm sure you and the Banner have made mistake as well. I can assure you most of the other sources have the numbers I quote. Seriously, I'm being open, check them. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I was assuming good faith. I assumed you copied the citation without checking it, as to assume otherwise would mean you deliberately lied about the citation. I love how you slip in the word "most" like it's some badge of honor, when what it really means is none of your references can be trusted until it's demonstrated they do contain the correct numbers, and crucially that those numbers form part of the war casualties figures. And even if they do, there's still potential original research issues. FDW777 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
These concerns need to be addressed if we are to move on.Driverofknowledge (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, that was why I was critical about his understanding of Dutch, Swedish, German and Greek, English and some language I do not recognize. This is not impossible, but not very common. The Banner talk 22:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Mr.IP are you knowledgeable in Dutch, Swedish, German and Greek, to help with the sources?Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Given that we know that the IP has not verified this content himself, and it is unfair to shift the burden of verification to the community, I see no issue with acting on the presumption that the IP's large-scale changes are unsupported by the reliable sources until proven otherwise. Therefore, the recent rollback to a prior revision seems appropriate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a Plan that can work, lets hope all this does.Driverofknowledge (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There's something called google translate, and if you all didn't know, numbers translate easily. So the language barrier was never really an issue. Anyone can google translate the foreign language sources, that's what I did. And please mind that you guys are extrapolating from one source all of my edits. Please go over them, you will see they are reliable and contain the numbers I provided. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F560:9BEB:9934:76C6 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Even so, I checked your first given source: "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12". By now, Singapore is not longer mentioned in the article. And you claim 46 mutineers were killed. Strange enough, 1915 Singapore Mutiny is mentioning 47 mutineers executed. And sepoys are soldiers, not civilians. Civilian casualties are no high then 20: 14 British civilians, five Chinese and Malay civilians and one German internee. And that is just in English... The Banner talk 08:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Google Translate may work well for numbers, but it doesn't work so well on more complicated sentences with subtle nuances, such as whether a reference says deaths should be included as part of casualty figures. I will echo what @TheTimesAreAChanging: said earlier, these figures are considerably higher than those found in secondary sources that I am familiar with, contradict Wikipedia's main article on World War I, and may also incorporate a misleading sense of precision. There have been numerous studies on the number of casualties, and it is these and these alone which should be cited in my opinion. The IP editor's standard tactic is to use the presence of a navigation template on an article, whether it was placed there by themself or another editor, and use the presence of the template as justification for included particular figures in this article. Whether the historians or organisations were aware of these incidents and chose not to include them in casualty figures or they were completely unaware of the incidents (much less likely option) is not relevant, it is not our place to right perceived wrongs and published inflated casualty figures (is there a single reference that supports the "20.7 to 22 million deaths" claim, rather than combining many, many different references to arrive at that figure?) that are substantially higher than the total figures published by reliable references. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree, Google translate may be OK for giving a vague idea, but I have also seen that it cannot produce accurate (only approximate) translations, thus any such translation would fall foul of wp:or because whilst Google might translate it the same way someone who is bilingual might not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
To clear up some confusion. For the Singapore Mutiny, I was differentiating between those killed in combat while fighting the Brits (Strait Times), and those executed by firing squad afterwards. But as FDW stated above, the sepoys, as mil units, are probably stated among the dead already listed, so they probably didn't need to be added in the first place. But the Ghadarites, on the other hand, were civilians who rebelled and should be added IMO. So there is a difference. And with google translate, the translations (and they were few) were rough but definitely clear. I only put numbers where it was clear the word was "killed" and not something like "lost," which might include wounded. And FDW, a quick search by me showed total dead ranging from around 15ish to 19, but not 21-22. The reason for the difference is because, I've found, most sources do not include 2 mil civilian losses from the Persian Campaign, i.e. the Persian famine of 1917-1919 (yes famine deaths went past Nov 11, 1918, but German dead from past 1945 are also included in the WW2 casualties article). But since all this, as you stated above FDW, might be under the purview of WP:OR, then I'm assuming your argument is to just not include it. I would also like to note that the World War II casualties article includes as an upper bound 85 million dead. I have never read that amount in any source (and I don't believe it either). If we're going to rely on secondary source only, then both articles need major changes. My stance remains: undo the mass reversion, and work our way down from there. It would be easier to keep all the constructive edits that way, and if you guys identify an issue, we could remove it without disturbing the entire article's structure.
But if you guys are intent on redoing the several months of constructive work (which I must stress was progressive, no article was perfected in a day) that I did, then I advise that you go back to the last version of the article I edited, and see the footnotes I wrote and click on the links provided in that version. I was in a rush so most of the sources I provided above don't have links. That way it will be easier for you guys to get a full picture of what I did. If I may, please re-add the China, Brazil, Siam, Haiti, Liberia, Persia, Netherlands, Spain, Albania, and Finland numbers (since Russian losses in the article are only for 1914-1917). I believe the sources I provided will vouch for their inclusion. I will be busy, so I might not respond in time to everything. Good luck. 2601:85:C101:BA30:D08B:B40E:D312:BCFD (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I have seen the number quoted 85 million in academic literature such, as with the work of Victor Davis Hanson. Also a new statistics book for World War II, (World War II infographics) quotes it.

Well that's surprising. If I were you, I would cite that source at the WW2 casualties page then, make it known. A short query by me brings up some sources which claim more than 20 million dead in WW1, though their reliability I admit is questionable.

https://ww1facts.net/quick-reference/ww1-casualties/ (20-22 mil, this source I wouldn't exactly bet my money on)

https://www.warmuseum.ca/firstworldwar/introduction/key-canadian-events/ (Canadian War Museum apparently and I don't know if it is a RS, gives 9 mil soldiers dead and 20 million civ dead for a grand total of 29 mil dead (?). Much higher than anything I ever put or believe in, but this is just on one source so...)

https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing (Britannica, again I don't know if you consider the encyclopedia an RS, but it gives over 8 million dead soldiers and 13 million dead civilians = ~21 million. My last version of this page [11] gave around 9-11ish million soldiers (the amount those numbers specifically changed due to my edits can't be more than 40,000, so I didn't come up with those numbers mainly) and 11 million civilians. So I'm not far off from the Encyclopedia Britannica in terms of the numbers I provided)

https://www.army.mil/article/210420/worldwide_flu_outbreak_killed_45000_american_soldiers_during_world_war_i (Gives 20 million total, which is higher than the 19 million currently on this article)

This is by no mean definitive, and the best thing for this article would be to give a range (you guys can decide what the lower bound is). The above sources (for me only britannica) show that the total numbers I came to isn't a crackpot estimate. It's probable. 2601:85:C101:BA30:D08B:B40E:D312:BCFD (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


Also Deep AI is better for translations. https://www.deepl.com/en/translatorDriverofknowledge (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
When this page block is over, I will attempt to revert the mass reversion and take out numbers that the above users have deemed unreliable. That way is a compromise, in which the constructive edits are kept and unconstructive edits are removed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:5480:897B:4BDE:CB4 (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That was not discussed. With everybody else@TheTimesAreAChanging: @The Banner: @FDW777: we need to see what they say.Driverofknowledge (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Also since two other editors agreed with the mass revisionism.Driverofknowledge (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with the reversion to the 2019 version, and wholly object to the reinstation of the IP's version for reasons made clear already. FDW777 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, IP, but earlier in this discussion you make clear that you are not sure of your own numbers. And that is exactly why I stated that your edits were unreliable and needed to be checked. Reinstating them is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Another case of : WP:IDNHT. The Banner talk 07:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not in favor of keeping the version of my last edit, things need to be changed as discussed above. But also the article as it is (mass reversion and all) is shoddy (ignores certain countries and events) and can be improved. So can we discuss what to remove and what to keep? From this discussion, we've come to the agreement that the sepoys of the 1915 mutiny should not be counted, and that a better source for the Black Tom incident is needed. Encyclopedia Britannica, which I assume here is an RS, floats a total of 21 million, so I believe it deserves mention in the article (unless there is an issue with the source). The other sources, which are reliable, and numbers I provided above should be kept. There is nothing factually inaccurate or WP:SYNTH by stating that 4 civilians died in Liberia due to German shelling. Or that 98 Chinese civilians were killed during the Siege of Tsingtao. I provided RS for these statements and it would be absurd to keep them out of the article. 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

For Australia what data do you have on that, for the deaths? I am interested in what you have.Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that you make a separate proposal for each and every bit (i.e. country) that you want to add again, with reliable sources. And not more then two proposals a week. That sounds harsh but you have messed up big time and you have to regain confidence by delivering proper work. The Banner talk 17:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Potential ways forward[edit]

At present, there seems to be two potential ways forward. I'm not suggesting these are the only ones, so if someone has any ideas add away.

  • The article is written based on published accounts of casualty figures, using their totals and breakdowns of figures.
  • Editors conduct their own research into casualty figures and compile their own using all kinds of primary and other sources.

While the latter might not go against the letter of WP:NOR as calculations are allowed, it certainly goes against the spirit of the policy. I also believe it would go against the letter of the policy if the figures, be they breakdowns or totals, differ from published accounts and breakdowns of casualty figures. For that reason I can only consider the first option to be correct for this article. Anyone else have thoughts on this? FDW777 (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say it goes against the letter as well. As we are not only dealing with adding up raw figures, but also deciding what figures count (as well as the fact that separate sources may include the same casualties).Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I am mixed on this need to here more, to make a decision.Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
My confidence in IP is crushed. So, I have the following proposal: IP shall make a separate proposal for each and every bit (i.e. country) that IP wants to add again, with reliable sources. And not more then two proposals a week. That sounds harsh but IP has messed up big time and has to regain confidence by delivering proper work. The Banner talk 17:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Can I get some clarity on what "reliable sources" would mean? Does it mean ones mentioned in my first point, ones that publish totals and breakdowns? Or is it things like "Narrative of Their Doings in the Mutiny". The Straits Times. 26 April 1915. p. 12. (46 mutineers killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny)? FDW777 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
That seems fair. Do to the situation that happened with, all of this.Driverofknowledge (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
At least sources conform WP:RS. For the rest, depending on the changes. Customized. The Banner talk 18:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Wait, firstly, I don't remember adding anything to Australia. Secondly, to be honest Banner with regards to "confidence," the fact that you had difficulty understanding with Austria-Hungary that we were dealing with two different pages of the same document, yet you framed it as me trying to say the source was unreliable even though I was using it... well let's just say we are on equal footing, everybody makes mistakes and articles are improved progressively. Thirdly, FDW, I love how you focus on only one source that we already agree on needs to be removed. Seriously, did you even check the other ones? A RS would be, for example: Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (98 Chinese civilians killed during Siege of Tsingtao). Or this: "Causes of war death 1918 according to the political affiliation of the killed persons". War victims in Finland, 1914-22. Retrieved 7 December 2019. (Finnish dead from Finnish Civil War). Or this: Shellum, Brian G. African American Officers in Liberia: A Pestiferous Rotation, 1910-1942. University of Nebraska Press, 2018, pp. 108. (liberian civilian dead from German shelling). Do you consider Radio Free Europe an unreliable source?

That being said, if the above users are interested in redoing of all this by scratch, then I guess so be it. I'll make the "proposals" or whatever, with source, etc. But I believe two per week is a silly requirement, this can all be fixed up quickly if we take this step by step (depends, however, if I have time because I am quite busy). And I would also like to make the edits personally (with your knowledge, of course), because most editors tend to forget (a simple mistake really) that when you change one number in the chart, a lot of other numbers need to be changed. For example, if you add civilian dead to let's say the US, then you have to change numbers for total Allied dead, total Allied civilian dead, total civilian dead, total dead, etc. I'm used to that, so I can do the work for you guys.

My first addition, when May 5 passes, would be China with 101 dead. Sources:

Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. (98 Chinese civilians killed during Siege of Tsingtao)

Doran, Christine (April 2002). "Gender Matters in the Singapore Mutiny". Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia. 17 (1). (3 Chinese civilians killed during 1915 Singapore Mutiny) 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you already forget your attempts to add the Easter Rising and the 1917 Potato riots and your claim that they were part of the war because they were influenced by the war? The Banner talk 19:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
For example, if you add civilian dead to let's say the US, then you have to change numbers for total Allied dead, total Allied civilian dead, total civilian dead, total dead, etc. I'm used to that, so I can do the work for you guys Do you listen to anything anyone says? What you've just said is a complete non-starter. You aren't amending any published figures to include additional dead based on your own research. FDW777 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Listen, that was a hypothetical example. Get over it. There is nothing wrong with making edits to the chart complete and not half-ass, that was my point, which apparently went over your head. And the 3 reliable sources I listed in my last text, why don't you comment on that? You think that's unreliable? 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Before going forward it might be useful to know where we are coming from. We need to decide what is and is not part of the Great war.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems like the right approach, Slater, and I've been asking for this for some time. I believe the U-boat attacks waged by Germany was part of WW1, so therefore civilian dead from U-boats should be counted. Thus, Haiti, Brazil, Spain, Persia, and the Netherlands should be readded because they suffered dead from that. I believe the Siege of Tsingtao is part of WW1. Brazil declared war on Germany and I believe that makes it part of WW1, including the military deaths from disease it suffered. The Finnish Civil War is part of WW1, so the dead from it should be added because Russian dead in this article only pertain to 1914-1917. I believe the Persian Campaign and the famine left in its wake is part of WW1. I believe the Central Asian revolt of 1916 is part of WW1. And much to the chagrin (and probably the root cause of all this) of Banner and FDW, I would be willing to argue that the Easter Rising is part of WW1, though I won't make any attempts to add it to this page unless other users agree with me. How I would love to know what the Banner and FDW think is part of WW1, because they seem to define the war in terms of what it is not. Really, what do you guys think is part of WW1 (not isn't). 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Och, not to my chagrin. Just look at the talkpage: Talk:Easter Rising#Not part of World War 1. But it looks like you are still not accepting that. We start running around in circles again, you wanting us to do your research. Why don't you try to make clear what was part of the war? The Banner talk 20:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you try to make clear what was part of the war? 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Because it is up to you to do your homework. Not up to me/us. The Banner talk 08:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
And by the logic of some of the users here, they would probably argue that the Arab revolt is not part of WW1, because it was only influenced by the war. Of course, Arab nationalism was present before the war, so therefore the revolt is unconnected... right. 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
And there is the problem "I believe", it doers not matter what you or I believe what matters is what RS believe.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Miswording. Take out "I believe". These events "were" part of the war. I'd like to see some users here try to say that the German Uboat campaign isn't part of WW1.2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Slater, what do you think is part of WW1 and isn't? A third opinion is needed. 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The page covers U-boat deaths? The figures listed below include about 6 million excess civilian deaths due to war related privations, that are often omitted from other compilations of World War I casualties. The war brought about malnutrition and disease caused by the U-boat Campaign and the Blockade of Germany which disrupted trade resulting in food shortages. The civilian deaths in the Ottoman Empire include the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, and Greek Genocide. Civilian deaths due to the Spanish flu have been excluded from these figures, whenever possible. The figures do not include deaths during the Russian Civil War and the Turkish War of Independence. This us under Classification of casualty statistics just wanted to point this out.Driverofknowledge (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah it covers all deaths from WW1, hence WW1 casualties. U-boat attacks, strategic bombing, malnutrition, etc. And another thing that got screwed up with the mass reversion, Serbia now has inflated numbers from the Balkan Wars. 750k is mainstream view, 1.25mil includes both the Balkans Wars and the difference due to a lower birth rate. Plus, the lower-bound numbers under "Total deaths" in the chart don't even add up. The article has been reverted to trash status. And I had added more text in that section, Driver, to exclude certain events. I think my tweaked version should replace what is currently there because it is more specific. Here is the text that I had edited before the reversion:
"Civilian deaths during the First World War are "hazardous to estimate" according to Michael Clodfelter who maintains that "the generally accepted figure of noncombatant deaths is 6.5 million."[16] The figures listed below include about 8 million excess civilian deaths due to war related privations, which are often omitted from other compilations of World War I casualties. The war brought about increased malnutrition and disease caused by the Central Powers U-boat Campaign against the Allies, and the Allied blockades of the Central Powers, both of which disrupted trade and resulted in food shortages. The civilian deaths in the Ottoman Empire include the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Greek Genocide, deaths due to Allied strategic bombing, and deaths due to famine and disease. Civilian deaths due to the Spanish flu have been excluded from these figures, whenever possible. The figures do not include deaths during the Balkan Wars, the Russian Civil War, the Turkish War of Independence, the Finnish Kinship Wars, the German Revolution, the Irish War of Independence, or any of the various wars and revolutions that took place in the aftermath of World War I." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C101:BA30:31C8:B782:D869:E2E1 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the unreferenced methodology. FDW777 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

What? You just mass deleted an explanatory note that explains how the chart is set up and how it doesn't include the Russian Civil War. You do know that Woogie10 made that addition, so deleting it won't satisfy any personal bias you have against my edits.

And Banner, don't be childish again and don't talk down to me, it is not my "homework" to decide what is part of WW1. This is a conversation, and you are supposed to give your opinion, an opinion which Slater and not I asked for. So, FDW and Banner, will you be constructive and answer what you think is part of the war? 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I put the note back. Do to the new concern what do others sources say about what dead, are part of the war. I do have the book Wars & Population that is used on the page.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the explanatory paragraph. BTW, I expect your book to name major combatants, a lot of my additions added very small nations with very small losses, like Liberia and Haiti, so I wouldn't expect the book to mention them specifically. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Either the note refers to a specific reference used by the article, or it refers to completely arbitrary methods used to compile the data. Which? FDW777 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It's supposed to explain how the article is structured. It doesn't need a reference. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Given it decides which incidents are and aren't included, it does need a reference. FDW777 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Due to this I no longer assume good faith with this editor, and I will not accept any changes they suggest that are not 100% compliant with both the letter and spirit of WP:NOR. FDW777 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

This has reached now the level of wp:tenditious.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. I wouldn't normally give such paranoid accusations the oxygen of publicity, but I will address one point. I entered into this dispute as a direct result of the IP editor's request for more participation at this article they made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I was not aware the invitation to participate was restricted to people that agree with the IP editor... FDW777 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So why don't you state what you think is part of WW1 so we can get on with repairing this article? This is not a one-way conversation and this is not my "homework," I literally need your opinion. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
If you had read anything I have said so far (unlikely I know) you would know your question is not in any way compliant with WP:NOR and as such I will not be answering it. My own opinions about whether any death were part of WW1 are not relevant, and more importantly neither are yours. FDW777 (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

OK let me put it this way, do RS say X was part of the Great War, if not neither can we. It dopes not matter what we think, what matters is what RS think.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Perhaps my wording is off. What do the RS say is part of the war, Banner, FDW? Certainly the Siege of Tsingtao, Liberia and Brazil which declared war on Germany, Haiti losing civilians to U-boat attacks, and so on. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
A response would be helpful guys. We share more common ground than we would like to agree. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
No references with total figures and/or breakdowns = no discussion. Stop trying to bludgeon the process and provide the necessary references. FDW777 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of this talk page is to have a discussion. I am not bludgeoning anything, I have in fact been essentially powerless throughout this entire process. Slater asked a question. Will you not even reply to him? And honestly 4 dead Liberian civilians can be added since I provided an RS for it, even if a "total figures" source overlooked just four deaths. And seriously FDW, excuse my language, but I don't need a damn reference to say that the Russian Civil War or the Balkan Wars aren't part of WW1. That's absurd to demand a reference for that. The whole point of the paragraph is a quick summary with of structure. Slater, can you, perhaps, directly ask FDW and Banner what their "RS" say is part of the war and isn't? I do not think they will respond to my questions. It is better you ask them instead of me. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
What do you guys think of this source, specifically: Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
It looks reliable https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_and_reparations_china .A Global War – A Global Project "1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War” is an English-language virtual reference work on the First World War. The multi-perspective, open-access knowledge base is the result of an international collaborative project involving more than 1,000 authors, editors, and partners from over fifty countries. More than 1,000 articles will be gradually published. Innovative navigation schemes based on Semantic Media Wiki technology provide nonlinear access to the encyclopedia’s content.The co-operation partners support the project in several ways: Some partners fund staff to edit the articles, while others employ staff to research and write on the lesser-known topics; some partners organize conferences where the content of the encyclopedia is prepared and discussed; a number of partners have also allowed the encyclopedia to make use of their rich collections of photographs, maps and posters on World War I.https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/project/partners/Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So adding Chinese dead as I did would make sense, right? Because 98 Chinese dead is rarely notable or mentioned in large overviews of the war, so it would make sense to add this. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
China’s war losses during World War I were primarily composed of 1) public and private losses amounting to approximately 21.5 million yuan, caused by the Japanese army during its passage across Shandong in the assault on Qingdao (Japan refused to pay reparations); and 2) losses caused by Germany due to the hostilities, such as the slaughter of Chinese laborers at sea, loss of funds and materials for the Longhai Railway, and the losses of foreign-based Chinese nationals and Chinese factories. After the negotiations between China and Germany, Germany was willing to offer reparations: China received approximately 116 million yuan in total. Overall, China’s financial gains from its participation in World War I were greater than its war losses.https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses_and_reparations_chinaDriverofknowledge (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
A simple question, Germans war dead, does it only include white Germans?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you possibly referring to colonial peoples? As the article is right now, the 2+ million military dead number for Germany includes over 1 thousand "colonial troops." France's total includes colonial troops as well, as does the CWGC estimate for the UK. If you mean noncombatant, then probably no. Civilian deaths for French and German colonies in Africa, as well as all civilian deaths in Africa, are (or should be) simply listed in Africa, which totals 750k dead. German civilian dead, as currently seen in the article, is 720 Germans killed in air raids over Germany, and over 400k dead due to malnutrition.
Its simple, do the figure we have already include the figures you want to add? If German possessions are already included that may include those killed in German possessions. You need to show that these figures are not included.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh I see. Well the answer is no, Chinese dead from Tsingtao is not counted among German losses. The only German civilians listed killed under enemy action in the chart is referring to 720 killed in air raids in Germany. Hope that clears things up. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

NO as your source does not say how these Chinese were killed. They may be included under the stats for civilians killed not by allied bombing. To be fair its unlikely, but not wholly impossible. Now do we know of they were Chinese nationals or just Chinese in ethnicity but German subjects. So should they be under Germany or China?Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This is not even funny anymore. You haven't even read the friggin article. I will quote at length: "Upon investigation, the Peking government determined that the Japanese army had caused losses to the Chinese government and its people in its passage across Shandong to invade and occupy Qingdao. These were divided into private losses and public property losses. Request for Reparations for Casualties and Loss of Life from the Japanese State: It was estimated that Japanese troops killed nintey-seven people and severely wounded twenty-eight, and also raped a certain number. There were fifty-two cases in all, and 9,624,908 yuan was requested as reparations. Request for Reparations for Casualties and Loss of Life from Private Japanese Subjects: It was estimated that Japanese subjects killed one person and wounded two. There were three cases in all, and 50,687 yuan in silver coins was requested as reparations." The Chinese government is explicitly saying the Japanese killed during the battle their subjects, "its people," not Germany's people. What is there to not understand? 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes I did read it, what not does not say is that these are not already included in other totals. Firstly it does not say "civilians" it says "people", secondly maybe the Chinese are saying that, it does not make it so. |As I said it quite likely this is not the case and these are "Chinese" deaths but we need to be sure (wp;v means other users have to come to the same conclusion you do, I can see this is not clear cut enough to ensure that). So what do other sources say about Chinese deaths in the great war? Lets not rely on one source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh and here is why we need more than one source [[12]] "Germany eventually capitulated. An estimated 450 men died in the siege, 40 of them were Chinese labourers.", so this does indeed lump them in with the Germans, so maybe other sources do as well (note also 40 not 97).Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And can we please do away with this silly nonsense with the "original research" tag over the classification section. It's emphatically not OR that the Russian Civil War is not part of WW1. This is pettiness of the highest level FDW, I even think we agreed on the Easter Rising talk page that the Russian Revolution/Russian Civil War is not part of WW1. Tomfoolery. 2601:85:C101:BA30:3184:8747:B83:4783 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have made a number of assumptions, chiefly that the tag or my objection refers to a single sentence and not the overall methodology as to what incidents are and aren't included. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

China[edit]

I have dug up this [[13]], [[14]], [[15]]. This is the kind of thing we should be looking for, A million may be a statistic, its still encyclopedic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Synthesis[edit]

To keep synthesis out of this article I will not be accepting any casualty total that involves synthesising totals from individual incidents to give a total, or estimated total, that has not been published by a secondary source. References for individual incidents are insufficient, since there is no guarantee that the incidents claimed form the correct total. For example it is claimed the total for China is 101 based on adding 98 for Siege of Tsingtao to 3 for 1915 Singapore Mutiny to give a total of 101. Even ignoring that the BBC say only 40 people killed at the siege were Chinese labourers, who is to say these two incidents represent the total Chinese civilian death during the conflict? Adding up death tolls of incidents that have Wikipedia articles is inadequate research. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission lump the Chinese Labour Corps members who died in with Commonwealth figures, but what of other deaths? The SS Athos was sunk before the Chinese Labour Corps were formed, and I can find no mention of the Athos in their CWGC's record of deaths or memorials. So are the 400 to 600 Chinese labourers who died on the Athos included in the CWGC's figures or not? This is precisely why we can only use totals published in secondary sources. FDW777 (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering about those Chinese people killed in Singapore. Were they Chines nationals or were they ethnic Chinese (with likely another nationality)? The Banner talk 11:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Further to the CWGC/Chinese Labour Corps/Athos deaths, a search of the CWGC's death records for the Chinese Labour Corps sorted chronologically doesn't include the Chinese labourers killed on 17 February 1917 when the SS Athos was sunk. I hope this underlines the futility of attempting to compile our own totals for any country? FDW777 (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally we can close all of this now, wp:consensus is clear we do not keep on until we all give in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You'd hope so, but knowing the IP they'll just ignore anything that doesn't suit their argument. I've no problem with any reliably referenced changes being made to the article, but for the reasons explained above I'm not willing to accept synthesis of references about individual incidents to form a total, or estimated total, for a particular country. We need country totals published by secondary sources. FDW777 (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Then we take it elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
This page can be a good start https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses.

The issue of war losses is an intricate one, involving several crucial points. First, words matter. The meaning of words such as “killed in action”, “wounded” or “casualties”, which are the main headings in table columns in books or articles dealing with war losses, are misleading. Take the wounded: some died, others did not, meaning that the total number of soldiers who died as a result of war should include those who died from their wounds. This leads to the questions: How did statisticians calculate their estimates? What period of time did their calculations cover? What parameters did they define? Such questions are seldom discussed. However, it is impossible to propose an even somewhat rigorous estimate of war losses without discussing them.

Civilian Losses

Military losses tend to be much better documented than civilian deaths in wartime. As armies needed as precise an estimate as possible of the men available for combat, they counted only soldiers. Civilian administrators had to care for the sick and bury the dead, whatever their cause of illness or death. No office, anywhere, registered civilian war-related deaths. These numbers have been drawn from very different sources, using various assumptions and definitions. Surely, the dead from air bombings were war victims, but they were not numerous. The central difficulties come from the influenza epidemic and the blockade.

The whole world was struck in 1918-19 with an epidemic of Spanish flu. The author’s calculations include soldiers who died from illness when wearing the uniform, for one could argue that their resistance to illness had been weakened by life in the trenches. Soldiers who died from the Spanish flu – about 32,000 in the French army, among them the poet Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918) – are considered fallen soldiers. But what about civilians? Most estimates of civilian losses include dead from the Spanish flu, but there are no reasons to do so. The epidemic appeared in the USA, which was not directly affected by the war in mid-1918, where it killed more than half a million people. Are they war victims? The author believes not, which is why American soldiers who died in the USA before leaving were not included in his war loss estimates. For the same reasons, it seems difficult to attribute the heavy toll of the flu in belligerent countries to the war, as long as their medical situation remained normal. If the war had not happened, these inhabitants would have caught the flu anyway and would have died in the same numbers. To include these dead in the calculation would only serve to increase the number of civilian losses and to make the face of war more hideous. Pacifism does not need such a sleight-of-hand.

The second difficulty lies in the blockade. The Central Powers suffered heavily from cold and malnutrition, due to the shortage of coal and food. This situation was a result of bad and incompetent administration. In Russia, as in Turkey and the Balkans, administrative and economic disorganization and inefficient transportation produced starvation, and bad nutrition made sickness often fatal. In Germany, the War Office (Kriegsamt) created chaos with respect to the food supply and contributed to the development of the black market. This is a first explanation, though not a sufficient one. The shortage of coal, raw materials and food was another, perhaps more important, reason. The shortage was mainly a result of the Allied blockade, maintained until the signing of the peace treaty in late June 1919. Hence, it seems logical to attribute a number of civilian deaths to war conditions.

But it is difficult to count Germans who died of hunger and still more difficult to say whether they were victims of the Allied blockade or of the black market and the German administration’s disorganization. Huge figures have been proposed. For example, in Central and Balkan Europe, some have offered estimates as high as two million. In the Ottoman Empire, quite apart from the one or more million people killed during the Armenian genocide, the figure has been advanced of at least 1,500,000 civilian deaths from famine or malnourishment.[21] These figures probably include dead from the Spanish flu. It is possible that such figures have been exaggerated, but it seems very difficult to make clear estimates from evidence so thin. Anyway, the human cost of the war for civilians is undisputed, though impossible to calculate with precision.

As the reader ought to be given the best possible estimate, the author has collected the figures usually proposed in Table 3 below, though he is not at all convinced they are valuable.[22] These numbers are but suppositions. Figures for Great Britain or France, in particular, seem contradictory with what is known of wartime living conditions in these countries. In Great Britain, Winter has shown the paradoxical improvement of infant mortality rates during the war, and other scholars have given additional evidence of a lessening of poverty. In France, even if the Spanish flu was considered as a war-related catastrophe, 300,000 or 600,000 civilian dead in France would be astounding figures. The estimate given by Wikipedia of 408,000 dead from the Spanish flu for France is an evident miscalculation: in the unoccupied territory, the total numbers of civilian dead were 583,000, 722,000 and 617,000 for the years 1917, 1918 and 1919 respectively. Thus the surplus civilian mortality of 1918-19, due to the flu, cannot exceed 175,000. These statistics do not prove anything but the will of their author to present the war as a greater massacre than it was. The only certain point is that there is a wide contrast between countries where people died of illness and starvation by the hundreds of thousands, such as Russia, the Balkans, the Central and Ottoman Empires, and those where the government succeeded in maintaining a minimum supply of food, housing and medical care.

To conclude: these statistical insights suggest an asymmetric double contrast. On the front line, the Allies paid the highest price, both in terms of those killed in action and those wounded. But on the home front, the Central Powers and Russia paid a much higher toll. War was not only a military matter; it was an ordeal for whole societies.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

A Global War – A Global Project "1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War” is an English-language virtual reference work on the First World War. The multi-perspective, open-access knowledge base is the result of an international collaborative project involving more than 1,000 authors, editors, and partners from over fifty countries. More than 1,000 articles will be gradually published. Innovative navigation schemes based on Semantic Media Wiki technology provide nonlinear access to the encyclopedia’s content. The co-operation partners support the project in several ways: Some partners fund staff to edit the articles, while others employ staff to research and write on the lesser-known topics; some partners organize conferences where the content of the encyclopedia is prepared and discussed; a number of partners have also allowed the encyclopedia to make use of their rich collections of photographs, maps and posters on World War I.https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/project/partners/Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


And this Project has 1117 Contributors https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/contributors/.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We should never rely on one source.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
yes but now. We have one source that we can use, we need to find more that are reliable.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We have the article has loads of them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Note my laptop is broken so I can no longer contribute substantialy. But to clear something up, if you read the WW1 casualties article, they say Chinese Labor Corps losses are counted among the Brits and French. And in the China source, if you read carefully, the dead mentioned is not from the siege itself, but from the Japanese "on their way to Tsingtao." So there is no connection between the chinese labor dead with the germans and the chinese civilians. And chinese laborers are counted as military losses, not civs because they were drafted. Think Askari soldiers. Slater, FDW, Banner, best of luck fixing this article and adding stuff. I'll check up when my laptop is better. 2601:85:C101:BA30:A985:1173:EE5F:238D (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you can go to a computer shop to get it Fixed faster.Also Africa is in a new section.Driverofknowledge (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
During pandemic unlikely, but thanks. :) 2601:85:C101:BA30:A985:1173:EE5F:238D (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

if you read the WW1 casualties article, they say Chinese Labor Corps losses are counted among the Brits and French, you just don't get it do you? This isn't in the current version of the article, but the text in question can be seen on your preferred version here. It reads Chinese laborers who died while serving under the British and French in the Chinese Labour Corps are counted among the British and French losses. This is referenced to this CWGC document, which makes absolutely no mention of Chinese labourers being included in French losses. It doesn't even explicitly say they were classed as Commonwealth losses, the closest it gets is The labourers who died were classified as war casualties and great pains were taken to mark their graves in an appropriate way. All headstones, which are of the Commission's standard war pattern shape... But since the Chinese Labour Corps are listed in the CWGC's database that's not a problem. However, as I've already stated and you ignored (like normal), the Chinese labourers who died in the sinking of the SS Athos weren't members of the Chinese Labour Corps and they aren't listed on the CWGC's database at all as far as I can see. As such, all we're left with is the text that you wrote reading Chinese laborers who died while serving under the British and French in the Chinese Labour Corps are counted among the British and French losses, except as I've already said this is an unreferenced claim. So no, you can't use unreferenced text that you wrote yourself to claim the Chinese labourers that died on the SS Athos are covered in the French losses, and neither could you use a general reference (not that you've even provided one of course) saying Chinese Labour Corps deaths are included in the French losses due to WP:SYN (especially as they weren't even members of the Chinese Labour Corps), you'd need a reference explicitly saying how the Chinese labourers that died on the SS Athos are classified. FDW777 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also if the 40 Chinese labourers from the Siege of Tsingtao are completely different from the 98 civilians killed (and where's the evidence that in 1915 Chinese labourers were classed as military? You can't use the 1917 Chinese Labour Corps to retroactively claim they were military) then it still completely undermines your total of 101, as it should be 141. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Overseas labor units serving with the British and French forces. The UK employed about 300,000 Indian, Chinese, native South African, Egyptian and other nations as laborers during the war. By the end of 1917, there were 50,000 Chinese workers in France, rising to 96,000 by August 1918 (with another 30,000 working for the French). 100,000 Egyptians were working in France and the Middle East, alongside 21,000 Indians and 20,000 South Africans, who were also in East Africa.[12] A total of about 140,000 Chinese workers recruited in the Beiyang government, served on the Western Front during and after the war with the British and French Armed Forces.[154][155] According to the Commonwealth war Graves Commission "In all, nearly 2,000 men from the Chinese Labour Corps died during the First World War, some as a direct result of enemy action, or of wounds received in the course of their duties, but many more in the influenza epidemic that swept Europe in 1918–19"[13] One historical controversy is the number who died in the war. Some Chinese scholars say the number was as high as 20,000 but records kept by the British and French recruiters, show just under 2,000 lost their lives, many from the flu pandemic that swept the world starting in 1919.[156] According to the Commonwealrh War Graves Commission, "The African combatant troops raised for the East African campaign numbered 34,000. The non-combatant porters, stevedores and followers of the Military Labour Corps 600,000. Almost 50,000 of these men were lost, killed in action died of sickness or wounds"[11] According to The Africa Research Institute official British figures the death toll exceeded 105,000 native African troops and military carriers[157]
From the text currently on the article. I'll assume good faith FDW, what I wrote was based on what Woogie wrote, so I'm not to blame. So calm down. "Upon investigation, the Peking government determined that the Japanese army had caused losses to the Chinese government and its people in its passage across Shandong to invade and occupy Qingdao" In passage. So the dead were not in Tsingtao, and not the laborers. But yeah if you want Chinese laborers to the total, I guess you could. The page is in your hands now. Once you guys are done with China, you all should add Liberia (4 civ dead from shelling on Monrovia), that's pretty straightforward. 2601:85:C101:BA30:A985:1173:EE5F:238D (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
What sources did you use for the investigation?Driverofknowledge (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
There is Woogie10w's version. I will document every instance of China or Chinese, whether it appears in the main body or reference titles.
  • More recently the research of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) has revised the military casualty statistics of the UK and its allies; they include in their listing of military war dead personnel outside of combat theaters and civilians recruited from Africa, the Middle East and China who provided logistical and service support in combat theaters
  • Vietnam (1914 known as French Indochina) (only included for the sake of completeness
  • Voice of America (VOA) (26 April 2010). "chinas-world-war-one-effort-draws-new-attention". VOA. Retrieved 26 April 2015.
  • Tang, Chi-hua: War Losses and Reparations (China), in: 1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War.
  • Britain recruited Indian, Chinese, native South African, Egyptian and other overseas labour to provide logistical support in the combat theatres. Included with British casualties in East Africa are the deaths of 44,911 recruited labourers. The CWGC reports that nearly 2,000 workers from the Chinese Labour Corps are buried with British war dead in France.
  • Overseas labor units serving with the British and French forces. The UK employed about 300,000 Indian, Chinese, native South African, Egyptian and other nations as laborers during the war. By the end of 1917, there were 50,000 Chinese workers in France, rising to 96,000 by August 1918 (with another 30,000 working for the French). 100,000 Egyptians were working in France and the Middle East, alongside 21,000 Indians and 20,000 South Africans, who were also in East Africa. A total of about 140,000 Chinese workers recruited in the Beiyang government, served on the Western Front during and after the war with the British and French Armed Forces. According to the Commonwealth war Graves Commission "In all, nearly 2,000 men from the Chinese Labour Corps died during the First World War, some as a direct result of enemy action, or of wounds received in the course of their duties, but many more in the influenza epidemic that swept Europe in 1918–19" One historical controversy is the number who died in the war. Some Chinese scholars say the number was as high as 20,000 but records kept by the British and French recruiters, show just under 2,000 lost their lives, many from the flu pandemic that swept the world starting in 1919.
  • "World Lijssenthoek Military Cemetery, Poperinge, Ypres Salient Battlefields, Belgium(The Chinese Labour Corps was used to clear battlefields, dig graves, trenches and carry out other such tasks which were often difficult and dangerous.)". Retrieved 2 May 2015.
  • THE CHINESE LABOUR CORPS AT THE WESTERN FRONT (In all, nearly 2,000 men from the Chinese Labour Corps died during the First World War, some as a direct result of enemy action, or of wounds received in the course of their duties but many more in the influenza epidemic that swept Europe in 1918–19" (PDF). Retrieved 26 April 2015.
  • WW1 Photos Centenary Website: 2014–2018 By Paul Reed (26 April 2010). "Chinese Labour Corps 1919". Paul Reed. Retrieved 26 April 2015.
Nowhere does the claim that the Chinese Labour Corps dead appear in the French totals appear in that version of the article. So your claim that what I wrote was based on what Woogie wrote is not supported by the available evidence. Therefore you are to blame despite your claim of innocence.
But yeah if you want Chinese laborers to the total, I guess you could. No. As pointed out, repeatedly, I do not accept any totals made by synthesis. I only accept totals published by reliable references. FDW777 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing If this is a RS, then someone should mention it in the lede. Maybe as the higher range. 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Which figures are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Read the source, it gives 8.5 million total military dead and 13 million total civilian dead. So 21-ish million total dead. Is it a RS? 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, IP is pointing at some guesswork, not hard evidence. 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. These civilian deaths were largely caused by starvation, exposure, disease, military encounters, and massacres. The Banner talk 18:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Estimated by who would be the obvious question. FDW777 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
We do not second guess RS, and the EB is an RS. Its an upper limit.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

FDW, Banner, you don't need to shoot down everything I do. Britannica is an RS. Thank you Slater, is it okay if I make that addition when May 5 passes? 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Not without consensus, however this seems to be a valid edit, and I would ask that others take into account it is the edit, not the user that counts.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Got it. 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Make what edit? You've provided no details about what you plan to change. If, as I fear, all that's going to happen to this article is that the casualty totals are going to constantly creep up I'll have to point out that the lower totals need to be kept in the article too. FDW777 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
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, ".Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
What sources are saying. The civilian death toll was 8 to 13 million just asking?Driverofknowledge (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
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? 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Whoops, here you go Driver https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing 2601:85:C101:BA30:EDBB:7563:362A:612E (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
That is a good source. Its been around since 1768 I still have the big book set they use to make and update.Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
So now we have to good sources https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses. Possible new source we can use in the Classification of casualty statistics part? https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/fmb-2018-0323Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You could try reading the source provided more than once, which gives an upper limit (not a range) of 13 million.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The Brittancica gives guesswork without solid footing. The Banner talk 09:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, but it is an RS with a good reputation for fact checking, if you disagree take it to wp:rsn. "I do not agree with the RS" is not a valid objection. I will wait 24 hours for one, and if one is not presented I will make the change.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This one is a RS can we use both https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_lossesz?Driverofknowledge (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
We already give a range, because there is not single authoritative number. If we have a range we give the highest that appears in an RS, so again unless you want to take Britanica to RSN there is no real objection to its use.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to go against consensus. I was just giving a suggestion, since the other source gives a range to why not use both. I'm sorry if I came off like I was. Sorry if I got anyone mad for my suggestion to use two sources for the number on the chart.Driverofknowledge (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
What we do when we have differing opinions in RS is to give them all. Thus (in this case) we would go for the lowest and the highest. We do not give "all ranges" we give a range.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Slater, I think we misunderstood each other. I know there isn't a range of 13 million. The upper bound for civilians would be 13 million, per the source. So I think we can reference that? And would we add 8.5 million military and 13 million civilians from the source to get 21.5 million total as a total upper-bound (assuming that's the highest number, of course), or would that be OR or WP:SYNTH? 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4C6:D43C:D787:34A5 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems OK to me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Got it. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4C6:D43C:D787:34A5 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the opinion on this source with the numbers https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_losses? I am just asking not trying to go against Britannica I think Britannica is a good source.Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a good source. We can mention it maybe not in a range, but as one given estimate. 2601:85:C101:BA30:F4C6:D43C:D787:34A5 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok that sounds good.Driverofknowledge (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I made the edit. 2601:85:C101:BA30:9047:B5F5:878B:1137 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Does the opening. Need a rewrite now do to the new source?Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh maybe. I only changed the first sentence and the total # in the chart. 2601:85:C101:BA30:9047:B5F5:878B:1137 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you the same Ip that has been on this page?Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yup, same IP (sorry it changes a lot). Quick look shows that the entire lede needs a rewrite. Most of it is unsourced and refers to the chart. I don't want to make the edit because I know Banner or FDW will find something minor to crucify me for. Driver/Slater, you think you can do it? 2601:85:C101:BA30:9047:B5F5:878B:1137 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything. Wrong with you doing it for the lead since a new source was put by you.Driverofknowledge (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Two changes made without consensus reverted[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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)