Talk:World War I casualties/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
Section editorializing
I removed section editorializing on causes for casualties, this is simply a list.--Kadett 06:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Graphs
I'm not totally sure where to put these graphs... They look a bit awkward there right now. -- Booyabazooka 19:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I have uploaded updated graphs and re-positioned them. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 11:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Different figures
There is a list of casualties in the article World War I that has different figures than this. Pehaps someone might know the reason and maybe, like the WW II article, the casualty list could be a link to this article too. JillandJack
- I have fixed these issues. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 11:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Sources ? / Example: Central powers casualties
It would be better to give just a few sources, from which the casualty numbers are taken.
Example: investigations in germany had the result of at least
2.037.000 german military dead in WW I - including around 200.000 army missing (presumed dead), and some 30-40.000 navy dead !
...the ~200.000 soldiers who remained missing (= not officially declared dead until 1934) are usually ignored; as a result one can often find the (incomplete) number of ~1,8 Mill. german WW I dead in literature and media statements - like here in "wikipedia". At a smaller scale, the widely accepted number of german navy dead in WW I (~34.000) seems also incomplete as some 4-5.000 remaining missing (mostly drowned !) are ignored, too.
Further reading:
Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministerium: "Sanitaetsbericht ueber das deutsche Heer, deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer, im Weltkriege 1914-1918" (Volume 3), 1934.
Gerhard Hirschfeld (Ed.), "Enzyklopaedie Erster Weltkrieg", Paderborn, 2004; esp. article "Kriegsverluste" by Ruediger Overmans
Boris Urlanis, "Bilanz der Kriege", Berlin, 1965.
WernerE (german-wiki), Feb. 18, 2005
- I have added the references you mentioned to the article. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 11:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have also added a note to the table, on the disputed numbers. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 11:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Pie Charts
Should th epie charst say from each country, not in, cause that would mean no gaermans were killed in france or othe allied countries and no alllies were killed in central countries.say1988 19:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
False info
I have just repaired some heavy false info. Sargeras 11:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
French casualties
It feels pretty strange that only 40,000 French civilians died, knowing that most of the battles on the western front happened in France. And there is no link to the data where this comes from, too. Jules LT 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
the World War I casualties article does not include casualties: no comment
What the h*** does that mean? I find it perfectly understandable that we have separate figures for the dead, but why o why don't we have the casualties on the casualties page?? We have them in the one source site that's here and we have the figures on the World War I page, but not here. That's silly!
Btw, the one source here looks kinda bloggish, so it would clearly be an improvement to have a couple of reference sites instead of just one. Jules LT 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've fixed the first issue you mention. Now, the table only exists in this article, with a link to here from the main article. And I added 1 link to the sources. That's all I had :). Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 10:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Arabian Casualties
Are the arabs who rebelled against the Ottoman Empire (ala Lawrence of Arabia) considered as casualties, on either side? It would be great if someone was knowledgeable enough to include this. DirectorStratton 01:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Casualty Charts
The casualty charts don't match the figures given. Example: Serbia lost 400.000 military personell and 950.000 civilian, USA lost 116.516 yet on the chart the percentage of US troops lost is larger than that of Serbia. The figures are correct but the chart isn't and it MUST be fixed. Also I propose that we put in a casualty chart that compares the percentage of the genereal population of each country that was killed in the war (so a bar graph). Reasons for this being that the smaller countries get highly overlooked in the sacrifices they made in this war. For example Serbia lost around a third of its general population, the most in the war, but it looks like they sacrificed less than the French.
User:69.194.57.22, 03:51, 4 October 2005
- The issue of the error in the piechart regarding Us/Serbia is fixed. The other idea you mentioned is good, but we need the population numbers for the countries to begin with, otherwise we can not make such a chart. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 10:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Duplication?
Are British Empire and United Kingdom duplications?--Berndd11222 17:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, it seems the British Empire was a subtotal. I have removed it from the table, and now countries are listed separately. My regards, Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Math error
The schedule does not foot. It needs to be corrected--Berndd11222 00:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Dunno what you mean. Regards, Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's OK now. Last night it did not foot.--Berndd11222 18:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)