This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: World War I 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  World War I task force Death Mid‑importance This 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 8.

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)[reply]

Is it possible to give a quote from that book? The Banner talk 21:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"I believe"... nope. We need facts here, not believes. The Banner talk 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the table, it says deaths as a % of population, but shouldn't it be deaths and missing? I think that's the number that's being divided by population. Chaptagai (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that after a few years the article is adding back some of the information that was removed in the mass revert. Could still use a lot of cleanup, but it's coming along. Maybe in the next decade... 2601:85:C100:46C0:498:2748:D8A9:B774 (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Brazil_during_World_War_I (unsourced) it says three Brazilian civilians were killed by a German sub. Is this an oversight, or has it been excluded from the page? If so, why? Nyonyatwelve (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Table is wrong in many ways, Nations are listed wrongly. But for me personally, biggest concern is following.

Article table suggests that there were no civilian casualties in Serbia due to military activity and crimes against humanity and puts all of the Serbia's civilian casualties under the malnutrition and disease. I will link just the Wikipedia article about Austrian occupation of Serbia in WW1 with reliable sources linked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_occupation_of_Serbia

It states tens of thousands of victims. Combining massacres perpetrated by other occupying armies, multiple scholars came to various numbers. Some of those theories are even stated and linked to sources in this World War I casualties article.

Given that many of the massacres are verified with photos, a very scarce resource in WW1 Serbia, we can be positive that number of victims of massacres is very high. Also, thousands of Serbian civilians died in concentration camps across the Austria, Hungary and Austrian occupied Bosnia and Romania, which is also mentioned and linked in above mentioned article.

Given all the facts that I stated and which are very easily checked, it would be necessary to change the numbers regarding Serbia and use any of the sources linked for estimated number of victims. Table is unfinished, but given the fact that most of Wikipedia readers are just scrolling through articles, short glimpse to the table would give wrong impression and contribute to many wrong ideas resurfacing public space about the very same topic this article is all about. Thank you. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So how many civilians died? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number is in tens of thousands. I am researching reliable sources for exact number. For now, only these sources claim exact number of civilians killed directly by occupying forces for first year of war to be 30000 :

Demm 2019, p. 50.

Numanović 2014.

So number should be more then 30000. This is still closer to truth according to sources then 0 which this table suggests.

If I do not find an academia author that combined all the figures I will list here all of the sourced events together with number of victims for each individual event so someone smarter can check and calculate total combined approximated number. Also, I will try to find older sources that prove that those numbers are not made up recently as academia deteriorated in last few decades. Thank you. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then prolbem is we already say 450,000 to 800,000, in total, so does this include this or not? Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources linked to 450000 and 800000 cite these numbers as total number of civilians killed in war so these numbers include those killed in war crimes. Also, number 800000 is for period of 1912 to 1918 which makes that figure non usable for this article. Very few articles divided number of casualties as per this division in article. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we canont add figures, if we already have them. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But they are added wrongly, table suggests no Serbian civilian casualties due to military activities or war crimes while sources claim at least 30000 civilian casualties only in massacres so there were even more victims when we include victims of bombardment of Serbian towns and cities. I am not saying we should add 30000 to 450000-800000. I am stating that the way this table is envisioned, figure of at least 30000 Serbian civilian casualties due to massacres should be stated + unknown figure of victims of military activities. Also, number of 800000 is for period of 1912-1918. Not for period of 1914-1918. 109.245.35.26 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think its time for others to chip in, I have stated my concerns. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I realized the Tucker estimate for 70,000 dead was cited for epidemics and fighting with no mention of starvation. Unfortunately, there seems to be a severe lack of research for Albanian casualties, but some contemporary ones do exist, like the figure of 150,000 dead due to famine in 1915 by the American Red Cross. However, I wanted to post here because I don't know how to implement these figures into the table and I'd like to seek consensus.

The only thing I can think of is 70,000 (including epidemics and combatant deaths) in the "Civilian deaths (military action and crimes against humanity)" section and 150,000 (starvation only) in the "Increase in civilian deaths (malnutrition and disease excluding Influenza pandemic)" section and combine the two figures for the total. We could also just combine the figures and not add them separately since they don't fit cleanly into any category. If anybody knows of any more detailed figures, they would be very helpful. Thanks, Yung Doohickey (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how accurate that 155 000 from the soviet source is, because I cant find any other source mentioning this. How would soviet russia even have statistics from the Belgian congo the belgians themselves did not even have? LouisBStevenson (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]