This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I was looking at the total world wide casualty list and did a quick calculation and what I found is that the high end figures come out right about 85 million total deaths.
I know this may sound like a bit of a nitpick but personally a difference of 5 million is a pretty big difference to me.
Either a "+" should added after the larger total or it should be changed to "85,000,000" for more accuracy.
~ Carson
Gigabytelord ( talk) 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A question. The table for WWII deaths gives a total # of deaths for Hungary that is below the estimate for Hungarian deaths in the Holocaust alone, given in another table. I was under the assumption that total WWII deaths included Holocaust deaths. Can this discrepancy be explained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.246.39 ( talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, that being the case, how do we explain the discrepancy between the two charts (and indeed one of the pie graphs) where Hungary's total deaths are lower than the Holocaust deaths alone?
99.248.246.39 (
talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
As for ranges - that's something we'd need to decide whether and how to show (you could add stacked bars (say light red=low military/dark red=high military - light orange=low total/dark orange=high total), but it could get unwieldy). Did I misunderstand?
WW2_casualties#Charts_and_graphs here in that picture the flag provided for India is not suitable, this tri-colour flag is of Republic of India, not of British India, any one can change it? Any reply? Ovsek ( talk) 18:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
British India was involved in WW2, not India, generally India is used to mention current republic of India. British India was undivided. Ovsek ( talk) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This topic is under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#World War II Casualties use of India or British Raj. Please take the time to review and comment on this dispute.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The figure of 37,000 Indian war dead in WW2 was a preliminary number from 1945 and is not correct. The current 2011-2012 Commonwealth War Graves Commission figure is 87,000. Since 1945 the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has been able to clarify the fate of those men who were missing in 1945, died as POW or died of wounds. The more recent figure of 87,000 is correct since it is based on 60 years of research. You can check the CWGC figure on page 43 of CWGC report [1] You can find self published web pages on the internet that still pick up the older incorrect 1945 figure.
Please note that The bharat-rakshak.com states More than 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict, [2]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 10:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Under the Russian population pyramid it states "Huge population losses of Russia influence the country's population pyramid. Russian male to female ratio is one of the lowest in the world (especially, in older generations), and pyramid shows distinctive age fluctuations due to the loss of a generation during the war."
The pyramid shows nothing of the sort. To have fought in the war - and as the legend refers to excessive male deaths - you would have had to have been 16 in 1945, so 80 by 2010 when this population pyramid is dated. Female life expectancy is approximately five years greater than male life expectancy anyway - see List of countries by life expectancy - in Russia this is twelve years, largely a result of alcohol. The only thing this pyramid shows is the differing life expectancy, which has nothing to do with wartime deaths.
The pyramid should be removed as it adds nothing and - worse - is at best misleading and at worst completely wrong! Now, a population pyramid for 1950 might indeed show the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincefish ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hate to bring the casualty figures up again, but I seemed to have ran into yet another error, this time right there in the header sentence and also in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
The first states, "World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses." I'm not even really sure if that sentence is even required given the obvious purpose of the topic, at least not the second half of it anyway. Perhaps it should be rewritten to give more accurate figures? Truthfully I'm not entirely sure how you would about that. The main sticking point with me is matter of factly stated figures.
The second issue is a just a numbers adjustment.
"World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 70 million.[1] The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that range from approximately 60 to 80 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population."
As you can see the paragraph kind of contradicts itself stating that total casualties range from 50 to 70 million in the first half of and then giving a figure of 60 to 80 million in the second. I would also like to point out that the paragraph is also redundant, perhaps it should be shortened to,
"World War II fatality statistics vary, however The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that ranges from approximately 60 to 85 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population."
The grammar suggestions are just that, suggestions, But I believe that the information given should at least match the figures shown later in this very same article.
Gigabytelord ( talk) 10:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I was looking at the total world wide casualty list and did a quick calculation and what I found is that the high end figures come out right about 85 million total deaths.
I know this may sound like a bit of a nitpick but personally a difference of 5 million is a pretty big difference to me.
Either a "+" should added after the larger total or it should be changed to "85,000,000" for more accuracy.
~ Carson
Gigabytelord ( talk) 05:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A question. The table for WWII deaths gives a total # of deaths for Hungary that is below the estimate for Hungarian deaths in the Holocaust alone, given in another table. I was under the assumption that total WWII deaths included Holocaust deaths. Can this discrepancy be explained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.246.39 ( talk) 17:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, that being the case, how do we explain the discrepancy between the two charts (and indeed one of the pie graphs) where Hungary's total deaths are lower than the Holocaust deaths alone?
99.248.246.39 (
talk) 20:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
As for ranges - that's something we'd need to decide whether and how to show (you could add stacked bars (say light red=low military/dark red=high military - light orange=low total/dark orange=high total), but it could get unwieldy). Did I misunderstand?
WW2_casualties#Charts_and_graphs here in that picture the flag provided for India is not suitable, this tri-colour flag is of Republic of India, not of British India, any one can change it? Any reply? Ovsek ( talk) 18:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
British India was involved in WW2, not India, generally India is used to mention current republic of India. British India was undivided. Ovsek ( talk) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This topic is under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#World War II Casualties use of India or British Raj. Please take the time to review and comment on this dispute.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The figure of 37,000 Indian war dead in WW2 was a preliminary number from 1945 and is not correct. The current 2011-2012 Commonwealth War Graves Commission figure is 87,000. Since 1945 the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has been able to clarify the fate of those men who were missing in 1945, died as POW or died of wounds. The more recent figure of 87,000 is correct since it is based on 60 years of research. You can check the CWGC figure on page 43 of CWGC report [1] You can find self published web pages on the internet that still pick up the older incorrect 1945 figure.
Please note that The bharat-rakshak.com states More than 87,000 Indian soldiers lost their lives during this conflict, [2]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 10:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Under the Russian population pyramid it states "Huge population losses of Russia influence the country's population pyramid. Russian male to female ratio is one of the lowest in the world (especially, in older generations), and pyramid shows distinctive age fluctuations due to the loss of a generation during the war."
The pyramid shows nothing of the sort. To have fought in the war - and as the legend refers to excessive male deaths - you would have had to have been 16 in 1945, so 80 by 2010 when this population pyramid is dated. Female life expectancy is approximately five years greater than male life expectancy anyway - see List of countries by life expectancy - in Russia this is twelve years, largely a result of alcohol. The only thing this pyramid shows is the differing life expectancy, which has nothing to do with wartime deaths.
The pyramid should be removed as it adds nothing and - worse - is at best misleading and at worst completely wrong! Now, a population pyramid for 1950 might indeed show the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincefish ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hate to bring the casualty figures up again, but I seemed to have ran into yet another error, this time right there in the header sentence and also in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
The first states, "World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses." I'm not even really sure if that sentence is even required given the obvious purpose of the topic, at least not the second half of it anyway. Perhaps it should be rewritten to give more accurate figures? Truthfully I'm not entirely sure how you would about that. The main sticking point with me is matter of factly stated figures.
The second issue is a just a numbers adjustment.
"World War II fatality statistics vary, with estimates of total dead ranging from 50 million to more than 70 million.[1] The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that range from approximately 60 to 80 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population."
As you can see the paragraph kind of contradicts itself stating that total casualties range from 50 to 70 million in the first half of and then giving a figure of 60 to 80 million in the second. I would also like to point out that the paragraph is also redundant, perhaps it should be shortened to,
"World War II fatality statistics vary, however The sources cited in this article document an estimated death toll in World War II that ranges from approximately 60 to 85 million, making it the deadliest war in world history in absolute terms of total dead but not in terms of deaths relative to the world population."
The grammar suggestions are just that, suggestions, But I believe that the information given should at least match the figures shown later in this very same article.
Gigabytelord ( talk) 10:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)