Talk:World War II casualties/Archives/2009/July

Auto archive

How would folks feel about setting up an auto-archive here? I'm thinking 30 or 60 days would be good, as it seems most editors here are pretty active and good about working constructively toward consensus. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how to do it. Please help--Woogie10w (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Werner Gruhl

User:23prootie posted selected figures from Japan's World War Two 1931-1945 by Werner Gruhl, he reverted figures cited by John W. Dower. I contend that we should use Dowers figures

Who is Werner Gruhl?

Werner Gruhl, author of Imperial Japan's World War Two 1931-1945, is former chief of NASA's Cost and Economic Analysis Branch with a lifetime interest in the study of the First and Second World Wars. He is an active member of the UN Association.[1]

John W. Dower a recognized scholar in the field, Werner Gruhl is a war buff, not a scholar. Werner Gruhl is not a reliable source.

User:23prootie is picking the highest figures from his source Werner Gruhl [2] This seems to me to be an ethnic POV push

To sum this up: User:23prootie is using a source by an author with no academic background. He then uses this source to pick only the highest casualty figures and disregards those figures that are lower than those on the page already.

--Woogie10w (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about this, although academic sources should be preferred as possible. I do strongly disagree with any idea to use the awkward "Indian Empire" rather than simply "India," which is completely correct, even if it offends Pakistani sensibilities. john k (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Civilian Casualties in Asia

I propose putting in a range of figures for casualties in those Asian countries where there are large variances in the sources. Readers will see that scholars have different opinions re casualties in China, India, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, Burma and the Phillippines.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the best option, and is in line with standard practice for this kind of thing - when reliable sources give different figures its best to acknowledge that there's a range of estimates, citing them as appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for a consensus among editors that a range be used in order to stop ethnic warriors in the future from picking the source with the highest figure and plugging it on the page to push their nationalist POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm backing up your opinion on this one.--Jacurek (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support this, but recommend you apply this to countries outside Asia as well. Explanation of the reliability of figures (risk of over-counting, under-counting and double-counting) should always be mentioned in the footnotes. Kransky (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In Europe the figures are known with a reasonable degree of accuracy because there was a reliable count of the population before and after the war. This was not the case in Asia, except Japan. However, in the case Poland the official figure of 6 million is disputed by scholars.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Woogie10w, who has an impressive record as a writer and editor of articles concerning wartime demographics. The relatively poor quality of population statistics for Asia until the late 20th century, at least, is well known. This why even the best sources, for instance, resort to broad estimates such as "40-70,000" civilians being killed by Japanese forces in Portuguese Timor during 1942-45. Grant | Talk 06:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree to do that which will probably mean the total casualties will be a range as well? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a range of figures is relevant when the major controversy exists among scholars on that account. In Europe, only minority scholars dispute the numbers, so giving a range here would be against neutrality (WP:UNDUE). However, since the numbers for Asia are mostly estimations, not calculations it is desirable to give a range.
I agree with Woogie10w that the range should be given for the countries where exact statistics was absent, and I agree that it is not needed otherwise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Paul Siebert for pointing out that Wikipedia does not allow undue reliance on one source where an issue is disputed by scholars.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree/Support: I agree with Woogie10w's proposal to include a numerical range. There are often variances in casualty figures, so this seems like a sensible solution to the problem. Perhaps a footnote could be added with a very brief explaination of why a range has been used, so that someone doesn't come along later and change it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree/Support: I strongly agree with this proposal. Perhaps more effective than a footnote would be a comment (<!-- Like this -->) in the text where it is most visible. -Oreo Priest ^talk 23:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

proofreading

Re: main table, human losses by country: Iran footnote [40] is missing and all subsequent footnote numbers are wrong by one. Reference: internal to table and footnotes.

!!! Re: same. New Zealand entry, percentage deaths is one order of magnitude in error. Evidence: work it out yourself from the previous columns.

Re: References. Confuses this human that two references are called [19], HMSO at position 19 and Gruhl at position 111. Luckily it does not confuse the computer link which locates the correct link each time. Evidence: read list of references (places 19 and 111), click links [19].

118.92.137.114 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)