Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Civilian casualty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
are there any civilian casualty ratios numbers out there kind of like 2 or 3000 from wtc bombing compares with a million dead from Iraq war as a 1:300 casualty ratio
or wwII
French or german uniforms: 5 million uniforms 17 million dead 1 per three civilian casualty ratio
<quote>One example of unintended civilian casualties is when an aircraft targets a bridge with a missile, then lauches the missile, and the pilot realizes that a bus full of women and children is driving onto the bridge. The bridge explodes, collapses, and the bus and its occupants are destroyed.</quote>
Women and children are more civilian than men?
These statements seem tendentious to me and disputable:
This statement is fine & is factually true:
"The United States military, also, historically has been willing to attack civilian targets if it is determined that mission success is more valuable than the risk of civilian casualties."
Now the disputable comments begin:
"This is a determination that is not taken lightly."
Some argue that the USA does make these determinations lightly for which there is ample evidence.
The next statement is also tendentious:
"Since anti-war and enemy propagandists often jump at the chance to discredit US military action, such an attack can be detrimental to the mission despite operational success"
"propagandists often jump at the chance to discredit US"--this statement is highly inflammatory and unnecessary.
Why are any of the disputable statements in the article?
Hi. I have made some improvements, if anyone disagrees then 'be bold' and make further changes. 80.189.230.237 13:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There should be a section dedicatd to the confusion or the difficulty in counting civilian casualties when the combatants are not part of a recognized national military and/or are dressed as civilians. Examples include the Viet Cong, Al Qaida, and otehr groups. This should also address the issue of when one side chooses to fight or chooses to attack the other in a civilian-populated area, or use civilian areas as a base or sanctuary. Boneyard90 ( talk) 17:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The civilian casualty section includes a huge and completely undocumented leap -- saying that the proportion of civilian deaths has been steadily rising. The article that this section points to says exactly the opposite, or a muddled picture at best. I'm removing it. Msalt ( talk) 22:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I've researched the topic of civilian casualties for several years now and have never found any credible source to show that 90% of all war-related deaths are civilian. In the body of macroquantitative research on war it is not unusual to come across some "magical" figures which are repeated and reiterated over and over again, and the 90% figure is one of them that Wikipedia has been guilty of repeating. Some of the citations can be traced back to Ahlstrom and Nordquist's 1991 "Casualties of conflict: report for the world campaign for the protection of victims of war," which includes refugees and internally displaced persons as casualties, and is in turn partially based on Eckhardt, W. (1989). "Civilian deaths in wartime." Security Dialogue 20(1): 89-98. Eckhardt himself stated that, with a few exceptions, most wars produce an equal number of civilian and combatant casualties.
A statement in this article which I have taken the liberty of removing referred to the ICRC report (without actually citing it); this report used as a source Crimes of War by Roy Gutman and David Rieff, however the book does not cite a source for the 10-to-1 figure. Cmacauley ( talk) 17:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
The wording:
Some researchers have included refugees and internally displaced persons in their definition of "civilian casualty". [1]
References
- ^ Ahlstrom, C. and K.-A. Nordquist (1991). "Casualties of conflict: report for the world campaign for the protection of victims of war." Uppsala, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University.
There are several things wrong with this sentence first it uses weal words "some researchers" does that mean three? If so, three out of how many? If not what is the ratio for "some"? The second thing that is wrong with it is that this is not a summary of anything in the article -- see the lead guideline:
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies
The fact that it needs citation and mentions something not touched upon within the article is a strong indication of this. If this sentence is to go anywhere in the article (and UNDUE needs to be sorted out first) it rightfully belongs in the section currently named "International law" (which would need a new section header). -- PBS ( talk) 15:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, your excuse is that you need to keep in consensus when it's supposed to stay in the main article, where it's supposed to be discussed, not just add what you want and use some excuse to make it appear legitimate. This is not neutral and you keep on posting information even without explanation. It's supposed to be balanced, not to confuse readers what the actual casualty are. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that we use the same death estimate range on all articles that mention them. — Lentower ( talk) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment using the same range be could done with an inline template, so N articles do not need to be edited, if new reliable sources are found. Be best if the sources were in this template - if source collsions occur in an article, the one in the template could be the main one, referenced by the other cites in that article (this should be documented in the template & by a comment just after each use of the template. — Lentower ( talk) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Has there been any evidence to show why one set of numbers is deemed "correct", @ Binksternet: and @ Lentower:? I guess I do not understand the situation after reading all the above. I've not seen a consensus anywhere listed, just a bunch of times you guys edited over each other. If he has valid sources for his edits, then they should seemingly be included. GauchoDude ( talk) 00:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Request @ Binksternet: & @ XXzoonamiXX: Could you link to the Talk_Page#Section on other Talk pages where this has been discussed on before. When the discussion fractures over more than one talk page, it's customary to have links pointing both ways. — Lentower ( talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sixteen months against concensus by user XXzoonamiXX, suggests that it could be time to take wider action against him. There are articles in the Wikipedia namespace, that discuss ways to resolve these conflicts, with user block by an admin a later step. WP:EW is a place to start. — Lentower ( talk) 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI, XXzoonamiXX is attempting to canvas editors to supporting them here. Sam Walton ( talk) 22:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the article:
In times of armed conflict, despite numerous advancements in technology and society in modern times, it is speculated that civilians are far more likely to die or be injured than combatants. Ancient wars, while fought with the same thoughts in the minds of soldiers, leaders, and civilians, and often for the same reasons as modern wars, were nonetheless fought on a smaller scale, with less dangerous weapons. Wars in medieval times tended to involve fewer soldiers and deaths, and always involved less advanced technology than wars of today. Modern wars involve large numbers of soldiers put forth by large nations, as well as newer technology that is indisputably capable of killing more people. Often, those people are civilians, since the accuracy of older weapons such as swords is far greater than the accuracy of even a " smart bomb." These "advancements" in the way society is structured and the methods it uses to fight its wars have resulted in modern wars that cause more civilian deaths than previous wars ever did, as exampled by World War I, World War II, Korean War, and the Vietnam War. There’s also has been a widespread view that war has changed radically since the early twentieth century to the point where some 80–90% of war victims are now civilians.
It is full of speculation and a POV as expressed by the placing of the words " smart bomb." and "advancements". Take for example the phrase "modern wars that cause more civilian deaths than previous wars ever did, as exampled by World War I,"
This text is contradicted by:
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Indeed one of the major differences between the first and second world war is that if one excludes the deaths from the flue epidemic of 1918, was the relatively low number of civilians killed as a ratio to soldiers.
Or take another sentence "Modern wars involve large numbers of soldiers put forth by large nations", well sometimes but many wars are fought by small nations with small contingents of soldiers. In the Falklands War, if one excludes the merchant sailors, three civilians died. The war involved less than 30,000 combatants (adding both sides together), Wellington commanded an army consisting of that many British Army soldiers (include the KLG) at the Battle of Waterloo, and that was but a faction of the total Seventh Coalition mobilised armed force that approached 2 million men set to invade France in 1815.
So if the text I removed is to be put back it needs very good sources to support it because I think it is unverifiable. -- PBS ( talk) 14:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes the victims at Columbine were civilians. The murderers at Columbine were civilians too. It was a domestic peacetime murder, with no military or police (non-civilians) involved. This article is not about domestic peacetime murders. (Maybe the title should be changed to "Civilian casualities in War".) Ttulinsky ( talk) 08:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
While discussing on women related topics on a talk page I realized that following topics deserve attention for the articles.
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Civilian casualty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
are there any civilian casualty ratios numbers out there kind of like 2 or 3000 from wtc bombing compares with a million dead from Iraq war as a 1:300 casualty ratio
or wwII
French or german uniforms: 5 million uniforms 17 million dead 1 per three civilian casualty ratio
<quote>One example of unintended civilian casualties is when an aircraft targets a bridge with a missile, then lauches the missile, and the pilot realizes that a bus full of women and children is driving onto the bridge. The bridge explodes, collapses, and the bus and its occupants are destroyed.</quote>
Women and children are more civilian than men?
These statements seem tendentious to me and disputable:
This statement is fine & is factually true:
"The United States military, also, historically has been willing to attack civilian targets if it is determined that mission success is more valuable than the risk of civilian casualties."
Now the disputable comments begin:
"This is a determination that is not taken lightly."
Some argue that the USA does make these determinations lightly for which there is ample evidence.
The next statement is also tendentious:
"Since anti-war and enemy propagandists often jump at the chance to discredit US military action, such an attack can be detrimental to the mission despite operational success"
"propagandists often jump at the chance to discredit US"--this statement is highly inflammatory and unnecessary.
Why are any of the disputable statements in the article?
Hi. I have made some improvements, if anyone disagrees then 'be bold' and make further changes. 80.189.230.237 13:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There should be a section dedicatd to the confusion or the difficulty in counting civilian casualties when the combatants are not part of a recognized national military and/or are dressed as civilians. Examples include the Viet Cong, Al Qaida, and otehr groups. This should also address the issue of when one side chooses to fight or chooses to attack the other in a civilian-populated area, or use civilian areas as a base or sanctuary. Boneyard90 ( talk) 17:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The civilian casualty section includes a huge and completely undocumented leap -- saying that the proportion of civilian deaths has been steadily rising. The article that this section points to says exactly the opposite, or a muddled picture at best. I'm removing it. Msalt ( talk) 22:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I've researched the topic of civilian casualties for several years now and have never found any credible source to show that 90% of all war-related deaths are civilian. In the body of macroquantitative research on war it is not unusual to come across some "magical" figures which are repeated and reiterated over and over again, and the 90% figure is one of them that Wikipedia has been guilty of repeating. Some of the citations can be traced back to Ahlstrom and Nordquist's 1991 "Casualties of conflict: report for the world campaign for the protection of victims of war," which includes refugees and internally displaced persons as casualties, and is in turn partially based on Eckhardt, W. (1989). "Civilian deaths in wartime." Security Dialogue 20(1): 89-98. Eckhardt himself stated that, with a few exceptions, most wars produce an equal number of civilian and combatant casualties.
A statement in this article which I have taken the liberty of removing referred to the ICRC report (without actually citing it); this report used as a source Crimes of War by Roy Gutman and David Rieff, however the book does not cite a source for the 10-to-1 figure. Cmacauley ( talk) 17:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
From the history of the article:
The wording:
Some researchers have included refugees and internally displaced persons in their definition of "civilian casualty". [1]
References
- ^ Ahlstrom, C. and K.-A. Nordquist (1991). "Casualties of conflict: report for the world campaign for the protection of victims of war." Uppsala, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University.
There are several things wrong with this sentence first it uses weal words "some researchers" does that mean three? If so, three out of how many? If not what is the ratio for "some"? The second thing that is wrong with it is that this is not a summary of anything in the article -- see the lead guideline:
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies
The fact that it needs citation and mentions something not touched upon within the article is a strong indication of this. If this sentence is to go anywhere in the article (and UNDUE needs to be sorted out first) it rightfully belongs in the section currently named "International law" (which would need a new section header). -- PBS ( talk) 15:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, your excuse is that you need to keep in consensus when it's supposed to stay in the main article, where it's supposed to be discussed, not just add what you want and use some excuse to make it appear legitimate. This is not neutral and you keep on posting information even without explanation. It's supposed to be balanced, not to confuse readers what the actual casualty are. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that we use the same death estimate range on all articles that mention them. — Lentower ( talk) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment using the same range be could done with an inline template, so N articles do not need to be edited, if new reliable sources are found. Be best if the sources were in this template - if source collsions occur in an article, the one in the template could be the main one, referenced by the other cites in that article (this should be documented in the template & by a comment just after each use of the template. — Lentower ( talk) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Has there been any evidence to show why one set of numbers is deemed "correct", @ Binksternet: and @ Lentower:? I guess I do not understand the situation after reading all the above. I've not seen a consensus anywhere listed, just a bunch of times you guys edited over each other. If he has valid sources for his edits, then they should seemingly be included. GauchoDude ( talk) 00:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Request @ Binksternet: & @ XXzoonamiXX: Could you link to the Talk_Page#Section on other Talk pages where this has been discussed on before. When the discussion fractures over more than one talk page, it's customary to have links pointing both ways. — Lentower ( talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Sixteen months against concensus by user XXzoonamiXX, suggests that it could be time to take wider action against him. There are articles in the Wikipedia namespace, that discuss ways to resolve these conflicts, with user block by an admin a later step. WP:EW is a place to start. — Lentower ( talk) 20:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI, XXzoonamiXX is attempting to canvas editors to supporting them here. Sam Walton ( talk) 22:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the article:
In times of armed conflict, despite numerous advancements in technology and society in modern times, it is speculated that civilians are far more likely to die or be injured than combatants. Ancient wars, while fought with the same thoughts in the minds of soldiers, leaders, and civilians, and often for the same reasons as modern wars, were nonetheless fought on a smaller scale, with less dangerous weapons. Wars in medieval times tended to involve fewer soldiers and deaths, and always involved less advanced technology than wars of today. Modern wars involve large numbers of soldiers put forth by large nations, as well as newer technology that is indisputably capable of killing more people. Often, those people are civilians, since the accuracy of older weapons such as swords is far greater than the accuracy of even a " smart bomb." These "advancements" in the way society is structured and the methods it uses to fight its wars have resulted in modern wars that cause more civilian deaths than previous wars ever did, as exampled by World War I, World War II, Korean War, and the Vietnam War. There’s also has been a widespread view that war has changed radically since the early twentieth century to the point where some 80–90% of war victims are now civilians.
It is full of speculation and a POV as expressed by the placing of the words " smart bomb." and "advancements". Take for example the phrase "modern wars that cause more civilian deaths than previous wars ever did, as exampled by World War I,"
This text is contradicted by:
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)Indeed one of the major differences between the first and second world war is that if one excludes the deaths from the flue epidemic of 1918, was the relatively low number of civilians killed as a ratio to soldiers.
Or take another sentence "Modern wars involve large numbers of soldiers put forth by large nations", well sometimes but many wars are fought by small nations with small contingents of soldiers. In the Falklands War, if one excludes the merchant sailors, three civilians died. The war involved less than 30,000 combatants (adding both sides together), Wellington commanded an army consisting of that many British Army soldiers (include the KLG) at the Battle of Waterloo, and that was but a faction of the total Seventh Coalition mobilised armed force that approached 2 million men set to invade France in 1815.
So if the text I removed is to be put back it needs very good sources to support it because I think it is unverifiable. -- PBS ( talk) 14:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes the victims at Columbine were civilians. The murderers at Columbine were civilians too. It was a domestic peacetime murder, with no military or police (non-civilians) involved. This article is not about domestic peacetime murders. (Maybe the title should be changed to "Civilian casualities in War".) Ttulinsky ( talk) 08:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
While discussing on women related topics on a talk page I realized that following topics deserve attention for the articles.