Talk:Civilian casualty

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improving this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Combatant/Non-combatant confusion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced statement 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: From the history of the article:
* 12:42, 8 September 2015‎ PBS  (removed the sentence from the lead that start with weasel words "Some researchers have included" what would be surprising would be researchers excluding refugees as civilians!.) (undo)
* 12:51, 9 September 2015‎ Callinus  (Reverted good faith edits by PBS (talk): It's in terms of the word "casualty" - some researchers include IDPs forced to leave as casualties as well as injured/dead. (TW)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
The wording: 
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 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)
replies: text: Moved out of lead.-- Callinus (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. -- PBS (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some researchers have included refugees and internally displaced persons 

message: Agreed that we use the same death estimate range on all articles that mention them. — Lentower (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the finest examples of how Binksnet kept on reverting his edits around in order to make it seem like it's really not. For example, here is me posting the 39,000 deaths with this link http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml in [Nagasaki prefecture article]. Then Bink reverses my edit in the same article and add this link http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html and try to make it out as if it was an immediate death, when it was not. The link itself isn't bad enough, but moreover to the fact he deliberately mislead readers into thinking it was, without actually saying whether these deaths are in the aftermath or not, just putting it out, as if it's immediate death when it's not. Moreover, the link didn't say about 39,000-80,000 but rather 60,000-80,000 and it talks about the aftermaths of the atomic bombings in the years afterwards. This isn't the first article he done. He did the same thing for the history section for the [nuclear bombing section of the "Strategic Bombing" article], [Nagasaki article], and the section of the Civilian Casualties strategic bombing, with the same link Bink used and the same "consensus" argument all over. Lesser-known traffic articles should have well balanced in order to fit in the circumstances, as to why it happened and how. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding is that there are a large number of reliable sources, that give different estimates of the deaths, in different classes: ranging from deaths on the day of the bombing in both cities to all deaths to date.  One editor wants to just pick one source and use a single number. The other editor wants to provide the facts from all reliable sources -- this all facts position is the one I concur with. — Lentower (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The way that I took it was that  was looking to include seemingly credible information within the articles.  That in and of itself is a good step.  I agree with the fact that because there is no "one way" to slice up the facts at hand, nor can someone arrive at a definitive "correct" answer due to the circumstances, a range is most certainly the way to go.  Is the solution something as easy as something like "between X and Y number of people fell victim to the bombing campaign.  Between A and B number was from the initial bombing itself, while between C and D later succumbed to longer-term injuries such as complications from cancers, etc."?  This would address where the numbers/ranges are coming from as well as to provide more information regarding the overall number and how that came to be.  All we can do is provide the information (from credible sources, mind you), then let the readers each decide for themselves how to interpret said information.  Thoughts? GauchoDude (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, we could provide the immediate deaths in a correct range, then we could also provide the deaths of those dying in the aftermath, which Binksnet also aggressively ignored. The current stance of of now doesn't provide any explicit explanation, except the all of the range from A to Z, even without any good explanation. As explained above, Bink did misrepresent the information with the link he provided that he did not made an immediate reply to me in regarding to this. Thoughts? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki/Archive_22#Counting_the_deaths_at_Nagasaki is the main discussion. There's also a quick comment by myself at Talk:Civilian_casualties_of_strategic_bombing#POV_fork. XXzoonamiXX made a request for assistance at Gwen Gale's talk page, but nothing of substance was discussed regarding sources or estimates. XXzoonamiXX has been addressed on his user talk page about the issue (Oda Mari, Binksternet, Nick-D, Binksternet) but he typically deletes these without response. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! — Lentower (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think about our proposals Mr. Len Towers? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Arriving at a consensus on "My position is that we use the same death estimate range every time the number comes up"

message: 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)
thread_title: Alternative approach

message: FYI, XXzoonamiXX is attempting to canvas editors to supporting them here. Sam Walton (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: I have removed the following from the article:
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:
*
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)
thread_title:  It is speculated that civilians are far more likely to die 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree that the use of a Columbine memorial image on this page is potentially  confusing, and not in line with the page contents.  I have removed it. For discussion of the legal aspects of terminology around mass shootings and terrorism, with a specific reference to Columbine, see This Is What It Takes for Mass Murder to Be ‘Terrorism'. Time magazine, December 4, 2015. MaryMO (AR) (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Columbine doing here? 

message: Hi,
While discussing on women related topics on a talk page I realized that following topics deserve attention for the articles.
: Women in conflict zones, Civil life in conflict zones,
:Expand : Collateral damage
: Civilian casualties need to have summarized section of Women in conflict zones.
: Please contribute to the topics if those interest you.
: Bookku (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do [[Women in conflict zones]]