Talk:Civilian casualty ratio/Archive 1

Overview
There are two sources given in the overview.
 * Sabrina Tavernise and Andrew W. Lehren, A Grim Portrait of Civilian Deaths in Iraq, New York Times 22-10-2010
 * Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars, Stanford University Press 1998, p. 9

The NYT states "compared with 9 soldiers killed for every civilian in World War I, according to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross."

The problem with Mary Kaldor ratio is that the wars listed in List of wars 1800–1899 as being fought at the turn of the century clearly have a ratio which is nothing like 1:8. The ratio may be improved by some of the other wars listed in the first decade of the century (List of wars 1900–1944), but it also includes the Herero War which was lists as a genocide in the Whitaker Report.

I think you can only begin to get to her numbers if you were to include WWI which most would not consider as being at the turn of the 20th century and her discourse on page 9 of her book is about war "among civilized peoples" as they are called in the Hague conventions. Those conventions explicitly excluded colonial wars as the peoples in the the colonies were not "civilised". -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand "the turn of the 20th Century" to mean the early years of the 20th Century, which would indeed include WWI. How do you conclude that she's only referring to wars "among civilized peoples"? I have my doubts whether what she's saying is true in any case - probably it was just easier to lie back then - but she's the notable source, not me. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why the early yeas of the 20th century and not the last years of the 19th? AFAICT from the view available under Google she does not include a source and is presenting a biased POV to make point. If she is including World War I then she is defiantly data mining. as most people would not include the second decade of a century as "the turn of the 20th Century". Unless she does produce statistics to back up her numbers or at least a source to say from were she got the numbers I don't think that she can be treated as a reliable source. -- PBS (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I conclude that she is talking about wars among "civilised" peoples because of what she says on page 9. "Behaviour that was proscribed according to the classical rules of warfare and codified in the laws of war in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century" This refers to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 which were only the laws of war "among civilized peoples". This is why Winston Churchill could consider gassing Iraqis after World War I because they were not "civilized". It was quite common for British forces to behave differently when fighting colonial wars to how they would behave when fighting Europeans. For example after Battle of Rorke's Drift (1879) the British killed the all wounded Zulu still in the vicinity just as the day before the Zulus had killed all the British wounded after the Battle of Isandlwana, no quarter was given by either side. Yet when fighting the Boers just three years later in the same colonies during the First Boer War (1881) the British fought under the laws of war because their enemies were "civilized".-- PBS (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
See: Articles for deletion/Civilian casualty ratio

civilians
There is an important distinction between civilians and non-combatants. It is quite possible for someone to be a civilian and a combatant. -- PBS (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a real problem with this article. For there to be combatants there must be an armed conflict and not a policing action. For example the troubles in Northern Ireland were not an armed conflict, so someone trying to kill members of the security services was a criminal and by the definition of the British Government usually a member of a proscribed organisation and therefore a terrorist in the eyes of the law. If however there an armed conflict then trying to kill members of the security services is not terrorism. Equally the insurgents are legitimate targets under the laws of war, something that was not true in Northern Ireland were the security forces were bound by concepts such as self-defence, even if a member of a paramilitary was baring arms. -- PBS (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Freedom fighters
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorist has a bias that should not be used in the narrative voice of the article. If it is used it should be after an in-text attribution. -- PBS (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * applying this rule without exception results in some ridiculous scenarios, like in this edit, where you killed the entire context. all the more so when it was not applying to any specific group, only using the general term, which from what I understand was not deleted from the dictionaries yet.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 01:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * belligerents is more appropriate because it includes those who may or may not have committed war cimes, for example: "Still other schools were used by Iraqi forces to store their munitions, while US forces used schools for shelter in the North. Some schools were bombed." ( UNICEF lauds Iraqi "commonsense" push to return to school 25 April 2003) -- PBS (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See this example hot off the press: "belligerents" is a more appropriate than terrorist. "Terrorists" is a judgemental word while belligerent is not. -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "North Korea has accused Seoul of using human shields on the island where firing from the North killed two South Korean civilians this week"

Revert
I reverted a couple of small edits that seem to have resulted from carelessness. One confused an analysis article with an opinion piece based on it and left a statement unsourced. The other changed "civilian" to "non-combatant" in the lead: non-combatant may be a more accurate term in general, but the term of the topic are civilian and combatant, and those are the terms typically used by those writing about it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Civilians can be combatants hence unlawful combatants. The sentence needs expanding because there also members of the armed forces who are non-combatants (medical staff and chaplains). So the information in the sentence is incorrect. The smaller the war the more likely it is that these differences will distort the figures. -- PBS (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but the sources seem to use the terms civilian and combatant. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Original research
Aren't we supposed to include only the information backed with sources dealing specifically with civilian casualty ratio? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean this addition. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no original research, everything is sourced. Civilian and combat ratio of both sides, as this article is about. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the given sources deals with the subject of this article, i.e. with civilian casualty ratio matters specific for this conflict, it's characteristics, causes and differences from other conflicts. We clearly don't want all and every armed conflict in human history in this article, but only the ones notable for the matter. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with ECC. Unless the sources discuss the civilian casualty ratio its inclusion violates WP:SYNTH.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes
I have made some changes to the article as a start to making it DYK compliant. Those changes have included removing some WP:UNDUE material from the lead, and the removal of a couple of unreliable sources. I think there will still need to be some material added in regards to HRO criticisms of Israeli use of excessive force etc. in order to balance the Israel section. Once these changes are made, I think the article can probably be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a few more changes. Though I still consider the article to have significant problems, I might be prepared to drop my opposition to its promotion at DYK in its current form. But I think I'll leave a decision about that to tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Added a few more sections, for WWI, WWII, Vietnam War etc. I will have to try and add some cites later. Gatoclass (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

NATO in Yugoslavia
According to military historian and Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren:
 * Yet even the most moral army can make mistakes, especially in dense urban warfare; for every Serbian soldier killed by NATO in 1999, for example, four civilians died.

Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus ad mentiendum rei publicae causa (Henry Wotton). This figure may be right, but is it for the number of people killed by NATO or the causality on both sides during the war (It was an ethnic cleansing campaign that initiated the bombing campaign)? Alternatively as no source is given for who collected the numbers how do we know they do not come from the Serbs a party to the conflict who have a reason to distort the figures? The numbers are not coming from a disinterested party (Oren has a point to make for his country) and as such may well be biased. Without a disinterested source the whole section fails NPOV. -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty clear the reference is to NATO-caused casualties, ie "even the most moral army can make mistakes" etc. Gatoclass (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * One can assume that but it is not explicit, so one could easily be mislead by drawing a false inference which is a common trick for ambassadors to use when they are saying things on behalf of their country. Also where do the numbers come from? The whole statement is dubious first it flatters (most moral army) The major ground forces were provided by by the British Army (there are many who do not think it is moral) and NATO ground forces were not involved in "dense urban warfare". So as the sentence is wrong on many levels, how can one draw the conclusion that it is accurate in this respect? -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, I think it's clear from the context that he is talking about civilians killed by NATO. I agree with the comments about the "most moral army", they represent a dubious value judgement in this context. Gatoclass (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is at all clear from the context where was there "dense urban warfare"? -- PBS (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I still think it's clear from the context, however, a quick google search last night raises a question about the accuracy of this source as some sources state that as many as 5,000 Serb soldiers were killed in the conflict, which would actually give a ratio of around 1:10 rather than the 4:1 quoted. So we may need to find some additional sources to confirm the stated estimate. Gatoclass (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a better source for the NATO section and rewrote it accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Much better, as it clearly shows the problems of how these figures can be presented and manipulated. One quibble "If the most conservative estimates are taken from all sources, the ratio was around 1:1." do you mean "from all sources" or do you mean "from the cited sources"? -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I changed it to "cited sources" to clarify that. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN lists
How was the selection of entries for symmetric and asymmetric list made. What makes the Mexican Revolution, the Vietnam War conventional wars and the Iraqi war a non conventional war? -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a quick categorization of the entries the other day as I think it's misleading to compare conventional war ratios with asymmetric ratios. The categorization is not intended to be definitive at this point, and I agree that some wars are more difficult to categorize and that sources would be useful. I just haven't had time to track them down yet. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a new category called "Guerilla wars and insurgencies" and moved a couple of the wars to it. I agree the categorization is a bit arbitrary at this stage however, and is something that needs to be worked on. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the headers to just "conventional" and "unconventional" wars and added some more explanation of the terms. It's not an ideal categorization perhaps but better than nothing. I may tweak these headers still further later on. Gatoclass (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with PBS. It might be nice in theory to make the distinction, but it was OR in itself, introduced more OR by way of explaining the difference, and introduced the serious problem of how to classify borderline conflicts such as NATO in Yugoslavia. I restored the original chronological arrangement of the conflicts. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Targeted assassinations
Arn't all assassinations targeted? -- PBS (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "targeted killings", per the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Targeted killing" is a biased term. If the sources are using it then they support the POV of the assassins. The Americans (and the Israelis) seem to think that there is a need to make a distinction between an assassination that is illegal under their jurisdiction and an assassination that is legal, and which they call "targeted killing". The usage in many sources (such as Black's Law Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary) do not make that distinction, and nor did the American government until 9/11. The trouble is that under a different jurisdiction an assassination carried out legally under the assassins jurisdiction by may be illegal under the jurisdiction of the person who is assassinated. Therefore the American usage of "target killing" is something you do to your enemies while your enemies "assassinate" your people (in a similar way to the usage of the term "strategic bombing" and "terror bombing"). -- PBS (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that all sounds OR to me. I would need to see a reliable source which says as much. In the meantime I think we should stick to the terms used by the available sources. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase "Targeted killing" does not have an agreed definition and it is not a breach of OR to mention that it has a biased meaning on the talk page of an article, it is however a breach of NPOV to use it in an article without explaining why it is a biased term.


 * Leaving that aside, there is a fundamental problem with the section. The Israelis do not recognise the people they are targeting as lawful combatants, therefore they are civilians (see footnote 4 in the Unlawful combatant article) so all the people killed are civilians. If one was to make the distinction between combatants (whether civilian or not) and non-combatants then it would be a meaningful distinction, but that is not what the section says. -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase "targeted killing" is the phrase used by all the sources, including Btselem. It may be a slanted phrase, but it's clearly the phrase in common usage. If you want to challenge the phrase, you will need to present sources which state that the phrase is slanted, at the very least. Otherwise, you are just advancing your own WP:OR thesis. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with PBS. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I solved the problem by changing to the more neutral "air strikes", like the section on similar US operations in Pakistan, which we call "drone strikes". This version is also more accurate: there are or may be Israeli targeted killings that aren't air strikes, but the sources used in the section are clearly only talking about the air strikes. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

combatant to non-combatants ratios
This article is called "Civilian casualty ratio" as the people targeted by US drones and the Israeli air strikes are said by the US and Israeli administrations not to be lawful combatants, and are therefore civilians unlawfully engaged in an armed conflict, then what is being defined is not a "civilian casualty ratio" but a combatant to non-combatant ratio, which is not the same thing. It would probably be best to delete those sections as they are not about civilian casualty ratios. -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This does start to look a little OR-ish when the civilian casualty ratio is extended to encompass actions occurring in the context of law enforcement/anti-terrorism and not conventional warfare. The US drone strikes have some legal backing under the 2001 authorization to use force (the arguments on the legal status of the targets is labyrinthine but that is, as I recall, the general justification for the actions if not the targets) but the Israel targeted killings are executions outside of a traditional legal framework (whether that's a good or bad thing is another question). It's like having a section on the CCR of the LAPD. Is there an RS doing the same thing, comparing extrajudicial actions and formal conflicts? Sol (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the Israeli High Court's ruling 2006 ruling on the issue (explained [], PBS is correct. The targets of the Israeli strikes aren't legal combatants and, to that end, shouldn't be included as such here. Sol (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I started the BRD to bring possible objections to the talk page. Sol (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like brew picked up the BRD glove. Here are my five cents: Sol, per your link "The court ruled that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist organizations has the characteristics of armed international conflict". If we'd like to keep this article to official wars, a lot of other stuff have to go. What was the last declared war in history, hehe? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew an uncontested changes was too good to be true! :P
 * Declared and undeclared wars aren't so much the issue as the explicit designation of targeted killing targets as civilians. The court goes on to say "According to the ruling, terrorist operatives are not legally defined as combatants and therefore must be considered civilians. ...The court also ruled that, since a targeted killing is essentially an attack on a civilian that is engaged in hostile activities, " and "A civilian that violates this principle ... is subject to the risks of attack like those to which a combatant is subject, without enjoying the rights of a combatant, e.g. those granted to a prisoner of war." So straight from the proverbial horse's mouth, these aren't combatants but civilians. Sol (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * according to wikipedia policy, editors' interpretations of high court rulings, even if entirely correct, do not trump the terminology utilized by reliable sources, even if entirely incorrect. for more information see WP:V and WP:OR.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, imho the whole article is OR, with no sources that are seriously going into the phenomenon study. It has ridiculously survived the AfD nomination, and the only way to handle this bunch of cherry picked raw data is to WP:PRESERVE and oppose POV pushing, hoping the day will come and it will be rewritten or merged with civilian casualties. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of it does seem to be news articles shoe-horned onto the concept, I agree.
 * As to Dershowitz, I'm not seeing the point of giving any weight to a minority opinion from an op-ed. This article is about civilian to combatant casualty ratios. Why should Dershowitz's opinion that they are combatants receive any mention when the legal authority of the Israeli people have said they are not? Alan Dershowitz is neither the High Court nor a respected international body who keeps track of these things. If the High Court says they aren't combatants then they aren't combatants; Dershowitz is welcome to make up whatever he likes but his opinion does not reflect reality, the potential subject of the article. Sol (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The CCR of Israel's air strikes in the Gaza Strip was analyzed by a Haaretz military journalist, and that analysis is presented in the article. The only thing that Dershowitz adds is the comparison with other countries in similar settings. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I see Sol's point. Dershowitz's saying indeed looks like an advertisement. May be keeping it, but voicing down a bit will satisfy everyone? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Haaretz talks about a civilian to terrorist ratio and doesn't refer to terrorists as combatants. I'd think that's good enough if the High Court didn't explicitly define terrorists as civilians engaged in hostilities and not legal combatants. Haaretz doesn't talk about a civilian to combatant ratio. Including these numbers in an article that defines civilian casualty ratio as the number of civilian to combatant deaths seems to be OR, espacially when the source doesn't use the specific term of art and it's pretty clear that they aren't combatants.
 * As to Dershowitz, I don't think he counts as an RS for casualty figures. American Criminal Law? Sure. But not for facts that are wrong. Sol (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * actually he can be used for facts that are dead wrong. See Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". (bold in original) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is verifiable that he got his facts wrong. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also verifiable that he's not a reliable source for statistics on the nature of casualties in a conflict 5500 miles away that he has nothing to do with. Especially when he's wrong. This isn't information from the IDF or the Red Cross. It's an op-ed from Alan Dershowitz. It's not a reliable source for these purposes. Sol (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * brewcrewer, you may, may, want to address the main argument for removal (RS) before re-implmenting the disputed information. Since you didn't I'd removed it. Now you've replaced it without mentioning RS. If you'd like to discuss the issue, I'm all ears. You didn't seem to want to and still haven't. Sol (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Goldstone, I thought it was explained quite succinctly and sufficiently above (now that's cool word play). The article was published in a RS, written by a notable columnist, author, etc. The fact that you think the article's analysis is incorrect has little—if any—bearing, due to our WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS policies. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dearest Mr. brewcrewer, you may find that RS is a subsection of WP:V. If you would like to continue arguing that:
 * Op-eds by self-identified partisan sources who do not claim to be experts in the relevant field are good sources of facts, on par with government, NGO, and academic reports.
 * That information you've admitted is not just mistaken but flat-out wrong is worthy of including in an encyclopedia.
 * That OR policy prevents editors from exercising the editorial judgment for determining contextual source reliability explicitly given under WP:V.
 * then you are welcome to shoulder your burden of proof and present it to the RS boards. If I am incorrect then you can be sure of a full apology but you've offered nothing substantial in terms of the RS issues. We aren't even arguing over if the distorted facts of an extreme minority viewpoint (one man) as presented by an op-ed are correct, just why you think them worthy of inclusion. Sol (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Has anyone disagreed with him on this specific issue besides for Sol Goldstone?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Israeli Supreme Court. You might have heard of them. If you want to defend including patent nonsense in an article, by all means go to the RS boards and try to win some support. This is getting tedious if you won't actually face the issues. Sol (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the Israeli Supreme Court say in their opinions that they disagree with Dershowitz? If that would be the case, that would present a clear impediment for including Dershowitz's position. However, that does not appear to be the case. Rather, it's your opinion that the ISS disagrees with Dershowitz's analysis. Your opinion is a clear impediment to the deletion of this content. Please see WP:OR, and more specifically WP:SYNTH. Also, please tone down your rhetoric a bit. Thanks,-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * RS is not a policy but NOR NPOV is. To be a reliable source someone has to be reliable, if a person is publishing biased opinions that are inaccurate or use weasel words without citing their sources, and we republish them without pointing that out the article is breaching NOR NPOV . If it presents an unbalanced view from a biased source without a corresponding retort then the the article is biased to one point of view. Are Brewcrewer are you interested in developing a biased article? If not how do you justify this quote in the lead? -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh? How would a lack of reliability turn into an Original Research problem?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Strike NOR and replace with NPOV -- PBS (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. However, I must disagree with you. Dershowitz may be considered to fall on one side of the neutrality isle, but that does not make him unreliable. He is an internationally well-known academic, who has written numerous books on the A-I conflict, which have been published by reputable publishing houses. He appears to fit the criteria of a reliable source almost perfectly.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz's book "The Case for Israel" quotes Benny Morris as referring to "2 to 3,000" refugees when in fact Morris had said "200 to 300,000" refugees. He was caught out live on YouTube denying it and refusing to pay the $10,000 he'd offered to anyone who caught him out. Templar98 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 05:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Individual cases for lead
OK, we've got the Gaza War airstrikes in the lead as an extreme case on one end - should we also include the highest civilian casualty ratio? Are there too many high ratios to include just one, even if one is the highest? Roscelese (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I misinterpreted what the "Gaza" section was about in my edit summary, apologies. Roscelese (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD. The lede should "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you'd provided any sources indicating controversy, then we could work with that, but we just have your say-so that it's controversial. However, controversial or not, it may still be worth including as a numerically extreme case, since a numerical average is given in the previous paragraph. Hence my asking just a few centimeters above for people's opinions on including other numerically extreme cases. Roscelese (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * demanding that every single word in the lede be backed up by a source proclaiming that it's "controversial" is a bit ridiculous, never mind apparent wikilawyering. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're justifying its inclusion on the grounds that it's controversial (which would seem to be what you're doing, since you refer to "notable controversies"), you need to prove that it's controversial. Yes, you actually have to back up your statements on Wikipedia. This is not a difficult concept. Roscelese (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a difficult concept, but a nonsensical concept. You may be confused with our WP:OR policy, which prohibits the inclusion of content unless it is verified. Once something is verified, its inclusion depends WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, among other policies. Just like no source is required to proclaim that something is "neutral" before it is included in an article, no source is needed to proclaim that something is controversial before it is included in the lede. Editors use the talk page to make arguments one way or another before an agreement is reached. My point, and the point of another editor, is that the Israel stats are "controversial" due to its extremity from the average. Please respond to that specific point and cease with the condescending comments and wikilawyering.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a funny definition of "controversial," but all it does is take us back to my original question: Should we, then, also include conflicts with an extremely high CCR? That was the question I asked at the top of this section, and then again in the middle, and which I hoped to discuss before you started arguing that the Israel case was unique because it was so controversial. I don't know why you needed to waste everyone's time like this. Just answer the question. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said several times, we should have the Israeli air strikes in the lead because they represent an extreme value of the CCR. In principle we should have the other extreme as well, but the other extreme isn't as clear cut, so I can see arguments breaking out over it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not as extreme as those of the campaign on land during the Falklands war (There were no enemy civilian deaths). Further "in a comparable setting" makes the quote meaningless as it is subjective as one can argue that no to conflicts are comparable. -- PBS (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you've got a source, go ahead. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not want to add the Falklands (to add it is trivial maths), I want the statement by Dershowitz removed as it is misleading because of the "in a comparable setting". I would also suggest removing those sections where one side or the other claim that the opposing belligerents are civilians as there can be no civilian casualty ratio. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Without a precise definition of what "civilian casualty ratio" means the whole article verges on WP:SYN. For example are civilians killed on war ships included in such a ratio? What about mariners killed on merchant ships serving as auxiliaries? What about mariners killed on merchant ships in convoys? The death of merchant seamen in the Falklands war would alter the ratio in the naval war significantly. About half of all British civilian deaths in World War II were at sea, it has a large impact on the ratio of a British "civilian casualty ratio" in World War II. From reading this article it is impossible to tell what a "civilian casualty ratio" is in that one can not make an informed decision about how to calculate it for any given war. -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

reliable sources
Dershowitz, a well known and widely published academic would appear to be a reliable source, certain;y for his opinions. I can't see how an argument that a statement clearly attributed to him, taken from a mianstream newspaper, can be said to be unreliaable. I suggest taking this to WP:RSN before reverting again. Two for the show (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And you actually filed an RSN notice! Good for you! (Here it is for anyone interested) Sol (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ( RSN thread in now here, in archives.  –  OhioStandard  (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC) )


 * ...and nothing from uninvolved editors on the RSN boards. I've removed it as the majority of editors here have spoken against the content. If you'd like to persuade everyone otherwise, please do. Sol (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a majority of editors in support for deletion of HuffingtonPost article. If anything the exact opposite is true. Also, we don't count those arguing inconsistent with policy, for example arguing to remove the content because the editor "knows that it is wrong."-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've gotten into the RS board discussion, but aside from the one completely random new editor who started the RS and the other entirely random new editor arguing in favor of it, it's just you. As to the article, the content's been removed by me, Rose, Templar and opposed by PBS in talk and Che in favor of toning it down whereas the two defending editors are you and jalapenos. Sol (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It must be obvious that many people are unhappy about using Dershowitz for anything. The objections are not just errors of scholarship as can happen to any scholar but quite a number of disturbing inconsistencies topped off by views on torture and community punishments easily recognised as extremist. Templar98 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 05:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I find some of the arguments above completely unrelated to wiki-policies. Material published in a wiki-reliable source about facts are wiki-reliable regardless if there are people who don't like the opinions of the author. This is the same for both pro and anti Israeli facts. The key word here is "fact". The text is not about who is right/wrong in the Arab Israeli conflict.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's some editors' argument. I also find that unconvincing. The problem isn't political views but, for Dershowitz, that he can't be considered an RS for something outside of his area of expertise. He is not an expert in Israeli and international rules of engagement and he is just straight up wrong here, unless you don't believe in the power of the Israeli Supreme Court. RS is determined in the totality of the circumstances. For this, he isn't RS and his facts are only the opinion of one person and UNDUE to represent thus here. As to Haaretz, it doesn't call the targets "combatants". Period. It's OR and misleading to say so. Sol (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If I now say I support what you say, there will be still more absurd claims that you are posting as me, or that you're controlling me. Fortunately, you're so obviously right I don't have to say anything. Templar98 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC) struck comments of banned user.-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 05:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Haaretz has already been deemed to be an RS and Amos Harel, a respected analyst. Dershowitz's analyses is noted in Huffington post. I see no reason why his commentary cant be used with attribution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dershowitz has no qualifications in the field, therefore he is not a reliable source. Huffpo is a blog. I've removed the Dershowitz references but retained the rest of the counterinsurgency section for the time being (although I think it should be renamed "Targeted killings" per common use). I also removed the Gaza material from the lead as it is WP:UNDUE there. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the people you are targeting are recognised by you are lawful combatants then they civilians if they are civilians then there can be no civilian to casualty ratio (copied and modified from the unlawful combatant article):


 * The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia "Celebici Judgment: Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucic, Delic, and Landzo, Case No." IT-96-21-T seems to return the Appeal Judgment instead of the Trial Judgment. However, the relevant section of the Judgment is available from the University of the West of England Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons." See: Para. 271:


 * In the opinion of the ICRC,


 * This is not an article about non-combatant to combatant ratios it is about civilians to non-civilians. What are called targeted-killings by the Israeli and the American governments are the killing of civilians who are according to the targeting governments are unprivileged combatants, so the ratio is meaningless for such conflicts, unless one recognises the people target as lawful combatants (which a biased point of view because the governments doing the targeting do not do so). I suggest that the sections that cover conflicts in which one side does not recognise the other side as lawful combatants are removed as they are not about "civilian casualty ratios" but about "non-combatant to combatant ratios" which is not what this article is about. -- PBS (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally Phillip, I don't like this article at all. I think probably the best thing that could be done with it is to delete it. As it currently stands it's little more than a WP:SYNTH-ish list of statistics from a random selection of wars, mostly cited to highly dubious sources. I don't think it's terribly helpful to engage in semantics however. Rather than delete sections because certain groups are "unlawful combatants" and therefore technically civilians rather than soldiers, I think it would make more sense to simply clarify that "civilians" in this article means "noncombatants". AFAIK, most of the sources, such as they are, are presuming this definition in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz has authored dozens of books and published hundreds if not thousands of articles and reports on this and related subjects. He's an expert on international law and is one of the most sought after lecturers on mideast and related subjects. Really Gato, what makes you qualified to say that he's not qualified? I'm going to restore the edit but I'll leave it out of the lede as a compromise and I hope this puts an end to the tug of war.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking my own gratuitous remark and apologies to Gato for making the comment in the first place.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While I have nothing against the sources, I see the part about Israeli missle strikes to be highly inappropriate on this article. This article is about the Civilian:Combatant death ratios due to violent conflict. Many of these deaths are not attributable to one specific attack or type of attack but are caused by the conflict in general -starvation and disease are both indirect killers of people due to conflict. To seperate out missle attacks from the rest of conflict, without missle attacks taking with it it's share of indirect deaths is highly inappropriate. What type of attack of Israel's is going to take the burden of deaths caused by malnutrition in Palestine if the airstrikes do not take part of it. Passionless   -Talk  23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * JJ, Dershowitz is not an historian, how would he know that some statistic is the best in the history of warfare? This is, after all, an exceptional claim, and per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Dershowitz, an Israeli advocate with no qualifications in the field, is far from that. Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dersh's observations and comments are noted here in a book published by Wiley Publishing, one of the oldest and most respected publishing houses in the world, with an exceptional vetting process. There's no doubt that this classifies it as an RS and just to make everybody happy, the statement is included with attribution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If he is as you say then why he not know that if the Israelis do not recognise the combatants they are fighting as lawful combatants that they must be civilians in which case the ratio he discusses does not exist? If he were to talk about combatant to non-combatant then it would be different. For a lawyer why is he using the term "innocent civilians" under law they are either civilians (guilty or not) or lawful combatants. The piece is not written as an academic piece of work it is a journalistic opinion piece. If not then explain to me what the qualifier "in a comparable setting" means at the end of the sentence means "No army in history has ever had a better ratio of combatants to civilians killed in a comparable setting." with that qualifier attached to the sentence one can not test if the sentence is true because he can always argue that "it is not a comparable setting". Take another example "Israel's ratio is far better than that of ... Great Britain ..." which war is he talking about? In the Falklands the British had a much better ratio (as did the Argentinians) or does that come under "not in a comparable setting"? So we have at least two problems with this piece. He is assuming that Israel is fighting lawful combatants which they deny, and he uses weasel words. like "innocent civilians" and "in a comparable setting". So what makes this article reliable? -- PBS (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

1982 Lebanon War
change of "In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in "

"In 1982, Israel mounted a response to the PLO in Lebanon".

And their response was? To invade Lebanon. The previous wording is less mealy-mouthed and clearer. -- PBS (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I very much agree. Since we're on the topic, it's a misrepresentation to say that the invasion took place in response to "PLO shelling of Northern Israel". Numerous reliable sources have pointed out that the PLO was in the middle of a "peace offensive" at the time the invasion took place, having largely refrained from attacking Israel for the previous 12 months. In the end, the Israelis had to use the attempted assassination of an Israeli diplomat in London (not by the PLO, but by a group opposed to the PLO) as the pretext for invasion. This is all very well documented and we should not be misleading readers by suggesting that the invasion was a "response" to PLO aggression. Gatoclass (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC

History of a disturbing edit about Lebanon War
In the preceding discussion, PBS and Gatoclass are objecting to this recent edit by Brewcrewer, part of which restored this one from last December by Mbz1, after Gatoclass deleted it last week. I just reiterated Gatoclass' deletion, along with removing some unrelated content.

This edit series merits real scrutiny:

First, Mbz1 replaced the first sentence below with the second, ostensibly supported by a ref to a 1984 book by Schiff & Yaari:


 * In 1982, Israel mounted an invasion of Lebanon in an attempt to drive the PLO out of the country.


 * In 1982, Israel mounted a response to PLO after PLO began shelling northern Israel.[20]

20. ^ Schiff & Yaari (1984), pp. 35–36

Now her apparent objection to the displayed text of "invasion of Lebanon" for the wikilink to the 1982 Lebanon War arguably has some merit, since the 1982 war encompassed more than just Israel's invasion of Lebanon.

What has absolutely zero merit, and appears to be cynically and purposefully deceptive be very disturbing, is to have entered the wikimarkup for the cite as



when this appears to have been the first time the "Schiff & Yaari" source had been even mentioned the article, and it's not, in fact included there in any other form, and when that source, which she didn't name by title or link to, says exactly the opposite of the implication in her article sentence, viz. that Palestinian shelling in northern Israel began the war. The book Israel's Lebanon War that this pseudo-cite evidently refers to, presents the view, in fact, that Menachem Begin and Rafael Eitan deliberately started that war to help secure Begin's re-election as Prime Minister of Israel.

You should read the source, but here's an excerpt from pages 35-36 for editors with slow internet connections that choke on Google Books:

ISRAEL'S LEBANON WAR - Schiff & Yaari (1984), excerpt from pp. 35–36

Four weeks later, on May 28, Menachem Begin and Rafael Eitan took another step that would bring their country appreciably closer to a war in Lebanon with an action that was essentially calculated toward that end... With his election campaign running at a frenzied pitch ... Begin approved the chief of staff's request to renew the bombing of PLO concentrations in South Lebanon. The immediate purpose of the attacks was political; the long-range goal was to effect a controlled escalation of tension and ultimately trigger the war that Eitan believed was destined to be fought within half a year, at most. ... Israel continued its attacks from the air and the sea until June 3; the Palestinians responded gingerly for fear that a vigorous reaction would only provoke a crushing Israeli ground operation. Those fears were well founded, if somewhat premature.

After a six-week respite, on July 10, Israel suddenly renewed its air strikes on PLO strongholds in South Lebanon. This time, however, the action touched off a fierce reaction. After the fifth day of bombings the PLO abandoned its restraint and fought back by shelling the Israeli resort town of Nahariya on the Mediterranean coast. Stung by the potency of the response, Jerusalem weighed various counterstrategies. Yehoshua Saguy suggested hitting a series of military targets, but Rafael Eitan wanted to go for the headquarters of two prominent terrorist factions, Fatah and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, both located in the heavily populated area of west Beirut known as the "Palestinian triangle"...

The results were predictable: despite the great pains taken to pinpoint the targets and achieve direct hits, over 100 people were killed and some 600 wounded; estimates in Israel were that only thirty of the dead were terrorists.

Unequipped to respond in kind, the PLO was nonetheless determined to achieve as close an approximation as it could. Firing off twenty field guns and a number of advanced Katyusha rockets, it placed the settlements of Galilee under intolerable fire. Even though the number of Israeli casualties bore no relation to the toll in West Beirut - six dead and fifty-nine wounded - the steady pounding all but paralyzed the entire sector of northern Israel...

This couldn't document the evidence that Israel deliberately provoked the 1982 Lebanon War any more clearly, or that the PLO tried very hard to avoid a war that was essentially forced upon them, yet Mbz1 uses a not-really-a-cite to support her statement in the article that says exactly the opposite. And Brewcrewer restored it. If I'm willing to AGF on his behalf, the absolute best interpretation I can put on his having done so is that he reinstated a pal's edit without bothering to verify its accuracy.

The takeaway from this should be that Mbz1's friends need to refrain from restoring any of her deleted content without checking its veracity. Edits by anyone capable of such gross misrepresentation this should not be restored without very thorough fact-checking. More broadly − and this should go without saying − no one should restore anyone's edits without verifying that they truthfully represent the sources they claim to be based on. Note, btw, the statement in this source that Israel claimed that 30 of the 100 killed were what it calls terrorists. – OhioStandard  (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's worse than you think, because the page from which you quote is relating events from 1981, not 1982 :) After the exchanges of fire mentioned here, US Ambassador Habib negotiated a ceasefire which lasted almost a year, during which time the PLO tried very hard to avoid doing anything which might antagonize the Israelis despite a number of provocations from the latter. In Righteous Victims, Benny Morris states: Indeed, subsequent Israeli propaganda notwithstanding, the [Israel-Lebanon] border between July 1981 and June 1982 enjoyed a state of calm unprecedented since 1968. Gatoclass (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gato. I'd read several pages before and after pages 35 − 36, of course, for the context, but I also remember being mildly annoyed that the book doesn't normally supply the year when it presents a date, just the day and month, relying on the reader to infer the year from the serial nature of the presentation: I should have been more careful about that. In looking back through the book, in response to your correction, here, I also saw this segment, from page 43 of Israel's Lebanon War,


 * As far back as October, 1981, Sharon told the General Staff, "When I speak of destroying the terrorists, it means a priori that [the operation] includes Beirut." After one of these military meetings an appalled participant phoned one of Begin's aides to warn that "Sharon is talking about a house-to-house mop-up in Beirut!"


 * I'd certainly like to see other sources as well, but this one seems very explicit in its explanation of Israel's intentions. I suppose I've drifted a bit too far off-topic re the current article, though. Thanks again. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User's explanation of aforementioned edit
I received some e-mail about this edit from the user who made it initially, Mbz1, in which she explained that she had copied the sentence along with its supporting ref tags from our article on the 1982 Lebanon War, without reading the source, and despite the fact that the ref pointed to a book that was not then present in this article. That seemed plausible to me, although still quite disturbing, and I offered to request that she be allowed to post an explanation here, despite her current topic ban prohibiting her participation in Israel/Palestine articles. It seemed appropriate to me that she be allowed to do so; a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances. Instead of responding to that suggestion, she reiterated her explanation via e-mail to an administrator, EdJohnston, and presumably at her request, he renewed her previously voiced concerns to me.

I've been waiting to see whether she would eventually respond to the offer I made to ask whether Arbitration Enforcement would allow her the courtesy of posting a brief statement here. But since I've received no reply from her about that prospect, I'm posting this now, along with this link to the discussion that took place at my talk page about this. I'd suggest that if she has remaining concerns, that she should discuss those with EdJohnston, with a possible view to requesting AE permission to post her own brief explanation here. In any case, I'd like to make it clear that with the possible exception of the very offensive language she used in e-mail, which I don't care enough about to formally object to, I do not consider that Mbz1 has violated her topic ban in expressing concern about this. – OhioStandard  (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Israeli sources for 30:1 figure
First, this figure is for assassination campaign, not for military operation. The line is blurry, but should we mix them together like that?

Second, what counts as legitimate targets in assassination campaign is unclear, are random Hamas members counted? Should they be?

Third, it's only Israeli source, such claim is really asking for Palestinian or third party confirmation. It shouldn't be hard for Palestinians to show extra civilian or disputed-status bodies to argue against this claim. Have they ever even answered?

It's fine to leave this claim even if not everyone agrees, but right now there's only Israeli sources of not terribly high reliability. Taw (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

___________________________ Alan Darshowitz is an extremely Pro-Israeli scholar. His views do not necessarily reflect the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.55.75 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the two comments above. The source for the '30:1' figure is a Ha'aretz article, which isn't too clear where it got it from, but it seems to be from Israeli military sources. That should be stated in the article; the stated ratio may well be accurate, but I think we should be a little hestitant about stating it as fact when it hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. Robofish (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The figures are not by the IDF, but an investigation by the newspaper Ha'aretz (a leftist Israeli media outlet critical of the Israeli government) - They were recently used by the IDF, however. It would be more appropriate to link to Ha'aretz, then.

Alan Dershowitz is a Democratic leftist pro-Israel scholar. He himself is critical about various policies. However, in this case, he is using Ha'aretz's figures. If we say he's unreliable, then people such as Ilan Pappe should not be used in Wikipedia either, since they're extremely anti-Israel (and have been proven to lie). But they are allowed. No reason why a quote from Dershowitz shouldn't. --Activism1234 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Activism1234

Is converting figure given as a percentage OR and Synth
An editor has removed "This would give a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of about 7:1." from the article citing OR and SYNTH because the actual source gives the figure as a percentage of civilian casualties (85%) rather than a ratio. In my view this is trivial calculation that is just convenient to the reader so that all the figures are in the same format, even if they are given as a percentage in some sources, and as a ratio in others. It seems to me we just need to use a bit of common sense here. Dlv999 (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing is covered by WP:CALC (although I haven't looked at the details in this case).  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sean is correct and WP:CALC would seem to apply provided that there is a consensus for the calculation. To be honest, I have a problem with the numbers provided. According to the Lebanese newspaper Al Nahar 17,825 people were killed but there is no mention of how they were killed or by whom. Therefore, to state that Israel caused 7 civilian casualties for every one combatant, in the form of ratios is inappropriate. Furthermore, the Lebanese count excludes Syrian military casualties and that should also be factored into the ratio. Moreover, the breakdown of casualties noted in the article is inconsistent with the breakdown as noted by Al Nahar. In the Beirut area, 5,515 (civilians & combatants) were killed. Outside of Beirut, 9,797 combatants & 2,513 civilians were killed. For the reasons noted, I believe that the edit violates OR and SYNTH.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have checked the two cited sources for the 85% civilian casualty figure, . They both confirm the 85% civilian casualties, so to my mind the only question is whether we provide the calculation from percent civilian casualties to a casualty kill ratio. If you have RS that contradict the 85% civilian casualties you should bring them to the table, but I think that is a separate issue to whether we should include a ratio figure for the RS we have that give the information as a percentage. Dlv999 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Juijitsuguy, weren't you indef banned earlier this year? If so, and your ban hasn't been lifted, you shouldn't be commenting on this content. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My ban was lifted but your concern is duly noted and thank you for the warm welcome.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see the discussion now. Well then, welcome back, I hope your sojourn in the topic area is a happier one for all concerned this time around. Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope so too.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The source that you have used excludes Syrian combatant deaths and should therefore be excluded from this article. The article analyzes civilian/combatant ratios not civilian/Palestinian combatant ratios.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources employed for the 1982 Lebanon war should be stricken in their entirety since the percentages they employ specifically exclude Syrian military casualties thus skewing the entire ratio analysis.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is flawed. The sources exclude Syrian civilian and combatant deaths so the figures are in no way skewed. It is perfectly reasonable to quote a casualty ratio (or percentage) for one or a number of belligerents to a conflict. If you look elsewhere in the article, for instance the (much vaunted) Israeli targeted killings figures, they do not even account all the deaths in Gaza, only those that were killed by one particular method - "targeted killing". Dlv999 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that your sources exclude a major combatant figure. During the first Lebanon War, Israel fought with PLO as well as Syrian forces. Syrian casualties were heavy. Nearly 100 of their fighter aircraft were shot down and their entire SAM defense system in the Beeka was destroyed. Syrian infantry and armored forces suffered equally calamitous devastation. To exclude a major component of military combatant casualties from the ratio in an article that specifically deals with civilian to combatant ratios, is misleading in the extreme.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly logical to report civilian combat ratio (or percentages) for specific belligerents to a conflict. What is your opinion on the Israeli "targeted killing" section, seeing as it only covers deaths from a particular method of killing and is no way representative of the figures for even a single belligerent to the conflict? Dlv999 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your analogy. But what I do understand is that according to reliable sources, the Syrian military suffered at least 2,000 combat deaths in the initial fighting and this significant figure is excluded from the Lebanese calculation. Moreover, the Lebanese calculation does not state how those people were killed. There were a number of Lebanese who were killed by Palestinian and Syrian fire. The Lebanese calculation simply fails to state whether all the people noted in their figure were killed by Israeli fire. Your sources should therefore not be employed in this article and the entire section should be stricken, not just the OR/SYNTH portion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Given your reasoning above that all casualties to a conflict must be included for a figure to be included in this article I would like you to answer whether you believe that the Israeli "targeted killing" figures should be included as they only represent the killings by one particular method (i.e targeted killings) and are therefore not representative of all the killings suffered by even one belligerent in the conflict. Dlv999 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's one big difference. The sources used in the targeted liquidation section specifically reference civilian/combatant ratios, which is what this article addresses. The 82 Lebanon section does not. It reflects a figure that includes all civilian casualties from all causes (IDF, Syrian, PLO) & omits significant combatant casualties, i.e. the Syrian army component. Inclusion of this material is SYNTH pure and simple.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, a ratio of civilian to combatants killed is exactly the same as a percentage figure of civilians killed. It is just a different way to express the same information. Excluding data because the information is given as a percentage instead of as a ratio is ridiculous in my opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And that was just one of three reasons provided.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You claim the article states that "Israel" killed 7 civilians for every combatant, but the article doesn't say that Israel caused all these casualties (although the sources, and the circumstances, strongly imply that Israel was responsible). The article only gives civilian combatant figures for particular groups in particular timeframes, and there's nothing wrong with that - as Dlv said, it's analogous to the casualty figures caused by Israel using one particular method in a given timeframe, ie the targeted killings statistics. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Gato, can you please explain to me why this edit by Brewcrewer is "massively undue?" It appears to be very much on topic and very germane to the issues at hand. Also your question leaves me a bit confused. You state that I stated that "the article states that "Israel" killed 7 civilians for every combatant." I don't recall saying that and I don't know which "article" you're referring to. Do you mean the Wikipedia article?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am talking about the wikipedia article - I thought that would have obvious from the context. But to respond to the substance of your post, you clearly stated in an earlier post that to state that Israel caused 7 civilian casualties for every one combatant, in the form of ratios is inappropriate. As I said however, the section in question nowhere claims that "Israel" caused all these casualties, nor did the sentence you deleted.


 * With regard to the earlier revert of mine you mention, what I removed was a highly dubious claim from a partisan source with no expertise in the field who probably shouldn't be used as a source in the article at all, let alone for an exceptional claim in the lede. That is why I described the edit as "massively undue".


 * I might also add that I consider your addition from Gabriel in the Lebanon war section to be undue, given that Gabriel has been described as a biased source whose opinions with regard to Israel's conduct in that war appear to be very much at odds with the majority of sources. However, I am not going to make an issue of that at the moment. Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don’t know what to make of your above-stated comment. Macmillan/Hill & Wang is one of the oldest most respected publishing houses in the world. Books are subject to significant vetting. The book itself has been peer reviewed thus adding a further measure of reliability. It is also easily accessible and not some obscure “journal” some “editors” around here are fond of using. The author himself is an accomplished academic and has authored numerous books and countless articles on military affairs and history In sum, the book meets or exceeds every standard of Wikipedia’s reliability test per WP:RS and WP:V.


 * Now turning to your removal of text, you state that the source was a "highly dubious claim from a partisan source with no expertise in the field." I submit that it is not up to you to determine what is or is not a "highly dubious claim." As long as it is published in a reliable source, it must be included which leads to my next point. Independent of Dershowitz, Haaretz, a left wing Israeli daily, which is often critical of Israel and is considered an RS provides an assessment similar to Prof. Dershowitz's . Second, you state that Prof. Dershowitz is not an expert. Putting aside for the moment the merits of your argument, would you not classify Colonel Richard Kemp to be an expert? Or does your knowledge of military affairs surpass his. Kemp's views mimic those of Dershowitz and have been republished in the JPost as well as other reliable forums. Last, Professor Dershowitz is not a linguist nor is he a "professor" who was denied tenure & and no longer holds positions in academia. He is an accomplished Harvard Law professor and an expert in international law. Moreover, the comments attributed to him were noted in a book published by Wiley, a publishing company that’s been around since 1807. Irrespective of your personal feelings for the man, you can not deny that Wiley publishing is an RS.


 * Last, the percentage cited in the Lebanese source omits nearly half of the combatants killed and thus provides a misleading civilian/combatant ratio.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jiujitsuguy, the material was not removed from the article, it was removed from the lead. I can see no justification for inserting the opinions of pro-Israel activists into the lead of this article. Where pro-Israel activists have been published or reported by RS in relation to the topic of the article they merit inclusion. Dershowitz and Kemp are in the article, they are not suitable for the lead. Regarding your comments on the Lebanese sources they are purely your own OR. We have RS quoting civilian casualty percentage figures and it is relevant to accurately report them as they appear in the sources. If you have RS that have published different figures, or criticize the figures, please bring them to improve the article. Your own speculation on these figures is however not very interesting, or relevant to the article. Dlv999 (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Dlv999 1)You ignored Haaretz. The fact that you ignored it doesn't make it go away. 2)Please indulge me. What makes Colonel Richard Kemp a "pro Israel activist?" 3)Read your own sources. They specifically cite only Lebanese and Palestinian casualties.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Haaretz is clearly a reliable source, but why try to ram it into the lead? As I already said it is in the relevant section of the article. My opinion on Kemp is beside the point. As I said, if he is published or reported by RS commenting on the topic, there is a reasonable argument for inclusion to the relevant section (his comments are already included in the relevant section btw). One of the two sources says the casualties relate to Lebanese and Palestinian casualties. The RS reports "17,825 Lebanese and Palestinians killed, 84% of whom were civilians" - which is clearly elevant to the article. That you personally think it is unfair to report these figures is irrelevant, an RS has seen it fit to publish them. I could piss and moan about how idiotic I find it that Israel is bragging about the 1:30 casualty figures for "targeted killings" while the figure for Gaza as a whole for the same period are, according to Haaretz, worse than 1:3. The big boast of better than 30:1 even comes in 2008 - the year of "Cast lead", it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But all this is irrelevant. We should just report accurately what the RS say and try not to worry about our own personal opinions too much. Dlv999 (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the lead to reflect the article content.
the current lead reads:- I propose a change in order to reflect the content of the article:-
 * The measurement can apply either to casualties inflicted by a particular belligerent, or to casualties in the conflict as a whole.
 * The measurement can apply either to casualties inflicted by or to a particular belligerent, casualties inflicted in one aspect or arena of a conflict or to casualties in the conflict as a whole.

The reason for the proposed change is to reflect the content of the article. For instance, the civilian casualties to Germany are discussed in the WW1 section. These casualties were inflicted by a number of belligerents so it is accurate to say they they were inflicted on a particular belligerent but not by any particular belligerent (per the current lead). The section on Yugoslavia talks about the casualties in Kosovo, which was only one particular arena to that conflict. The section on Lebanon 1982 discusses the Lebanese and Palestinian casualties. The section on Israeli "targeted assassination" only refers to killings by the method of targeted assassination, the civilian kill ratio for the Palestinians as a whole was entirely different.

There has been a move to remove some information from the article, in my view this is a much better solution. Dlv999 (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems like a pretty uncontroversial proposal to me. I would just go and make the change per BRD. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
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 refers to the ICRC report which uses 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) 17:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)