Talk:Civilian victimization

Article missing about violence against civilians
Before having an article about the Determinants of violence against civilians, Wikipedia probably needs an article about Violence against civilians. This article lacks a wider context to understand what the article is talking about. What sort of violence are we talking about? Merely Police brutality, criminal acts perpetrated by soldiers, or warfare and war crimes? Unfortunately, the article doesn't explain itself or clearly define what it is about. Wikipedia articles ought not be written for academic journals, nor should it require understanding academic jargon. I think what is confusing me is the vagueness of the words conflict and armed conflict. What is being talked about? Warfare, civil war, insurgency, terrorism, or the policing of riots. Before I plaster the article with explain, clarify and other cleanup tags, perhaps MaryMO or someone else who actually understands this article, and its subject, would like to briefly explain the wider context and purpose of this article, because, at the moment I am totally confused. As a reader, I need more clarity to orientate myself to understand what is being discussed. This article is like the lights are on but nobody is home to answer the door and let me in. - 09:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. I mean, almost all violence is against civilians. People are sometimes violent against other people, too, but most people are civilians and most violence by people and against people is violence by civilians and against civilians. Determinants of violence is another broader topic that might be well treated by an article. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this article meant to be a theoretical explanation for policies like the British area bombing directive and strategic bombing during World War II or politicians pursuing a strategy of tension? As an encyclopedia, the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful articles for readers. Readers, like me, may find this article too technical and abstract to understand. So far, the writers have not provided sufficient key knowledge about the subject the article is about to allow me to unlock the knowledge it contains. Things like who is committing the violence and is this an expectation or not. I get the feeling that I am stepping into a subject area where there are some assumptions being made about the level of knowledge the reader has and who the reader is. The subject matter is apparently well researched but the article reads like chapter 14 from a military text book for PhD graduates taking an Advanced Senior Officer Leadership course at a military academy for a lessons in prosecuting counter insurgency during a civil war. If it is, where is the information from the first 13 chapters? I mean, if a Police constable encountered this article how could it be used to give advice to civilians venturing down-town tonight so they could avoid being assaulted. Its like having an article about the Determinants of being electrocuted by natural phenomena that is intended for golfers rather than engineers designing high voltage switch yards. The advice to golfers is don't go and play golf when thunderstorms or lightning are forecast but if you are foolish enough to do so, squat down in the open with your feet together and not touch anything, even the golf clubs. Keep away from tall trees, because lightning is more likely to strike tall trees than open ground and the earth currents that flow through the trees and into the ground are strong enough to electrocute someone taking shelter under the tree, especially if they touch the tree, or golf clubs or stand with feet apart. On the other hand, the engineers will want to know the expected size of current flows and expected voltages, so they can calculate the earth potential rise, earth currents, how large the protection equipment needs to be and the health and safety measures needed to protect switch-yard workers. Same information, different audience. This article has the technical details pitched at people like the engineers but without anything being helpful to the golfers. It should really be pitched at the golfers first but with enough technical information to be useful to the engineers. My complaint is about the assumption that the reader knows anything about this subject. Its not about the subject, itself, it is that the words are packed so tight that the pages of the book are stuck together and I cannot open the pages of this book to read them. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a manual on how to act, but anyway the article would greatly be helped by a few definitions and examples in diverse historical situations for each point. I suspect it might already be mostly about war, but it doesn't exactly say so. If it is so, then military history must surely be able to provide plentiful examples. In some places it makes a statement that might perhaps be meant as a summary of various events, or alternatively as a defining characteristic. The example most obvious to me is, 'Violence towards civilians is not “irrational, random, or the result of ancient hatreds between ethnic groups.”' Does this mean nobody has ever treated a civilian violently due to an ancient ethnic hatred, for example between Croat and Serb, or Tutsi and Hutu, or German and Pole? Or does it mean, such motives remove violence from the definition of "violence against civilians?"Jim.henderson (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)