Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian casualty ratio


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep - not a strong consensus, but I see one growing towards that. This nom has been out long enough. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualty ratio

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable topic. (Later note: Dubiously notable as a separate topic in scholarly literature when comparing conflicts). Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Hopelessly POV topic, especially concerning Casualties of the Iraq War, Second Intifada (see section on combatant versus noncombatant deaths), etc.. Most of the article is currently about Israel, and has already been covered much better, and in a much more WP:NPOV way, in the relevant articles. Most of the material currently in this article is a selective, biased, inaccurate content fork from those pages. There is no way this page can be made encyclopedic and NPOV. Casualty information is some of the most contentious material in Wikipedia, and should remain in the specific pages for each conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is one of the oddest AfD nominations I've ever seen. There is no such thing as a "POV topic", and if there were, it's hard to see how a ratio between two values could constitute one. The unsourced statement that most of the content here has been covered better in mysterious "relevant articles" is simply untrue. The assertion that this topic is "non-notable" is a WP:VAGUEWAVE with no attempt at substantiation. And how is the world WP:SOAPBOX relevant? I see no argument in this nomination that is well formed enough to serve as a starting point for a reasonable discussion. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. (Later note: Merge with Civilian casualties per CarolMooreDC and The Land.) There is little that is odd or mysterious in what I said. If you really don't understand most of what I said, then that goes a long way to explaining this problematic article you created and wrote. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that this deletion discussion has been posted to the Israel and Palestine lists is clear indication of the emphasis of this article in its current form on Israel's conflicts. This article is an obvious puff piece for Israel salted with selective info on casualty ratios. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then edit it to include more information on other conflicts. Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page.. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Articles are frequently deleted for being unsalvageable content forks and puff pieces. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Why is this a "Non-notable topic". This is the most citied ratio mentioned by nearly all people invovled with conflicts, not to mention media reports on both TV, radio and in newspapers. Chesdovi (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A ratio is not necessarily an encyclopedia article. Especially when that ratio varies so widely depending on the conflict. For example; civilians killed during ethnic cleansing as in the death march imposed on the Cherokees, concentration camps as in the 2nd Boer War, occupations, colonialism, traditional wars, non-traditional wars, asymmetric warfare, guerrilla wars, Operation Condor, Dirty wars, etc.. See also the Misarxist comment farther down ("very dubious soapboxing"). If the topic is notable it is usually notable for individual conflicts. It is only dubiously notable in the scholarly literature when comparing conflicts, because it has frequently been difficult to get reliable civilian casualty numbers. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, very dubious soapboxing. There probably is a notable topic in the subject but it would have to be written from specialist sources treating the overall topic, not cobbled together from sources about individual conflicts as this puff-piece is.--Misarxist 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur. And NPOV specialist sources are hard to find for many conflicts. Especially for Israel's conflicts as this article currently focuses on. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Civilian casualties removing any WP:Undue info in sections; add more on Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, WWII, or whatever; important concept within that notable topic. Plus both concepts need better refs for their own definition. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please get your facts straight. This is not a WP:SPINOUT of Civilian casualties, so it can't be "merged back". I created this article independently, and then seeing what bad shape Civilian casualties was in, added a summary of this article to it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jalapenos do exist. Please get your facts straight. This meets the definition of a WP:Content fork of Civilian casualties, Casualties of the Iraq War, Second Intifada, Casualties of the Gaza War, etc.. All those articles did a much better job than this article. Those longer articles had the space to explain the highly disputed casualty numbers in a WP:NPOV way from many points of view. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're wrong too. This article is not about casualty numbers but about a specifc ratio of casualty numbers. And if you're really arguing that this article is a content fork of more than four other articles, you should rethink your premises. That's not what a content fork is. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Content fork more carefully. Pulling out selective casualty numbers, and cobbling them together in a civilian casualty ratio, all in order to focus mainly on Israel's conflicts in a puff piece way, is the epitome of a WP:Content fork. The article in its current form is biased, and unnecessary, since the casualty numbers and ratios are covered in the NPOV way in the necessary length needed, in the Wikipedia articles for each conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The civilian casualty ratio is not the same as casualty numbers. I used all the information I coud find online that refers to the ratio, and noted their numbers while pointing out that numbers can be contested. The large amount of content on Israel in the article reflects the amount of such content online. You would be in a better position to contribute to this discussion (such as it is) if you did the basic research first. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have edited casualty articles on Wikipedia for years. You would be in a better position to contribute to this discussion (such as it is) if you did the basic research first. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Well-sourced notable topic and extremely relevant in the era of asymmetrical warfare.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Misarxist. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any soap, and wonder where other people are finding it. Intriguing article. As for your concerns that "the article is mostly about Israel", I'd like to point out that Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. The other sections do need expanding by comparison, but that means they need to be expanded, not that the article needs to be deleted. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple media and scholarly sources discuss this topic, as attested from the references within the article. Strange nomination. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Misarxist comment. Poor sources overall so far. Especially in comparison to the more detailed info in the Wikipedia articles on the individual conflicts. See, for example; Casualties of the Iraq War. The casualty info for the Iraq War can't be easily or fairly summarized in a short space. This article is original research. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A good topic for an encyclopedia and an impartial treatment is possible. Anyone unhappy with the current content may improve the article or raise their concerns at Talk:Civilian casualty ratio. Thincat (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep per the arguments given by the supporters and the nominator. If editors feel that there is too much emphasis on Israel, they can always expand the article.  The subject is interesting and informative.  As long as we have wars, we need tools to minimize civilian casualties.  No one gains from not having statistics on such matters available. A good article start for an important subject. KantElope (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have to agree with the nominator. It appears to be a content fork specifically designed to discuss a particular POV about the civlian casualty ratio in a specific conflict. Otherwise why elso does the article only focus on recent conflicts in the Middle East? To truely cover the topic the article would need to include a more comphrensive examination of warfare throughout history. IMO there is no serious attempt to do this, so any salvagable content should be merged into the parent articles and the rest deleted. Anotherclown (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There would be a sad The Emperor's New Clothes effect, in connection with the history of wars, I think, if articles such as this are unavailable. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Keep Keep or Incubate, Fix — This is a well discussed topic, and one of the most notable features in the changing history of war. That said, the article suffers from appalling recentism, lack of worldwide scope, and poor organization; which is to say that the critiques of Anotherclown are true, just not grounds for deletion (if these problems were more serious, then the Article Incubator could be an option). For some places to start on an overall view see:
 * The work of Mary Kaldor, reviewed here
 * War and public health by Barry S. Levy, Victor W. Sidel, p. 32ff
 * Innocent women and children: gender, norms and the protection of civilians by R. Charli Carpenter
 * 'Century of War by Gabriel Kolko
 * Have fun making this encyclopedic.--Carwil (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources and the comments. I accept all of the criticisms, except that of poor organization. The problems you highlighted result from the fact that so far I have only used online sources. I intend to use library sources, starting with the ones you mentioned, when I have the time, if someone doesn't beat me to it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify on organization. A chronological structure, war by war, is probably not the best structure for this article as a whole. I would suggest making those sections into subsections of a Civilian casualty ratios by war and including these issues at the top level:
 * Historical evolution of CCR
 * Effect of types of warfare on CCR
 * Changing legal obligations to protect civilians
 * Civilian casualty ratios by war
 * Again, no offense intended to the work so far, just trying to help.--Carwil (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your idea, Carwil, about putting this in the article incubator, is where this article might go. After it is deleted. In any case it should be deleted. The article incubator may not be the right place for this article to go according to WP:Article incubator. See also WP:Userfication, WP:Articles for Creation, and Article Rescue Squadron. After years of editing of casualty articles I do not believe it is possible for NPOV summaries of civilian casualty ratios for many conflicts, especially of recent conflicts. Most of the Israel-related info would have to be removed from the article too, since it is some of the most contested info, and this article shouldn't focus on Israel. Especially in the puff piece way of the current article. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It does have some major POV issues (I skimmed the first time, really). However it's set up for expansion into a very noteworthy article. A quick check demolished the 1:30 is the best ratio ever argument presented in the lead (Al-Qaeda attacks on the US in 2000 and Japanese attacks on the US in 1941 both have better ratios). A broader assessment of wars, not drone/helicopter strikes, such as the 2006 Lebanon War would give a more balanced perspective on the IDF, which shouldn't be the focus of the article anyway. Further, dispassionate research, where available, should displace polemicists like Dershowitz (I know he's tenured, but we can move up the reliable source chain where possible).--Carwil (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Israeli war info is almost always going to be problematic in compilation articles. See Israeli wars. It avoided the issue of non-Israeli civilian casualties altogether. By only including losses on the Israeli side in the chart. The first comment on the talk page (from July 2008) is "It is incredibly POV not to include the deaths of the other side." It looks like no one even bothered to reply to that point for almost 2 years. See Talk:Israeli wars. I bet no one wanted to try to include non-Israeli casualties because the numbers vary greatly, and are hotly contested. The ranges would have to be regularly updated. It is so difficult to share all the estimates in a WP:NPOV way in a long article for each war or conflict. The whole area of Arab-Israeli articles is under 1RR arbitration enforcement due to these longterm difficulties. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We get it; your opinion is it's a pro-Israel puff piece. Frankly, and no offence meant, but your constant focusing on this and the phrasing of same is giving this editor, at least, the distinct impression that you have a NPOV issue against Israel. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 20:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See my user page for my biases. The article is pro-Israel. Articles in Wikipedia are WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have. And I don't see how this article is pro-Israel, unless an intial bias is taken that the figures cited are Israeli propaganda. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think its a great article. I had no idea there was such an extreme variation between USA drone civilian kills and attacks by IDF. Timeshifter is right that its a little bit puffy, but, trust me, there are some(like the one I'm bogged down with) that make this 1 look as flat as a crepe. At least with this one, I don't think there will be any resistance to neutralizing it nor expanding it to cover more conflicts. Also, since its basically just statistics, making it npov is achievable. I also don't think anybody here is so judgmental as to extrapolate wanting to shut down a pro-X article into automatically having an anti-X mentality, its just "busting balls" I imagine:) Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As Misarxist said about the article, and others have agreed, it is "very dubious soapboxing". --Timeshifter (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking more at its potential rather than its present state of being. Its a hugely important issue,especially now that we are into "neverending" wars, and I think its a real good resource for Readers, especially younger ones, to as I say, yank the elephant out of the closet when it comes to the actual,real effects to innocent children when politicians fuck up (and/or fuck the rest of us up on purpose). Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is going to be difficult in a short article to summarize conflicting civilian casualty ratios for Israel's recent conflicts: Casualties of the Gaza War, Second Intifada, and 2006 Lebanon War. And to do it in an encyclopedic WP:NPOV way that is not WP:Content forking, nor POV-pushing. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Renaming/moving this article to Civilian casualty ratio for conflicts with Israel might be the only way to salvage this article. Even then it is problematic to do such an article in a WP:NPOV way when the civilian casualty numbers are so hotly disputed. Here are some additional articles beyond my previous list: 1948 Arab–Israeli War, 1982 Lebanon War, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That such a thing has to be proposed does illustrate what a POV fork this article is. Some supporters of keeping it doubtless want to have an article about disputes in the Israel-Palestine issue, not a review for all wars, which still would be more appropriate under Civilian casualties.  Such an article should stand or fall on its own merits, and not be snuck in under the guise of a general article on the topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This article seems to be POV fork from the articles on the various wars. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: some of the nominator's concerns are valid, but they can be addressed without deletion. Even if it was intended as a fork, that can be cleaned up, because the subject concept is independantly worthy of an article. The POV and undue weight does need some work, but cleanup can fix that, as can the bias towards recentivism.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it seems to me that the academic research presented in the article is very weak, for example one researcher talks about turn of the 20th century, does not explain what that is, (does it include or exclude WWI? is it only for wars between "civilised" nations or does it include colonial wars as well? etc) None of the academic papers present a statistical analysis of how they arrive at their figures. There are no definitions for many terms what is an armed conflict (eg were the troubles in NI an armed conflict)? What is the definition for a civilian -- for example does it include unlawful combatants who are not part of a recognised military structure or does it mean in that quaint Israeli definition just "innocent" civilians? That is just the academic papers, its use by commentators with a political bias. Take for example the killing of four South Koreans, two civilians and two marines in the shell fire this week. Was that a kill ration of 2:2 caused by a aggressive and reckless Northern regime, or was it caused by the South using civilians a human shields ? If the former then it is a legitimate ratio if the latter then it is a misleading ratio (which may be the product of political manipulation). So I say delete the article and only recreate it if there can be found detailed academic studies with definitions for things like "armed conflict" and a detailed breakdown of the statistics (such as by war by year etc) rather than vague terms like "start of the 20th century") For example to say that the ratio was xyz at the start of the 20th century and include World War One which was a war with relatively few civilian casualties (particularly if only the Western front is used) is to present a bias as is the use of just only using the Herero Wars would present a bias the other way. On World War One was the killing of Armenians part of a war or a genocide that happened at the same time but was not part of the war? Inclusion or exclusion will affect the ratio. An article such as the current one with the current stricture is not encyclopaedic and will remain that way unless much better academic sources can be found. So delete and recreate only if those papers can be found. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a problem that occurred to me too, metrics don't work unless all of the variables are defined. Since the Supreme Court of Israel defines what they regard as terrorists as civilians from a legal perspective, albeit unprotected civilians under certain conditions they have defined based on their interpretation of international law, it demonstrates that it's quite problematic to make comparisons between the metrics from different conflicts and periods. The subject of the article is interesting and notable but at the moment it resembles a vehicle for promoting the Israeli MFA narrative on casuality statistics.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a section on the Chechen conflict. I tried to include what definition for civilians was used, but the numbers are so unreliable that distinguishing between nuances of who is civilian and who is not would be a moot point anyway. -- H eptor  talk 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Supreme and Thincat.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Certainly a notable topic and I don't know what made Timeshifter think otherwise. However, the article does have a certain scent of original research to it, as per PBS. -- H eptor  talk 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator's claim that this is not a notable topic has been dealt with above. That someone whose user page compares Israel to Nazis finds this article to be POV is not surprising. Whatever POV there might be can be dealt with by adding opposing views, such as there are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No More Mr Nice Guy. My user page does not compare Israel to Nazis. Please strike out your comments, or I will seek to get you blocked. Many people have been blocked long-term for such incivility. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's avoid ad hominem and stick to the validity of policy-based arguments. Questioning another editor insted of the issue at hand is poor form, especially since you seem to be embroiled in the Arab-Irsaeli articles as well.  bahamut0013  words deeds 13:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Civilian casualties is probably the best option here. If that section then develops in a manner avoiding undue weight & recentism problems, it can be split out again. the material about Israel-Palestine can be merged into the relevant conflict articles, if it isn't already there. The Land (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Intriguing article, worth keeping, though presently too heavy on Israel-related stuff. IronDuke  00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nomination was based on notability, but notability is easily established by the high quality sources in the article, including numerous academic publications. I am puzzled by suggestions to rename the article Civilian casualty ratio for conflicts with Israel when most of the conflicts discussed have nothing to do with Israel. Second-guessing the reliable sources in the articles, and providing our personal opinion of their methodology,  as Philippe is doing, is not the way things are done on Wikipedia. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.