This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 91.5 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 3.

Change absolute claim that "90% of combat deaths are civilian is a myth" to "90% of combat deaths are civilian is contested by individuals within the British Academy"

No one can truly know an accurate number of civilian deaths, so to outright state it is a myth based on a single source of a single individual (Adam Roberts) is disingenuous. There is only a single source in the page claiming it is a myth, whereas there are two stated sources claiming otherwise, as such it is possible more evidence suggests it is not so inaccurate.

Furthermore the page states there are only two sources that state 90% of combat deaths are civilian, however there is also the European Union’s European Security Strategy which states it, which is adopted by the European Council, as such should be considered a significant source of information not listed in the page. 2A02:14F:179:33DB:0:0:1399:6158 (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I have read the article and I am not so sure. BTW here is the link to the European Union’s European Security Strategy in which they say 90%: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/30823/qc7809568enc.pdf. They don't state any source for this number. I don't feel I have the information needed to make this edit, or to refuse it, so I'll leave it open for the next editor who comes along. Lova Falk (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Well, sort of anyway. I added the contested by the British Academy part, so I might mark this as  Partly done. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 06:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The civilian casualty rate in Gaza, according to Israeli statistics, is 83% civilian deaths in Gaza. ^[1] 75.28.164.29 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the wide scope and relevance of the concept in question, why should the introduction's segment outlining ratios for concrete conflicts – constituting one of only three paragraphs, in total, summarizing the entire article – deal for the most part merely with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Hildeoc (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the why, my guess is that editors add sentences, and then once in a while another editor comes along (you) and looks at the balance in the whole lead. And I agree, that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in the lead can be reduced to two numbers, and another war can be added. Lova Falk (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are politically-motivated editors in this area who unfortunately were not among those sanctioned in WP:ARBPIA5. Personally, I don't see why we need to devote so much space to examples, most of which is likely undue unless it can be shown that these are frequently brought up in literature about civilian casualty ratios. Based on Talk:Civilian casualty ratio/Archive 2#OR, the article has already been flagged for its OR-based construction of examples. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]