Talk:Countervalue
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bombing
editIt seems there may be some relation to the distinction between Terror bombing/Strategic bombing and Tactical bombing --Rumping (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
"World War II" section source fails to meet the terms of Wikipedia:Verifiability
editThe source used to label the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "countervalue" is an academic paper without editorial oversight, and as such fails to meet the criteria for "Reliable sources" under the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. As per Wikipedia:Be_Bold, I am reverting Pburka's edit of 16:27, 19 September 2010 to Pburka's edit of 16:19, 19 September 2010, and substituting a source from Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets. 76.102.27.151 (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- The reference you've provided is a primary source, making this section perilously close to WP:Original research. I'm tempted to remove the entire section, as the reference your removed was one of the only sources I could find which used the terms countervalue or counterforce in relation to the bombing of Japan. Pburka (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see you went ahead and deleted the section, but I don't understand exactly what you meant by "perilously close to WP:Original research." Did you mean that you felt the section tried to extrapolate too much from just the primary source? I would disagree on that point -- though we could always try a rewrite -- but I'm just as happy to leave it out. And I appreciate how hard it is to find sources that use "counterforce" or "countervalue" in relation to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but unfortunately that academic paper just doesn't meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. 76.102.27.151 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the academic paper was borderline, as it was not peer reviewed. I also feel that the use of a primary source which didn't explicitly use the terms countervalue or counterforce wasn't appropriate. Almost every city, especially during wartime, has some military infrastructure or infrastructure which could be considered to support the military. Therefore a pure countervalue strike with no counterforce component is nearly impossible, and we're stuck with trying to judge whether a particular target is primarily counterforce (and the civilian victims are collateral damage) or primarily countervalue (and the military targets are a bonus). As editors it's not our place to make this judgment. Pburka (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see you went ahead and deleted the section, but I don't understand exactly what you meant by "perilously close to WP:Original research." Did you mean that you felt the section tried to extrapolate too much from just the primary source? I would disagree on that point -- though we could always try a rewrite -- but I'm just as happy to leave it out. And I appreciate how hard it is to find sources that use "counterforce" or "countervalue" in relation to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but unfortunately that academic paper just doesn't meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. 76.102.27.151 (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Year 1660
editCan a citation be added, or a confirmation that this year is what was meant by the author. A reader might be very interested in which historical situation this term was originated. 2601:985:202:36F0:0:0:0:641E (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Worse countervalue example
edit"Sources" blame Russia for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines. Their own pipelines. You could say NATO sources state that rubbish. That article even says the EU will have to rely on Alternate /American sources for energy. 2001:8003:2514:F700:A59D:568:5F86:6E4F (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)