Talk:Non-combatant casualty value
(Redirected from Talk:Non-combatant Casualty Value)
Latest comment: 5 months ago by CAVincent in topic WP:ECP-requirement for certain edits
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Non-combatant casualty value appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 May 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 11:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the Non-combatant Casualty Value allows the lives of people from other races and geographies to be assigned different values? Source: Delori 2020, p. 317-318: "NCCV depends, notably, on two factors. It depends, firstly, on the subjective assessment of the ‘value’ of civilians. In this respect, the most important variable is geographical or/and racial. When a ‘terrorist’ attack occurs on the territory of a Western state, the NCCV used by police and military forces is close to zero, meaning that they do not want to put at risk any French or Western civilian. When they operate in the non-Western world, however, the NCCV rises significantly. This is why Western forces use different instruments depending on whether they operate in a Western country or or in other parts of the world: elite commandos on the ground in the former case, armed drones and fighter-bomber jets in the latter.
Created by Onceinawhile (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 76 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Onceinawhile (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC).
Article checks out in terms of eligibility and presentability (no copyvio, long enough, etc.), but you need another QPQ due to backlog mode, and I think we can get that hook snappier. What about something like "... that NCVs can assign different values to the lives of civilians of different nationalities?" (I don't like "race" here, since it seems like more of a nationality question in this context.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Generalissima: thank you. I have added a second review. I am also happy with your proposed amended hook. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Generalissima: thank you. I have added a second review. I am also happy with your proposed amended hook. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@CAVincent: the reverted edits were WP:ARBPIA-related content. The scope of the restrictions is defined here; they include all "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict". I apologize for not being clearer in my edit summary. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. I've not come across this before, nor seen restrictions applying in WP to certain subjects without necessarily applying to an article itself. But then, I generally have no involvement in ARBPIA subjects and only came here because of the DYK. I still think the newcomer editor's objections were valid, so I'm not self-reverting, but have no problems with enforcing this and going back to your version. I'll probably just take this off my watchlist. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)