Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
Thanks. To quote my favorite vandal CrustyPores = LustyRoars, "spreading the truth, kicking ass and taking names. Look for me wherever there is a troll that needs to be shanked or an article which needs to be fixed. I will be there, whispering on the wind." If only all vandals were as entertaining as him. Sean.hoyland - talk08:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Sean, I'd just like to ask for clarification of the ratio edit that you reverted on Civilian casualty ratio. It doesn't seem to make sense that 182% of the casualties were civilians, which is the way most lay readers of Misplaced Pages will understand it. It does make sense to express this as "67% of the casualties were civilians". Note that 2:1 is expressed as 67% under the WWII section. The article should be consistent and clear enough for a non-mathematician to understand. Cmacauley (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, I understand why you made that change now. I agree that it is far clearer for the reader to see statements of the form "67% of the casualties were civilians" or things like "The civilian to combatant fatality rate in World War II lies somewhere between 3:2 and 2:1, or from 60% to 67% of the total number of casualties were civilians". But I think the word ratio should be used instead of rate. Rate is the wrong word. Yes, there really is no limit to my pedantry. Or maybe rate is the right word in this specific context. I don't know actually. Perhaps you do. Sean.hoyland - talk14:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of rate in this context is that it is a calculation of the casualties sustained within a given time period, as in annual casualty rate. I agree with you that ratio is the correct term here, as we are comparing combatant casualties to noncombatant casualties. This article is really kind of a mess, but cleanup will require some serious research into the statistics, which is more than I have time to do at present. I'd like to add a section on civilian casualties in Afghanistan but the amount of information on this subject is massive.Cmacauley (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
