Talk:Moral equality of combatants

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 articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Moral equality of combatants appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 April 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that moral equality of combatants, regardless of whether they fight for a just cause, is said to be "one of the stickiest problems in the ethics of war"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moral equality of combatants.

Wikipedia

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that moral equality of combatants regardless of whether they fight for a just cause is "one of the stickiest problems in the ethics of war"?
- ALT1: ... that according to the principle of moral equality of combatants, Russian soldiers invading Ukraine and Ukrainian soldiers fighting back are morally equivalent? Source: https://dailynous.com/2022/03/02/philosophers-on-the-russian-attack-on-ukraine/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Corozal (dredger)

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

new enough, long enough (648 readable words), no copy-vio concerns (28% on earwig, but mostly quotes and legal terms). Interesting stuff, and I found the article well written, balanced and engaging. I do wonder however if the hook is too open to misinterpretation, as in wiki (or the voice of) is using this principle to make statement that might upset quite a lot of readers, especially given the number of war crimes recorded since the origional nom on 17/march? But to be clear, the article itself is very well done. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I think the hook makes it clear that this view is according to MEC, rather than according to Wikipedia. (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your welcome, and yeah, agree having read again and mulled over, and just to be careful have split the "one of the stickiest problems in the ethics of war" sentance into the 2nd lead para so it stands out more for people skimming the page. Nice work; GTG. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Buidhe and Ceoil: hmm, I'm not sure I'm totally convinced? Sometimes authors use this style of leaping right into the quote to say something like "these aren't my words, but this is my view". Mind if I change ALT0 to "is said to be"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not going to argue, but I think it just adds extra words without extra meaning. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I do appreciate that :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 to T:DYK/P3

Nonsense pipe link for nonsense article?[edit]

The article features a piped link to "Belligerent Equality", which has been piped to "applies the rules of war equally to both sides". This has multiple issues; the most salient of these is that no article called "Belligerent Equality" exists. Even if, it sounds like the exact same thing as MEC. Also, the pipe does not make any sense in the context. To me, it is simply unnecessary.66.208.143.206 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]