5 ms·

The wiki page for the conflict that included that bombing is wild. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifad

by koboll 6y ago

The wiki page for the conflict that included that bombing is wild. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada >High numbers of casualties were caused among civilians as well as combatants. Now there's a sentence that, you can tell, has had its wording viciously fought over in a Talk page, resulting in the garbled passive-voice abomination left standing.

seemslegit 6y ago
How would you have it phrased ? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties "An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished"
- gumby 6y ago
  I think the difference between the two cases is in your example a large number of different incidents were involved while the OP’s example concerns a single incident (within a wider conflict). Without taking sides I can see how difficult it can be to find wording that various interests can tolerate.
  - seemslegit 6y ago
    What single incident ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada says it lasted "4 years, 4 months, 1 week and 4 days" It also has the Wikipedia standard conflict "Casualties and losses" tally.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  >> were caused > How would you have it phrased? Without commenting on this particular event, the passive voice typically doesn't identify the actor and can thus be used to omit or obscure responsibility. Consider the classic 'mistakes were made' vs. active alternatives such as 'we made mistakes' or 'they made mistakes'.
  - seemslegit 6y ago
    Except this is an encyclopedic summary of a conflict - not a speech. The entry also tells you exactly how many people of each category were killed by each side, nitpicking on the passive voice here is idiotic.
    - KineticLensman 6y ago
      > Without commenting on this particular event
      - seemslegit 6y ago
        Without commenting on this particular event, the passive voice is the correct voice to use in a sentence, the intent and purpose of which is to describe the outcomes of an event rather than its causes.

by koboll 6y ago

seemslegit 6y ago

How would you have it phrased ? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties "An estimated total of 70–85 million people perished"

gumby 6y ago
I think the difference between the two cases is in your example a large number of different incidents were involved while the OP’s example concerns a single incident (within a wider conflict). Without taking sides I can see how difficult it can be to find wording that various interests can tolerate.
- seemslegit 6y ago
  What single incident ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada says it lasted "4 years, 4 months, 1 week and 4 days" It also has the Wikipedia standard conflict "Casualties and losses" tally.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
KineticLensman 6y ago
>> were caused > How would you have it phrased? Without commenting on this particular event, the passive voice typically doesn't identify the actor and can thus be used to omit or obscure responsibility. Consider the classic 'mistakes were made' vs. active alternatives such as 'we made mistakes' or 'they made mistakes'.
- seemslegit 6y ago
  Except this is an encyclopedic summary of a conflict - not a speech. The entry also tells you exactly how many people of each category were killed by each side, nitpicking on the passive voice here is idiotic.
  - KineticLensman 6y ago
    > Without commenting on this particular event
    - seemslegit 6y ago
      Without commenting on this particular event, the passive voice is the correct voice to use in a sentence, the intent and purpose of which is to describe the outcomes of an event rather than its causes.