Talk:Collateral damage

I don't think this term is "politically correct". More like Orwellian newspeak or sanitisation of the truth. Genghis^evolving 09:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, main thing is that the term, unlike what the page implies, doesn't just apply to deaths, but also damage to things which are not the actual target. It's not so much a sanitised term as a term with a broader scope than just people: if an aircraft is tasked with destroying an enemy depot full of tanks, and a bomb with a damaged tailfin goes off-target and blows up a nearby church, the church is collateral damage caused by that strike even if nobody was in it. It's much like how "friendly fire" gets called out as a sanitised term when it actually means "fire from friendly forces," not that the bullets themselves are your friends. Nog Bogmire (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete

See template. Lyra § talk 12:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's a species of bullshit in an important matter, that's missiony enough IMO - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep - it needs to be worked on a little, but shouldn't be outright deleted. I Eat Glue (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think sanitized language is an appropriate subject here. That said, it would be nice to have an article with actual examples rather than just a half-ass "teh miltary sux" joke. --Quantheory (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. Blue (pester) 03:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)