Talk:Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jthlau94.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities by name and year[edit]

This section runs contrary to WP:NOTMEMORIAL and shouldn't be in the article. The rest is good summary but this bit isn't. It's only been manageable because the number of Canadian casualties has, thankfully, been low. 212.137.36.234 (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historians always take an interest, usually sooner rather than later, in profiling fallen troops in war. There are usually multiple memorials. In general, it can be a hard question to answer, because there's not a black-and-white line that distinguishes "passing" interest and historical, long-term interest; it's the number and the weightiness of the mentions. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no problem with naming the fatalities, it's as a good a method of tracking the incidents as per date of the incident. THe large amount of text devoted to family and place of origin smacks of "memorial" rather than encyclopedia. Such info is out there, and probably in the newspapers in which case perhaps those additions fail NOTNEWS. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the article's been dramatically butchered. Unfortunately I have to agree with the IP, listing the fatalities and the related events is simply listing "non-notable" names and events, fails MEMORIAL and the notability guidelines for list. Like the IP says it's been easy to do because of the relatively small number of casualties, it would be impossible to do for Canadian troops who died during other major wars, or US troops in OEF/OIF for example. I think it's out of scope for an encyclopedia to list them and the relevant events, and it doesn't really serve to give essential information on the CF casualties topic. In any case the information doesn't disappear, it can be found in numerous memorial sites and http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/fallen-disparus/index-eng.asp — CharlieEchoTango — 17:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that section should have been entirely removed; there were a whopping four bluelinks in that casualty list. Just as we do with lists of residents on articles about places, we can just limit it to those who merit articles. So I restored a short table with those four...feel free to edit mercilessly. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apolgise for my fit of zealousness and throwing these four babies out with ther bathwater. Quite rightly anyone who is notable should remain but only with strict adherence to WP:N. 212.137.36.234 (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The British and Australian editors seem to have a different opinion. 187.73.188.218 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the removal of the casualties by name and year! It seems that this was discussed and removed within the space of a single day, and over the partial objections of two other editors. The informational value of the dates and operations is obvious and stripping names out reduces searchability for researchers. Is there an objective entity to direct this complaint to? (NC - Dec 7-11)

I would add further that the grounds tendered for removing this material are mistaken interpretations of the Notability requirements which apply specifically to articles, not article content. In regard to Memorials, it says "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Note: "SUBJECTS of ... ARTICLES". The content should be restored. (NC -- Dec 7-11) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.92.65.10 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note further that the notability guideline for lists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists states specifically: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.92.65.10 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above three paragraphs, I have restored this section to the article. The names, dates, ranks, mission details and hometowns are all relevant historical information in the Canadian context. It is possible that the family status information is not useful, but it was restored for now pending further discussion. 174.91.141.100 (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-removed it. It's a topic which is worth discussing again, but the previous discussion basically supported removing the list, and I agree with this. The list isn't in accordance with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does NOT violate WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If you read that rule you will see that it says: "4.Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. ..." So the memorial rule is a subset of the notability requirement which within articles is based on the notability of the group, not the individual items. Further, it is not merely about memorializing them, it is about providing full picture of the ebb and flow of the conflict and a of how Canadian society was represented among their force. 174.91.141.100 (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, am I the only person uncomfortable with what happened here? An informative section built up over 9 years by multiple contributors was wiped out by a single anonymous editor in one day despite reservations voiced by others. 204.92.65.10 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have not commented on this... apparently my watch was not working. I was a regular contributor to the article some time ago. I agree it was premature to remove this information. The article certainly meets WP:Notability. This data provided a great way to analyze the ebb and flow of the battles, and quickly associate the casualties with units. If a WP:NOTMEMORIAL claim is valid (which I feel is a stretch), it could have easily been addressed by simply removing the name of the individual and their family information, just leaving information such as rank, unit, location, etc, etc. I also think a few of the VERY notable casualties, that have their own articles, should continue to have their names - and links to their pages - included in the list. So, does anyone object to that section being reinstated with the removal of personal information? Andrewpullin (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1195307659"