Talk:Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan

HELP - can't format latest entries properly

Tried adding the names and some details of the latest fallen, but I keep getting one more column. I tried cutting/pasting the previous entry with three names, changing the information in the new section, but to no avail. Milnews.ca (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Page duplication necessary?

Given this is a repeat of information at Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan, can't we just delete this page? Michael Dorosh 05:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• We need consensus on which of the two formats we want. Motorfix 12:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteI'd say the table looks fine, so this page can be deleted after a merge of any information not already captured by the table. Michael Dorosh 13:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DeleteI would still like to see links to specific articals on soldiers that have been lost as per the original format. Other than that, the duplication is not required.Motorfix 12:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Clearify? -b 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Michael Dorosh. -b 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: added a title on this discussion so it appears below the table of contents andrewpullin 02:12 22 August 2008

Merged

I've taken the info from the other article, including the table, and put it here. I'm tired of seeing two seperate articles, and I think this would have been inevitable anyway. I also think there is enough notable discussion that this can be more than just a table - there is lots of political "stuff" going on regarding casualties that this is a viable indepdenent article - also due to it length now. We will need to source stuff and my start on it will need a cleanup.Michael Dorosh 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Title

This is a list of fatalities, not casualties. We could change the title to reflect that. --M4-10 18:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. We should expand to provide information on the other casualties - wounded, PTSD, etc.Michael Dorosh^Talk 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck finding that information! --M4-10 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The PPCLI have a book out on their intial deployment in 2002. I realize information will be hard to come by (rightfully so) during the war itself, but at some point will be made public information. I am sure some journalist will be doing a major story on wounded soldiers or PTSD sooner rather than later.Michael Dorosh^Talk 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

friendly fire

What percentage of all the casualties so far were friendly fire incidents? --Sonjaaa 22:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Very low - I don't know that the number of wounded has ever been published though. Why do you ask?Michael Dorosh^Talk 22:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant the percentage of actual deaths... not just injuries.--Sonjaaa 22:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That information is in the table in the article.Michael Dorosh^Talk 00:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

april 22 incident

I'm trying to add unit info to the entry for the april 22 incident, but I'm having a hell of a time with the formating. If someone else wants to take a stab at it, here's the code:

feel free to delete this section once the problem is sorted out... Mike McGregor (Can) 15:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't leave out the rowspan="3". That's telling wikipedia that whatever comes after the next | should take up the next three rows of the table. --Bobblehead 15:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll figure this out yet! ; ) Mike McGregor (Can) 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

interesting stat.

I heard a stat being thown around on the news yesterday indicating that a Canadian solder in Afghanistan is about six times more likely to die then his/her Amarican counterparts in Iraq. If I can find a source for this, I think its worth including. Thoughts? Mike McGregor (Can) 11:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's probably more a function of numbers. There is only a couple of thousand Canadian troops in Afghanistan while there is over 150,000 US troops in Iraq. So if one Canadian soldier dies in Afghanistan that means there's a 1 in 2,000+ chance a Canadian soldier will die, but in order to get that 1 in 2,000+ for Iraq the 75 US soldiers would have to die. Granted, both numbers are higher than that but when you take into account the number of US troops that have been stationed in Iraq vs the number of Canadian troops that have been stationed in Afghanistan, the numbers game continues to work against Canada. --Bobblehead 17:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I Was trying to add some thin to the table but mess up can some fix it thanks :)

Done. -=Straxus=- 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Photographs of memorial

There is a very well-put-together memorial in Kandahar for the Canadians killed in this country so far. Would a photograph of that memorial be appropriate here? Flakeloaf 18:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes! If you got it, upload it. -b 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

hometowns

What is the opinion on adding the hometowns of each of the casualties?

Coming from within the ranks of the CF, we see a disproportionate commitment from certain regions of Canada. This does not signify a lack of commitment from other areas, just a greater social-military relationship in the others.

There is no intent to blame other provinces or regions for not "supporting the cause." I would like to tribute the guys that do the job by providing more detail of their lives than just being statistics.

Any opinions of whether or not I should take this endeavor?

Psyklek 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Next of Kin

This isn't a tribute site, it's an encyclopedia. I wonder why we are including information such as details of spouses and children - what is the rationale for this? At best it seems like trivia, at worst it seems like it could even be an invasion of privacy. This page shouldn't be making political statements about the cost of the war or its effects on families, etc., but should be a neutral article on the 5 W's regarding Canadian military losses in the war on Afghanistan. What purpose does the NOK information serve to the goal of the article? Incidentally, British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 do not mention NOK information. Should we perhaps strive for consistency between the pages?139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't support the addition of the spouse/children info and think it should be removed. It's not neutral (as mentioned) and it's not really relevant to the article. It's an extreme comparison but we could then add all kinds of info about them from the family pet to the type of car they drove. I didn't remove it now since it's being discussed but if there is little support shown for it then it should go.J Costello (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that information (NOK) should be removed. I'm neutral now (renamed user of first comment in this post) about the hometowns, it could be considered trivia, but I still believe it is somewhat relevant to the social-military relationship in Canada. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the removal of the ages, spousal status, and children information. This is an encyclopedia and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information. While some of you may personally consider that information trivial - and that itself is very much a point of view - many other readers do not. The argument that it is trivia also does not hold water when you then deem it non-neutral in the very next breath. If it's non-neutral to you, then it is not quite trivia, is it? The invasion of privacy argument is also quite a weak one since the information comes from published newspaper articles and is also available on numerous other web sites. What purpose does the information serve to the goal of the article? The goal of the article is to inform, to provide factual information that some users of the encyclopedia will find useful. Since when does an encyclopedia article only contain the minimal set of information that every possible user finds useful? Most encyclopedia articles strive to be complete and as informative as possible. Some portions of an encyclopedia article will only be useful to some users, other portions will only be useful to other users. To deliberately withhold completely factual information that is not based in any way at all on opinion but on published and reported facts is to inject a non-neutral point of view. Restoring the factual, published, non-opinion-based information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.180.109 (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For 139.48.25.61 who wrote "This isn't a tribute site, it's an encyclopedia" and "This page shouldn't be making political statements": Why then have you not long ago removed the following lines from the introductory section of this article?

"At the ceremony marking the rededication of the Vimy Memorial on April 9, 2007,[1], Queen Elizabeth II, said in her dedication: "To their eternal remembrance, to Canada, to all who would serve the cause of freedom, and to those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan."[2]"

In honour of those who died during the Afghanistan mission, a section of Highway 401 was renamed The Highway of Heroes.[4] The designated section of highway is the route travelled by motorcades carrying fallen soldiers from the military airbase at CFB Trenton to Toronto, Ontario, when they are repatriated to Canada.[5]"

If anything, those lines far more clearly fit your alleged concern for trivia, tribute, and political statement than the factual, neutral information of age/spouse/children. The fact that you objected to the latter, finding every possible argument you could to argue for the deliberate exclusion of factual information, while ignoring for many months those blatantly political tribute/trivia statements (front and centre in the article since June and December of 2007), makes rather clear that your arguments are motivated more by opinion and point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.183.243 (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The NOK info should be removed. These families go through enough, they don't need their personal information plastered across the internet. I agree that age is useful to know, but the only notability of their family is often due to the death itself. Even if that info is found on other websites, it doesn't need to be brought here. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll support whatever consensus is reached here. I don't feel particularly strongly either way, although I'd tend towards leaving spouses and children out simply because it's less work and less complicated when it comes to adding new fatalities. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears like there are three supporting the removal and one supporting the inclusion. Any other opinions?J Costello (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mike, it's really not a lot of work to type in 3-6 more words, and it's not like you have to go hunting for the information. The information is usually right there in front of you in the news reports each time there is another casualty - just as with hometown, rank, unit, etc. Not including it amounts to deliberate omission of available information. Looking at the sheer volume and frequency of editing you do on Wikipedia, I'm sure you can handle the few extra keystrokes it takes. In fact, it would take fewer keystrokes and less time and effort than what it took for you to post the above comment ;)

J Costello, Wikipedia does not serve only the narrow interests of a handful of military historians and military buffs that would like to tailor this page to their interests and point of view. It is an encyclopedia for the wider public. While you and two others may be only interested in seeing rank and unit displayed, that information will be largely irrelevant to the average person that isn't a military buff, and most will be reading this article in order to look up information about the Canadian casualties in the war that they find relevant. An encyclopedia article should be complete and informative, not narrow and limited to the interests of only a specific few, and definitely not with readily-available factual information suppressed and politically censored out, as you continue to attempt to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.121.98 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of putting your comments together to keep a fluid flow of communication here. Please refrain from personally attacking valued members of Wikipedia. I invite you to get an account if you want to bring the conduct of editors into play.

To me, this isn't an issue of political censorship or suppression, it's about the lives of the people involved. I personally do not believe it should be included because I feel that wives/husbands and children do not need their information spread everywhere; they are dealing with enough in their lives. I've noticed that it only says "spouse, X children", and to me that is fair.

I recommend that we have a vote for this issue. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for writing "I've noticed that it only says "spouse, X children", and to me that is fair." As you fairly noted, no names are listed, so privacy is not affected here. A reader that does not personally know the deceased won't learn the identities of their family members from reading this information. A reader that does happen to personally know the deceased will already have known that they had a family. So to include in this encyclopedia article the fact that a deceased serviceperson had a spouse and children, for the sake of readers or researchers that do wish to know this information about Canada's casualties, in no way infringes on anyone's privacy.

If I've come across a little forcibly about this, I apologize. I do feel strongly about this because the arguments I've seen so far for deliberately witholding this information haven't been convincing.

In a comment above - correct me if I'm wrong - you wrote: "I would like to tribute the guys that do the job by providing more detail of their lives than just being statistics."

If that's the case, basic facts about their personhood should not be systematically stripped away to in an attempt to present them only as dehumanized military entities, soldiers with a rank and unit, and not also as persons.

I'm also curious to know what the "social-military relationship" that you mentioned twice is about?

Regarding a vote on this dispute, I read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page and found absolutely no mention of voting as a dispute resolution mechanism. It did say this:

Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. When you find a passage in an article biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not possible, and you disagree completely with a point of view expressed in an article, think twice before simply deleting it. Rather, balance it with your side of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.182.151 (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

At times when we've had arguments about the content of articles in the past, we've held a vote to find a resolution. It's not foolproof, but it sometimes works.

The social-military relationship is how I've defined the make up of the military with regards to certain social classes and regional interest. The lower middle class makes up a majority, while more than a quarter of the military comes from the Maritimes alone. I felt that including the hometowns would reflect this, but I've noticed that quite a few of the fatalities came from the Prairies lately.

Regardless, I still hold my opinion as neutral. My greatest concern is the protection of information regarding families. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

useful site?

I just stumbled on this and thought it may be useful here. CSAR Afghanistan vehicle casualties Mike McGregor (Can) 12:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks good as a resource. Most of the descriptions for everyone gives the type of vehicle they were in (if applicable), so it could be used just to back up this information. (Psyklek 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC))

Canadian troops Hometowns

I think we should add a column for the servicepersons hometown (like the British have here: British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001). I think it would add a lot to this page. I can't figure out the programming here to make that happen, so it's up to you experts. What do you all think?--RobNS 06:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you look up two comments that's exactly what I said. Glad to have someone else who agrees with me. (Psyklek 19:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Well I would add it, and did try to, but can't seem to successfully add the column. Can you do it?--RobNS 21:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried something similar, but with another page. I'll commit some time to it this week to see if I can do it, but I'm working on some papers right now. Cheers, (Psyklek 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

The column is there now with the value "hometown" to be replaced by the town's name. i think it can be left blank if needed. I guess it will just be an matter now of going through the refrenced articles and pluging the town's name into the tabel. Mike McGregor (Can) 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Done Mike!!! J Costello 18:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[1] has the hometowns listed. I'll start at the top of the list and get some done over my morning coffee tomorrow. it looks like you started at the bottem of the list, so i guess we'll meet somewhere in the middle. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

This article is clean and neat in other words this article is perfect for wikipedia standars, please some of the editors here try to help us on the page of Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan.whe need help there. Thanks Miguel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Civilian Deaths

I was just wondering, given the title of the article, if perhaps Glyn Berry and Mike Frastacky should be removed from the table and listed elsewhere on the page. Thoughts? Mike McGregor (Can) 17:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Their fates could be mentioned in a paragraph in the article. Or could this entire article be renamed to Canadian casualties in Afghanistan? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 03:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the creation of a Canadian Civilian casualties in Afghanistan? Medic48 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Jacqueline Kirk and Shirley Case have been added to the table of fatalities. This is factually incorrect, as neither was part of the Canadian Forces. Fingal (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

timeline of unit deployments?

What would you guys think of some sort of table showing a timeline of when the specific units were deployed? I was thinking either by battalions or brigade group. Mike McGregor (Can) 03:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that's covered in Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan. If it isn't, would it be more appropriate there? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 03:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! wrong talk page... I'll post it over there. Mike McGregor (Can) 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada's 78th Casualty (Sapper Etienne Gonthier)

He is being reported as receive a promotion to the NCM rank of Corporal in December. In which case, I think he should be presented as such. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20080125/ca_pr_on_na/afghan_cda_death_ceremony Medic48 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Additional Information: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2558 Medic48 (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated the main page with this information Medic48 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Canada's 79th Casualty (Trooper Michael Yuki Hayakaze)

Canada's 79th Casualty has occurred at approximately 15:45 Kandahar time today, however the information on the fallen solider has been withheld at the request of the family. I have updated the casualty count at the beginning of the article but have not added any information to the table. Medic48 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[2][3]

Heartbreaking, truly is (not the name being withheld, but the casualty itself).--RobNS 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Updated name with rank and name. Medic48 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada's 80th Casualty (Bombardier Jeremie Ouellet)

I have inputted Bombardier Ouellet's information into the table. However, at the time of writting it, the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service was investigating the death. I have added information to specify that and that it was not combat related. Medic48 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sergeant Jason Boyes

Regarding Sergeant Jason Boyes, the description of his death says "newly arrived" soldier. This was his third tour in Afghanistan. Is there perhaps a better way to word this so that he does not sound so green? He was a friend on mine, and I know that the way it is phrased would more than likely insult him.

1 unspecificed non-combat related death

Is the "1 unspecificed non-combat related death" left over from when details relating Major Ruckpaul were yet to be released? can that line be removed? or is it referring to another incident? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be referring to a separate incident. (Bombardier Ouellet). Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Totals are askew

The opening paragraph quotes the following numbers:

A reported total of 85 members of the Canadian Forces have died in Afghanistan between February 2002 and June 8, 2008. Of these, 73 were due to hostile circumstances and 10 were accidents or other non-hostile deaths. 39 soldiers have been killed in roadside bombings, 11 died in unspecified hostile incidents, 6 in RPG attacks, 11 were killed in suicide bombings, 6 died due to United States friendly fire, 6 in vehicle accidents, 1 in a mortar attack, 2 from accidental falls, 2 from accidental gunshots, and 1 suicide death.

but the numbers don't seem to add up. The 85 is correct but 73+10=83. For hostile circumstances (including friendly fire, not really hostile by definition) I count 39+11+6+11+6+1=74 instead of the 73 quoted. For other/non-hostile deaths I get 6+2+2+1=11. If others agree then someone can update the article.J Costello (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to spend some time today going through the table line-by-line today to tally up the totals and sub-totals. afterwards I'll revise the totals at Coalition casualties in Afghanistan and Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

85th, june 7th

Check the sources, namely http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=2715 , it is specified that the incident happened approximately 9:00 PM Kandahar time on saturday june 7th. Ghyslyn (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

would we include the death at a Persian Gulf base?

There was a death of a Canadian soldier reported today at a base supporting the operations in Afghanistan. Is this something we would include in this article? A similar subject has caused a bit of controversy on the Coalition casualties in Afghanistan talk page. I don't feel strongly either way. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The DOD page for Afghanistan Casualties includes Cpl. Downey, as do most media sources. That's good enough for me. I'm going to go ahead and add it so that the numbers match up to our sources. If there's any disagreement, please post your rational here and feel free to alter the article. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

moved the friendly fire deaths from hostile to non-hostile

Hi,

I moved the sub total for "friendly-fire" deaths from hostile to non-hostile as they would be accidental. I've been trying to get a handle on the numbers today and some help and input would be appreciated! Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Honouring fatalities?

I removed the sentence about honouring fatalities, for two reasons.

• It is the people who died who are honoured, not the "fatalities".
• Since the service in Edmonton was unprecedented, it is to be expected that the other tribute services were smaller. It is not necessary to mention this.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be correct to honour the fatalities though? Are you thinking of casualties? I agree with your second point. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not the fatalities that were honoured, but rather the people that died, I hope. Don't fall into the newspeak trap. A "fatality" is an incident, not a person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Took me a minute. I wouldn't call it newspeak though, just a basic lack of understanding of the English language. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 21:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's no accident that soldiers become casualties and fatalities instead of being wounded and killed nowadays, or that we have collateral damage instead of innocent victims, or that people use enhanced interrogation methods, not torture. This use of euphemisms tries to make war and certain kinds of politics more acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it's that people misinterpret the word fatality in this case. Everyone knows that a 'fatality' is a person killed in combat, not a statistic or an innocent person. Most that I talk to understand the seriousness of our business. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Casualties BY Canadians?

Is there anywhere on this encyclopedia with the number of casualties caused by the Canadian Forces to compare these numbers to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.204.98 (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that that information is missing and should be somewhere. Another thing that is missing is information on non-fatal casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.138 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult to get numbers of injured from Canadian authorities because (agree or disagree) they treat individual information as personal info protected under Canadian privacy laws, and aggregate information as potentially providing the other side with valuable intelligence. There's been some media coverage of some of the injured, but that can easily become a full time job to track. There is an aggregate page on civilian casualties in Afghanistan but to be entirely fair, there should also be a page on the casualties caused by the Taliban and other insurgent/warlord groups (as highlighted by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Watch) to compare all numbers to.

Milnews.ca (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Milnews.ca

Hi Milnews.ca, your main activity seems to be to add many links to forces.gc.ca that never add any information not already included in the news sources. (I've just had to spend time cleaning up the page of 2 dozen of them that seem to no longer work.)

Do you possibly work for the Canadian military or DND? Also, is the website milnews.ca associated with the Canadian military or DND?

Thanks. 70.50.8.68 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Good day.

No, I don't work for the Canadian Forces, DND or any branch of either, neither as a civilian nor uniformed member. MILNEWS.ca is my own "hobby" page, with no affiliation with, support or endorsement from or connection to any part of the Government of Canada (apart from including links of my choice from some government web pages).

The reason I like to include government/military statement links is because I thought primary sources (from the horse's mouth, so to speak) might be useful to corroborate secondary (second or third hand) sources. I thought the more primary the source, the better, given the "-pedia" part of the system. The "no longer work" part of the military statements IS news to me, though, given the link I included on the latest death worked for me as of my last update - would it help to include, say, permalinks?

Also, I'm not clear why The Reality Page is included as a link, considering it's dealing ONLY with British casualties, not Canadian ones.

Still in the learning phase, so any and all guidance appreciated. Thanks, also, to all who keep this page updated.

Milnews.ca (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Milnews.ca,

When you add comments here on the talk page, you can insert colons (":") at the front of each of your lines so that they get indented. Usually you add one more colon than the previous commenter did so that your comment is indented in from the comment your are replying to. This helps distinguish replies from different users.

Since Milnews.ca is your own personal hobby page, links to it or to milnewstbay.pbwiki.com where the Milnews.ca content is actually hosted are not allowed on Wikipedia. I tend to subscribe to the principle of inclusionism, meaning that I think it's better to err on the side of having more information, links, and different perspectives than less (deletionism), but personal hobby pages very clearly do not qualify as legitimate sources or for external links.

The Reality page illustrates the reality of non-fatal casualties caused by IED's in Afghanistan. That reality applies no less to Canadian casualties, like the Canadian soldier that horribly lost both of his lower legs on Dec. 5th.

In fact, this reality probably applies the most to Canadian troops in Afghanistan, since IED's have been by far the most lethal against our troops. As this article states, 52 of the 85 hostile circumstance deaths were by IED. And each time we hear of a death, it's usually accompanied by several "wounded". And when we hear of IEDs that failed to kill, there are often again a few "wounded". What does "wounded" mean? This page informs us of what that can mean.

While the page is run by the Royal British Legion and the photos are of British casualties in Afghanistan, the purpose of the page is general and applies to all casualties in Afghanistan whether British, Canadian, American, Afghan civilian, etc.

As the page states "We hear about the deaths of [...] service men and women on a far too regular basis in the media, but rarely do we hear about those who have been wounded. Some of the traumas suffered are truly horrific and life-changing. The loss of limbs is common place, as is the loss of muscle mass and the loss of sight. ... The 'Reality Page' is not an excuse to include some gorey photographs, it is here to show you the reality of the injuries being suffered by [...] service personnel on a daily basis."

These kinds of casualties in Afghanistan are very much a reality for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan too. We should not try to whitewash reality from this public domain encyclopedia article. This external link is extremely relevant to this page, Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan.

Hope this answers your question. 70.50.8.68 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the colon tip - it DOES make reading easier.

Re: "I tend to subscribe to the principle of inclusionism, meaning that I think it's better to err on the side of having more information, links, and different perspectives than less (deletionism)" agreed - the more verifiable information, the merrier. This is also my rationale behind posting primary source material like government statements (even Taliban statements, for that matter).

Re: "personal hobby pages very clearly do not qualify as legitimate sources or for external links," I present my page as no more than a human-screened news aggregator, with the only generated content being media summaries compiling publicly-available information (clearly identified and presented as such). Also, since The Reality Page appears to be developed by an individual who supports the Royal British Legion and its work for the injured (as opposed to the Legion itself running the page), why do you consider this a reasonable resource to include as a (clearly) external one, but my page very clearly not a legitimate source? Not entirely clear on this distinction...

Re: the Reality Page, thanks for the detailed explanation - maybe a short description in brackets might highlight its significance on a Canadian casualty page, as I did with the Virtual War Memorial might make sense to help a first-time reader get the rationale?

Thanks!

Milnews.ca (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Milnews.ca (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Milnews.ca,

The Reality Page does not purport to be a news site the way yours does. It does not present a particular point of view, just a simple reality. Its purpose is quite clearly stated and focused, and the external link is to that single page directly and specifically.

Quoting the opening paragraph from Wikipedia:External links:

"Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

The Reality Page falls under "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

It also falls under Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered statement "4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article".

Your personal Milnews.ca site, on the other hand, has multiple explicitly-stated proscriptions going against it:

Your personal hobby page that you describe as a "human-screened news aggregator" is screened by you. You choose what stories are shown or not.

That is definitely not neutral. That's Strike 1.

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states: "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming."

That seems to be a significant part of what you're doing here. Many of your contributions are to link to your website. There's at least 37 instances of Milnews.ca and milnewstbay.pbwiki.com on Wikipedia. All of these links to your website from Wikipedia must help boost your site's search ranking in Google, as well as increase viewership. In fact, even your user name is clearly designed to promote your website. That's Strike 2.

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states: "9. Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds."

Yours is an individual website news aggregator. That's Strike 3.

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states: "11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited ...)"

Your personal hobby page, wiki, blog, ezine, newsletter is just that, and, no disrepect, you are not a recognized authority. That's strike 4.

Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states: "12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

Your site is a public wiki on pbwiki.com. You might argue that your personal wiki has a history of stability, but a substantial number of editors? Strike 5.

Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest under Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states: "there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites."

This is what you are doing. A look at the External links section of this article's page and others shows that you are advertising and promoting your personal site. You always make sure to include your promotional tag line "Open source media analysis, MILNEWS.ca - Military News for Canadians", with Milnews.ca in caps to draw more attention. Strike 6.

Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest under Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided further states: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."

Again that is precisely what you are doing. Strike 7.

As if that's not enough, Wikipedia:External_links#Redirection_sites states: "URL redirection sites are not to be used. Examples of these sites include tinyurl.com and tiny.cc."

You redirect the official-sounding Milnews.ca to milnewstbay.pbwiki.com. Strike 8.

There's probably lots more, but I think the above already gives you many distinctions. 70.50.8.68 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. In no particular order...

Re: "Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states: "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming."," all I can say is that I'm NOT promoting Google-ability by sharing information from my page. Like others contributing to the site, I share information I think it makes sense for readers to know about - full stop.

Regarding "You always make sure to include your promotional tag line "Open source media analysis, MILNEWS.ca - Military News for Canadians", with Milnews.ca in caps to draw more attention," you presume a lot re: my choice of capitalization and the motivation behind it - it's the name of the page, full stop.

As for "Your personal hobby page that you describe as a "human-screened news aggregator" is screened by you. You choose what stories are shown or not. That is definitely not neutral," does that mean every external link I can find on Wikipedia is neutral? I note the Reality Page, which can hardly be considered neutral (considering its aim to draw support and attention to what most would consider a worthy cause - helping the wounded), has only selected information chosen by one individual (who, as far as I can tell, is not a "recognized authority"), and is not "stable" in that the site is expected to be offline by the end of 2009.

Re: "Your site is a public wiki on pbwiki.com. You might argue that your personal wiki has a history of stability, but a substantial number of editors?" You've agreed above that the page is a one-person operation, and here you say that there's a history of stability, and now you're claiming "a substantial number of editors"?

Regarding "Wikipedia:External_links#Redirection_sites states: "URL redirection sites are not to be used. Examples of these sites include tinyurl.com and tiny.cc."," I know about this rule, and I noted early on that such links aren't allowed here.

As for re-direction, the NAME of the page is the name, NOT the url, nor do the links themselves show anything BUT the base URL of my page. I mention the site name in the references to the open media summaries for attribution purposes alone.

Regarding "Your personal hobby page, wiki, blog, ezine, newsletter is just that, and, no disrepect, you are not a recognized authority," I note the same objections can be raised re: the Reality Page link, and I note it remains in place.

Re: "Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest under Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided further states: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."" I've shared my side of this, and I stand by my stated intent.

Milnews.ca (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states: "4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming."," all I can say is that I'm NOT promoting Google-ability by sharing information from my page. Like others contributing to the site, I share information I think it makes sense for readers to know about - full stop.

If your intention is to share information with Wikipedia readers, why don't you just add the information directly to Wikipedia? If you're able to add information to your personal wiki, you're able to easily add it here as Wikipedia content. Instead, you add the information to your own personal wiki and try to redirect Wikipedia readers to your site through dozens of links. That's external link spamming.

As for "Your personal hobby page that you describe as a "human-screened news aggregator" is screened by you. You choose what stories are shown or not. That is definitely not neutral," does that mean every external link I can find on Wikipedia is neutral?

Weak argument to try to deflect from your self-admitted non-neutral site.

and is not "stable" in that the site is expected to be offline by the end of 2009.

You're obfuscating there, the stability factor was for Links to Avoid "12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." That site is not a wiki. Yours is.

Re: "Your site is a public wiki on pbwiki.com. You might argue that your personal wiki has a history of stability, but a substantial number of editors?" You've agreed above that the page is a one-person operation, and here you say that there's a history of stability, and now you're claiming "a substantial number of editors"?

You seem to have misread quite a few things there. I wrote "your site is a public wiki on pbwiki.com.". I did not say that your site has a history of stability, but that that might be something you would try to claim. I did not claim that any site has a substantial number of editors, but expressed doubt that your personal hobby page wiki has a substantial number of editors.

You keep trying to shift the attention and deflect the matter, but the fact is your dozens of links from here to your site clearly contravenes so many Wikipedia proscriptions. You should be converting all the links you've added toward your personal wiki into actual content here on Wikipedia. Simple copy and paste. If your wiki content is neutral and well-sourced then it should be straightforward and you should not run into any significant problems when you transfer the content here. But as things stand now, your plethora of links on Wikipedia to your personal Milnews.ca / milstbay.pbwiki.com site constitute external link spamming and self-promotion. 76.69.228.157 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You mention "dozens of links" and "plethora of links" - I count 18 mentions in "2,675,504 articles in English," all as external links offered as another resource.

Re: "you add the information to your own personal wiki and try to redirect Wikipedia readers to your site through dozens of links," While I've offered material in External Links in a "here's another resource" spirit, I don't recall any links to information in the body of articles linking back to my page as a footnote.

I do insert content (information, with links to original sources, primary or secondary), but I'm either questioned on it ("Do you possibly work for the Canadian military or DND? Also, is the website milnews.ca associated with the Canadian military or DND?") or have it removed (recent Taliban statements claiming responsibility for attacks).

If one single-contributor-produced site from what some consider here as non-experts containing material pertinent to the main topic (The Reality Page) can be included, there is a case for another with the same characteristics.

Milnews.ca (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Milnews.ca (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You claim there are only 18 "mentions".

A search for "milnewstbay.pbwiki.com" returns 19 pages and a search for "milnews.ca" returns 18 pages. On that basis I wrote "There's at least 37 instances of Milnews.ca and milnewstbay.pbwiki.com on Wikipedia".

Looking more closely, within those 19 different pages you have at least 24 links to your personal site. So you have, in fact, actually added "dozens of links" from Wikipedia to your personal site. Even if it were 18, and not your 24 links, adding 18 links on Wikipedia to your own personal site is still a plethora.

You claim they were all added as external links but that too is a false statement. There are at least 7 instances where you use your own personal site as a reference source.

"... there is a case for another with the same characteristics."

This is getting repetitive. I've pointed out in detail that your case does not have the same characteristics.

You keep trying to use the Reality Page to stall and justify your external link spamming. As was already explained above, the Reality Page, by its very nature, has "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." That simply isn't the case with your links.

You should be converting the dozens of links to your personal wiki into actual content on Wikipedia. Where the content already exists on Wikipedia, then your links are redundant and should be removed. 76.68.249.195 (talk) 10:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Article about number of wounded soldiers

[4] I just wanted to note this CBC article about the number of soldiers wounded in Afghanistan incase we decide to include some info about the wounded. Does anyone know of any other sources? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some pages about a few individuals, such as this one, as well as some prominent recent (last couple of months) coverage of someone else who suffered a pretty significant brain injury. A few names can also be gleaned from a page devoted to a program rehabilitating injured soldiers towards participating in sports. Much of the material though, given the restrictions on official release of information about the injured, comes from media coverage of people who agree to speak of their experiences, such as here, here, here, and here.

Milnews.ca (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Breaking up Table for manageability?

I just thought I would bring up the issue of the large size of the casualty table. I am wondering if it would make sense to break it up into pieces, perhaps a table per year. This would decrease the amount of data being POSTed each time we modify the table. Anyway, I certainly have no problem with the current setup, but I am willing to make the change if many people are interested. andrewpullin (talk) 14:00, 04 March 2009 (UTC)

I much prefer keeping the article as a single page, and would strongly oppose breaking it apart into pieces.

Breaking it up doesn't really make it any easier to manage. Adding an entry at the end of a yearly table would not be any simpler than adding an entry to this table. If anything, it makes it less manageable because you end up with more links, more intros, more subsections, more summaries, and more redundancies. Then if you want to change the format, you have to go and do it on several different pages. If you want to add an external link, you have to go and do it on several pages. If you want to add a new year, you have to go and do it on several pages. Keep it simple with one page.

The amount of data being posted when we update the page is insignificant. It's all text, no images. And the page isn't even edited very often. The amount of data transferred when a typical user visits a typical web page (hotmail, yahoo, google, newspaper sites) is going to be much higher with most sites having some images, javascript, and/or flash. Then there's the amount of data transferred when your typical user visits their blog or facebook page or myspace page or youtube. The little bit of text on this page is really next to nothing in terms of data transfer. 70.24.196.254 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally find a broken up table much simpler to edit. Usually when I update the table, I look for an old incident with the same number of casualties to cut-and-paste then I plug in the new data. Having the article broken up would make finding the old incident much easier within the edit page for me. I don't think we're talking about a new page for each year, just a subsection for each. I don't feel too strongly either way, but breaking the table up by years would help me out. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Breaking it up by year is a good idea. --Padraic 12:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

From reading Mike's comment, I guess I mistakenly took breaking up the table to mean breaking up the page. However, I still think that breaking it up into 4 or 8 separate tables within one page does not make it any more easily managed. It means replicating column headers and adding section headers, meaning the size of the page will grow by quite a bit, both in bytes and in actual page length (with the spacing and headers that will have to be added between sections). That kind of lengthening could make it more likely for some to call for it to be broken up into separate pages or even for the deletion of the entire page ... And if you want to change the formatting at some point you have to do it for each table. It also means creating a new table every year.

Mike, I also look for a previous incident to copy-and-paste when updating the table, and perhaps this might help: by clicking in the edit box and doing ctrl-F to search for a soldier's name, you can easily get to a section you had identified (ctrl-F on Windows, but I'm sure all other platforms have an equivalent). That might help not just for editing this table but also any yearly tables and other Wikipedia articles. Google toolbar also has great word highlighting/searching functionality that makes it even simpler.

74.12.221.91 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for talking about this idea and implementing it! I should have clarified that I wanted to break it up into separate tables (with corresponding headings) rather than separate pages. Great job to those of you who undertook the modification. andrewpullin (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

References column removed?

I noticed that the references column was removed. Wasn't it preferable with it? Now it's more work to add new entries, and the page is that much longer with a big references section. 74.12.223.61 (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it was preferable at all, and it ran counter to Wiki formatting guidelines. The table now has more room for information proper, and the citations are all formatted using the appropriate templates. I don't believe laziness is any excuse for doing otherwise. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No need for implying laziness, this page is supposed to be about respectful discussion between contributing editors and reaching consensus. By the way, in your revert comment you also wrote "sloppy date formatting" - If you look at the Wikipedia style guide, it is actually one of the styles of date formatting that is prescribed. There are other editors here and there is no need to be disrespectful to those that don't do things exactly your way.

70.50.9.134 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of where I implied laziness; rather, it seems that "now it's more work to add new entries" did; and it would only be a disrespectful comment if one took it personally, which was nowhere near its intent. Further, dates are to be consistent within an article, a guideline that I didn't make up - ie. it's not "my way" - and one which a recent edit breached. It is clearly a concern for you that the article is properly maintained, and one which I share; we will surely then be careful to keep the page correctly and consistently formatted. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the references kept where they were. I'd also suggest that maybe they should be put back until a consensus can be reached. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, embedded citations are allowed, though frowned upon. Given that, plus the facts that the embedded citiations must still be within the text, and a full list of formatted references is still required at the foot of the page, the question is begged: what's the benefit? --Miesianiacal (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As was raised with the initial comment, it cuts down on the amount of work needed to update the table with each new fatality. It also has the added benefit of reducing the size of the now gigantic references section and shortening the page significantly. finally, as you say, embedded citations are allowed. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid, though, that it won't do any of those things; if we adhere to WP:ECITE, full reference details will still have to be spelled out in the references section, meaning both the amount of work and the size of the references section remain exactly the same. In fact, the only achievements that come with returning to the previous appearance are numerous links needlessly duplicated numerous times, and space in the table lost to an additional but unnecessary column.

There's really no need to shorten the references section, anyway. Article size is judged by bytes, not by lines, and, at 62kb, this page is well within the recommended limit. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to stick around and maintain this article? Because you're making more work for those of us who are. You can cite all the guidelines you want, but in the end they're just guidelines, Not rules. And this guideline makes updating the list more complicated. Your enthusiasm since discovering this article a few days ago is appreciated. But your unilateral decision to change the citation style, and in the process making a bunch more work for those of us who have been maintaining this article for quite some time, is not. I'd go ahead and revert this, but I can't even begin to understand what you've done to the rest of the table. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the column itself, but I will say I like seeing the references formatted with all the proper metadata. --Padraic 11:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I'm not sure how "complicated" it is; someone added (sadly) a new entry just yesterday, and did it perfectly; if one just follows the template, it's really not that hard. Please don't make it sound as though I'm some draconian overlord who has imposed his citation templates on a downtrodden majority; I was perfectly within my rights to make the changes I did. You are also free to object. However, as I see it, you have two options: state why the embedded citation format would be an improvement over what's there now, or argue why this page should be uniquely exempt from any and all Wikipedia footnote guidelines. So far, all I read is a complaint that adhering to policy is "too much work"; I certainly can't make predictions, but I have my doubts about how that would hold up with the Wiki community. And, on that note, an added point to consider is why so few people are participating in this discussion. Regardless, yes, I do have this page on my watchlist. Hopefully, though, we won't have to add to the table too often, anyway. --Miesianiacal (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC) PS - I've left a note at WT:CITE#Citations in tables asking if someone with more expertise can address the separate footnote column issue. --Miesianiacal (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference list continued

Something needs to be done about this huge reference list, because the size is out of hand. This article was doing just fine before the reformat took references out of the table and buried the external links and topic navigation template under a hundred-entry long list. So, until there's some other solution, I've moved the external links and nav template above the references. Yes, this is not what's spelled out in WP:MOS guidelines, but with an excessively long list of references as we have here, I think there is grounds for an exception. If the reference list can be made collapsable, then I'd be open to putting it back in the order spelled out in MOS, but if not, I hope Miesianiacal can compromise on the policy wanking for once since he's arrived here. Quite frankly, I think the length of this reference list gives us grounds to go back to the old style citations, which didn't add much length to the article and were much simpler to add...Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You were asked last time for a reason why this article should, out of tens of thousands of others, be exempt from WP:MOS guidelines. I understand that long references sections are frustrating - I have to deal with them elsewhere. I note you asked already about collapsing reference lists, but were told why that isn't acceptable; so, I appreciate that you're making an effort to remedy the situation. But, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to vary from the policies; and WP:MOS is not one to take lightly, whether you consider that "policy wanking" or not (and that reminds me to remind you to comment on the content, not the contibutor). --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why ask me to produce a reason if your just going to disregard it? Wikipedia:Consensus is also a policy not to be taken lightly, but you've had no problems coming here and making unilateral decisions on the formatting of this article while disregarding the concerns of other editors. This isn't a deletion discussion or a conflict over content, so I don't really see what taking WP:IDONTLIKEIT out of context has to do with the topic at hand. What solution to this issue do you propose if the ideas above are not acceptable to you? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask again because you have not yet produced an answer. As already noted WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to ignore policy; and that's what it is: "despite policy, consitency for users, and thousands of precedents, this page should be different because I don't like long reference sections coming before external links." I also thought I was sufficiently clear in saying that if you want to ignore the policy, you should seek a consensus to do so - that's what I meant by "please discuss this first." So far, the only editors expressing concerns with the proper formatting is, well... you. What solutions have I to offer? Within the bounds, none but to start of an effort to change the Manual of Style. Have you raised this matter there yet? Perhaps those who wrote and/or maintain the MoS will have a wider knowledge of this than I. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason, as I've already spelled out above: The excessively long list of references buries the external links and the topic navigation template at the end of the article. It's not that I don't like it, Its that obscuring links to related external pages and wikipedia pages serves to make that information less accessible, kind of the opposite of what Wikipedia is all about. What exactly would the detriment to wikipedia be if this article strayed slightly from the MOS guidelines to correct this problem? What exactly would the detriment to this article be if an exception was made here? Also, consider reading Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, because the practice is really condescending. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your claims were noted, and addressed. As you're turning this into a personal matter, perhaps it should be taken to a wider arena for other input. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon for butting in. Do you not consider references to be more important than external links? They have a higher priority and should be placed directly after the content they're referencing. And, It's not hard for readers to scroll down to the very bottom or simply click on TOC to see the external links. Moving them closer to the middle of the page only obscures them even more. The best thing to do to shorten the reference list would be to increase the number of columns to 3. -- œ^™ 07:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, here's an idea: I can embed inside the table the references for that table's entry; similar to the original format, but using properly formatted and readable references (as opposed to just numbered links). Something like this:

2003

	Name	Rank	Hometown	Age	Spouse	Children	Unit	Date	Circumstance
5.	Robert Alan Short	Sergeant	Fredericton, New Brunswick	42	wife	1 son, 1 daughter	3 RCR	2 October	Land mine incident along a road regularly used by Canadian patrols leaving Camp Julien. The mines were believed to have been placed along the road two hours before the patrol. Three other Canadians wounded.
6.	Robbie Christopher Beerenfenger	Corporal	Ottawa, Ontario	29	wife	1 daughter, 2 sons
Refs

2004

	Name	Rank	Hometown	Age	Spouse	Children	Unit	Date	Circumstance
7.	Jamie Brendan Murphy	Corporal	Conception Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador	26	common-law wife	-	1 RCR	27 January	Victim of a suicide bombing while on patrol near Camp Julien in a Iltis jeep. Three other Canadians wounded.
Refs

Note that I can do this without duplicating links, as was the case back in the beginning. This is, however, a completely new system, as far as I know. So, it may have accessibility issues, or some such thing. I'd prefer if others vetted it before employing it in the article. --Miesianiacal (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

looks good, run with it. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm dropping in here following on the mention of this at WP:Layout#Requesting assistance. I see a problem with this in that it presumes that no Refs have previously been stacked (that will not be the case in this article). One solution to this would be to use optional the group= parameter on the Refs perhaps in this case using the applicable year as the group ID (e.g., <ref group=2003>...</ref>). See WP:REFNOTE for more info. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I can certainly add group parameters. I also assume that given you've only the one concern, the propsal is otherwise acceptable...? In terms of not violating any policies or whatnot. --Miesianiacal (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen on this idea. It will produce a long list of references at the end of each table. Besides losing even more coherence, this will also make it easier for others to argue for the tables to be split off into separate articles. My preference as a long-time editor of this page is for a return to the way we had it before this disruptive change. A column on the right edge of the table made references easy to add and easy for the reader to follow and verify sources.

70.49.120.247 (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that with this proposal, instead of having 3 or 4 pages of references at the end of the page, we'll have 3 or 4 page-long sections of references within the article. By the way, editor oe above seemed to prefer adding a column too and wrote that references "should be placed directly after the content they're referencing".

70.49.120.247 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What 3 or 4 pages? I'm not in love with the above proposal either; I was merely trying to accomodate people's concerns wile still adhering to guidelines, which, by the way, do not permit unnamed references to be used (i.e. this: [5] is not an acceptable replacement for this: Canwest News Service (20 March 2009), "Timeline: Canadian deaths in Afghanistan", Vancouver Sun, retrieved 9 April 2009). So, no matter how you go about it, long lists of refs will be an uavoidable reality. --Miesianiacal (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Memorializing and trivia

What does run counter to Wiki guidelines is memorializing 4 deaths and including trivia.

Wikipedia is not a site for memorializing (WP:NOT#MEMORIAL). A very similar article, WP:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, was recently nominated for deletion on the basis of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL.

Wikipedia is also not for trivia (WP:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup). Eg. the trivia fact that the Skyreach Centre was filled to capacity, the trivia fact that the souvenir programme was 28-pages, the trivia fact that the Mayor of Edmonton was there, the trivia fact that there was a mention made by the Queen, the trivia fact that some highway was renamed, etc.

That trivia accounts for fully half of the "Specifics" section and one-third of all the text outside of the actual tables. That is completely out of proportion.

70.50.9.134 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're a little misguided in your interpretation of what is trivia. Perhaps the length of the programme is somewhat trivial, but the other information is not: it all adds up to illustrate how deceased Canadian soldiers have been memorialised: from the largest single commemoration for individual soldiers in Canadian military history (obviously not trivia) morphing to more general yet still official recognitions. As the information has been long-standing, and your removal of it was reverted, per WP:BRD you should be discussing the matter here without also repeatedly reverting the revert. --Miesianiacal (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ditto Miesianiacal's comment. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Concur that much of this is NOT trivia. "Some highway" is Highway 401 and EVERY fatality travels that highway on repatriation. Thousands of people line the hwy and overpasses every time. Traffic is blocked from the left lane as the procession and escort pass. Highway of Heroes on Youtube and US News article on Highway of Heroes This is now a piece of Canadian culture. It's also mentioned on the Hwy 401 page, and if there's a page for the hwy itself, then surely it's worth mentioning here. The number of pages in the souvenir and the attendance of memorials illustrates the impact to and respect by Canadians. I would say that 16,000 attendees outvote you. Titaniumlegs (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Expansion?

First, thanks to everyone that has continued to keep this table updated. When I first created it in 2006, the number of dead was much lower. I think it's very important that we keep this page up. Second, I think this page most certainly needs expansion. I haven't been around editing Wikipedia lately do to RL, but I would like to take part in expanding this page. Primarily, I believe we need to talk more about non-fatality casualties. "In war there are non unwounded soldiers." -b (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of sections up there's a bit more on this idea. I think one of the main hurdles will be references. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that maybe a brief summery for each year might be a good idea now that the table is broken up. Something similar to the break-down of causes for the fatalities as we have in the opening paragraph, and maybe braking down the casualties by the different combat operations if that info is to be had. An explanation for the huge jump in casualties between 2005-2006 (ie the move from Kabul to Kandahar) would be beneficial too. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Scope

With the addition of another person to this list today, the question popped into my head: as this page is about casualties in Afghanistan, do deaths caused by non-combat factors qualify for inclusion? My understanding of the word "casualty" is that it refers to a person killed as a result of a specific mission, whereas death by natural causes, murder, or accident, while possibly occuring during a mission or in the region where a mission is taking place, are not actually caused by said mission, and therefore not casualties. Am I incorrect in this reading? Should we change the title of the page? Or, should we pare down the list accordingly? --Miesianiacal (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, the list is of fatalities, and not casualties (although the title does not reflect it so), and therefore all fatalities being included is okay. Until the page starts to balloon out of control, which is unlikely, considering the committed pullout in two years, the current format should be fine.Annihilatron (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualty (person) may provide some insight on the subject. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the scope of this page should be reduced. If a murder or accident took place during the mission, who are we to judge whether the murder or accident was "caused by said mission" or not? If the soldier was killed because they were playing a game of quickdraw in their shared tent out of boredom, who's to rule that this had nothing to do with the mission? If someone commits suicide shortly after they arrive, who's to rule that this had nothing to do with the stress of the mission? Making those arbitrary and impossible decisions about what to include or not is what is beyond the scope of this article and Wikipedia. 70.49.120.247 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The recent removal of years from the Date column

I prefer having the year included in the date column the way we had it before. That way a reader can see at a glance when a given casualty occurred without having to scroll back up to the top of the table to see which year it occurred in. Perhaps for users with extra large screens this might be less of a problem, but I have a modest-sized screen and more and more people are also accessing Wikipedia through laptops, netbooks, tablet PC's, PDA's, iPhones, cellphones, and other devices with modest screen sizes.

Restoring the year in the date doesn't change the width of the column or change the dimensions of the tables at all (as can be seen in this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan&oldid=282284333)

Do other editors here have a preference on this? 76.68.250.162 (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion we leave the date out (ie, keep it the way it is as of July 7, 2009). However, I won't kick up a fuss if a majority want to change it. andrewpullin (talk) 18:33, 07 July 2009 (UTC)

It was I who recently removed years from the date columns. It was only from the last two sections, however; previously, those two sections had years while all the others did not. I made the last two sections conform with the preceeding ones as it seemed redundant to have the year in every box when it's already clear in what year the event took place. -- П MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't mention it, but it was also you that removed the years from those other sections less than 3 months ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan&diff=282739966&oldid=282736388). I'm only pointing this out so that others don't mistake what you said about conforming to the other sections as a reason in favour of having dates that don't show the year ... From the original version of this page in 2006 until 3 months ago, the dates were always shown with the year included. My preference, for the reasons I gave above, is a return to that. Note that for the tables for the years 2002-2005, it's not as much of an issue because the tables are only 1 to 4 rows long. But for the tables in 2006-2009, the tables are 3 or 4 pages (screens) long, so having complete dates with the year greatly improves readability. 76.69.229.54 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. So it was. Sorry, must be Alzheimer's dise... What was I saying again? Well, I still think the years in the tables are redundant given that the tables are already divided by year; it's not terribly difficult for a reader to scroll back up a few centimeters to see the year in the header, should they have Alzheimer's as well and forget six rows in. But, if someone wants to put all the years back, so be it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Years in the date should be restored. As others have said, it makes the page more readable for the longer tables and doesn't negatively affect the formating.J Costello (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the years should be restored. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sébastien Courcy

CTV reports that while Private Sébastien Courcy from a fall during a "Counterinsurgency mission", it also says "It is not clear whether Courcy was involved in a firefight at the time." DND says he was "killed in action", although I'm not sure what the Canadian DND's definition of KIA encompasses. So, for the time being, i'm going to move him over to the 'accidents and non-combat causes' total. My question is: If he did in fact die from a fall while under fire, would he go back to the 'hostile circumstances' total? I ask because falls, and friendly fire (which often happens under hostile circumstances, but also from accidental discharges and F-16s dropping bombs on training exercises) are both counted under 'accidents and non-hostile circumstances'. I'd tend towards the opinion that for simplicity, the hostile circumstances includes things like enemy fire, IEDs, land mines, etc. while the 'accidental and non hostile' catches other causes of death. Thoughts? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Would have appreciated if you had asked for thoughts before changing things (and on more than one page too) ... Anyway - better after than never. As you noted, DND itself says he was "killed in action". That to me means hostile circumstances, as does occupying "high ground" at 6:00 am while conducting counter-insurgency operations. Finally, the reference I had added to the page, that you simply removed for some reason, clearly states that "A Canadian soldier was killed in fighting".[6] For all of those reasons I placed his death under "hostile circumstances". The benefit of the doubt should go with the weight of the evidence. When you're occupying high ground at 6:00 am while conducting operations against insurgents in Afghanistan, and DND says you're "in action", I'd say you're in hostile circumstances. Imo ...

76.68.250.97 (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, here's another article that states: "Pte. Sebastien Courcy, 26, a soldier in the Valcartier-based 2nd Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment, died in a rare firefight between Canadian troops and the Taliban, when he fell from “a piece of high ground,” according to Brig.-Gen Jon Vance ..." [7] I'm inclined to change things back right now based on that, but I'll wait for consensus ...

76.68.250.97 (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Naw, go for it, I missed that in the google article. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok 76.69.229.113 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Now it's reported that the fall was the result of a blast from a landmine or IED. should we just count this under that total? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Overview Paragraph Update

I recently added a header for the Overview paragraph so that it was easy to "edit" that section without waiting for the entire page to load. It is not quite as nice having the Table of Contents above it, but given that it is updated with every casualty, it seemed silly to not make the change. However, we may want to put some introductory information above the ToC, things that will not need to be updated.

Question:

For another update, I was thinking we should use bullets to organize the sentences that break down the number of combat / non-combat casualties and their respective types. This will make it easier to update and will also make it easier for anyone doing research/presentations to find that information. What do people think about that idea? andrewpullin (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ive no issue with your first suggestion (that is, making a new lead before the Overview section); however, the second one sounds like it would result in unencyclopædic writing. I believe there's a guideline somewhere that discourages bullets in prose sections. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that it should be removed from the prose' if you will. This type of information is very statistical in nature and I think it being in the overview as part of the prose is not the best way to present it. andrewpullin (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. What, then, if the Overview section returned to being the lead, only minus the statistical info, which could be put in a new table? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Should I sandbox it and ask for feedback or do you think this will go over okay with everyone? I do make a number of contributions to this page but I am not all that active in the discussions... andrewpullin (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll start it, and you and others can alter or change whatever I didn't get right. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Okay, I made the chart. However, I think the lead is now too short, per WP:LEAD. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• while we're talking about stats and tables, is it possible to add a yearly total to the end of the table for each year? I was trying to figure something out, but i didn't get anywhere. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking of adding a table for the stats per year. I'll put something up quickly. 76.68.248.218 (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I had to revert that, as I had just finished adding the totals to each year. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, that was brutally fast. I personally think it would be better to have a separate table of "Fatalities by year" that gathers the information in one place. It would complement the table "Fatalities by cause". What are the preferences of other editors? 76.68.248.218 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I had only just finished adding totals to the other tables before you put up your new one. Personally, I think there are enough tables as it is; another one solely for yearly totals seems unnecessary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we make a table about the tables in this article?Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I envision one that will outline the proliferation of tables in this article month-by-month, but also sortable according to the geographical location of the contributors that added them. Thoughts? Geoff NoNick (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Could you put that in the form of a table, please? ;) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Costall

When looking at the first chart of fatalities, all six friendly-fire incidents are listed as non-hostile. However in the case of pte. Robert Costall his circumstance is listed as having died while fighting in combat. So shouldn’t the friendly-fire be listed as 1 hostile and 5 non-hostile instead? —jfry3 (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Another "friendly fire" death, Mark Anthony Graham's, also occurred "when soldiers trying to seize a Taliban stronghold along the Arghandab River requested air support"[8] during Operation Medusa. That sounds like combat or hostile circumstances too. We should perhaps place those two friendly-fire incidents under hostile circumstances? Another way to resolve this might be to change "Hostile/Non-hostile circumstances" to "Enemy/Non-enemy action". (Another categorization issue is that Sebastien Courcy's death is shown as an "Accidental fall" but it turns out his fall was caused by stepping on either "a freshly planted IED or an old landmine".[9] Perhaps his death should be placed under "Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) or land mines".) I'll make these changes for now, and if further discussion calls for it, we can adjust. 76.68.251.151 (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)