Talk:Matty Hull

Unlawful Determination

While the UK coroner made an unlawful determination, this is not a universally accepted fact. I've slightly modified the opening to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.71.67 (talk) 14:21, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. It's a valid legal judgment concerning a matter within the jurisdiction of the legal system under which it was made. Nick Cooper 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the revert. The edit was correct--a contentious issue should not be stated as a bald fact. The fact one side of the dispute is asserted to be true is not NPOV. In addition, the jurisdiction of the coroner is in question (thus the dispute with the US).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.71.67 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 August 2007

I agree that the edit by 204.65.71.67 is more neutral. He/she didn't delete any information, just presented it more neutrally. Cla68 02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The soldiers were British, therefore their deaths fall within the jurisdiction of a British coroner. This has been British law for decades - it's not something introduced just for the military and/or recently. E.g. 31/01/06, 16/12/05, 16/06/05, 22/02/05, 10/12/02, 05/04/01, etc. Nick Cooper 08:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Whilst the related fratricide incident and the management of information release by the UK and US authorities is taking up a lot of column inches at the moment, I'm really not convinced that L/CoH Hull himself meets the notability requirements. Clearly this issue can be dealt with by re-titling the article and focusing on the fratricide, rather than the individual. Lets face it, the GC recipient is more notable than the subject at the moment.ALR 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the notability criteria do allow for this article. Matty Hull is currently the topic of major news in most UK newspapers, and his story will have lasting repurcussions (if only that he is brought up again when next the US military kills a supposed 'friendly'). — Gareth Hughes 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right I forgot. There has never been an incident of "friendly fire" in the history of the British forces. The view must be great from that high horse.--Looper5920 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He's right, the print media, in particular the Stun will rake over the coals on this one for years every time there is another fratricide incident. That doesn't mean the debate shouldn't be had, these things happen too often (hel I've been fired on by USMC myself).ALR 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the notability criteria, and tbh come next week he probably won't be, they'll have moved on to which soap star is bagging off which other soap star. It'll get dug up again for a couple of days come the actual judgement and that'll be about it. The story is the fratricide, not the individual. I know that'll sound pretty callous and most people will react negatively because of that, but such is life.ALR 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles on small-town schools, and all sort of stuff that isn't really important unless you live five miles from it. Again, this article meets the criteria for notability, and no one is offering evidence to the contrary. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, so there's no harm keeping this here. I find Looper's comment unwarranted: this is just the latest of a number of such events, and I was pointing out that this article will again become relevant when something like it happens again. Probability, unfortunately, is that it will. — Gareth Hughes 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because there is a lot of other cruft that doesn't justify keeping more. I'm not a fan of the no harm in keeping argument because it's a clear indicator that there is little informational value as far as the individual who uses it is concerned.

Take up your issues with Looper directly.

As to becoming relevant again? I'd question that, fratricide happens frequently, near fratricide happens even more frequently and the media are largely unconcerned about it because it sells far more newsprint to focus on trivial pop culture.

ALR 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Easily meets the criteria of notability - as would articles for the soldier who won the GC, and the Coroner who investigation's has created a number of highly-media noted points of an encyclopedic interest: probably in context with the inquests he chaired. Just because its an edited story to an inner page in most of the USA, it's been number1 story in the UK and Europe for the last 24hrs, and will return when the inquiry resumes in March. Over here its a major diplomatic issue (can't remember the last time I saw the US diplomatic staff to the UK on every live UK news channel, plus Al Jazera's London office); over the pond its an embaresment when support for the war in Iraq is waining fast. Having written the base article yesterday, it was clear during construction that other articles were missing - I wrote the one on the Idaho Air National Guard, someone else wrote the 190th Fighter Squadron. Wikipedia certainly is not static, but if you want to write more before I or others get there, please feel free to do so. Rgds, - Trident13 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Easily meets the criteria of notability can you articulate why? All of your points appear to be arguments for a broader article on fratricide, and this incident in particular, not the individual. The only paper it headlines in today is the Stun who're still conducting their own witch-hunt.

I assume, since you're talking to me as if I'm a USian, that you haven't actually looked at my user page!

With respect to other articles, to be honest I thing you've got them a' about face. An article about the fratricide incident could refer to a number of subordinate articles, in that sense this article becomes little more than a stub.

ALR 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:Civility before writing such comments in future - you seem to want to take an aggresive attitude from what you have written here in responce to a number of editors, including Looper5920 who is the only non-Brit so far in this debate. You have dismissed a number of comments in this debate, and further not been specific on issues of POV - unless you can be non white-wash and more specific as required, then under wiki rules the POV tag can be presently removed. My comments stand - still meets notability; yes, there is a need for additional articles (why not write one rather than point error on the efforts of others?); and this story in light of the additional information today released in to the public domain and the resumption of the inquest in March still has far to run. I don't think personally we can say at present what the best way is on which to note this in wiki is - there are still far to many "what if's?" What is know is that Matty Hull is being searched highly in the search engines/being reported in the media - way beyond the more technical terms of Blue-on-Blue or fractiside - and is the person around which the wiki notability criteria are satisfied. Rgds, - Trident13 14:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you're offended by my approach, I've asked questions that you have thus far failed to answer with respect to notability.

However, in terms of process, I am quite happy to start tearing into the article to develop it appropriately and in the context of fratricide. I'm very conscious that this is a subject which many will approach from an emotional perspective, rather than a rational information management perspective, so any changes I'll make will likely be objected to as a result of that.

I am very conscious that when one takes the Queens shilling one anticipates the risk, that risk should not come from ones own side, but it does, frequently.

Yes I expect some rigour about military articles, and I'm not intending on apologising for that.

ALR 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Any article on a British friendly fire incident or the victims thereof can, and should, be written just like this one. It may seem unfair, but the U.S. will probably have more of these incidents than the UK because the U.S. military is bigger, more powerful, and usually takes the lead role in cooperative operations between the two countries. IMO, countries-other-than-the-U.S. understand that these types of accidents will happen. The real problem for them is their perception of how the U.S. appears to react to the incidents with what appears to be evasion, secrecy, and lack of accountability for the individuals involved, whether that is really true or not. An example of someone trying to do the right thing occurred with the Ehime Maru incident. The U.S. Navy captain involved had to wait until he was out of the Navy to go to Japan to apologize to the victim's families, because the U.S. Navy wouldn't allow him to do that while he was in the service. Cla68 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As above, that reads like an argument for an article aobut the fratricide incident, not one individual from the dozen or so affected.

ALR 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Where's the NPOV debate? An edit note is not sufficent to sustain an NPOV tag - you need to be more specific, and list issues on the talk page as the tag shows. I hope the editor who placed the tag will do this, or in line with wiki rules it can be removed. Rgds, - Trident13 22:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It reads like an obituary rather than an encycclopedia article, and it's tone is tabloidy.

The issue could be addressed by discussing the fratricide incident rather than the individual.

tbh my points above were in support of the tag, I used that rather than hitting it with a {{bd-bio}}

ALR 09:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue with NPOV, which I note you raise above, is that because the article is written from the perspective of one participant, who happens to have died as a result, then it carries an implicit POV. written from the perspective of the perceived victim, any discussion of the actions of the aircrew or the FAC involved in the incident is already loaded. It also promotes one victim in importance above the others; the wounded, the troop OC, the FAC and the aircrew themselves. It is possible to talk dispassionately about the incident and lead in to an identificaiton of the various participants where that ID can be assured.

ALR 18:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Spin-off article

I think we should probably spin-off an article related specifically to the incident itself. Here's some ideas for how it could be titled:

• 1. 190th Fighter Squadron friendly fire incident
• 2. Operation Telic friendly fire incident (March 28, 2003)
• 3. 2003 invasion of Iraq friendly fire incident (March 28, 2003)
• 4. A-10 friendly fire incident (March 28, 2003)
• 5. Matty Hull friendly fire incident
• 6. 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - March 28, 2003
• 7. United States Air Force friendly fire incident (March 28, 2003)

I've already heard one vote for #4 (on the talk page for 190th Fighter Squadron). I was leaning towards #1 or #2 but on reflection #4 does sound fairly neutral. Please add your own comments below. Cla68 06:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

4 is wildly ambiguous, as there were A-10 inflicted blue-on-blues on British forces in the first gulf war and on Candian forces in Afghanistan last year. 2, 3 & 7 are similarly unsuitable, as each could be taken to mean any number of other incidents. I would favour 6 (with the addition of the year) and draw in the material from Christopher Finney and 190th Fighter Squadron at the same time. Nick Cooper 08:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would favour either 2, with more amplifying detail about the specific fratricide that day, or 6 again with the addition of the date and a clarification that this involve US ANG assets as well.

Producing a parent article about the fratricide incident would allow most material from this article and the 190th Fighter wing article to be exported to that.

ALR 09:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll change my vote from the 190th page to #6 with the date added. I wouldn't go with the Op Telic b/c it was OIF for the 190th and it would just be an added hassle. While I agree this stuff needs to be spun off I will still say that in reality it shouldn't even rate an article. If blue on blue historically accounts for 10 - 12 % of casulties it would technically mean that every incident deserves its own page. It is almost as if we are trying to delude ourselves that these things never happened before or that the players involved meant to attack friendly forces. --Looper5920 09:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, for now, the topic deserves coverage. It's getting quite a lot of airtime predominantly around the fiasco with the HUD video and the corresponding audio track. Whether it has any longevity or not I don't know, personally I don't think it will but given the bleeding heart fraternity any effort to get it deleted won't achieve the objective. With that in mind the only real option is to try to make it as balanced as possible.

Given the absence of any other comment I'll create something and start migrating material.

ALR 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

With the amount of press it's currently getting, I think it is notable enough for its own article. I'll go ahead and adjust the 190th Fighter Squadron article to reflect the new article. I think if the U.S. had sent a representative to the British inquest and fully explained the U.S. Air Force's (USAF) investigation into the incident (revealing the pilot's names probably wouldn't have been necessary), discussed the USAF's conclusions and reasons for those conclusions, shown the video, and expressly apologized, this could have been a one-day story instead of the large issue that it has become. Cla68 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely this topic deserves coverage. Whether or not the bio does I'm not 100% sure. However while your contributions are welcome, you should try and tone down the rheoteric. As mentioned having read the arguments, I'm not convinced either way on the bio but I find your continual rheoteric is so annoying to me that if it were to come up to an AFD I would be tempted to vote no. I wouldn't actually do that of course and we all sometimes let our feelings out in talk pages (including me) but most of the time it just alienates people who might otherwise be able to work with you constructively. This isn't a personal attack, simply friendly advice. Nil Einne 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that this bio on Matty Hull probably isn't necessary, but the other two related articles probably are (the main incident article and the Gus Kohntopp article). As for the rest of what you say, I'm not sure if you're talking to me or not, but I'm not embarrassed at all to give some "rhetoric" on this topic. Here's some more: contrast the behavior by the U.S. Government personnel involved in this incident (including the two pilots) with Scott Waddle's actions after the Ehime Maru incident. In spite of unbelievably strenuous efforts by the U.S. Navy to prevent him from doing so, Waddle traveled to Japan at his own expense to personally apologize to the family members of the Ehime Maru crewmen killed in the accident, even though he felt that the accident wasn't entirely his fault. As far as I know, all that the Idaho Air National Guard (the unit that the two U.S. pilots involved belonged to) has done has been to send a letter to Matty Hull's widow. Somehow I think that Matty Hull's family would appreciate a little more effort at an apology and explanation from the U.S. personnel involved than just a piece of paper. Cla68 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rework

OK, in light of the concerns above I've created another article to discuss the fratricide incident and ported material over there. This article has, as a consequence, been significantly slimmed down. I have to admit that I'm struggling to turn the other article into something meaningful, I've realised that most of it is cut and paste from media reporting and doesn't really hang together as an article, key elements of information are missing. Unfortunately that's a consequence of using almost exclusively primary reportage sources.

With all that in mind I'm happy to remove the NPOV tag, for the moment. If someone reverts what I've done then it'll go back on again for the reasons outlined above.

ALR 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)