Talk:Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan/Archive 2

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".[1] 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 ..." [2] 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"[3] 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".[4] 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)

I support that... Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

french abbreviation for 5 CER?

Does anyone know what the proper abbreviation for 5 Combat Engineer Regiment/5^e Régiment du genie de combat would be? Would it be 5^e RGC? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes the abbreviation is 5 RGC No one in the armed forces refers to them as 5 CER. It might even be considered an insult.--MBizon (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unspecified causes of deaths

Does any one know if the CODs for Jérémie Ouellet (11 March 2008) and Brendan Anthony Downey (4 July 2008) were ever released? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that both were found dead in their bunk, and (in entirely unsubstantiated link) Flashpoint followed it up with a show about a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan who commits suicide and whether he should count as a true "fallen warrior"...plus the general reticence of law enforcement to confirm suicide to the media...I'd chalk them down as likely suicides. (though that doesn't belong in the article, since unverified) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada's 139th Casualty (Sergeant John Wayne Faught, 1 PPCLI)

I have updated the Wiki to add Sgt. John W. Faught, with that I have created the "2010" section and updated the statistics at the top of the page (Deaths by Rank and Death by Type of Death). With this I also updated the "Death by Rank" section to lowest rank to highest and updated the links to ensure it points to the correct wiki. Medic48 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada's 142nd Casualty (Private Tyler William Todd, 1 PPCLI)

I have updated the Wiki to add Pte. Tyler W. Todd, with that I have updated the Private to 28 and Killed by IEDs to 86. Medic48 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Col. Geoff Parker and Fatalities by Rank Table

I have entered in Col. Geoff Parker as our 145 casualty. I also replaced the Fatalities by Rank summary from the specifics section with a table in the statistics section to make it more visually useful. I made a handful of other changes to complement my principle modifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.34.23 (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Major Mendes suicide?

The references for claiming Major Mendes committed suicide are weak. One is an opinion piece which implies but does not state that she committed suicide, the other is a one-line statement in a newspaper, with nothing to support it. As far as I'm aware there has never been an official finding on Major Mendes' death. In the absence of anything more solid, could we list it as a possible suicide rather than an established fact? Madgenberyl (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the CF Provost Marshal has concluded Maj Mendes death was a suicide. I'll see if I can replace the source with a better one. — CharlieEchoTango — 00:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Done; source is Canadian Press. Best, — CharlieEchoTango — 00:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)