Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close for relisting . Procedural close--The article has been rewritten so drastically that most of the discussion is no longer relevant , suggest immediate relisting to deal with remaining issues more understandably DGG (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan[edit]

American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This nomination is further to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, where concerns have been raised that the article (which is a content fork of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan per this discussion here) is in violation of WP:OR, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The main contributor has posted that his intention is to give "the real number of all American soldiers killed as the result of the war in Afghanistan", and according to other editors the figures given cannot be sourced in the form they're presented in the article. I applaud the author's motivation and in no way wish to diminish the sacrifice of those individuals who have tragically lost their lives, but I don't believe Wikipedia is the right place for this. EyeSerenetalk 09:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per EyeSerene's excellent and very comprehensive nomination. The article is probably also a copyright violation as its content appears to have been lifted directly from http://icasualties.org/OEF/Afghanistan.aspx after filtering out the non-fatalities using the tool at the top of the page and leaving out some columns (according to Special:LongPages it's currently the 3rd longest article in Wikipedia, and obviously hasn't been researched or typed from scratch since it was created only nine days ago - note that icasualties.org claims copyright over its content and doesn't cite any sources [it may not even be a reliable source as it also doesn't provide any background about itself]). The article's creator (User:BobaFett85) has a history of using Wikipedia to advance their own theories on the numbers of casualties in recent wars (as is evident from the messages on their talk page), and this is another example. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepI will state this by the numbers:
Number 1: I myself admited in the discussion of that other article that was a content fork and deleted that I made a mistake by creating it and I myself proposed to delete it. Yes, I did make a mistake with it. But this here is not a mistake.
Number 2: This article is most definetly not a content fork. There is no copying of the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan in this article. Several editors, including myself, expressed concern that the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan was getting to large because it listed all US soldiers killed in Afghanistan, including their name, age and circumstances of their deaths. It was proposed that an article with a list of American forces casualties be created so to shorten the article. So I took it upon myself. And when I finished I just moved the content of that previous article into this one and deleted it in that one.
Number 3: You are so much voiceing your concern that this is in violation of the memorial rule. Then I ask - Why didn't you nominate Coalition casualties in Afghanistan for deletion since it also listed US soldiers killed, including names, age and circumstances of death? Also, why don't you nominate for deletion these articles as well: British Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001, Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan, German Armed Forces casualties in Afghanistan? By your definition they also go against the Memorial rule. Why are you so against this article when it is almost identical to those others. And don't tell me it's just because it is too large.
This argument appears to fall under WP:WAX, but quite possibly those other pages should be nominated as well.—RJH (talk)
AGREED. This sounds like a telling point. We have to be consistent! Wallie (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 4: The references can be and were checked. They come from a notable source. Icasualties.org which has been used by all major news outlets.
Number 5: The article was created so a definite number of all US soldiers fatalities in the Afghan war can be had. The article Coalition caualties in Afghanistan listed only those killed within Afghanistan, but not those killed in other countries while supporting operations in Afghanistan. Just like dozens of soldiers who died in Kuwait are listed as victims of the Iraq war. Thus thanks to this article and icasualties.org it was found that 28 soldiers died in other countries in support of the war in Afghanistan.
Number 6: It was verified using icasualties.org that the number given by DoD is incorrect. The DoD says 601 soldiers died in or around Afghanistan, while icasualties.org has listed the names of 608 soldiers who died in or around Afghanistan. All of the names listed by icasualties.org were verified by the DoD itself. So the conclusion is the DoD has given an incorect number. This article helps to resolve that problem.
Number 7: There is no original research here. First of, 636 names have been listed in the article with solid references, thus 636 died. As to explain the source. Icasualties.org, again said a notable source, has listed the names of 608 soldiers to have died in Afghanistan or as a result of wounds received in Afghanistan. Another 24 soldiers were listed to have died in other Arabian countries, while supporting operations in Afghanistan. Also, another four servicemen have been found to be missing from icasualties.org's list, but were confirmed by DoD to be victims of operation Enduring freedom, their deaths are also listed with references. Thus the final number is 636. No original research here involved.
Number 8: For my conclusion, like I stated in that other discussion, I have a proposal. If you realy so much want to delete the article I have a proposal as to delete the names of all soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan and just leave the paragraph which states the 608 number of killed in those countries with icasualties.org as it's source. But, we leave the names of the 28 soldiers who died in other countries while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan, along with their sources, so that the deaths of those 28 can be confirmed and linked to the war. Is this OK with you Nick-D and EyeSerene?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No; that would still be a POV fork from Coalition casualties in Afghanistan (which is the correct place for such a short summary of fatalities) and would contain original research. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I concur with Nick. Removing the actual casualty list would get rid of the memorial issue, but the reason you seem to want this article to exist is as a vehicle for your advocacy of different casualty numbers to the official ones. What makes icasualties.org a more reliable source than the US DoD? You seem to be engaging in both original research and synthesis; you may well be writing 'the truth', but our editorial policy is 'verifiability, not truth' (from WP:V). These, too, should go... which leaves us with nothing other than what's already in Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Incidentally, I take the same view on all such articles; this one was nominated because it's the one that was raised on the milhist talk page. EyeSerenetalk 11:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ResponseIcasualties.org is more reliable because it lists all of the names given by the DoD itself, obviously the DoD has stated a lesser number than the number of the names they have given. Also icasualties.org is a realy notable site since it is used when giving numbers of war dead by all of the major news outlets, including AP, BBC and others.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone explain to me why most of the info from from Coalition casualties in Afghanistan was deleted, and the other page was put on for deletion. BobaFett85 mentionned the overload of info or sth. But now the info will be lost for ever, all mine and other's their add's are lost for ever, by one single move, so why ?. (I know, I asked this to some of you in person, didn't know about this page, so asked the question here again) Perelada (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is fundamentally an editorial dispute. AfD is not WP:WQA. I suggest this nomination is withdrawn and the editorial dispute resolved on the relevant talk pages, after which the deletion (or not) of this article will be an uncontroversial decision that need not be brought here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is nominated as a possible violation of the policies listed in the nom and as a POV fork; it's rather more than just an editorial dispute (every AfD could be characterised as such if we were so inclined). If its deletion didn't require discussion I would have prodded it, but per WP:DEL#REASON this fits the AfD remit. I'm also not really sure what WQA has to do with this AfD. EyeSerenetalk 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons mentioned by EyeSerene, and consider the same action for this class of articles. Little informational value, and most of those listed don't justify their own articles so the list as a navigational tool argument can't apply. ALR (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bobbafett85 claims above that "The references can be and were checked.". This is simply not the case - there is a severe deficit of verifiability. Just to take one example (there are many), his main contention on the article page and here is: "Of the American deaths, 608 have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, while 28 died in: Kuwait, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Qatar, the Arabian sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, while supporting operations in Afghanistan.[1][2][3][4][5]" That is not at all backed up by the sources he lists: The 1st and 2nd sources listed, in fact, contradict the line, while the remaining 3 sources listed make no mention whatsoever of Afghanistan.
Not a reason to delete. There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia with conflicting text/data. If something is wrong, we fix it up. That is part of the reason we are here, is it not? Wallie (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He writes above: "The article was created so a definite number of all US soldiers fatalities in the Afghan war can be had." No such published number is available, as has been pointed out in earlier discussions, but Bobbafett seeks to synthesize one through the creation of this article. That is clearly POV fork and Wikipedia:Original Research/synthesis.
He writes above: "the number given by DoD is incorrect / the conclusion is the DoD has given an incorect number / Also, another four servicemen have been found to be missing from icasualties.org's list". Again that spells out Wikipedia:Original Research and Bobafett's point of view that the DoD's official tally and icasualties.org are both wrong while his own specially-conducted study is somehow right.
Comment My delete is for this specific 9-day-old article, as this is the article being considered and discussed here and each article is different. As has been correctly pointed out, this 9-day-old article is now already the 3rd longest on Wikipedia (Special:LongPages), clocking in at 385,953 bytes. The page is also almost certain to grow by 25% this year given the surge of US troops in Afghanistan, meaning this page will be the 2nd longest article within just a few weeks, and will be the longest article on Wikipedia within just a few months.
76.68.251.94 (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, OR structurally change it to look more like a chronology of attacks on Americans--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Could you please provide your rationale for why the article should be kept? WP:GTD states that "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's very hard to find one. Wikipedia has a rule against almost any argument. OMG discount freely --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There has been a lot of good work go into this article. The article can be sectionalized, if it gets too long. The concept of the article is very good, very relevant, and will be of interest to many people worldwide. Wallie (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With all respect, that seems to be WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Given that the article became the 3rd longest article on Wikipedia nine days after it was started its clear that little work actually has gone into it: the editor who created it has just lifted vast qualities of data from the single unreliable source it relies on (violating that site's copyright in the process) and converted it into a Wiki-friendly table using software. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Comment I agree it is disconcerting that it is so long. Are you sure it is the 3rd biggest after only 9 days! It sounds like a formatting issue mainly. I just don't think it should be deleted out of hand. It seems like a valuable list. As for copyright, I am sure that it cannot be in violation, otherwise the article would have been deleted anyway for that reason! Wallie (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellent nomination, the article clearly violates several wiki policys. In addition the main source being used appears to be a very weak secondary source; looking around the website there is nothing to verfiy the information is 100% accurate.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, with caveats I think with some work, quite a bit of work given the number of fatalities listed, this article has potential. I offer a "keep" opinion provided that some conditions can be met to improve the article's quality and to make it more credible and encyclopaedic.
First, currently the article mostly presents information listed at Icasualty.org. Hopefully what is there serve will provide a framework that can be expanded upon with info from U.S. DOD and media reports. On the Canadian Casualties' page, we strive to present a concise, yet informative description of each incident, focused on the 'what' 'where' and 'how' of each incident (something like "killed when his patrol came under RPG fire 20 Km. Southwest of Kandahar. 3 other soldiers wounded"), supported by a couple media sources and the DND release. "Killed in Action, Afghanistan" doesn't cut it. On the Canadian article, we had the advantage of starting out when there were only a dozen or so fatalities and have simply maintained the list since then. To bring the U.S. list up to speed after 8 years will require a lot of work. But like I said, the Icasualties info provides the basic framework to find those other sources. As that more detailed info and those sources get filled in, a picture starts to emerge of how the war is being fought.
Secondly, I think there need's to be a consensus the scope of the article, i.e. on which deaths are listed. This has been the source of this whole mess. is it an article about US military deaths in Afghanistan, American deaths in afghanistan, or an article about deaths as a part of Operation Enduring Freedom- Afghanistan?. Does it only include combat deaths? all deaths in-country? or all deaths in support of operation OEF-A? How is it determined which deaths are actually in support of OEF-A? Etc... BobbaFett, this means that you and other editors will have to come to an agreement, and it may not be what you want. If the consensus is to include all deaths occurring in support of OEF-A, what is the method to ensure that only deaths in places like Qutar, the Arabian Sea, The Pursian Gulf, Saudi Aribia, Kuwait, the Red Sea, Yeman, Bahrain, Turkey, Kansas, Washington D.C, Germany, etc, were actually in support of operations in Afghanistan, as opposed to Operations in Iraq or the pre-OIF sanctions or OEF- Horn of Africa?
Finally, I think the article could use some standardisation. One thing I noticed is with the unit listings, They range from Divisions, to regiments, to detachments. On the Canadian page, we've pretty much standardised on listing the regiment or battalion or smaller units when necessary. The locations listed vary from a country, to a district, to specific places such as Bagram Air Base. I think here more precision is key where ever possible and I'm sure that for many of these fatalities, the info is out there.
Regarding the 'memorial' issue, I think the key is to focus on presenting information on the incidents resulting on the deaths, rather then on the individuals themselves. Hopefully with what I've laid out above, a more complete picture will start to emerge. As I read through the entries on the Canadian page, patterns start to become apparent; you can see the clusters of fatalities when major operations take place, you can see how the Canadian forces have adapted to the insurgency in ways such as by suing heavier vehicles, and how the insurgency has responded by using larger and larger IED, etc... It's not right there in the narrative, but it becomes apparent.
Any hoo, that's about all I have to say on that. Sorry for the long windedness. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I purposly named the article American Forces casualties in the WAR in Afghanistan and not just American Forces casualties in Afghanistan so to sum up all of the casualties of Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan. Mike laid out a few interesting things we have to discuss on the category of inclusion of the deaths. I think, if the article survives this discussion, it should be renamed American Forces casualties of Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan. There is no problem to conclude weather the fatalities were part of OEF or OIF since the DoD clearly states that upon the confirmation of the identity of the casualty. All of those who died in Germany have been thus far designated as dying of wounds received in Afghanistan. As for is it part of OEF - Horn of Africa or OEF - Philippines, I went on the basis that all of those who died in Africa died as part of OEF - Horn of Africa and all those who died in Southeast Asia died as part of OEF - Philippines, there were five more who died in Cuba (obviously not Afghanistan) and one more guy who died in Mali (obviously as part of OEF - Trans Sahara). Except for these four there are no more sub-operations of OEF except OEF - Afghanistan. Note - the 21 who died as part of OEF - Horn of Africa died in Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, Yemen and the Seychelle islands. Also Mike nicely pointed out that we need to replace the current references that link to icasualties with new ones, individual ones, maybe DoD confirmation press releases, and expand on the circumstances section of their deaths. The current form of the article is only a basis and a template for future expansion so for it to be more like the Canadian casualties article.BobaFett85 (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment A couple of days ago you stated that the article should be cut back greatly to a brief overview of the total number of casualties and use non-DOD data (paragraph 8 in your keep vote). Now you're arguing that it should be greatly expanded to include the circumstances of each individual's death and be referenced with DOD data. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Isnt "I went on the basis that all of those who died in Africa died as part of OEF - Horn of Africa and all those who died in Southeast Asia died as part of OEF - Philippines, there were five more who died in Cuba (obviously not Afghanistan) and one more guy who died in Mali (obviously as part of OEF - Trans Sahara). Except for these four there are no more sub-operations of OEF except OEF - Afghanistan." supporting that the article is comprised via at least some original research?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this information seems extremely POV; it's a POV fork, at the very least, and reaks of Original Research. I'm also unsure as to what it achieves - there are official websites that list these names, surely? Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sure I had already voted on this one ! Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nominators reasons of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the page doesn't seem to be anything more than a reproduction of the icasualties.org list. User:BobaFett85 has a history of pushing POV on not just casualty information but timeframes and and outcomes of various conflicts. Further, I highly suspect him to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Top Gun, who used to maintain similar lists before he was blocked.Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ReplyWho are you? Listen Lawrencema, I have no idea who you are now and who Top Gun is, and if you mean the lists of victims of war than yes I maintain some of them. Currently I update Afghan insurgent and security forces casualties and update the Iraqi insurgent and security forces casualties since nobody else does them and that I only do every 15 days or so, you can check it in the edit history, some of those edits I went and not edited for more than a month even. And as far as I can see the last user who updated those two articles before me was some guy named Guyver, he was doing it every posible day, he stoped I don't know why. And what timeframes and results of conflicts are you talking about?BobaFett85 (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ReplyWhy come up with inflammatory comments such as this? Also, you mention POV. We shlould always look into our own souls before accusing others. Everyone has a POV! Wallie (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Earlier today Bobafett was acknowledging on another editor's talk

page that this article was created to prove the DoD figures wrong: ([6]). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Reply That's because it is wrong and the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan was using that incorect number. That's no secret, I already stated this on the begining of this discussion I think two or three times. All of the names that icasualties.org listed were confirmed by DoD but the number didn't match up with the DoD's summed up number.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I think you need to link to a source which mentions the discrepancies between the figures the DoD uses and the figures given in icasualties.org, otherwise it is OR. At the very least, you need to provide links to the two figures for reference. Creating a whole article just for you to reconcile two different sets of figures seems a bit excessive, and as another editor suggests, reeks of original research. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply I did provide them in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, I put references. I stated that 608 soldiers were reported killed (608 names on icasualties.org, all confirmed by DoD) but also noted that the number is higher than the one given by DoD. If you want I can put the DoD's number also so we stated the number of dead is between 601 and 608. But currently I think you should consider my compromise proposol about listing the incidents of deaths of soldiers like in List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq. We don't list the names of soldiers so it wouldn't be in violation of the Memorial rule.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Could it be because the US DOD does not consider these few soldiers to be fatalities of the fighting in Afganistan? It also seems somewhat excessive that an entire article as been created so, from what i can see from here, prove the US DOD wrong.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply I think that's exactly what the DoD thinks. In fact they explicitly say so: "OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM includes casualties that occurred on or after March 19, 2003 in the Arabian Sea, Bahrain, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Persian Gulf, Qatar, Red Sea, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Prior to March 19, 2003, casualties in these countries were considered OEF.src. At any rate, it seems a consensus on the scope of the article needs to be found, and reliably sourced. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • ReplyThey consider them part of OEF that's for sure, they are not on the official list of Iraq casualties, checked at the CNN list. If everybody agrees I will delete the list tonight and replace it with a table with numbers of deaths by province and country. Are we in agreement?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply Please provide a link to what you are calling the "official list of Iraq casualties" as well as a link to the "official list of Afganistan casualties". CNN/Icasualties/AP is not what I'm looking for here. I'd like the DoD lists if they exist. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply I think the DoD hasn't got a list. Only numbers. Both CNN and icasualties count Iraq only after March 19, and both CNN and icasualties have put on their Afghan list those killed before March 19 in Kuwait, Bahrain, etc.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise solution TheFEARgod proposed an interesting compromise before. We delete all of the names, ALL of them, but we will make up a new list, a chronological list of attacks on US forces, a chronological list of deaths of US soldiers in the war. But we will not put the names of the soldiers, just the numbers of how many died in specific incidents and tell about the circumstances of those deaths as short as posible. A kind of list like those others: List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan, List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports, List of Afghan security forces fatality reports, Timeline of Somali war (which in essence only lists deaths of people in the war by date). If it would be in that form than the article would not be a memorial.BobaFett85 (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Those kinds of articles are also often deleted when they come to AfD. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2009 which seem to be the very similar to what's being proposed. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply But these articles I stated have not been nominated or deleted and I think Iraqi insurgent casualties was nominated two or three times for deletion and all three times it survived the nominations with overwhelming majorities because editors found the article is nedeed since no definite other source for the summed up number of insurgent casualties exists. Also, the one you mentioned, list of Palestinian fatalities resulting from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip in 2008, was in violation of the Memorial rule, this kind of article I am proposing wouldn't be.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE - TALK ON A COMPROMISE SOLUTION HAS BEEN STARTED ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE OF THE ARTICLE
    • Disagree This is hardly a compromise - more like a capitulation. The whole focus of the article is the list of names. As stated earlier, other countries have a list of names. Wallie (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted yesterday Wallie by another user, who you agreed with, that is not a legit argument see :WP:WAX.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I may have agreed with the user on certain points. I don't necessarily agree with WP:WAX. It is easy to quote all sorts of guidlines, like this one. I think it is an excellent argument to point out similarities. They are called models in scientific thinking. Wallie (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply We would still make the list Wallie, the names wouldn't be there but we would report chronologicaly on the incidents of the deaths of the servicemen. That way the article wouldn't be anymore the third largest on Wikipedia. This way everybody would get at least half of what they want, TheFEARgod was the one who proposed it originaly besides giving his keep vote. Like I said, everybody would get what they want, we would report on the incidents of deaths of the soldiers and there wouldn't be any violation of the Memorial rule. And to confirm the numbers so there would be no doubt about them being Original Reasearch we would make a table at the top that would be based on individual referenced numbers and we would sum up the total, this part is per Lawrencama.BobaFett85 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re Reply What is the problem with the names? Memorial rule? - Would that mean that we cannot have lists of anyone who died? There seems to be a lot of rules and not much common sense here. I think this is a useful list as it stands. I cannot imagine anyone who has relatives on the list objecting to it - unless it had details the disagreed with, of course. Will this apply to the lists of non American casualties in other articles too? Wallie (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re re ReplyThe thing is, most likely this list wouldn't have been a problem if it was small like the Canadian or British list, that's what I was arguing this whole time, we have the Canadian and British list but they don't alow it based on the Memorial rule. But, and on this I have to agree with them, this list is too long so to simply leave it as it is. This is the best posible way. We would still have a list of deaths in specific incidents, by the numbers, but without the names. That would reduce the length of the article 20 or 30 times. We could at least write a bit more about the circumstances of the deaths of the soldiers.BobaFett85 (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What no-one on the side of the article seems to have explained is what the point of the article is. Wikipedia isn't a memorial, and the war in Iraq is simply one conflict of many, and not a particularly long or violent one compared to others in history. Why does this list (and other casualty lists) need to exist on wikipedia? And if it does exist, then why not lists of casualties for other, more significant conflicts, such as Vietnam, World War II, or the Great War? What makes Iraq (and Afghanistan, for all the nations participating) so different, so important that their names should be memorialized? A simple statistical table, perhaps broken down by country, would surely do - that's all we have in other conflict articles. Skinny87 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I anticipated this would be a contentious nomination (it didn't take a genuis!), so would would like to thank all contributors so far for the good quality of the discussion. BobaFett85, the problem I have with your suggestion is that while it will solve the memorial and length issues, these aren't the only significant problems with the article. With the greatest respect, I feel you're suggesting turning it into an incident list because it will still permit you to include your own personal interpretation of the casualty figures. It's been pointed out before, but our inclusion criterion is "verifiability, not truth". I can understand why you want to do what you're doing, but you must understand that by taking figures from various places and using them to reach a different total to the official one, you are (in the words of WP:SYNTH) "putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." Even if we know or believe the published data is wrong, the WP:V policy means it's all we have to go by and is all we're allowed to report. I appreciate that it's frustrating - many of us have had to deal with this when writing articles - but it's the way the Wikipedia community has decided we must work. EyeSerenetalk 16:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have restructured the article to meet most of Wikipedia standards now. Tell me what you think? This is without the list of hostile incidents incured by the US forces. This has been agreed to in principle by EnigmaMcmxc and Lawrencama and done per discussion with them. We would state both the icasualties number and the DoD number, both of them, we wouldn't leave out any of them. Yes the official lesser number reported by DoD is the official one, but most medial outlets, CNN, BBC, AP and others are reporting the higher number given by icasualties and most regard icasualties's number more notable than DoD's. But I have laid it out and now several editors have agreed to present both numbers and per Lawrencama's proposols to point out how we came to icasualties's number. I have now come to the point that I am to tired to discuss this any more and if you still want it like that I would also go the extra mile and forget the list of incidents and not iclude it in the article. We would only maybe list several notable incidents of large numbers of fatalities from large battles like operation Red Wing, opeartion Anaconda or battle of Wanat.BobaFett85 (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While i agreed with most of what you have done i did note on the talkpage that the article is still POV pushing. I believe the article should state the DOD figure followed by a line stating this is contested by the internet source. Not present the internet source as the definante figure.
    • On top of that with the why the article is now structured, should it not be merged with Coalition casualties in Afghanistan; with the information from here being inserted into the US subsection?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1137559453"