Talk:Killed in action

message: Why would there even be a policy to maim or kill if it didn't help a military? --John Wallace Rich 18:10, 20 June 2006 (GMT)
:I agree that the "common sense" statement should be removed. Military objectives are rarely stated as simply "kill more of them than they kill of us". The success or failure of a military operation is judged in the terms of more sophisticated objectives like winning ground, destroying targets, disrupting supplies or reinforcements, limiting enemy movements, etc. Modern combat (and killing in particular) is usually just a means towards those ends. Example: the initial hours of the Normandy invasion was considered a success even though Allies experienced relatively higher casualties than the Germans.--Toms2866 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DISCUSSION ON POLICY OF KIA -- REGARDS REMOVAL OF COMMON SENSE THAT SIDE WITH MOST LOSSES LOSES 

message: Died of Wounds?  Never heard that before?  Verify?--Preeeemo
Died of Wounds means they made it to a medical treatment facility.--- John Wallace Rich
:Right now, Died Of Wounds (DOW) is a redirect to this article, but since Killed in action (KIA), Missing in action (MIA), and Prisoner of war (POW) all have their own articles, it might make sense to give DOW its own article as well, including stats on survival rates in field hospitals, etc. David (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Died of Wounds 

message: How are friendly fire wounded/killed classified? --Toms2866 04:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find out the official classification, friendly fire probably deserves mention in article.--Toms2866 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendly Fire 

message: Why the preference for passive-voice usage?  I'm editing it though. --John Wallace Rich 01:19, 15 May 2006 (GMT)
We're getting many attempts to use the passive voice in the article again.  Calton's reversion used it, and Mystar's edits continued to use it, only adding a preposition. John Wallace Rich 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Voice 

message: I've been asked to give a third opinion on this dispute. First of all, John Wallace Rich, I'd like to take issue with your insistence on Ttiotsw revealing their real name. While some people, you and I included, choose to use their real names on WIkipedia and other online spaces, others do not; please respect that. If you really feel the need to 'judge' other users in any way (and ideally you shouldn't; you should be looking at the issue at hand and the arguments on either side; not the users putting those arguments forwards), look at their contributions, which will sum up who they are in terms of Wikipedia. Who cares what name someone uses - heck, your name may not be your real one, either.
Now, on the real issue, I'm broadly in favour of death, mainly because it's more natural language - when was the last time you used 'homicide' in casual conversation? The longer sentence proposed by John ("The deaths occur directly by other combatants from "hostile action" while in combat...") rather than "These casualties occur from homicides while in combat." is also, arguably, clearer, especially to the layman, who may not be familiar - or have the wrong idea about - the meaning of homicide, as it more explicitly states the conditions that must be fulfilled. Finally, the sourced WHO usage swing it for me. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not solely for the United States, so internationally-agreed definitions should take precedence, and by that one, homicide is just too narrow a term. --Scott Wilson 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: I think that work should be done on future additions to the article, such as statistics, and subcategories of KIA, such as KIA-BNR and KIA-"Friendly Fire," rather than the attack on the verified term "homicide." John Wallace Rich 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article appears way too short in its present form. It looked better before. The Gladius 03:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcategories of KIA 

message: This article is terrible. It has no references, does not follow any Wikipedia conventions or style guides, is full of irrelevent information, and includes many questionable assertions. You guys need to start from scratch. I'm cleaning up this article to remove anything not up to Wikipedia standards. Please add only referenced information from here on out. If you can't find sources, don't write anything. Any by sources, I'm not talking about dictionaries. Kaldari 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only trying to change one word as opposed to a complete re-write as I saw that this article was owned and "be bold" wouldn't have worked.  You have no complaints from me here on the changes. Ttiotsw 07:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It had references.  It's not a joke.  Discuss changes if you want to make them.  I'd argue you vandalized the page (almost verbatim from entry in Mediation Cabal Request/Response Page) because you removed verified information from a "Start Class" article without even discussion, most of the article, and Kaldari doesn't even spell the word "homicide" correctly. The user should use much more care.  Doesn't Kaldari realize people actually get killed in war? It's not something funny! Said user also made more than three edits in less than 10 minutes. The page needs contributions, not joking, and Ttiotsw would like the baby cut into 20ths! John Wallace Rich 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where were the references? Dictionary entries? Everything in the article needs to be referenced, not just the definition of KIA. Please use inline citations for your references so that people can tell what references pertail to what sections. Thanks! Kaldari 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've attempted to overhaul the article to address the above concerns (and added a few shiny commons images in the process). How is it now? Cowman109Talk 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Sacha Cohen would say, "very nass"! Kaldari 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is terrible

message: Is this case still necessary or can I close it?  --Ideogram 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, I'd like to remind you that no-one, least of all you, 'owns' any of the content on Wikipedia. Try to be a bit less possessive; you aren't the only one who can write good articles. --Scott Wilson 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no vandalism of the article, John Wallace Rich. Vandalism would be replacing the page with images of phalluses or something inappropriate of the sort. Instead, this is (or was, hopefully it's past) a content dispute. Kaldari was indeed correct to remove such unsourced information, so in fact he did the right thing. Hopefully the article has been changed enough for this to be put past us now. Cowman109Talk 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: With respect to parties involved, the article is not about respecting families. "I Had Interest in Article Was Lack of Respect to KIA Families" is well and good and laudable, however that is dragging the article off track. The portion mentioning battles large or small has no bearing on the article as a whole. The article is about "Killed in Action", what defines that phrase, what acronyms that are relevant and why. Going off track with non-referenced material is unnecessary; having a section that denotes the special place most societies have for/or Memorial's to, is fine as it pertains to the topic. The other material does not pertain to the topic at all.
Mystar 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Clean up

message: Here's how the RFC poster characterizes the article and its dispute:
:An edit war currently exists with large blocks of information removed, including a contested classical reference. However, the article has already achieved "Start-Class" quality rating according to the Military history Wikiproject. Attacks abound in other articles, and they've spread here now. So far, users have commented on an "article cleanup" and "nice clean-up" when important sections get removed, threatening the article's quality. Also, edits often revert to poor style, including the passive voice
I'd say that that description is essentially wrong in every respect, including the brandishing of the "Start-Class" quality rating: "Start-Class" doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form "good", as a quick glance at its description shows:
:The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials...
And passive voice is perfectly acceptable in many contexts, particularly those in which subjects are acted upon or the identity of the actor is secondary (as in, "Important sections get removed"): there's no knee-jerk prohibition. 
And as for the "important sections" getting removed, they weren't particularly important, and their removal, in my opinion, was a net plus. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the RfC was a bit premature and not neutrally written. The consensus is fairly clear and has been since, well since the 3rd opinions weighed in over the past week or so and since the re-write was done. I think we can fairly work out what the consensus is by observing the article over the next "week". Are people happy if we get this protected for the next week from IPs and new users ? Ttiotsw 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John Wallace Rich was blocked, and obvious sockpuppets of his will be blocked as well for block evasion, so I don't think there is a need to semi-protect the article at this point. Article improvement should be able to continue as normal. Cowman109Talk 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: Ignoring talk and making poor changes irresponsibly shows a lack of civility and violates the rules, to the letter a least, (WP:CIVIL). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Wallace Rich (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Civility 

message: This passage is just strange:
:"...incidents such as accidental vehicle crashes, terrorism, or other "non-hostile" means...".
It seems to classify "terrorism" as a "non-hostile" mean to kill people. --Abu badali (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess "hostile" means enemy combatants in this case. Maybe it should be phrased as "non-combat" or something similar. UnfriendlyFire 04:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "''non-hostile means,,,''" 

message: Would POWs killed while attempting an escape be considered KIA? What if said POWs had weapons and used them (so there's combat?) What about generals assassinated while not in battle - maybe during routine inspection or knifed in his sleep? When there's hostile fire/attack, but no real combat? -- Миборовский 06:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POWs and assassinations 

message: Hope I'm in the correct place to ask why the sign for someone killed in action is a cross?  I found it odd that there was a cross next to a participant in the Second Chechen war - specifically Aslan Maskhadov - who by my (and Wikipedia's) reckoning was a Sufi.  There is an element of cultural imperialism in this that I'm not too keen on, and wonder if an alternative symbol could/should be used.  Thanks Dr lager (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the cross? 

message: I totally agree with you concerning the cross symbol. I was VERY, VERY SURPRISED to see the cross next to Islamic Shaheeds (martyrs) in the number of Wikipedia Articles, such as:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel
and perhaps many other Articles that I didn't realize about.
I know, some of you might think it's a small, insignificant matters, and that I just overreacted or something. But hey, have you read the history of the The Red Cross and the The Red Crescent symbols? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Relation_to_the_flag_of_Switzerland)
At first, I didn't notice that, I was too tired of doing research about Islamic history that concerned Muslim law of war. Until I carefully looked at this unwelcome symbol and my eyes suddenly got widened. Oh my God! It's a Christian cross! God forbid, you don't put that symbol besides Muslim Martyrs names! It's an insult to their memories who died defending the religion of Islam!
Someone in authority better do something about this, otherwise I might, launch some sort of worldwide awareness campaign regarding this matter, maybe on Facebook. Many Muslims will definitely get upset about this (upset is an understatement!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.169 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GET RID OF THE 'CROSS' SYMBOL! 

message: Please excuse if this already has been discussed. The article marks KIA as a casualty. The article about casualty says: "In military usage, casualties usually refer to combatants who have been rendered combat-ineffective, or all persons lost to active military service, which comprises those killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by physical injuries, disabled by psychological trauma, captured, deserted, and missing, but does not include injuries which do not prevent a person from fighting." Is this a contradiction? P.S.: I'm not a native speaker. Kind regards from Germany!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.166.235 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings! Casualty refers to both those who are KIA or WIA. For example, a person who is dead is combat-ineffective. On the flip-side, a person who is wounded and pulled out of battle is also combat-ineffective, albeit for a different reason. Regards. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  KIA => casualty or not 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 119#Dagger symbol, confused with cross symbol, alternate symbols, and default settings for template:KIA for a summary of everything that I could find.
Use that thread/page for further discussion, to keep things centralized in a high-activity area. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dagger symbol for marking KIA 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Killed in action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303201526/http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf to http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "KIAs do not come from incidents such as accidental vehicle crashes and other "non-hostile" events"
What about such accidents which occur during the heat of combat? E.g., driving into a ditch while attempting to avoid hostile fire, or inadvertently killing oneself with an explosive weapon in an attempt to attack the enemy? 108.34.201.56 (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @108.34.201.56 220.152.112.24 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @220.152.112.24 220.152.112.24 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidents 

message: † using the sign is disrespectful to the deceased, Remove this sign next to the names of Muslims who died in wars. --45.135.206.230 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's definitely a dagger and its usage is covered in the corresponding Wikipedia article. It descends from a mark that came to be used in manuscripts to denote material that was dubious and/or should be excised. At no point was it meant to be a Christian cross. The usages that are or were specific to Christians still derive from that original purpose. WP Ludicer (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disrespect for the dead 

message: Under disguise with a claim that it "actually is a dagger", Christian symbol is used. Also, dagger indicates more of an assassination than death. It's not really much relevant to death & there are many other icons that can be used to refer to death. Even the first image of KIA section is a Christian cemetery. 88.230.181.159 (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  KIA symbol is Christian symbol