Talk:Coalition casualties in Afghanistan

Chapters, structure, notes to this article

Maybe we can start a dicussion also about the overall structure of this article?

Much regards, Rob van Doorn 20:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I edited the ontop KIA-list according to the informations provided in the articles below. I don=t take any responsibility for the numbers given there. --92.75.109.162 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please list only Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Recent edits have been including US soldiers killed elsewhere. While these deaths may be part of Op Enduring Freedom, they do not belong on this page. Motorfix 01:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the removed South Korean death, I googled it, but there was not a single hit. Please use supplied link for reference.Motorfix 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added this page. If anyone wants to combine this into a Casualties in the 2001 Invasion of Afghanistan page like the Iraq one, or to put it on the main page, then go ahead. I just thought we should do a page on the coalition casualties as well. PBP, 4 November 2004

61 American soldiers have been removed from the count of 333 who have died in operation Enduring freedom puting the number 272. OK I will agree not including the 14 soldiers killed in operation OEF Horn of Africa,14 soldiers killed in operation OEF Philippines and 5 soldiers killed in operation OEF Guantanamo bay. But that leaves 28 more soldiers. I guess you removed the soldiers that were killed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Jordan and in the Arabian sea. Well in that case we should remove also more than 50 soldiers that have been killed in the war in Iraq from that list because they were killed in these places too. C'mon man think. They were killed suporting the war in Afghanistan. OK I agree about the 33 in Africa, Cuba and the Pacific but these guys should be listed as killed in the war in Afghanistan. So let the number be 300 killed american soldiers OK? Also stop removing the South Korean soldier listed killed. If you want to confirm these than go to yahoo, search for afghanistan timeline january 2003 wikipedia then check the date january 28th, you will see a report about the accidental killing of a south korean soldier in Afghanistan, even his name and rank. If you don't belive me then here are the information: In the Bagram Air Base barracks north of Kabul, Afghanistan, South Korean army major Lee Kyu-sang shot and killed Captain Kim Hyo-sung. The captain had refused an order to speak quietly on the telephone. The call involved the leasing of construction equipment with some Afghans. Kyu-sang, who said he didn't know the gun was loaded, was arrested. That was january 28th 2003.The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_timeline_January_2003#January_28.2C_2003

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Using another wikipedia page doesn't count as a source either.

Motorfix 12:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen Motorfix the information on the south-korean soldier must have been verified for it to be on a wikipedia page so stop removing him.Remove him if you ahve evidence that he didn't die.Also include the other 28 american soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan that were killed elswhere in Asia. OK leave out those that were killed in Africa,the Philippines and Cuba but leave those that were killed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Jordan and in the Arabian sea.

preceeding comment was made by User:89.216.229.112

I don't really see why the troops killed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan would be included, they're in a diffrent theater, are they not? I see some reasoning behind including deaths in Pakaistan and Uzbekistan as they are at least boardering Afghaninstan, and if the deaths in the Arabian Sea were on ships supporting the operations in Afghanistan I see a reasoning for that too. Why not include the larger number in the OEF article as opposed to here? Mike McGregor (Can) 14:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

At least more than 50 american soldiers have been listed as killed in the war in Iraq, but were killed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. If you don't want to list those 28 killed out of Afghanistan in the war in Afghanistan then don't list these in the war in Iraq. I mean c'mon guys. When the DoD identified them they specificly said if they were killed while supporting operation Enduring Freedom or Iraqi freedom. OK about those 33 killed in Cuba, Africa and the Philippines but these have to be included.

Maybe you guys should go to WP:ArbCom or ask for mediation to get this sorted out... on an aside, icasualties.org puts the number at 483 as of today... Mike McGregor (Can) 04:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

icasualties.org puts it at 483 because they include the 33 killed in Africa, Cuba and the Phillipines, I agree that they be counted as casualties in OEF Africa, OEF Phillipines and the 5 from Cuba don't be counted at all, but there is 28 killed in other arabic parts of Asia that should be counted as killed in the war in Afghanistan because they were supporting it in logistics and other things like 50 or so killed that are listed in the Iraq war but were not killed in Iraq.

Look...Read the title of the artical. It is not called casualties in Op enduring freedom, or Casualties In and around Afghanistan, or casualties in the Afghanistan war. It is coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Please read other conversations. We have already agreed on the source. Most of the coalition is only in Afghanistan! The source we are using as ref is http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf. Also, please cite a non wikipedia source for the South Korean...if you can. Motorfix 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should write that the South Korean officer was arrested, it sounds like it's standard practice to kill people who don't obey orders in South Korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.236.128.225 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Official casualties number

Please check [1] before updating this page.Copperchair 28 June 2005 20:48 (UTC)

No. We should use the DoD page [2] for a number of reasons. It is the official count, and lists those killed in combat, in accidents, etc. The CNN page does not, it only lists how many killed. There is a second section to the article detailing this that should be updated as well, in addition to just the numbers.

I have also noticed, Copperchair, that you keep reverting the number of Germans killed to 14. The number is 16, as two days ago, two Germans were killed in an accidental explosion[3], bringing their total dead to 16. I've noted this in the history section of this article. The CNN page HAS NOT been updated to account for the German deaths, but I think it will soon. I am making the changes again--trust me, I have the correct figures. We just need a little coordination here. PBP 4:52 PM, June 28, 2005

All right, I'll trust you on the WIA, but the DoD page does not specify the number of non-Americans killed, so there is no official number of those servicemen killed after June 22. Copperchair 29 June 2005 05:05 (UTC)

I'm going to try an avoid an edit war on this, so I'm going to list to you the German casualties. You can find them on the CNN site, if you look: March 6, 2002: 2 soldiers killed in accidental explosion. December 21, 2002: 7 soldiers killed in helicopter crash. May 29, 2003: 1 Soldier killed in mine blast. June 7, 2003: 4 soldiers killed by car bomb. That number is 14. On JUNE 26, 2 more Germans died in an accidental explosion [4], raising the toll to 16. THE CNN PAGE HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED. PBP, 29 June 2005.

The CNN page was updated today. You were right about German casualties. I have only edited the date now. I also updated (with the same figures) the Operation Enduring Freedom casualties section. Copperchair 30 June 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Today the CNN page counts 211 American soldiers dead (as of June 30, and the DoD page counts only 195 (as of July 1). I've updated it to the earlier, then. Copperchair 2 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

Just to word of advice, Copperchair--don't update the date every time the CNN or the DOD site do. Just change the date when the casualty numbers change. It saves you the hassle of updating it every day. PBP 7 July 2005 6:51

Abbreviations

Please people (particularly American people), if you're going to type out where an American casualty was from, don't use abbreviations for U.S states. Do North Carolina, not N.C, or Alabama, not Ala. Most people from outside of the US wouldn't know what 'N.C' or 'S.D' or whatever stood for. Ebglider91 (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

OK, I have put in for third party help on this: for about two months, there's been a constant edit war over these figures. Whenever a casualty is announced, I add it to the figures available. However, another editor only wants to put the figures up when they are listed on an external web page, such as the ones under "External Links". For instance, today, an American soldier was killed by a bomb in Afghanistan. I added it to the current figures. However, this other editor will likely revert the page and say we should only add the death once the DoD casualty page has updated. Those pages take days to update, and when they do, they end up validating my figures anyway. I have tried to explain this, but to no avail.

Also, he does not seem to believe there have been 17 German deaths in Afghanistan, though I have provided evidence that there, in fact, have been 17 deaths. Any outside opinions/help on these sticking points would be appreciated.PBP 13:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that this is probably not the answer you prefer, but I think it would be best to get such running totals from an external source. That way they are more easily verifiable. In other words, I disagree with PBP. I have no comment on the German deaths, other than evidence is evidence. Maurreen (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It possibly has been resolved, as the editor in question has not updated this site for days. What I tried to do with this page was to create something not unlike the one at Icasualties.org [5], but focusing on Afghanistan. Since Icasualties does not list coalition deaths in Afghanistan, I researched the hostile/non-hostile deaths myself. There is no external source that breaks up the American/coalition deaths in hostile/non-hostile categories, other than this page, so it is impossible to update that part using another source.PBP 14:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Question of names

The April 22, 2006, incident included the names of just two of the four killed: (Bombardier Myles Mansell of the 5th British Columbia Field Regiment RCA, and Lt. William Turner of Land Force Western Area Headquarters). I removed this bit, as it didn't seem NPOV or fair to name only half of the men. I added an internal link -- [| here ] -- that includes the other names. I personally have no big problem listing all four, but I think we should be consistent. PLEASE PLEASE note that Wikipedia includes individual entries on many of these folks, so if we include the names we ought to verify whether there are any internal entries.--Thatnewguy 22:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Having the names, when available, allows to positively distinguish the incidents. Often the names are not available in the days following the incident but a week or two later. When the press reports a death on a certain date, and Governments report the same incident as occuring a day earlier, it can be thought to be 2 disctint incidents. Names help, and should be added as they become available. Hudicourt 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Numbers debate

The May 5 Italian attack may have "only" killed two and wounded four. I can't find a reference that says it was three, though I'm certainly aware that one of the wounded could have died later, creating the stated three-three number. This needs a cite. --Thatnewguy 23:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Aug. 21 entry originally said fewer soldiers were wounded. I found a citation. Please let's cite our sources and keep this straight. --Thatnewguy 23:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Ugh!! This artical leaves a bad taste...needs a rewrite. Motorfix 14:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out Canadian Forces casualties in Afghanistan. Would that format (ie the table) be viable here? perhaps broken down by nationality (at least for the countries with higher casualties)? I think the problem is the haphazard way that some incidents are selected to be outlined in the article while many more are not. should we develop some guidelines regarding which incidents to include in the article? Mike McGregor (Can) 12:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Reich (Army) redirects here — why?

Steve Reich (Army) redirects here, but I see no reference to him in the article. What's up with that? Omphaloscope talk 16:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pat Tillman

Surprised nobody's included him here. Will do later, if nobody else gets around to it. Soren.harward 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please provide assiatance to resolve the currenty edit war.Motorfix 16:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you both (all?) explaine what your criteria is for inclusion on this page and also let us know what your using for refrences? Mike McGregor (Can) 17:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Mike, I think that we should use this link from the Defense Department:Defense Department Casualty Page. The title of the artical is clear, and my intent is to include soldiers killed in Afghanistan, but not Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, Jordan and in the Arabian sea as suggested by others.

Lets put it this way: If we were counting soldiers killed in lets say France during World War 2, would you include soldiers killed over the English channel,in Holland, Belgium, and Italy? anyways, I think i'm okay as for as NPOV. cheers, Motorfix 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular source or sources that differentiates between casualties within Afghanistan and casualties occurring outside country? In short, what refrence is your count based on? Mike McGregor (Can) 07:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike, If you take a quick look through the discussions above, especially the "DISPUTE" discussion from 2005, there was a consensus to use the Defense Department list. There is only one user who keeps changing it. If you are asking what source the defense department uses to keep track, I have not the slightest clue.Motorfix 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, ok. I was confused. I thought that part of your comment was a response from the other fellow (who never signs his comments) and the paragraph below was your entire comment... Now I gets it! Mike McGregor (Can) 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I came from the RFC. I agree that you should only state the deaths that happened in Afghanistan. After all, that is the title of the article. If the person who is editing in the other deaths is heart -set on including them (and I am assuming good faith), please mention the deaths in a separate statement, specifically declaring "x number of coalition casualties occurred in places other than Afghanistan including ____, ____, and ____.", or something to that effect. --Connor K. 21:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another RfC - I agree with Connor K. above. Casualties outside of Afghanistan in an article whose title makes it clear is about casualties in Afghanistan are clearly redundant to the article. A statement to the effect of "For casualties of Operation: Enduring Freedom outside of Afghanistan, please see that article" or some such comment could be inserted to refer to the casualties outside of Afghanistan, though. Badbilltucker 21:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Since we have a reliable source which tracks casualties within Afghanistan we should use that as the title and intent of the article is clear. That being said, I would also like to see coalition casualties occuring in transit to and from Afghanistan (such as the Spanish soldiers killed in the 2003 air-crash in Turkey), as well as in operations with a direct affect on the Taliban/al-Qaeda (such as Pakistani casualties) included in a seperate section or another article linked off this article. Mike McGregor (Can) 18:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Sources

http://www.jihadunspun.com/newsarchive/

http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/08212002-Casualty.Report/casualty02.html

From October 21, 2001, Jihad Unspun staff and researchers began tracking military casualties in the US war on “terrorism” campaign in Afghanistan from approximately 40 international news sources daily. Although limited information on the extent of casualties suffered in Afghanistan by US and Coalition troops has appeared in main stream North American press, this has not been the case in other parts of the globe. This report documents our research.

Source material has been gathered from mainstream and uncensored news sources. Only those reports that could be verified in more than one source are included here. When casualties or kills were listed as “several soldiers wounded” they were excluded. As the counts come only from those that actually found there way into the press, we expect the actually figures to be as much as three times higher that those listed here.

What this report clearly shows is the censorship of the American media and the reports issued by the Pentagon. Rena Golden, the executive vice-president and general manager of CNN International said at a Newsworld conference is Asia that US news organizations “censored” their coverage of the US campaign in Afghanistan in order to be in step with public opinion in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks was shaped by the level of public support that existed for US action.

This report is not to be misconstrued as an official casualty count as it shows only figures reported in the 40 daily news sources Jihad Unspun monitors however it should be noted that the totals concluded here are significantly higher than those presented by the media within North America. Although we can not conclude with 100% accuracy the validity of any news item, this report begins to show a broader picture of casualties as reported throughout the globe and helps us to put into perspective the human cost of this war.

The US & Coalition Casualties Report has been independently audited by TREK Technologies Inc., a third party market research firm, to add further validity to this work.

It should be noted that this research began after Operation Enduring Freedom in the mountains of Afghanistan and therefore is not a complete accounting from the beginning of the Afghan invasion.

In our first limited distribution of this report a few weeks ago, we received many inquiries from American citizens who questioned how these deaths could be hidden from the public. As one General said “the first casualty of war is the truth” and casualties have been kept from the public in every war since WW1. How? Missing In Action. By the end of the Vietnam war there where some 70,000 MIA’s, with only a small portion of those accounted for to this day. We owe our understanding of the human cost of Vietnam to the families of soldiers who pressed for the declassification of documents and finally, years later, at least a portion of the truth was exposed. This is standard war time procedure that lawmakers consider to be in the best interest of national security.

This conclusion that can be drawn from this report is that the deaths of both US and Coalition soldiers are significantly higher than the public is being made aware of and therefore the willingness to continue the America war effort to new theatres such as Iraq is being orchestrated under false pretenses.

For more information contact: report@jihadunspun.net

http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/08212002-Casualty.Report/casualty02.html

This is also a good source: http://icasualties.org/oef/ Hudicourt 17:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Reich

I dont see the sense of redirecting to this page when the guy is not mentioned in the article. Panth 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I began working on a minor spelling mistake which led to the discovery that much of the material under "Specific Incidents" in 2008 has been directly cut-and-pasted from the US Military news releases. I don't believe this is appropriate or that it meets Wikipedia's standards. However, I a don't have hours to check the whole thing over right now. Perhaps the original contributor of these bits could correct this issue? --CokeBear (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

German casualties

As Germany does not publish details about its casualties, foreign sources are even more unprecise than their domestic counterparts. That becomes obvious, too, when the death tolls of CNN and icasualties.org are compared to each other. However, the German MoD has recently confirmed in an interview (Source: See main article), that 29 Germans died in Afghanistan. Thus I'm going to reedit the entry concerning the Germans again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.195.157 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The official German casualties toll adds up to 26 fatalities and 75 wounded. Furthermore, three police officials working with the German troops were killed and four were wounded.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/div/KSK-Bundeswehr-Afghanistan;art771,2582857 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.214.32 (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

26 fatalities and 80 wounded as of 15th of August according to the German Ministry of Defence. - User:Mitch818

Updates

There was no mention of Coalition casualties on the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) page, other than the info box, so a small section has been added halfway down. If anyone is updating numbers, could they update that page as well please? Thanks Chwyatt (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Update on US casualites

OK listen up the number given for the US military casualties here is not right. The figure doesn't include those killed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar who were killed while supporting the mission in Afghanistan, before the Iraq invasion. So the number should be changed. icasualties.org states that 543 soldiers have been killed in Enduring Freedom up to date. The operation can be bropken down into four different operations. OEF - Afghanistan, OEF - Phillipines, OEF - Horn of Africa and OEF - Guantanamo bay. The Phillipines part of the operation has had 15 fatalities, the Africa part 17 and Guantanamo bay 5. So 543 - (15+17+5) = 516. Also the icasualties.org number doesn't include the civilian employee of the DoD that was killed by hostile fire. I have found out that the person in question was the contractor killed in Kuwait in January 2003. So the final number should be 517. Those that were killed before the Iraq invasion in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain were killed while supporting logistical operations in Afghanistan, just like they are now primaraly supporting operations in Iraq. So those deaths should be included! I will make the changes and please don't revert before giving a proper rational why does fatalities shouldn't be included. I have removed those killed in Africa, Cuba and the Far East because yest they don't belong on this list but those from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain do. If you want to stick to the DoD definition of "In and around Afghanistan" then it looks like that less have been killed during OEF in contrast to the actual number and this is missleading. Top Gun

Oh yes updating the number of US killed now from 517 to 518, another one died today, here is the reference http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2008/07/08/1_nato_soldier_killed_in_afghan_blast/.Top Gun

This subject has come up a few times on this page. I'd encourage you to familiarise yourself with the previous discussions if you haven't already and maybe contact the editors involved. I don't feel strongly either way, but the consensus seems to have settled on including only in-country deaths. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Casualty Discrepancy

Someone has recently been editing down the Canadian casualty count by one. For instance, as of this note, DND, CBC, and iCasualties.org all agree that there have been 93 casualties, but once again someone has reduced it by one. Anyway, if someone can shed some light on this or if we can just agree to stick to the iCasualties.org number, that would be great. andrewpullin 02:27 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There was one death at a support base in the Persian Gulf which is usually included with most canadian media reports. My understanding is that this article only deals with fatalities within Afghanistan. That my be the source of the discrepancy. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of Danish casualties

According to the article (as of my addition of two casualties on 4. December) 20 Danish casualties in Afghanistan since 2002 are listed, 17 of these with names. Of these 10 has been in 2008. But according to the Danish national broadcast service (DR) about the same casualties it only makes 18 casualtes and only nine in 2008 (this article - sorry but it's only in Danish). So either the list here on Wikipedia is wrong (i hope we're not having some false entries) or DR is wrong. Does anybody have the possibility to review and confirm the list? --Hebster (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

THC:DR is using the official defence fatality list and in doing so disregarding non-combat casualties such as an accident and a suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.196.89 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If anybody should now which persons on the list is disregarded, shouldn't we then flag them in some sort (i.e. a note) so other people also will now why Wikipedia has a different listing? --Hebster (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

THC:I don't see the need, but if you insist there's the information you'll need:

Warrant officer Jens Mathias Petersen - died on the 13th March, 2008 due to over-exertion during training.

The unnamed sergeant, whom died on the 3th December, 2004 committed suicide.

Both is not listed on the official fatality list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.196.89 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

seperate page for US Casaulties in Afghanistan??

I have just read throught the comments.. The section Details, the British, Canadians and Germans all have there own seperate pages which highlights the individuals killed in Afghanistan. Should not the Americans also have there own page at US Forces casualties in Afghanistan since 2001 ?? This would reduce the length of this article. It would allow substantial references to be included. Currently, there are only 15 notes but 554 cites (not included in the notes) .. COMMENTS? Jez t e C 23:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing terrorist death count

I think in the list:

Coalition casualties · Afghan forces casualties · Civilian casualties · Aircraft losses

is certainly an entry missing for the number of deaths of the enemy. As far as I know NATO doesn't keep official records, but there are websites which try to estimate the number of terrorists killed based on news reports, like http://terroristdeathwatch.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.129.109 (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is about Coalition deaths, that's why it's missing. (Also, they aren't terrorists just because they are the enemy) Psychokinetic (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian soldier killed at the logistics base

Will somebody tell that guy, who is constantly changing his IP so it would seem numerous editors are doing the reverting, to stop undoing my edit. I am constantly reintroducing the Canadian soldier who died at a logistics base in another country in the Persian gulf, but he is constantly removing him from the count. The death at the logistic base is associated with the war itself, while the rest of the US deaths outside Afghanistan are associated with other wars and operations not just Afghanistan, there is a big difference. We don't include those other US deaths because they are involved in other operations and wars that have nothing to do with Afghanistan, but this Canadian soldier was directly involved and supporting the war in Afghanistan, the same as those US soldiers killed in Pakistan and Uzbekistan. The Canadian news press even includes him in their Afghan war tally when they state the number of dead soldiers. What this anonymous editor is doing is missleading and he is pushing his own POW. He is trying to implement US military casualties policy on US casualties on to Canadian casualties in contradiction to Canadian military casualties policy.BobaFett85 (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

BobaFett, you only started editing this page 15 weeks ago on December 23, 2008. Just to give you some context, in case you think I just showed up after you, I've been contributing regularly to this Wikipedia article since September 18, 2006, about two and a half years ago.

Now here is your very first edit of this page on December 23, 2008: What were you doing? You were undoing contributions that I had made to this page on December 14, 2008 and earlier:

The death that took place outside of Afghanistan, and nowhere near Afghanistan, took place on July 4, 2008. Here is the edit that I made to add the information to this article on July 5, 2008.

On July 7, 2008, Mike McGregor, another long-time contributor to this page, made this edit in which he removed the out-of-country death that someone else had included from the total.

On July 20, 2008, he made another edit to remove the out-of-country death with the comment "the passage refers to in-country fatalities".

Here is an edit I made on August 6, 2008 in which I wrote not to include "deaths at distant logistics bases".

I could go on, but the point is two-fold: 1) you are the one that is undoing contributions that were made before you showed up, 2) this issue has been discussed before and was resolved until you decided to jump in and impose your way.

If you bother to read the very first discussion on this discussion page, started on September 5, 2006, you'll see that this issue was discussed and resolved by others in September 2006. As was pointed out then, this article is clearly titled "Coalition casualties in Afghanistan" - not "Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan" as you seem to think.

I am not arguing against the fact that "the death at the logistic base is associated with the war itself". But, to repeat, this article is not "Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan" but "Coalition casualties in Afghanistan".

You mention the Canadian news. I am a Canadian living in Canada - I don't believe that is your case. Most of the media news sources here will present the number of casualties as something like "The deaths bring the Canadian military's death toll to 111 since the Afghan mission began more than seven years ago."[6], or "Their deaths bring the Canadian military's death toll to 111 since the Afghan mission began in 2002."[7], or "There have been 111 Canadian soldiers, one diplomat and two aid workers who've died as part of the Afghanistan mission since 2002."[8]

Please notice that they are not saying 111 have died "in Afghanistan", but rather that 111 have died "during the mission" or "as part of the mission". In other words, they are being accurate in their wording and reporting. Then you have less rigorous news outlets that are completely inaccurate and will report things like "There have now been 111 Canadian soldiers killed in combat in Afghanistan since 2002", which is quite wrong (only 93 have died under hostile circumstances, and unless you count IED deaths as "combat", only 33 have actually died in combat) and entirely misleading.

And the reason they are inaccurate is because lazy reporters or editors just grab a number off icasualties.org or some other source without bothering to check what it actually represents.

That is why it's important for this article to be accurate. Wikipedia should be a place that people can turn to for accurate information, where they can come to double-check on common misconceptions like this one that the mass media often reinforces and propagates.

70.49.123.146 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, listen buddy don't try being all high and mighty on me, I have been editing under the username BobaFett85 since late December, BUT have been editing here on Wikipedia under numereous other usernames since July 2006, thus I have been contributing to Wikipedia about two months longer than you. I change my Username every six months or so because I get bored with the old one. And one more thing, if you are going to try and trick me try a little bit better. The sources you gave, stating 111 killed in support of the operation, are out of date, that number was given before Canadian ISAF soldier Marc Diab was killed on March 8. Here is a source for that and the number 112 [9]. What? You fought that if I was a newbie to Wikipedia I wouldn't check it and just belive you. By the way it's from a Canadian news source, think it's called www.canada.com. Can't get more Canadian than that. But of course you knew all this since you are Canadian right? If anything I have learned in my two and a half years of working on Wikipedia how to deal with POV pushers, and that is you. I have had edit wars with at least a dozen POV pushers who tried to push their own agendas, I won every last one of those debates.

But thanks for one thing, you pointed out a serious problem with this article. You said: I am not arguing against the fact that "the death at the logistic base is associated with the war itself". But, to repeat, this article is not "Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan" but "Coalition casualties in Afghanistan". Maybe that is the main problem here, people who come here and read this article are coming to see the numbers of Coalition soldiers who died in support of the war, not just within the country itself. So I think actualy I will change the name of the article in a few days if nobody objects because as this article is now it is highly missleading. Also you say this article includes only those who died within Afghanistan itself, then why are you including US deaths in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, oh that's right because the DoD says they died in support of operations in Afghanistan. And I think you yourself said you agreed that that guy at the logistics base died in support of operations in Afghanistan. I have nothing further to say. Please stop reverting and making a big fuss and an edit war over this.BobaFett85 (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see your multiple edits of this discussion under both your latest BobaFett account and anonymously, (which you did as well in editing the main article.) I can see why you anonymously edited out this part in particular.

You wrote: "I have had edit wars ... I won every last one of those debates". I think you're missing the whole point of the discussion page. Perhaps you could read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

You wrote: "So I think actualy I will change the name of the article in a few days if nobody objects". Actually, I do object.

The canada.com article you referenced was exactly an example of shoddy and inaccurate reporting, and the reason why I think we should not bury details here. An example of more accurate wording is "Diab, a member of the Royal Canadian Dragoons based in Petawawa, Ont., is the 112th Canadian soldier to die during the Afghan mission since 2002.[10] It gives the casualty figure without saying that 112 soldiers died in Afghanistan.

As for including US deaths in Pakistan and Uzbekistan, the only reason for that is simply because the US military does not provide casualty figures for Afghanistan alone.

70.49.123.146 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I did that edit anonymously only because I didn't want to bother signing in, but you know what I realy don't care, do what you want, I am starting a whole new article on Coalition deaths linked to the war itself and not just within the borders of the country, and that will be the article that will be used as a reference for the number of Coalition soldiers killed in the infobox of the conflict.BobaFett85 (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You've now unilaterally branched off a duplicate copy of this article and hijacked links [11] [12] that were to this established article, unilaterally appropriating them to try to redirect readers to your own personal duplicate page.

These actions very clearly confirm that you have absolutely no inclination to resolve things through discussion with others.

All you've done is greatly expanded the problem and postponed its resolution.

76.69.230.143 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How can I resolve the problem when you yourself are not inclined to resolve the problem through discussion. I have changed the article a bit and removed some links so for it not to be too much of a copy of this article but it will stick because there has to be an article that lists ALL of the casualties that have result directly from the war and not just those within the borders of that country.BobaFett85 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Another article (continuation of previous section)

I just wanted to say that any editor that didn't agree with this article, because it only lists soldiers killed within the borders of Afghanistan and not all soldiers who died as result of the war in other countries, can edit an article that lists all Coalition deaths that are the result of the war in Afghanistan right here. And I know that there are editors that don't agree with this article because there have been a number of discussions in the past where some editors tried to explain that this article is not listing properly all registered Coalition deaths that have been the result of the war.BobaFett85 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

the new article has just been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposition. I myself will delete that additional article I created right here and right now if we added a subsection in the old article where we would specificly mention that beside those killed IN Afghanistan that there were an additional one Canadian and 30 or so US soldiers who died in support of the war but in other countries and not Afghanistan. Also we remove the list of all specific incidents because as it is the article is getting to large and Wikipedia is not a memorial. But we will use all of those references to list the names of US soldiers killed and in specific incidents in a new article called US military casualties in Afghanistan.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If the opening line, paragraph, intro, and infobox of the article all continue to be for the total number of coalition deaths in Afghanistan as we have now (meaning "in and around Afghanistan" for the special case of the US, only because they don't provide more detail), then a subsection that mentions deaths that took place outside of Afghanistan but that are clearly attributed to the war in Afghanistan might be ok in theory, provided it did not sacrifice accuracy for the sake of presenting some arbitrary number.

But that becomes a problem in practice because I really don't see how you can determine which of the 67 American deaths outside of "in and around Afghanistan" were for the war in Afghanistan and which were not. The US simply does not provide that information. Could you please explain just how you've determined that "30 or so" US soldiers have died in support of this war but not in Afghanistan? Your "or so" qualifier indicates that you're not sure, yet you're presenting a total to readers as if it's a hard figure. To me that's inaccurate and misleading. I looked at the citations on your new duplicate page and none of the sources indicate that figure, and some of the citations seem to have nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan. Your "30 or so" figure seems rather arbitrary, with you as the arbiter.

Your suggestion to remove the specific incidents should be treated as a separate issue. I don't agree with removing the specific incidents section just for the sake of making the article fit a certain length, and I think the section contains information that should be preserved. The specific incidents section allows for including more details about specific incidents than can fit in the formatted tables on the country-specific pages for casualties. There are also only four country-specific pages for casualties, yet 21 countries have suffered casualties. I would keep the specific incidents section, at least for all non-US coalition deaths.

76.65.182.206 (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not arbitary at all, and I actualy know the exact number, it's 28. Icasualties.org has listed 667 US deaths as part of OEF, I sifted through all of them and found 41 died in Africa, southeast Asia or Cuba, so that brings down the number to 626. I also found out that the number of those who died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan or of wounds received in Afghanistan is 601 and not 595 like the DoD says, so that is bad information on their part. So that leaves only 25 more US soldiers who died in countries other than Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan as part of OEF. But I also found four articles about four more US servicemen who died in support of operations in Afghanistan but are not listed on icasualties.org. I have started an article about all US fatalities in the war, and will adress all of this in that article. Thus since we will have an article about US, British, Canadian and Australian casualties already, we should, like you said, leave only specific incidents of deaths of all the other coalition soldiers, so remove those listed incidents of deaths of US, British, Canadian and Australian soldiers.BobaFett85 (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that is abritrary. You are arbitrarily saying that all deaths not in Africa, southeast Asia, or Cuba are necessarily deaths for the war in Afghanistan. How can you know for sure that a death in southeast Asia is not related to the war in Afghanistan? How can you know for sure that a death in the US or Europe or Middle East is related to the war in Afghanistan?

Just to take one example, on your new page American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, you count the death of Lisa M. Andrews who "was on leave from her unit when she was struck and killed by a civilian vehicle as she was walking across U.S. Highway 69". Just what evidence do you have that she died for the war in the Afghanistan? The link you provide for her death [13] has absolutely no mention of Afghanistan. So you are contravening one of Wikipedia's core content policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Besides she was on leave, so just how can you attribute her death to any war, let alone a specific war?

This inaccuracy and arbitrariness, by the way, is a problem not just with that new article and what you are proposing to do here, but with the many other articles you've recently churned out:

• List of private contractor deaths in Afghanistan
• List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan
• List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan‎

In List of private contractor deaths in Afghanistan you seem to be taking any foreigner death in Afghanistan and categorizing it as a private contractor death. For example, you include the death of Canadian carpenter, Mike Frastacky, as a private contractor. He was in no way on contract to anyone. Just what is your definition of private contractor?

What you seem to be doing in all these articles you're whipping up is sifting through hundreds of individual cases, arbitrarily and inaccurately categorizing each according to your own feeling, and then presenting your arbitrary and inaccurate tally as if it's a definitive figure. And then you introduce and propagate your "exact" numbers into other Wikipedia articles, again as if they were official figures, with your own articles as the source. That kind of research/study to come up with an abritrary number - unlike quoting published estimates or tallies from recognized sources - crosses the line into original research, creating material that is of a primary source character.

You churn out a lot of edits, but, in my opinion, you're introducing a lot of inaccuracy into Wikipedia that also goes against 2 of Wikipedia's 3 core content policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No Original Research.

You wrote "like you said, leave only specific incidents of deaths of all the other coalition soldiers, so remove those listed incidents of deaths of US, British, Canadian and Australian soldiers."

In fact, no, that too is inaccurate and not what I said. I wrote "I would keep the specific incidents section, at least for all non-US coalition deaths." Keeping specific incidents for all non-US coalition deaths means keeping the specific incidents for British, Canadian, Australian, and all other non-US soldiers.

70.24.197.60 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen man, I realy have no idea what your problem is, you are talking all the time about finding common ground and a solution but you are just shooting down everything I propose to you. As for the answer to your grievences:

Number 1: those killed in Africa are listed as killed in OEF - Horn of Africa

Number 2: those killed in Southeast Asia are listed as killed in OEF - Philipines

Number 3: those killed in Cuba are listed as killed generaly in OEF, not any specific sub-operation

Number 4: Operation Enduring Freedom is the name for only three currently active operations, that is OEF - Afghanistan, OEF - Horn of Africa, OEF - Philipines, so there is your answer as to how I know those who died in Africa and southeast Asia were not supporting the war in Afghanistan

Number 5: OEF - Afghanistan is any and all operations in support of the war in Afghanistan in that region

Number 6: There were no deaths in Europe except for those who died in the military hospital in Germany of wounds sustained in Afghanistan

Number 7: Your problem with the inclusion of Lisa M. Andrews, she has been listed as a casualty of Operation Enduring freedom, I checked where her unit was stationed at the time of her death, it was in Kuwait, thus OEF - Afghanistan

Number 8: List of private contractor deaths in Afghanistan - contractors are people who work under a contract for someone. You said the Canadian was in no way on contract to anyone. Then what was he doing in a war zone, sightseeing? He worked privately as a carpenter. Contractors are not just those mercenaries (PMC's), they are also engineers, truck drivers, supply workers, businessmen etc. You can check this over at the Iraq war article or at icasualties.org, that issue has been thoroughly examined.

Number 9: List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan - what? What's the problem here? It's the same as List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, and by the way don't try and accuse me of arbitery editing that article as well, it wasn't created by me but by users Publicus and Top Gun three years ago, they stoped editing it so I continued instead of them. And that article, the Iraqi one, was nominated for deletion two times, and both times editors thought that there is no basis for deletion and that the article is needed, with an overwhelming majority. So obviously Wikipedia Users think that articles like List of insurgent fatality reports in Afghanistan are needed.

Number 10: List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan‎, it's on the same basis as List of Iraqi security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan‎ and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, nothing strange there.

Number 11: You don't want to remove the Canadians, Australians and the British, fine, I don't know why you want to keep them since they are listed on their respective lists of casualties, but fine. However I will remove all reports of US soldiers killed once the list of US casualties is finished.

Number 12: Finally, please man stop boring me with every little thing you have a problem with. Eather you want to resolve this issue or not, you are just prolonging this needlesly. I set out my compromise, you said you agree with it and that's how it will be. But I won't change even a bit my compromise solution just so you would feel more fine about it. C'mon, cool off a bit and settle down so we can resolve this issue calmly.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

For your points 1, 2, 3: just where are they listed as killed in OEF Horn of Africa or Philippines or Cuba? I looked at the Wikipedia pages for OEF and have not seen the information. If you don't provide sources, then it goes against one of Wikipedia's 3 core content policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability. You've claimed that "41 died in Africa, southeast Asia or Cuba". How can other editors verify your claim?

Your point 4 ("Operation Enduring Freedom is the name for only three currently active operations"): That's inaccurate, you missed the fourth, Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans_Sahara.

Your point 7: a) Where do you provide verifiability that her unit was based in Kuwait? b) The fact that her unit was based in Kuwait does not necessarily mean that it was involved in OEF Afghanistan as opposed to OEF Trans Sahara or OEF Horn of Africa or OEF Philippines. c) She was at home on leave. She was from Kansas, was based in Kansas, and she died in Kansas when she got struck by a vehicle when she was crossing a highway. How can you attribute her death to the war?

Your point 8 ("Then what was he doing in a war zone, sightseeing?"): Actually, pretty much yes. Canadian carpenter Mike Frastacky was trekking in Afghanistan in 2001. He decided to build a school with his own money. It's all in the source link you have for him where you included him as a "private contractor". Might help if you read a little more carefully.

Your point 8 ("Contractors are not just those mercenaries (PMC's), they are also engineers, truck drivers, supply workers, businessmen etc. You can check this over at the Iraq war article or at icasualties.org, that issue has been thoroughly examined."): So obviously it's not clear to most people what "private contractors" means. I think you should at least provide a definition of what is meant by the term in that article so people know that you're including aid workers that are with NGO's or aid organizations (many of which were in Afghanistan long before this war).

Your point 12 ("you said you agree with it"): No, I wrote "might be ok in theory, provided ...". May I recommend the advice you added. I'm not trying to bore you, and believe me there are other things I'd much rather be doing, but all this is indicative of the inaccuracies you introduce into Wikipedia. Because you're like a machine in the amount of edits you make and the number of articles you're touching, all these inaccuracies have a cumulative effect that's simply not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.197.60 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

For God's sake are you listening anything I say?!

Number 1: Go to icasualties.org, there they have the list of all casualties of OEF, they even have a filter included to show you those specificly killed in African or Southeast Asian countries or Cuba, in all there are 41! And obviously you didn't check well enough OEF pages on Wikipedia, check OEF - Horn of Africa, it shows the number of US soldiers killed in the infobox in the operation, the same thing for OEF - Philipines. And check even OEF - Trans-Sahara, I think a soldier killed in Mali is listed there. In addition to those killed in Cuba it's 41!

Number 2: That girls unit was based in Kuwait, not Kansas, I'll give you a link that proves it if you want it, second she was on leave in the US but on active duty in Asia, third the DoD itself confirmed she was a casualty of OEF. Fourth, like we have both agreed on at least, there were four operations of OEF: Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, southeast Asia and Trans-Sahara (which I forgot to include because it's been in effect for about a year or two, not long) and the side-operation in Cuba. Since 41 have been confirmed by icasualties.org to have died in Horn of Africa, southeast Asia, Trans-Sahara and Cuba, thus all the rest died in support of operations in Afghanistan. I don't think there is an OEF - Kuwait or OEF - Bahrain, so please stop using that as an excuse. For the last time, those that died in Africa, Southeast Asia and Cuba died as part of: OEF - Horn of Africa, OEF - Philipines, OEF - Trans-Sahara and prisoner operations in Cuba. Logicaly all the rest died as part of OEF - Afghanistan.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, I think, when we remove the American casualties from the specific incidents section, we should also remove the Australians, Danes and Poles, since their names, dates of death and circumstances are already mentioned in their respectiv sub-sections of this article, thus there is no need to say their names in the article two times.BobaFett85 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First, you really need to read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

Second, anything you want to add to Wikipedia has to be easily verifiable. That's one of the 3 core rules for content on Wikipedia. Trying to verify what you want to add is anything but that.

You wrote "they even have a filter included to show you those specificly killed in African or Southeast Asian countries or Cuba". Can you please provide a link to the exact icasualties page with that filter, and describe where the filter is on the page? I'm not finding it.

You wrote "obviously you didn't check well enough OEF pages on Wikipedia, check OEF - Horn of Africa, it shows the number of US soldiers killed in the infobox in the operation, the same thing for OEF - Philipines. And check even OEF - Trans-Sahara, I think a soldier killed in Mali is listed there. In addition to those killed in Cuba it's 41!". Ok, I see 15 from the infobox on page Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines with no verifiable sources provided, 21 from the infobox on page Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa as edited by you [14], [15], [16] with no verifiable sources provided, and 1 in the infobox on page Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa also without verifiable source. That adds up to 37. Yet you're claiming 41 non-Afghanistan-related OEF deaths. So is it 4 OEF deaths in Cuba? Which infobox is that number provided in? And why are they being excluded from being counted as part of the war in Afghanistan? You said they are OEF deaths but that there are only 4 OEF operations, so which of those 4 OEF operations do the Cuba OEF deaths belong to? The information you've given so far definitely does not qualify as easily verifiable. Nor is it accurate.

You wrote "That girls unit was based in Kuwait, not Kansas, I'll give you a link that proves it if you want it". Why isn't that link included as a citation source in your article then? The link that you do have, [17], very clearly states "Andrews was assigned to the 129th Transportation Company, U.S. Army Reserve, based in New Century, Kan." Nothing there about Kuwait or Afghanistan. Her unit was based in Kansas. And even if it were based in Kuwait, how does that tell you it's OEF Afghanistan and not OEF Trans Sahara or OEF Horn of Africa?

You wrote "second she was on leave in the US but on active duty in Asia" Is that Asia or Central Asia? If it's Asia, how do you know it's not OEF - Philippines?

And looking at icasualties.org US OEF casualties - the very page you're relying on to come up with your tally - she is not even listed there. So why are you counting her as a casualty of the war in Afghanistan?

By the way, you haven't responded on your inaccurate counting of Mike Frastacky as a "private contractor" death in Afghanistan. In both of these examples I pointed out, you were unable to properly read the very sources you used.

From what's been seen, it's clear that the subsection you want to add is not based on any easily verifiable or accurate information, so I think we're better off without it and staying with the DoD's official "In and Around Afghanistan" numbers as we have been doing for years. Going with the intricate, error-prone process you've described is not verifiable nor accurate, and it would require someone to constantly monitor every single American OEF death that occurs and promptly update the information to maintain any sort of accuracy. The only person that seems to have the excess time and inclination to do all that simply can't be relied on for accuracy.

And no one else has the excess time and inclination to check on that person. So not a good idea.

70.24.198.48 (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Casualty dispute (continuation of previous section)

I'm new to this editorial dispute, but I'd like to help if I could. It seems that there is a dispute about whether all coalition casualties should be counted on this page, or whether just those casualties in a particular place should be counted here. If this is the basic dispute how about a solution on along these lines.

• The article has a titled which is not fully descriptive of the situation--it mentions coalition casualties in Afghanistan, but the title is general enough that it could refer to any alliance past, present, future. To solve this problem, how about retitling this article with something like OEF and ISAF casualties in Afghanistan--that way there is no misunderstanding as to the types of casualties that would be listed.
• If the article has a title like that--then all casualties classified by the OEF or ISAF forces as casualties would then fall into this article. The casualties could be further sub-divided into regions, countries where the casualties took place, etc. This might be helpful in certain situations where a casualty might happen in a neighboring country--simply to due to a combat situation--but really the casualty is related to OEF or ISAF.

I hope this helps, let's see if we can't solve this dispute and provide helpful info. Thoughts? Publicus 18:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support this.BobaFett85 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Publicus. I see that BobaFett 85 invited you here and that you indicated you'd lend him some help. By the way, where you wrote "I've posted a comment on this on the deletion page--to basically punt it", could you explain what you meant by "to basically punt it"?

Thanks for making your suggestions. I read and considered them but I honestly don't think they would make a difference in resolving this dispute. In my comments above (please also read the newest comments I added in the section above since your suggestion) the problem here is lack of verifiability and accuracy. That problem remains with the reorganization your propose - it does not solve the issue.

You wrote "The casualties could be further sub-divided into regions, countries where the casualties took place, etc." That's where the problem lies: the proposed subdivision of casualties that BobaFett is insisting on is inaccurate and not easily verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Renaming the article as you propose does not change that in any way.70.24.198.48 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, BobaFett invited me and I do appreciate it--one of the things that is always so difficult with these conflict/war pages is the number of casualties, that's why I would like to help. And by basically punt it--I meant not make a decision on whether to delete the new article by BobaFett, but engage myself in this editorial dispute. I didn't feel that I knew enough to make a decision either way. So, to understand your position, even this title change to the article would not solve the issue of including all the casualties. Publicus 19:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, you are not trying to resolve this dispute at all, you are just pushing your own point of view. You have no proof my proposed subdivision of casualties is inaccurate, actualy I provided enough proof that it is accurate. And don't attack Publicus, he is not helping me in any way, he is voicing his opinion. He expresed his position on that other article that he doesn't support it, I myself said that maybe I was wrong for creating it, but he is now trying to help to find a compromise solution here, midle ground, which you are obviously not doing.BobaFett85 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the time to clearly point out case after case of inaccuracy and unverifiablity in your edits to you, complete with links. You have denied and ignored those problems. I have taken the time to ask you to provide a link and directions to the filter that you mentioned. You have ignored that request. I have taken the time to ask you numerous other questions regarding the disputed information that you want to add. You have ignored those questions.

Here is further inaccuracy and unverifiabilty on the new page American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan you created to use as the basis for what you propose:

"Of the American deaths, 603 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.[18][19][20][21][22]"

You assert that as of March 20th, 603 have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, yet according to the official DoD casualty status document that you list as the 2nd source for that line, the number that have died in those 3 countries as of March 24th is 597. In other words, your number differs from the DoD's official number for the exact same three countries.

The 3rd source that you give for your claim is one we've seen already - the woman from Kansas, assigned to a unit based in Kansas, and died in a traffic accident in Kansas, while on leave. No mention whatsoever there of Afghanistan.

The last two sources you list also contain absolutely no mention whatsoever of OEF or Afghanistan.

You claim on your page that 631 US soldiers have died for the war in Afghanistan. You claim on this discussion page that you got to your number by determining that 41 US soldiers have died for OEF but not for the war in Afghanistan. That means a total of 672. Yet the DoD's official worldwide total as of 10 a.m. today is 665 (664 excluding a DoD civilian casualty). So your total is magically 7 or 8 more deaths than the official DoD number. Are you somehow privy to more information than the Pentagon about their wars?

None of the five sources you list back up your numbers. Two of the sources you list give numbers that contradict yours, while the remaining three contain absolutely no mention of Afghanistan.

This is the information on which you are basing the new subsection that you want to add here, and that you are injecting into other Wikipedia articles. Not only are you conducting original research (Wikipedia:No Original Research), but it's completely inaccurate and unverifiable by Wikipedia standards (Wikipedia:Verifiability).

70.49.123.203 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I'm going to say this now and for the last time and get it through that thick skull of yours. And stop being such an uncompromising person, also there is no need to be insulting towards me since I didn't attack you in any way. There is no magic involved but facts and sources! I didn't ignore your request for the link to the site with the filter, it's here, icasualties.org [23] and I listed it as one of my references on the page I am making. It's just that you ignored it and didn't read it. Also I told you before that I went through icasualties.org's list and found that more soldiers died than it is reported by the DoD. That's wrong information on their part.

Now I will tell you how I came to the number of 634. I will go with you one step at a time and you will listen and after this you will stop buging me.

Step 1: Icasualties.org states that 671 soldiers died supporting OEF (while DoD says 667, evidence one of wrong information by the DoD), if you use icasualties.org's filter on their list you will find that 41 died in Africa, Southeast Asia or Cuba, that leaves 630 who died in Afghanistan or other countries supporting operations in Afghanistan.
Step 2: Of the remaining 630 I found that 606 died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, while 24 died in Bahrain, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Persian Gulf, Arabian sea.
Step 3: I found that icasualties.org missed to put on their list four more servicemen that were CONFIRMED as OEF casualties. The female soldier on leave in Kansas (unit was in Kuwait at the time), a CIA operative killed in a vehicle accident in Khazakhstan, a sailor who was lost at sea in the Indian ocean in 2001 (his ship was supporting air operations against Afghanistan during the initial invasion at the time) and the civilian DoD employee who was killed by terrorist gunmen in Kuwait in January 2003. I put references for all of them in that paragraph of the article.
Step 4: My numbers are not based on DoD figures but on icasualties.org, which is more reliable. Thus, 606 killed (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan) + 24 killed (outside Afghanistan, while supporting operations there) + 4 additional deaths not listed on icasualties.org = 634 killed.
Step 5: I rest my case. No original research, everything verified with the list from icasualties.org and those additional references for the four servicemen that icasualties.org missed. Finall tally for OEF, including Africa, Southeast Asia and Cuba - 675, eight more than the DoD report's, but all confirmed by DoD to be OEF fatalities, I guess the Pentagon just forgot about those eight people. I guess the guy who maintains their site was not privy too all the information. BobaFett85 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So according to the DoD there are 667 casualties, while according to icasualties there are 671--okay I understand that point. DoD is slower than the private sources in releasing and confirming. For this issue, how about just listing two different casualty counts--on other war articles it's been very common practice to list multiple casualty counts initially. After time goes by these initial counts become more accurate, allowing editors to list a more solid number.Publicus 20:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To the IP editor, is there any reason not to list two separate numbers for casualties in Afghanistan--the DoD number and the icasualties number? From my read, icasualties has been pretty good at providing a solid count over the years. I don't see why we couldn't list two different numbers, properly labeled of course.Publicus 20:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the four that have been confirmed by DoD to be OEF casualties, but icasualties missed to put them on their list. That would make 675 vs 667.BobaFett85 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Publicus. I don't think anyone was proposing to put the worldwide total number of US OEF deaths from 4 different operations on this page. As Bobafett has repeatedly pointed out, and where we agree, this worldwide total of OEF deaths includes many deaths not related to Afghanistan or the war in Afghanistan. The numbers you mentioned, 667 from the DoD page and 671 from icasualties, are their respective worlwide totals from 4 different OEF operations combined.

What is being discussed here is breaking that number down to present the number of American casualties in Afghanistan or in the war in Afghanistan. Icasualties.org simply does not publish such a figure. The official DoD casualty status page[24], however, does. The figure that they present, in addition to the worldwide total of casualties from all OEF operations combined, is 599 deaths in and around Afghanistan. They define "in and around Afghanistan" as including deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. This is the official figure that we have been presenting on this page for years. The dispute is arising because Bobafett thinks that the official DoD number they are presenting is "wrong information" and he wants to scrap the use of that official number and instead present a number that he came up with as a result of his own study (Wikipedia:Original Research). First, that is clearly against Wikipedia standards (Wikipedia:No Original Research), second his number is inaccurate, and third it is unverifiable (Wikipedia:Verifiability).

You wrote further above "So, to understand your position, even this title change to the article would not solve the issue of including all the casualties." Just to to be clear, the issue isn't about including the worldwide total of OEF casualties. The problem is inaccuracy, unverifiability, and original research that is against Wikipedia policy. So no, a title change or re-organization would not solve the problem.

76.65.183.238 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to BobaFett now ... First, changing the contents of previously posted discussion is inappropriate, especially when it's after others have been reading and continuing the discussion already. You even edited the content of someone else's comments. Second it illustrates yet more inaccuracy on your part: Your revision comment was "Revision, found out that icasualties also didn't list the DoD civilian employee who was killed in january 2003 in Kuwait by gunmen, so adding him also". I guess your previous tally that you've been swearing by wasn't so good. Your original research is rife with inaccuracies and mistakes and re-edits like that. Anyone that tries to follow the intricate process that you outline can see that it's error-prone. Even you can't get it right. It's also unverifiable by Wikipedia standards, and constitutes original research. I quote you: "evidence one of wrong information by the DoD", "I guess the Pentagon just forgot about those eight people", "I found that icasualties.org missed to put on their list four more servicemen". You're presenting your special methodology as better than the Pentagon's or icasualties.org's. That constitutes Wikipedia:original research.

So using your newly revised numbers, you claim 606 killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, while the DoD's official number for the same countries as of 10 a.m. March 25 is 599. Your total for all OEF adds up to 675 while the DoD's official number is 667 and icasualties' number is 671. Your numbers are contradicted by both of your sources.

By the way, I still don't see where on icasualties.org/oef this "filter included to show you those specificly killed in African or Southeast Asian countries or Cuba" that you mentioned is. Does anyone else see it?

76.65.183.238 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I have been realy, realy polite to you up to this point but you have been uncompromising, unfriendly and at some points insuliting towards me, actualy you were like this from the very start. And I know that there is a rule here on Wikipedia about insulting other editors and I have never insulted anyone who didn't deserve it, but I am just going to say it. Anonymous Canadian user - You realy are an ASS! Now to continue to your continuing grievences. Again, a step at a time:

Step 1: The list with the filter is here [25], It's not so hard to find it for anyone, well except for you of course.

Ok, now I do see a filter for "Country of Death", thank you for finally providing the proper URL. I'll look at it later when I have the time and respond to the rest of your comments.

70.50.10.28 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Step 2: I revised the DoD number up by 2 because they were late by three days to add those last two Marines killed on their list, just wanted to be as precise as possible since my tally included those two guys.
Step 3: Again you are going on and on with the Original research accusation, it's not since it's all been referenced, so give it a rest with that will you?
Step 4: I said why it's 675 and not 671 like icasualties says, I said it I think two or three times, but you obviously cann't read. Icasualties.org missed to put on their list: the CIA operative killed in Khazakhstan, the woman serviceman from Kansas, the DoD employee, and the sailor who drowned in the Indian ocea.
Step 5: I made just one inacurace, I thought that icasualties.org included the DoD employee on their list, they didn't. He was killed by terrorists in Kuwait in January 2003. When I counted on icasualties the number of those killed in Kuwait I was looking at the country of death and not to which units they were assigned so I missed that he was not on the list. But I re-checked and found out the mistake and corrected it.
Step 6: There is nothing contradictory about the numbers it's simple. The DoD says 599 killed in and around Afghanistan and in military hospitals, while we have icasualties.org which has listed the names of 606 soldiers killed in and around Afghanistan and in military hospitals. All of those names were put on icasualties following DoD confirmation. So the reason is simple, whoever is updating the DoD's site is wrong by a factor of 7.
Step 7: Now listen to me realy carefull, I am almost finished with the list of all soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan, it will take me just a couple of more days. When I am finished I will remove all reported incidents of US soldiers killed from this article, also I will remove the Danes, Poles and Australians as well since their names are already listed at the begining of the article. Then I will revise the number of US soldiers killed up by seven to 606 since it has been established that the DoD's number is unreliable. Again the names of 606 soldiers listed as killed of wounds received in or around Afghanistan on icasualties list were all put there following DoD confirmation. I will add a note that according to DoD numbers a smaller number of 599 were killed, like Publicus said, we cann't rule them out compleatly. But since we will have the Wikipedia article I am building as a basis we will use the bigger number from now on. In the end I will create a sub-section in the article that will deal with the out-of-country deaths that were the result of the war in Afghanistan but were not in Afghanistan, specificly the 28 US and one Canadian soldier. Cheers!BobaFett85 (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I've filed an alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.

You should also read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which is also applicable:

"A disruptive editor is an editor who: ... Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. ... Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. ... Does not engage in consensus building: 'repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits ... Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors."

You wrote "I made just one inacurace". No, your tally is full of inaccuracies, as previously outlined. I've also just looked at the icasualties filter and it further confirms the inaccuracy and unverifiability of your edits and of the editing agenda that you're plotting out over the objections of other editors. Your claim of 41 deaths in Africa, Philippines, and Cuba simply does not add up. Yet this is the basis for the rest of your house of cards calculations. As I've pointed out, your method is unreliable and error-prone - so much so that even you can't get it right yourself. This just confirms it. By the way, here's still further evidence of the inaccuracy of your edits and original research: One with your apt revision comment of "Ooops, pardon". And your next edit to correct your numbers again. Again, this is too unreliable and unverifiable for Wikipedia standards, and it constitutes original research.

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research are two of Wikipedia's three core content policies: "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. ... The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." In other words, we cannot compromise accuracy and verifiability for the sake of your original research and your point of view that the DoD and icasualties.org are wrong.

76.68.251.162 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I have no idea what your talking about again with the filter, icasualties clearly listed 41 soldiers as killed in Africa, Cuba or Southeast Asia by country. You obviously didn't count them. As for my mistakes you are clinging to simple mistakes of a moment that were very promptly corected, also not all were mistakes, I was updating the numbers since more soldiers were dying, there is a war on you know. Of course I will make mistakes since I have not totaly finished the list yet. When it's finished we will have a clear number so stop buging me about that. I have sourced every last of those soldiers killed on my list, icasualties.org is a reliable source which is used by all mayor news servies. So stop talking that I haven't provided any sources. I insulted you after you were acting all high and mighty on me from the very start and that was starting to get anoying. You have been uncompromising and uncostructive from the very start. You dismissed the solution Publicus presented from the get go. And what's with agenda that you're plotting, what's wrong with you, this isn't some kind of an international conspiracy. I didn't say icasualties.org was wrong, I said they missed to put four servicemen on their list who were confirmed as OEF casualties. I did say the DoD's number of 599 was wrong since 606 are listed as killed of wounds in or around Afghanistan on icasualties.org's list. I am fed up with you and will simply ignore you. Publicus has presented a good compromise solution and we will go with that. It's your problem if you don't like it.BobaFett85 (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When I asked you for verifiability for your claim of those 41 deaths, you referred me to the infoboxes of the OEF articles. From those I found that you had attributed 21 US deaths to OEF Horn of Africa in the infobox on page Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa with the following edits that you made [26], [27], [28] to that page with no verifiable sources provided. Then there's 15 deaths in the infobox on page Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines with no verifiable sources provided, and 1 death in the infobox on page Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara, also without verifiable source. That's a total of 37. You claimed that with the OEF deaths in Cuba that's 41, implying 4 deaths in Cuba. But icasualties.org shows 5 deaths in Cuba. So added to 37 that's 42, not 41. Your work doesn't add up.

You wrote "And what's with agenda that you're plotting, what's wrong with you, this isn't some kind of an international conspiracy." This is the editing agenda that you plotted out over the objections of other editors: "Step 7: Now listen to me realy carefull, I am almost finished with the list of all soldiers killed in the war in Afghanistan, it will take me just a couple of more days. When I am finished I will remove all reported incidents of US soldiers killed from this article, also I will remove the Danes, Poles and Australians as well since their names are already listed at the begining of the article. Then I will revise the number of US soldiers killed up by seven to 606 since it has been established that the DoD's number is unreliable. Again the names of 606 soldiers listed as killed of wounds received in or around Afghanistan on icasualties list were all put there following DoD confirmation. I will add a note that according to DoD numbers a smaller number of 599 were killed, like Publicus said, we cann't rule them out compleatly. But since we will have the Wikipedia article I am building as a basis we will use the bigger number from now on. In the end I will create a sub-section in the article that will deal with the out-of-country deaths that were the result of the war in Afghanistan but were not in Afghanistan, specificly the 28 US and one Canadian soldier."

A few updates for anyone following this dispute.

• The duplicate article created by BobaFett85 was deleted after being deemed to be a POV fork.[29]
• BobaFett85 was asked not to attack other editors [30]
• A discussion regarding BobaFett85's new article American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan has been started by User:Nick-D at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan. That article stems directly from this dispute in that Bobafett created the article to support his contentions in this dispute [31], also clear from several other comments he made above in this discussion. The new discussion seems to be touching on some of the same points, in particular Wikipedia:No Original Research, and nomination for deletion has been mentioned as a possibility.
• BobaFett85 has since carried out his editing agenda with extremely extensive editing of this page without consensus from other editors of this page. 74.12.221.85 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified two users, Mike McGregor (Can) and Jezarnold, who contribute to this article regulary about the major changes. They did not have a problem with the edits. So I didn't do this unilateraly. Also, I followed Publicus's advice and noted in the article that the number given by icasualties.org is higher than the DoD's, even though all of the names listed were confirmed by the DoD. As for your numbers of African deaths, if you would have checked the icasualties.org filter you would have seen that, 20 soldiers died in Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti and the Seychel islands, not 21 as stated in the article OEF-Horn Of Africa, so that has to be corrected in that article. Check your facts before speaking. Also, icasualties.org clearly listed the names of 608 soldiers who died in Afghanistan or as a result of wounds from Afghanistan. So no problem there.BobaFett85 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Way to completely misrepresent things Bobbafett. Just because they both ignored the bulk of your many messages to them [32][33] does not mean that they do not have a problem with your edits. The only times they did bother to respond briefly to you, was to reiterate to you their decision to delete your now defunct Coalition casualties in the war in Afghanistan page.[34][35].

So your extensive edits to this page were done without consensus with other editors. Because of that, I am reverting your extensive changes and asking you to please not force them on the other editors of this page like that. You should first have a discussion here on this page in which all editors of this page can fairly participate, not try to make deals behind everyone's back as you have been actively trying to do this whole time.[36][37]

Your extensive editing agenda for this page also hinged [38][39] on your creation of a new page to support your contentions, American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan. Since that page has now also been nominated for deletion by another user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, that is further reason to hold off your extensive changes of this page until other editors of this page have been given a fair chance to discuss things.[40]

76.68.251.94 (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, this will be the last time that I will talk to you like a friend, yes a friend, so listen. I will try to talk to you like we just met and like we are talking for the first time.
Listen buddy, I am realy tired fighting with you. Realy, realy tired, mentaly. Mike McGregor (Can) and Jezarnold were both aware of the edits, they didn't ignore it. They both knew about the new article American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, I notified them. Mike McGregor (Can) even made a few edits to the article and gave me a few tips to edit the article. Thus he had no problem with the moving of the list from this article to that. As well as Jezarnold, he was the one who originaly proposed to me to do the article American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan, he actualy proposed this three months ago on this discussion page. He also got involved in the discussion over the new article and he backed me up and stated the article be kept. But I will warn you about something. A user called Perelada asked about the moving of the content to the new article and was angry the new article has been nominated for deletion. I told him if they delete it we will reinsert the old material back here. But user EyeSerene, who nominated the new article for deletion, has stated that we can not reinsert the old material back into this article since it itself is violation of the Wikipedia Memorial rule. So if you revert me again you will be in violation of that rule. He warned be that anyone who reinserts the old material can be easily blocked. This was a friendly warning to you. You realy like those wikipedia rules when they are usefull to you, so I will use one now. You can not reinsert that list of names of US soldiers in this article because it is in violation of the Wikipedia Memorial rule.
Listen, like I said I am very, very, very tired of fighting with you. You obviously, totaly, definetly got the wrong picture about me. Why didn't you want to be more constructive and compromising from the very start? We could have find a compromising solution. From the very start you were insulting towards me. The only real reason I created the article American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan was that this article here was getting toooooo long. And on Jezarnold's recomendation I created the new article. Listen pal, I realy have no ill will towards you, I realy have no problem with you. I don't know why you were always so hostile. Now because you were on some kind of stupid crusade against me, all of the material from this article on the names of the US soldiers will be deleted and it won't be allowed to be reinserted. They have also threatened to delete the German, Canadian and British lists as well. You were always accusing me of wrong information because of several of my bad edits with the numbers, those mistakes were because I was still calculating the number of soldiers killed based on the list by icasualties.org, but I was always changing the numbers because more soldiers were dying. Listen, can we talk this over calmly, realy calmly.
The OEF - Horn of Africa article was wrong, it said 21 but it was actualy 20. I corrected it. At this moment icasualties.org lists the names of 673 soldiers killed in OEF. 20 of those are listed as killed in African countries, 15 killed in Southeast Asia, 5 killed in Cuba and 1 killed in Mali (Trans-Sahara). That leaves 632 killed in the context of OEF - Afghanistan, among them 608 have been listed to have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan or military hospitals from wounds received in Afghanistan. The other 24 died in other Arabian countries. I also provided references for four more servicemen, who are not on icasuaties.org's lsit, but were confirmed by DoD to be fatalities of OEF. So that makes 28 to have died in other countries in support of operations in Afghanistan. A total of 636. I stated here in the article the 608 number of killed in or around Afghanistan, with an addition of 28 killed in other countries, just like that Canadian. I also, just like Publicus proposed, stated, noted that the 608 number given by icasualties.org is higher than the official DoD's tally, even if all of those 608 names were confirmed by DoD. If you would calm down and listen to this you would see that I am right.BobaFett85 (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "A user called Perelada asked about the moving of the content to the new article and was angry the new article has been nominated for deletion.". Indeed he was angry - here is that editor's quite understandable dismay at your edit That makes at least two regular editors of this page that got quite upset with you for unilaterally making such extensive changes to this page without obtaining consensus. I am sure that Mike McGregor (Can) and Jezarnold also do not approve of making such extensive changes without consensus, and especially without even giving other editors a proper chance to discuss their preferences.

What you are doing is clearly Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "A disruptive editor is an editor who: ... Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. ... Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. ... Does not engage in consensus building: 'repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits ... Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors."

You wrote: "you were on some kind of stupid crusade against me" No, I'd really much rather not have to deal with disruptive editors. What I am trying to do is ensure that Wikipedia remains accurate and up to standards (Wikipedia:verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing). Your edits are inaccurate and unverifiable, and it lowers the quality of Wikipedia and creates inaccurate and misleading information.

You wrote: "The OEF - Horn of Africa article was wrong, it said 21 but it was actualy 20. I corrected it." That's exactly my point, that page was wrong because of your edits. When I asked for verifiability of your 41 claim, you referred me to the infobox on that page and I found that it showed 21, and I found that it was 21 due to your own edits [41], [42], [43]. You've now corrected yet another mistake you made in your house of cards calculation, and this is a result of my attempts to verify your claims. This is what I mean by your edits being inaccurate and unverifiable by Wikipedia standards. By the way you still haven't sourced the figure where you corrected your mistake.

You wrote: "You can not reinsert that list of names of US soldiers" Perhaps if you didn't just automatically revert, you'd have noticed that I was actually not reinserting that list of names of US soldiers.

Now please desist on imposing your extensive changes until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan is resolved and until you've given other editors of this page a fair chance to express their preferences in a a proper discussion.

76.65.181.93 (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You better desist before a resolution is found. Mike just expressed his KEEP opinion at the discussion and you are constantly forgeting Jezarnold was the one who originaly proposed this. He still has not gotten wind of the discussion but I am sure he will voice a keep vote when he finds out. As for Perelada, I notified hime beforehand and told him we would continue on the updating of the casualties list at the new article so this one wouldn't be too long. He said in that case that it is fine. Also, your edits could get you blocked since an administrator said reinsertion of the old material used for the list here could be cause for a block since it is in violation of the Memorial rule. Also, I found out that the 21 number at OEF - Horn of Africa was actualy correct, I just found out that Yemen is part of OEF - Horn of Africa so I removed a soldier killed there from the out-of-country count. It was 42 in OEF - Horn of Africa afterall. There, a little research and a mistake is found and corrected, no faul. In any case the vote seems to be a tie for now. Five delete: you, EyeSerene, Nick-D, ALR and EnigmaMcmxc. Five keep: me, Perelada, TheFEARgod, Wallie and Mike McGregor (Can). And one for the withdrawal of the nomination until the dispute is resolved: S Marshall. I would say in essence that last one was not to delete.BobaFett85 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To be more accurate, Mike expressed a "weak keep, with caveats". He also very specifically wrote "BobbaFett, this means that you and other editors will have to come to an agreement, and it may not be what you want." So it remains that you should hold off on extensive edits to this page until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan is resolved and until you've given editors of this page a proper chance to discuss what is to happen on this page. And what EyeSerene wrote to you on your talk page was "you need to be careful about edits like this, where you seem to be saying that if the American Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan article is deleted via AfD, you'll reinsert the deleted material into the Coalition casualties in Afghanistan article." He was specifically referring to your plan to reinsert the information you moved to that article if the article gets deleted. I have specifically not reinserted any of the information that you moved to that article.

You wrote: "Also, I found out that the 21 number at OEF - Horn of Africa was actualy correct, I just found out that Yemen is part of OEF - Horn of Africa so I removed a soldier killed there from the out-of-country count. It was 42 in OEF - Horn of Africa afterall." Another error on your part? This is turning into a real joke. It's April 1st isn't it?

76.65.181.93 (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless Mike expressed a keep vote and I already discussed with him about the course on what we should to to expand the article, also what I ment by reinserting the deleted material was reinserting all of the things YOU are currently reinserting, the chronological list of soldiers killed. You yourself are reinserting it. And if that article is deleted I personaly will report you for reinserting material that is in violation of the Memorial rule, since you like to wave the Wikipedia rules so much so can I. And also this is no joke, the errors in numbers I made before were anticipated. Hell, the US government even initialy thought that 6,000 and not 3,000 people died on 9/11. But, now I have corrected all of the errors and have come to a definite number. Listen, for the last time. Icasualties.org lists 608, not 601, but 608 names of servicemen to have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan or in military hospitals from wounds received in Afghanistan. All of the names were confirmed by DoD. In any case the new article lists the names of soldiers killed almost just like this article here did it so there is no need for this article to contain the list since it is in the new article. I realy don't understand you, you yourself said a week ago you woulnd't have a problem with a subsection on out-of-country deaths and you yourself said you wouldn't have a problem to move the US deaths from the list in this article to a new article.BobaFett85 (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

BobaFett, or should I say Top Gun, perhaps the specific incidents are better removed or placed somewhere else. But it is not up to you to impose that on everyone else. A discussion should be allowed to take place so that editors of this page can have their say and try to reach a consensus.:76.69.228.84 (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Top Gun? What the hell are you talking about? Your the second person to call me that since yesterday. Lawrencama accused me be of being this Top Gun, but after I talked to him about it he droped it.BobaFett85 (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Afghan casualities?

Hello, the Afghan army is part of the coalition, they fight side by side with NATO troops against the Taliban. Are there no casualty figures for Afghans? 78.105.234.140 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to be just about the international forces which are part of the coalition. There is this article List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan but im not sure how accurate or up to date it is kept. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Jump in the U.S. number

I just noticed that the total for US casualties took a huge jump in this edit. can any one confirm or correct the number? Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That was added by an IP sock of User:Top Gun, so can't be taken at face value. I've just reverted the edit and blocked the IP account. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani casualties

Shouldn't Pakistani casualties be included? Pakistan is part of the coalition, and can be considered 'international'?

VR _talk 19:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

hey

do we know how many civilians have died over there? thanks. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 05:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

WRONG TOTAL

1) THE TOTAL IS WRONG. 2) FRENCH CASUALTIES ARE NOW 39 (01/13/2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxloupio (talk • contribs) 13:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right.FRENCH CASUALTIES are 39.http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.86.242 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, but Australian casualties now number 18, not 17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.62.136 (talk) 08:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

5 CIA agents and 2 Blackwater agents killed in Camp Chapman incident

As my english is poor so please forgive me.I tell you in a huge puzzle language.

In the article, US caaualties, 5 CIA and 2 Blckwater agents killed in Camp Chapman incident.

As in the US caualty article.Casualties is according to icaualties.And icaualties doesnt add those 2 blackwater in US caualties data.Icaualties add 5 CIA agenst killed in that incident.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

So as in the article "Of the American deaths, more than 700 have died in hostile action. Included in these numbers are 9 CIA operatives that were killed in Afghanistan.According to icasualties.org, 898 US soldiers killed in Afghanistan."

If we write that 11 CIA agenst killed in Afghanistan and 7 killed in that incident.Then US caualties become 702 and the refrence of icaualty is wrong because according to icasualty 700 US soldiers killed as hostile fire.

Maybe you understand what i want to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid1947 (talk • contribs)

See also 5 CIA agents and 2 Blackwater agents killed in Camp Chapman incident.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

British casualties

Obviously this page is changing all the time so i dont expect it to be spot on, but the number of British deaths is now 263 not 256. Here is the BBC source, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8260060.stm

Keep up the good work. I was impressed by the depth of info!Willski72 (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Now British casualties is 264.http://icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx

Other Allied forces casualties are also old.I mean like US casualties, Canadian, etc.If anyone remove protection then non-registered user also correct the casualty figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.163.108 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadian casualties are up to date as per official sources. icasualties.org does not always appear to be accurate for many nations. --M Dellapinna 02:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdellapinna (talk • contribs)

My thanks for the update. I will try and remember to keep an eye-out for any updates and let you know!--Willski72 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Its 266 now im afraid, here's the source from the BBC again, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8538423.stm --Willski72 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian casualties

"List of deaths of European soldiers" is partially wrong.

"October 24, 2005 - An Italian soldier, Captain Jesús de la Pascua Belaustegui, died from an illness in Herat."

Captain Jesús de la Pascua Belaustegui wasn't an italian soldier, but a spanish one.

SOURCE : http://afghanistan.pigstye.net/article.php?story=JesusDeLaPascuaBelaustegui

Memorial

In regards to Wikipedia not being a WP:Memorial to list all the names and details of the dead. There is also the external link that goes into the requisite details, a simple external link would do here. the encyclopaedic content is the info on the losses and the effects, not the memorializing of rank, age, name, etc.Lihaas (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Futility of raw numbers without context

I would like to argue that this article is not of encyclopedic quality because it provides raw and emotional numbers without giving context. My thesis is that the number of death strictly due to war is in fact lower than one can infer from a quick reading of the article. Note that I don't dispute at all the numbers, only their possible interpretation by un-seasoned Wikipedia readers. Please also note that I deeply respect all the people who made the sacrifice of their life.

There are nearly 200,000,000 adults in USA, and there are nearly 30,000 deaths by car accident every year. Three deaths for 20,000 adults. There are nearly 200 Coalition deaths in Afghanistan per year. There was approximatively 60,000 troops for the whole Coalition during each of the nine years. It means that at least 9 deaths are not directly related to war but to something akin to a car accident. Moreover we can suppose that given the bad road infrastructure, road signs in foreign language if there are any and extreme geographical features of Afghanistan (some areas at more than 20,000 ft above sea level), wide range of temperature and inadequate vehicles for mountain roads: The rate of accidents is certainly much more higher. Let say ten times higher than in USA. It gives 90 deaths per year. Nearly half of the number which could be understood as war deaths. And this is only for car accidents, what about other kind of accident?

Edit request from Readknowwrite, 26 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please update link for Casualty Monitor to: http://www.casualty-monitor.org/p/british-casualties-in-afghanistan.html

Thanks!

Readknowwrite (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks. The link you provided is more specific than the previous link, which was to the site's homepage. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What's a foreigner?

"Of the 512 foreign soldiers killed in 2009, 448 were killed in action. 280 of those were killed by IEDs."

We're all foreign to people outside our country. I assume this means non-US troops. If so, then I shall change it (unless someone gets there first). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychokinetic (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

View History 3rd July

As you can see I have edited it to the correct number of Australian Deaths and have corrected the total deaths in the box and the total deaths in the first section of the article. I think someone already added sources for me because I was not able to do so when I was on my iPad and forgot to do it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.225.125 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426070426/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090424.wafghandead0424/BNStory/Afghanistan/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090424.wafghandead0424/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101028075834/http://www.bundeswehr.de:80/portal/a/bwde/streitkraefte/grundlagen?yw_contentURL=/C1256EF4002AED30/W27Q3DTU941INFODE/content.jsp to http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/streitkraefte/grundlagen?yw_contentURL=/C1256EF4002AED30/W27Q3DTU941INFODE/content.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. 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/20100406083558/http://icasualties.org/oef/ to http://icasualties.org/oef/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://new.interpressnews.ge/en/military-matters/20278-28-year-old-georgian-officer-dies-in-afghanistan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406083558/http://icasualties.org/oef/ to http://icasualties.org/oef/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100406083558/http://icasualties.org/oef/ to http://icasualties.org/oef/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. 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/20141006104043/http://www.defence.gov.au/operations/afghanistan/personnel.asp to http://www.defence.gov.au/op/afghanistan/info/personnel.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/streitkraefte/grundlagen?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256EF4002AED30%2FW27Q3DTU941INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icasualties.org/OEF/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=South%20Korea
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509085021/http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html to http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. 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/20120622073659/http://www.lhrtimes.com/2012/04/09/belgian-military-repatriated-wounded-in-afghanistan/ to http://www.lhrtimes.com/2012/04/09/belgian-military-repatriated-wounded-in-afghanistan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801072339/http://bnt.bg/bg/news/view/21693/flameCandle70x80px.swf to http://bnt.bg/bg/news/view/21693/flameCandle70x80px.swf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://bg.time.mk/read/c6a5bf293f/539d3d20b6/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201070729/http://cznews.info/army/20100406/soldat.php to http://cznews.info/army/20100406/soldat.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611182000/http://praguemonitor.com/2011/06/06/remains-czech-soldier-killed-afghan-mission-brought-home to http://praguemonitor.com/2011/06/06/remains-czech-soldier-killed-afghan-mission-brought-home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121228053528/http://praguemonitor.com/2011/10/06/more-7000-czech-soldiers-involved-afghan-war to http://praguemonitor.com/2011/10/06/more-7000-czech-soldiers-involved-afghan-war
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221173046/http://www.tvmidtvest.dk/indhold/danske-soldater-saaret-i-afghanistan to http://www.tvmidtvest.dk/indhold/danske-soldater-saaret-i-afghanistan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119181534/http://www.mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=1&Id=1127 to http://mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=1&Id=1127
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121081752/http://www.mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=&Id=1244 to http://mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=&Id=1244
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119233829/http://www.mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=1&Id=1253 to http://mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=1&Id=1253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201193224/http://mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=1&Id=1297 to http://mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=1&Id=1297
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201193216/http://mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=1&Id=1374 to http://mod.gov.ge/index.php?page=77&lang=1&type=1&Id=1374
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029192412/http://www.kaitseministeerium.ee/en/1814 to http://www.kaitseministeerium.ee/en/1814
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216203450/http://riga.usembassy.gov/pr_20100920_en.html to http://riga.usembassy.gov/pr_20100920_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031045107/http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2010/20100804-nskibpar4.htm to http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2010/20100804-nskibpar4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121031060344/http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2011/201110216-aia2ns.htm to http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2011/201110216-aia2ns.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030184345/http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2011/20110822-nrnostkias3.htm to http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2011/20110822-nrnostkias3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030184337/http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2011/20111004-nrollsr5.htm to http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/news/media-releases/2011/20111004-nrollsr5.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130216125905/http://newsromania.com/news/a-romanian-soldier-was-wounded-in-afganistan/ to http://newsromania.com/news/a-romanian-soldier-was-wounded-in-afganistan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010095813/http://www.uswarwatch.org/afghdetails_currentmonth.html to http://www.uswarwatch.org/afghdetails_currentmonth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. 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/20110615172649/http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Contentnavigation/Activities/Activitiesoverview/tabid/1292/EventType/EventView/EventId/1070/EventDateID/1087/PageID/5141/Reflectionsonthestatusandfutureofthetransatlanticalliance.aspx to http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Contentnavigation/Activities/Activitiesoverview/tabid/1292/EventType/EventView/EventId/1070/EventDateID/1087/PageID/5141/Reflectionsonthestatusandfutureofthetransatlanticalliance.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202030827/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/81358.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/81358.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204234519/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/special/afghanistan/2012-02/21/c_131422588.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/special/afghanistan/2012-02/21/c_131422588.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130612164955/http://archives.lesoir.be/deux-militaires-belges-blesses-en-afghanistan_t-20080926-00J4JK.html to http://archives.lesoir.be/deux-militaires-belges-blesses-en-afghanistan_t-20080926-00J4JK.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/news-2008-05-02
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141118215329/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/02/content_10140260.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/02/content_10140260.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015154340/http://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/news-2012-04-04 to http://www.radio.cz/en/section/news/news-2012-04-04
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160721045601/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/03/content_12178191.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/03/content_12178191.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130127211713/http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/2010/09/23/two-lithuanian-solders-injured-in-afghanistan/ to http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/2010/09/23/two-lithuanian-solders-injured-in-afghanistan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518041458/http://afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2003/january/jan302003.html to http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2003/january/jan302003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coalition casualties in Afghanistan. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eupol-afg.eu/?q=node%2F411
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140422174013/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-03/31/c_133225327.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-03/31/c_133225327.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329011623/http://www.fuu.sk/2011/05/92744-v-afganistane-sa-postrelili-dvaja-slovenski-vojaci/ to http://www.fuu.sk/2011/05/92744-v-afganistane-sa-postrelili-dvaja-slovenski-vojaci/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927212258/http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/13153 to http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/13153

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)