Talk:Killed in action

Future Additions

I've been searching for references regarding the addition of an "Historical Definitions"-type category. Like the award of the Purple Heart criteria have changed over time, I believe the term "KIA," in the U.S. War Department or later Department of Defense (DOD), referred only to combat troops being killed in combat during World War II for example; support troops would not be classified thus, even if they were killed by the enemy in hostile action. ----John Wallace Rich 20:55 (updated about 3 & 1/2 hours later), 29 December 2006 (GMT)

Casualty statistics, especially if not specifically KIA, from various conflicts, battles, and wars in military history would provide a good additional topic to this article, e.g. KIA during Napoleonic Wars, War of 1812, The Battle of Austerlitz, The War of Austrian Succession, or the French and Indian War. Moreover, data would also show how modern medicine can save lives and provide more information. Many sources claim the U.S. sees a much higher survival rate for its battle casualties during Operation Iraqi Freedom than even during Vietnam. Even Cannae with its what?-- 80,000 dead in one day presents a valid example. --John Wallace Rich 1:57, 18 January 2007 (GMT)

Statistics from various branches of armed services from various countries and eras also provides an improvement. I would argue most countries suffer losses in their army, but e.g. Carthage probably had a good many KIA in its - or her - navy, as have the UK, the USA, France, Spain, the Netherlands. Moreover, I've even seen the designation drowned in action (DIA), though in warefare, most, if not all, casualties occur because of explosives or fire. --John Wallace Rich 2:46, 19 January 2007 (GMT)

DISCUSSION ON POLICY OF KIA -- REGARDS REMOVAL OF COMMON SENSE THAT SIDE WITH MOST LOSSES LOSES

Why would there even be a policy to maim or kill if it didn't help a military? --John Wallace Rich 18:10, 20 June 2006 (GMT)

I agree that the "common sense" statement should be removed. Military objectives are rarely stated as simply "kill more of them than they kill of us". The success or failure of a military operation is judged in the terms of more sophisticated objectives like winning ground, destroying targets, disrupting supplies or reinforcements, limiting enemy movements, etc. Modern combat (and killing in particular) is usually just a means towards those ends. Example: the initial hours of the Normandy invasion was considered a success even though Allies experienced relatively higher casualties than the Germans.--Toms2866 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Many have argued that the victor kills the most; at least it seemed like the public mind previously. I imagine usually it is the case. It does bother me a bit discussing it, as it's a negative topic to say the least. Thanks for the response! I suppose if we decide to change it, we can rephrase it to "usually" then? --John Wallace Rich 05:28, 21 June 2006 (GMT)

The previously deleted paragraphs contain good military information after all, and it's the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, not dictionary. --John Wallace Rich 05:31, 21 June 2006 (GMT)

National Moment of Remembrance

Make sure to leave it "National Moment of Remembrance Homepage." The site's disclaimer says you have to phrase it that way.--John Wallace Rich

Died of Wounds

Died of Wounds? Never heard that before? Verify?--Preeeemo

Died of Wounds means they made it to a medical treatment facility.--- John Wallace Rich

Right now, Died Of Wounds (DOW) is a redirect to this article, but since Killed in action (KIA), Missing in action (MIA), and Prisoner of war (POW) all have their own articles, it might make sense to give DOW its own article as well, including stats on survival rates in field hospitals, etc. David (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Friendly Fire

How are friendly fire wounded/killed classified? --Toms2866 04:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC) ans. I will investigate it more. However, previously KIA only stood for hostile action. It depends on how the Pentagon classifies it, eg. KIA/Friendly Fire. -- --John Wallace Rich 01:16, 15 May 2006 (GMT)

If you find out the official classification, friendly fire probably deserves mention in article.--Toms2866 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I did some research with DOD definitions at their dictionary, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/. It appears KIA includes friendly fire as a hostile category with exceptions such as if they were absent without official leave (AWOL). See terms such as "casualty," "killed in action," "hostile," or related acronyms. Also see the definition of "nonhostile." --John Wallace Rich 15:46, 16 June 2006 (GMT)

U have error in russian version(..."убитых дружественным огнемв разгар"...) Bushido172882 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Passive Voice

Why the preference for passive-voice usage? I'm editing it though. --John Wallace Rich 01:19, 15 May 2006 (GMT)

We're getting many attempts to use the passive voice in the article again. Calton's reversion used it, and Mystar's edits continued to use it, only adding a preposition. John Wallace Rich 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Homicide

DISCUSSION ON TERM OF "HOMICIDE" -- REGARDS CHANGING TERM

Again, I think using the term "homicide" important; we're discussing a combat rather than accidental death. Someone changed it without discussing it even. --John Wallace Rich 21:20, 24 November 2006 (GMT)

I think the term "homicide" important, as deaths occur because of other human beings; they aren't accidental but by "hostile action." --John Wallace Rich 16:01, 16 June 2006 (GMT)

US DOD refers to them as casualties e.g. [1] not homicides. Etymology aside, Homicides is more a legal term and implies some degree of illegality (or in cases where it is legal - there is a right to kill) all of which would be expected to be tested in a criminal court. We also cannot escape from the idea of Malum in se which I feel doesn't apply to war (heck it should but that's another matter !). Certainly the words "homicide" or "murder" not really applicable in any situation involving the military unless civilians are involved.

I vote we change "homicides" to "casualties" and reword to fit grammar as necessary. Ttiotsw 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotxsw:

The KIA casualty description involves homicides during hostile action, whereas homicides during hostile action may involve KIA, DOW, or other military casualty classifications, including murder, at least generally if not specifically. Please read Wikipedia's entry on Homicides which also refer to the killing of one human being by another. "Homicide" does not mean murder necessarily, as there are legal homicides and accidental ones besides. For example, Nolo Press, http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/51AB22D3-86AB-4B55-8648BC28B45909C0/alpha/H/, defines the legal definition of homicide to specifically include deaths as a result of war:

The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another. The term applies to all such killings, whether criminal or not. Homicide is considered noncriminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court. Killing may also be legally justified or excused, as it is in cases of self-defense or when someone is killed by another person who is attempting to prevent a violent felony. Criminal homicide occurs when a person purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another. Murder and manslaughter are both examples of criminal homicide.

Meriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/homicide) defines the term "homicide" as:

Pronunciation: 'hä-m&-"sId, 'hO-

Function: noun

Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin homicida, from homo human being + -cida -cide; in sense 2, from Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin homicidium, from homo + -cidium -cide

1 : a person who kills another

2 : a killing of one human being by another

We're working on an encyclopedia entry, which requires greater detail than a dictionary entry. The article includes the term "casualty" already, before "homicide" even, which provides greater definition. It has links to describe the term besides. Where do you get your definition? I don't see a citation. Aren't these sources I cite valid?

One military example of why it should remain involves someone killed in the DMZ in Korea by a mine after the conflict but by accident would not be considered KIA as it was not a hostile action but an accident. However, one would still consider it an accidental homicide.

I am currently president and assistant Webmaster of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit for killed in action (KIA) and died of wounds (DOW), and I have at least two close relatives KIA since World War II, my grandfather, John Wallace Rich, and cousin, Louis Bartning, both U.S. Army. I have to work closely with other KIA families, and absent an elected chair, the president fills the capacity on the nonprofit's board of directors according to its bylaws. My writing a book on the subject of working closely with KIA and DOW families would also help.

One of our directors has a relative who died in a mine explosion on the DMZ, and neither he, nor the DOD, consider it KIA because it was not a hostile action. However, it would be an accidental homicide because someone set the mine he accidentally stepped on outside a hostile action. Another of this board member's relatives was KIA, a marine on the U.S.S. Arizona on December 7, 1941, by both a hostile act and homicide.

Articles should explore the term "KIA" as an encyclopedia further, not less, with a history and examples, though etymology could apply here besides. One idea I have of a history involves historic definitions, but I have other military-history ideas, and it's a military-history topic.

What about further descriptions and discussion in the article, say whether an accident even partly caused by hostile action would be considered KIA? The article currently states militaries generally use the term to define a sort of homicide, generally on the battlefield, and does not get more specific. Research must determine if negligent homicides, or even accidents, currently cause, or have caused, KIAs.

Ideas I have to further the entry involve related concepts such as “Kill or Be Killed” (Societal) or “Clear and Present Danger” (Governmental). Historically being willing to fight to the death, even being pressured as in "come back with your shield or on it," also present valid topics. Whetoher to add more history to the term presents an issue again in other words. Also, it comes to light that many claim to want to know how someone died, but there's a major gap in it. Besides, at least some say there's no closure in knowing how a family member dies. (See articles such as those on the Rosenbaum murder, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_us/journalist_killed or http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070103-1319-journalistkilled.html or on the accidental death of James Kim, http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2007/0114/local/stories/searchandrescuereact.htm)

Thank you for the discussion, but I wonder about the importance or or relevance of a "vote" here since I do provide good reason to use the term "homicide," including its actual definition? Certainly the article has to have meaning rather than nonsense, and I'm a bit defensive but, along with the dictionaries I cite, also an authority on the topic. --John Wallace Rich 2:02, 16 January 2007 (GMT) Adding User Name to Edit Summary 2:09 (GMT) Same Day

Firstly - please do wonder about the importance or relevance of the "vote" (sic); it is never a vote but a consensus and all of Wikipedia is decided by consensus. You are not new here; you know that and truthfully I felt that your questioning if we needed a vote at all was condescending, but I'll WP:AGF and beaver on. That minor technicality aside I was borrowing from the Wikipedia article casualties as the DOD dictionary definition didn't mention the word "homicide" per se so was afraid that this was WP:OR. That the link [2] refers to KIA as a class of "Casualties" made me feel that "Casualties" was a better word.

I also felt that certain definitions of homicide (e.g. Meriam-Webster which you quoted above) refer to specifically a person/human killing another human whereas it can be argued that what an Anti-personnel mine does fail to match that definition, especially when tripped by the "casualty" victim. Who has committed the "homicide" in this case ?

I get worried when the cite for use of the word relies on a law web site; I'm not arguing that cite is not a valid definition but that lawyers are of little use in this case as we are discussing the victim not looking at a defence for homicide based on keeping the Queens peace (i.e. it was homicide against an enemy combatant).

I get very worried when you bring up unrelated information, tragic though it may be (namely Rosenbaum and James Kim), which in no way is related to the article i.e. KIA which we are discussing and specifically discussing the inclusion or not of one word, namely "homicides" or "casualties".

So in contrast I do see the importance and relevance of discussion to arrive at a consensus and I do provide good reason to use the term "casualties," including its actual use by the DOD and others. The article cannot contain WP:OR and I feel that so far the word "homicide" is WP:OR. Ttiotsw 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw:

I hate to disagree with you, but someone who's 17 can't vote in my country. Neither can a convicted felon, even on parole. Moreover, it depends on what kind of system you're talking about. A republic supposedly tries to remove the problems of a true democracy, something Plato called a step above anarchy in his famous book, The Republic. What about a meritocracy for that matter, something even Cromwell experimented with?

Anyway, we're not arguing political science here. Another analogy involves authority on the subject, so try to respond more completely, or it presents a lack of ethics, and so do false accusations. A first grader who knows nothing of voting would be a much different authority on the subject than an adult who works as a political advisor to a candidate for office. After all, I had said I'm the president-assistant Webmaster for an organization trying to benefit KIA families, and I have close relatives who were KIA besides, one whose half-track vehicle was attacked and destroyed and the other KIA from a sniper after being WIA. Where's your authority?

Likewise, I cited a valid reference with Nolo Press, a well-known publisher. An encyclopedia's supposed to provide information, not a definition. Nolo Press's definition's also a more specific definition than the Webster's one.

As far as your criticism of my analogy, I provide potential "homicide," not "killed in action" concepts, and we're arguing the term "homicide" being information about being killed in action. Even the news media made a big deal about James Kim dying because of vandalism of a gate in earlier reports, negligent homicide, and Rosembaum was murdered, criminal homicide, both as relevant to the term "homicide" as "homicide" is to "killed in action."

The article already refers to the term "casualty," and though repetition helps in some cases, grammar references would claim repeating the word in the next sentence poor grammar, e.g. Nos. 9 and 40 in Humorous Grammar Rules from the University of Notre Dame.

We're also trying to expand on the concept, not just provide a dictionary definition. If you want to repeat the term "casualty" or use its plural form, do it elsewhere in the article, at the end of the paragraph even. However, retain the word "homicide" to provide further information on the subject, something an encyclopedia's supposed to do.

Moreover, to expand the concept, "homicide" provides a more specific definition than "casualty" as a casualty is not always a homicide in war (it can be an accident or the person can survive or only be missing), but a homicide is always a casualty of some sort when it happens in war, including genocide.

If you're comparing authority to "no original research," then that's a slippery slope because I base my authority on research: read the Nolo Press definition which states specifically that "deaths as a result of war" are homicides. Also research the DOD definition in its dictionary where it defines a KIA as a "hostile casualty," not just "casualty," and the DOD dictionary further defines a "hostile casualty" to mean by a "hostile action," and it defines a "hostile act" to be by someone, another human being, therefore making it homicide:

1. A hostile act is an attack or other use of force by any civilian, paramilitary, or military force or terrorist(s) (with or without national designation) against the United States, US forces and, in certain circumstances, US nationals, their property, US commercial assets, or other designated non-US forces, foreign nationals, and their property. 2. Force used directly to preclude or impede the mission and/or duties of US forces, including the recovery of US personnel and vital US Government property. When a hostile act is in progress the right exists to use proportional force, including armed force, in self-defense by all necessary means available to deter or neutralize the potential attacker or, if necessary, to destroy the threat.

--John Wallace Rich 1:25, 18 January 2007 (GMT)

Honestly what the heck are you talking about with this,

"I hate to disagree with you, but someone who's 17 can't vote in my country. Neither can a convicted felon, even on parole. Moreover, it depends on what kind of system you're talking about. "

I'm talking about how Wikipedia arrives at a consensus. Do read WP:CONSENSUS first as you really do seem to have missed this guideline especially the section on Consensus vs. supermajority. Well unless you implying that I'm 17 or are you implying that I'm a convicted felon and then that would be getting weird to say the least (FWIW: I'm in 40's and never been arrested anywhere in the world). You are conflating KIA with other civilian homicides and that certainly seems to be completely unrelated to this article. To me that's definitely an WP:OR synthesis.

I do not need to accept the Nolo cite yet as I have already stated: we are referring to the person who has been killed and not the aggressor who committed the homicide. The Nolo press is also not a legal opinion in that their publications must (in relation to HR 1507 (Texas)) state that ..."clearly and conspicuously state that the products are not a substitute for the advice of an attorney." (cribbed from Wikipedia article for now). Or maybe that Nolo definition was a legal opinion; it is unclear who has said it and what is their authority in this matter. I probably should flag this point in Homicide on that basis of notability of NOLO WRT legal terms as you have added this [3] after we had started this discussion so it is a related edit.

You can't use some humorous grammar rule to expand an article with new terms if someone of authority has not used those same terms. To me an authority would be a DOD or NATO reference that refers to the word "homicide". So far nothing listed (other than Nolo Press) attempts to use the word "homicide". Even the quote you used i.e. [4] does not mention the word.

I'm not the enemy here; I am a Wikipedia editor who takes on any subject (i.e. I do not WP:OWN any though have my pet watchlist). Simply find someone in authority who uses the word "homicide" as everyone else seems to avoid that word which is why I cued to it. Ttiotsw 11:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw:

Wikipedia's rules, according to a box on the top of the page right now, include (1) being polite, (2) no personal attacks, (3) a neutral point of view, and (4) verifiability. While I have been polite, assumed good faith, used critical thinking and not personal attacks, been welcoming, and provided sources that neutrally support the article, you seem to not want to follow suit. I even wonder if some of the comments you've used so far at least border on suggesting the vandalization of the article again.

As to the first rule, "being polite": an earlier response you wrote claimed I erred in using the term "vote." Where's the error in that? Also, you never begin your responses with a greeting whereas I do using your user name. Your user name also appears more anonymous than mine, whereas I mention my real name and use my grandfather's name who was KIA in World War II at 20. In addition, your responses cite an opinion you claim is Ttiotsw's on Wikpedia policy using awkward, overly-critical, and inappropriate claims, a harsh sounding tone.

One can apply the second rule I cite, "no personal attacks," to the first, and as to the third, "a neutral point of view," you try to claim a Department of Defense definition, a government agency setup to conduct defense and warfare, applies more than a valid reference,a reference which appears less than half-way down the first page of a Google search for the definition of the term you're arguing against, "homicide." Certainly a reference holds more sway than hyperbole, something the DOD definition could become out of context as a reference.

The reference also applies to the fourth rule I cite, verifiability, being the fifth item in a search on the definition of "homicide" and a reference, not a government agency which has an agenda and duty. However, I will investigate further.

Likewise, you criticize an accredited university's humorous attempt at grammar rules, usually a subject that's too serious anyway. Authorities of English, and probably Indo-European languages, usually consider repeating words the way you suggest poor usage, as the rules I cite clearly state in comic fashion. Moreover, I got high grades in college English, an "A" in the last required course for graduation. Where do you cite your grammar source?

I am a Wikipedia editor who takes on any subject (i.e. I do not WP:OWN any though have my pet watchlist). Simply find someone in authority who uses the word "homicide" as everyone else seems to avoid that word which is why I cued to it.

You admit in your last paragraph that you're just an editor who takes on any subject whereas I use authority on the subject, knowledge, information, and specifics rather than personal opinion, over criticism, and generalization. Would you also suppose that, as a relation, you could complain to Bradford Patrick, according to GuideStar, Wikimedia Foundation's former "outside counsel" and current executive director? I have the Wikimedia Foundation's contact information because I am CEO of an organization, elected even by representative individuals who value our cause of benefiting families of killed in action (KIA) and died of wounds (DOW). Like the Wikimedia Foundation, the IRS determined the USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation (USAKIA) tax deductible and tax exempt, and we're nonpartisan. Moreover, as stated previously, the Nolo Press definition presents a valid, specific use of the word "homicide" to describe war deaths, so "everyone else" does not "avoid that word" as your last sentence claims.

The article should use the term "homicide" because war means armies try to maim and/or kill their enemies. That's common sense and a valid reference, not hyperbole from some government agency. On the other hand, I suppose we can determine whether it's broad or narrowly defined thus because current circumstances could make it unclear as to how far the definition KIA can go towards "negligent homicide," say under friendly fire.

Therefore, we can discuss determining whether, say, a "friendly-fire accident" during combat - or outside of combat for that matter - remains KIA. One could argue even a "friendly-fire accident" outside of combat "homicide" in the sense that it's caused by the event of war, at least specifically according to the Nolo Press definition, a neutral view, but I would say it's not KIA. Currently, I would argue it vague or debatable as to whether a "friendly-fire accident" in combat remains KIA, but USAKIA's bylaws, for example, accessible at the main page, require reference first to the DOD designation of the casualty before two-designated officers, yours truly currently one of them, would have to decide in a situation where government does not provide a clear casualty determination. I even appreciate knowing whether a "friendly-fire accident," in combat or out, remains KIA under various specific circumstances. However, at least one valid reference specifically states it a homicide, and I argue that important because, "lest we forget," as many sources say and I say from personal experience, both the oppressor or aggressor and the oppressed or protector should remember the impossible, not just statistical, price of armed conflict. --John Wallace Rich (11:11:11 HRS PST) (19:11:11 HRS GMT), 18 January 2007

Firstly, in article talk pages it is quite unusual to address your reply. You use the colon and add the text after what you want to reply to. That is the convention and wasn't me being "unfriendly". The rest of what you say I feel is tangential to what was being discussed, namely, changing the word, "homicides" to "casualties" and reword to fit grammar as necessary. The NOLO cite is one place where the word is used in its dictionary but as I have said NOLO press is not a legal opinion (which I feel is an important issue on notability). I am not trying to extend the scope of what is "KIA" but use defence industry definitions (I suggested DOD and NATO as they are the big names here). We need a cite from a notable source as to who uses that word. That's all I'm interested in. Ttiotsw 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw:

At least you discuss before attacking. However, your responses here continue to lack ethics on many levels because you do not acknowledge matters I bring up. You make your last paragraph overly critical and awkward because the claims side step the issues or discussion. It's beyond me how "tangential" has anything to do with neutrality of references rather than hyperbole, and Wikipedia does not allow hyperbole BTW. Moreover, _Blacks Law Dictionary_ (Centennial Ed.) includes in the definitions of "legal negligence" and "legal malice" that, respectively, "omissions of such care as ordinarily prudent persons exercise and deem adequate..." and "hardness of heart... and a mind regardless of social duty... indifference to the value of human life."

A "legal opinion" involves specifics in one's legal battles, not legal fact, reference, or definition, not a source of law. Moreover, I imagine a lawyer or someone who knows jurisprudence wrote those definitions. Sources of law include constitutions, case law, and references, but you could separate into at least primary and secondary sources. Blacks Law Dictionary specifically defines a "legal opinion" as:

A document in which an official such as a state attorney general, a city solicitor or a private attorney, renders his or her understanding of the law as applied to the assumed facts. It may or may not serve as protection to one acting on it, depending on the nature of it, and the law governing such opinions.

One book, _Civil Litigation_ (Kerley, Hames, and Sukys, 1992, 11-13), defines references as secondary sources. On the other hand, Black's also defines "[s]ources of the law" (p. 1395) to include "constitutions, treaties, usages, and customs... reliable works, records, documents, edicts, etc. to which we are to look for an understanding of what constitutes the law." No matter what, the Nolo Press reference verifies the term "homicide" in the entry.

The awkward comments you use lack some ethics because of their refusal to acknowledge reference, or source of the law, rather than potential hyperbole out of context, as neutral. Your responses here also use poor style; e.g. every time you use words like "firstly," I learned you should make sure and follow up on it first, not just end with that in the same paragraph, which provides another example of poor grammar. Do you even care, or do you just respond without working on your responses, use complete informality in your style here in the discussion? Care about grammar in an article when possible. We don't want to slide into accepting poor punctuation and/or style by repeating the word in the next sentence when we don't have to, and I wouldn't even consider ending with a preposition "poor grammar," so this doesn't argue for something too formal. I've heard inappropriate arguments that something "sounds right," e.g. use of the passive voice, when it's poor style by others, not just you. Repeating the word "casualty" (though in plural form) in the next sentence could "sound right," but would provide poor style here. Here's another reference against repetition (under Principle Five). Some sources do recommend it, at least in more poetic writing, "elegant variation" and other forms as well. However, I argue against repetition of the word "casualty" so close in the article, an encyclopedia entry. Why not put it in the next paragraph, at the end of the first paragraph? However, it would remove information in an article about KIA to completely eliminate concept of homicide in war, again a verified concept.

We should prevent blinding readers with hyperbole, removing valid information on homicide in war and/or combat situations. Putting the wool over their eyes with awkward and vague responses, as well as poor and inappropriate concepts, such as "legal opinion," threatens the article. Again, the Nolo Press citation provides a source of the law, not mere legal opinion. --John Wallace Rich (21:36 HRS GMT), 19 January 2007 Sign-in with UN, 23:30 Same Day

John Wallace Rich,

Reply taken off this article talk page as it is now about me. See your talk on this. Ttiotsw 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my suggestion to use word "casualties" given it probably would be hard to reword and, yes DoD probably not best source. See next section on alternative. Ttiotsw 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Using ICD-10 classification for operations of war to change use of word "homicides" and substitute with "deaths"

If KIA are always under the Operations of war i.e. Y36 and Y89.1 classifications (using ICD-10) then it follows that the word "homicides" is not appropriate but "deaths" is the better term. The reason being that the ICD classifications have three words used i.e. "suicides", "homicides" and "deaths". The word "homicides" is used are under the assault categories plus the new (US-only I think for the NCHS for deaths since 2001) classifications for terrorism.

I'm thus happy to not use casualties (as per previous discussions) but use "deaths" i.e. in the first paragraph, second sentence, it would thus be,

They generally use it to describe the deaths of their own forces by other hostile 
forces or by "friendly fire" during combat.

with a ref on the word "deaths" to the ICD-10 classifications for operations of war i.e. Y36 and Y89.1.

Obviously predicated on KIA being classified as within Y36 or Y89.1 (this last one I'm not so sure). Ttiotsw 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I necessarily disagree with a change in the second sentence yet, but I wonder if you violate Wikipedia's rule now on doing your own research. Some sources also claim buzz words poor style. Certainly your claims don't make it clear where you get your reference, as they don't provide a link, and I take back that you discuss before attacking. Your entry also begs the question where it refers to the same reason both of the claim and for it.

“Homicide” provides the same definition, though "deaths" could be better in the second sentence. Editors, especially yours truly, could bring "homicides" and "casualties" in later to provide more information. However, where do you acknowledge the Nolo Press definition for "homicide" which specifically includes a death in war by "[t}he killing of one human being by the act or omission of another"? I don't like it on many levels where I wonder if you follow the rules, let alone make any sense. It sounds to me like you want to be stubborn and not even acknowledge arguments.

The concept of killed in action changes. Governments could again say that hostile fire killing support troops does not make them KIA, but it's still homicide. A front line has had much more importance in past conflicts; e.g., the U.S. government recently began awarding Combat Action Badges to support troops who come under hostile fire. However, I argue against removing the clear definition the article currently uses in the second sentence. There could be a better place for the term "homicide," but it has a lot of importance for a variety of reasons, not to mention its verified use, which your claims over criticize.

Your retorts also change the subject. What if instead of acknowledging your entry, I just started talking about how we should keep the word "homicide" because "X10 and YZ show, even HAZMAT does"? I don't see what I want about your use of the passive voice in your new post again. Show better grammar. Make sense.

The article already has the word "deaths" at the end of the first paragraph:

...KIA do not come from accidents, such as accidental vehicle crashes, terrorism, or other "non-hostile" means. The deaths occur directly by other combatants from "hostile action" while in combat...

However, consider a change to the last two sentences:

...KIA do not come from accidents, such as accidental vehicle crashes, terrorism, or other "non-hostile" means. These casualties occur from homicides while in combat.

Again, I'm not necessarily against changing the word "homicides" in the second sentence. I just suggest these changes as an example, not that I wouldn't edit them. However, have your entries make some sense. What are those references? Also, acknowledge the verified use of the current word there by the Nolo Press source of the law on the first page of a Google search for the definition of the word "homicide." The reference does not beg the question whereas, for one, yours does. --John Wallace Rich (7:30 HRS GMT) 21 January 2007

Sorry, unclear what you mean by "X10 and YZ show, even HAZMAT does". I've googled for that but can't get a clear hit. I know HAZMAT is usually used for hazardous materials stuff but unclear of the rest is some classification or not.

I apologise for not providing a link. I presumed, wrongly I guess, that a Google for ICD-10 would be enough (it's the top hit). Anyway, the only use of "homicide" in the WHO ICD-10 codes (e.g. online at [5] is with the assault categories (use the search on their web site,

 External causes of morbidity and mortality
(V01-Y98)
Assault
(X85-Y09)

Includes: 	homicide
injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill, by any means
Excludes: 	injuries due to:
· legal intervention ( Y35.- )
· operations of war ( Y36.- )

X85 		Assault by drugs, medicaments and biological substances
		Includes: 	homicidal poisoning by (any):
· biological substance
· drug
· medicament

X86 		Assault by corrosive substance
		Excludes: 	corrosive gas ( X88 ) 

(My emphasis using bold) and the next search hit gets,

Y09 		Assault by unspecified means
Includes: 	assassination (attempt) NOS
homicide (attempt) NOS
manslaughter (nonaccidental)
murder (attempt) NOS 

the word "homicide" is excluded by the WHO for war in the ICD-10. The WHO ICD-10 codes are used by the US Statistics and US Health service and so represent a reasonably comprehensive world-view for Wikipedia. NOLO Press does not represent a world-view and nor is it clear yet in what cases their definition has been cited.

The NOLO press reference is as good as a dictionary entry but it represents, at best, a US "legal" view only (I put that in quotes for the simple matter that we have not yet ascertained in what case or law this term is used in this way. It can help ascertain the meaning of the word homicide but we are not arguing that word per se but what someone else other than the "militaries" use. "They" in "They generally use"... implies that a 3rd party uses the word in this way. NOLO is one but who are they as an authority ? My claim is that NOLO's use of this word in this way is too narrow a definition that cannot be applied to all KIA cases. Moreover I'd really like to see anything else other than NOLO that shows any KIA case has a cause of death of "homicide".

The last sentence can more or less stay as-is because the word "deaths" is introduced in the second sentence and this is then tied to the use of the word "deaths" in the last sentence. I would suggest that it is changed to "These deaths are..." but hey that's incidental to the main discussion.

I am somewhat unhappy with you asking me to "Show better grammar" in a talk page. In talk pages I have my style and others have theirs. I've edited stuff over couple of hundred different pages across Wikipedia (talk and articles) and I find many different styles. All I (and all others) expect in talk is that someone signs with the ~~~~ tag and they append it to follow existing entries. Any spelling and any grammar will do (after all we have people from all over the world on Wikipedia and it's not nice to criticise if they use passive verses active voice) or split infinitives or misuse nouns for verbs...heck where is my copy of Chicago manual of style ?. A person who writes technical or scientific documentation would use a different style from a advertising copyrighter or someone who may currently be working on essays, fiction or even blogs...the list goes on. My personal view is that I feel it is much safer to use a passive voice as this helps avoid making the argument personal. I'm also trying to mix replies to anonymous users Again I will say this; I am not attacking you, the article, the concept of KIA, the DoD or military forces, NOLO, the USA, NATO or even lawyers.

I initially tried with using the word "casualties" to replace "homicides" as that made sense using the DoD reference. You criticised this source and the possible damage to the grammar of the sentence. Taking that on board I have withdrawn that word and re-factored the change to "deaths" based on my findings that the WHO classifications exclude the wording of "homicide" for death classifications for war operations. This is the basis that I felt that NOLO press was at odds with what the US (and probably all other WHO members) classify such the injuries. I felt I had 3 words to choose from, Suicides, Homicides and Deaths (actually also "injuries too). I got these words from a secondary source from the National Violent Injury Statistics System (NVISS) [6] and on page 14 that stated "For sites that identify cases before they are ICD-coded, the case definition includes:...and then a list which used the wording for Homicide i.e. "Homicide related to interpersonal violence (as opposed to accidental or unintentional homicides such as unintentional vehicular homicide. Interpersonal violence-related homicides include fatal assaults, justifiable homicides, random violence, and terrorist attacks whether by conventional or biological weapons)" and "Deaths resulting from war operations". (plus the wording for suicides). Thus my 3 words to choose. This extension of the idea of a Homicide classification to include terrorist attacks may explain the NOLO use for war but it is a new exception not the rule for classifying such KIA deaths and it need not mean that we also use that to describe all KIA which is how it reads now in Wikipedia. That is the basis for my selecting the word "deaths" and discounting the NOLO use as not representative of the majority view.

If you think my arguments being stubborn then you misunderstand me. I knew the word would be controversial so instead of being bold and just editing the article I use talk and I find I'm attacked for my grammar and how I format my replies in my talk suggestions. As it is only us two arguing here I will request a Wikipedia:Third_opinion in due course as I feel now that you want to keep the word "homicide" in even though it has a different meaning to the public at large (namely Wikipedia readers) and the use of the word in this was is unrepresentative of how it is used by others who are reliable sources. Ttiotsw 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw:

I used that citation as an example of the claims you made begging the question. Have you ever taken a critical thinking class? You provide a vague, awkward, inappropriate, and difficult reference and state nonsense about my claims and Nolo Press reference. Your latest entry cites but does not use the "Chicago manual of style" [sic]. Yours truly generally refers to _The New St. Martin's Handbook_ (1999).

Referring to your entry's vague, awkward WP:OR reference claims to "WHO ICD-10 codes," one finds the link to your modified citation with much difficulty, and besides being different than cited, it does not support your assertions. It says the WHO definition of "assault" as "[e]xternal causes of morbidity and mortality (V01-Y98)," includes homicide and injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill, by any means excluding injuries due to "legal intervention" and "operations of war." However, that does not mean that homicide does not apply to those definitions for its definition of morbitity either; it means the WHO definition of "assault" does not include them, and I respond to your redefinition of their "assault" to "homicide," a clear slip to concepts you want to further, not verified. "Legal intervention" includes executions from a neutral reference, also technically homicides, though noncriminal, and also excluded from the WHO definition of "assault" here (formatted more as it appears in the difficult-to-find citation).

Chapter XX

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External causes of morbidity and mortality

(V01-Y98)



Assault
(X85-Y09)

Includes: homicide

injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill, by any means

Excludes: injuries due to:

· legal intervention ( Y35.- )

· operations of war ( Y36.- )

CONCLUSION

Spend more time on responses in here instead of writing awkward entries off the cuff. Anyway, I have two other suggestions here. First, join the Military history WikiProject, and second, reveal your real name like I do to help you value what you do here more. If we've ended "serious negotiation," we have not disengaged, referred to the Mediation Cabal, or requested comment, Wikipedia's recommended steps before requesting the Third Opinion option. I suggest a break for four days from the discussion to begin with. Then we post where we stand and see if we need to refer to the Mediation Cabal to begin a dispute process. However, you have not even provided verification, let alone refuted the Nolo Press source, for removing the word "homicide" from war deaths, something of which information on the KIA casualty classification clearly requires. These deaths in war even more clearly involve homicide than many other casualty types because of their occurrence in combat, a situation caused by engagement with other hostile forces. John Wallace Rich 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot and will not reveal my name. I've edit a lot of different pages and further more plan to do so well into the future. Given my real name, it would be trivial to track to a home address. It is not a practical request and on Wikipedia all users have equal weight; your desire to know a real name implies that you consider me less worthy as an editor. I feel that this is really against the spirit of WP:NPA.

I have expressed doubts on the NOLO press definition as not representative of a worldview and no evidence of it being used in a case related to KIA. The NOLO reference actually refers to the word "deaths" and thus as I have shown the contrary case where use of the word homicide is excluded from use in cases of war and thus the word homicide is not neutral if it is used for KIA but the word "deaths" is in common between the two.

I'll be bold and change the article to have the word "deaths" in it as that is what both references have in common and it is thus neutral. So far it's all been way too much talk.

On a separate subject. You have attacked my contributions to the talk page from all angles in a flurry of words; accusing that my suggested change would border on vandalism, accusing my grammar of being poor (on a talk page!), appealing to authority (yourself no less), of being uncivil (not clear what this was about), of being unfriendly (because I didn't layout the talk page entries exactly as you wish with your pseudonym at the top of each post). And are now trying to identify real-world information about me. This last demand is really not on. All contributors are equal. Ttiotsw 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Change done as I have suggested. Maybe we'll get other editors involved if they see change on the article change lists. Change lists on talk pages not really interesting to people thus maybe why there is just two of us here. Ttiotsw 06:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've improved the article and provided reference. See my next entry regarding your improper citation, misunderstanding and misquote of the WHO link you use. John Wallace Rich 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw:

I've added more to the article. I will also call in the Mediation Cabal. Unless your Ttitosw psuedonym gets blocked or limited, you can and do post anything you want, even if inappropriate, awkward, and/or inconsiderate. However, you do also say "the truth is out there somewhere," not that you provide it.

The WHO site refers to the term "assualt," not "homicide," under WHO classifcations of "[e]xternal causes of morbidity and mortality." One also has difficulty finding your reference and has to search for the term "homicide" for your claim at the link. You cannot save the URL of the search result for the term.

Your desire to remove "homicide" from the article still rests on unverified information, your views only, WP:OR. Unclear situations such as these make me hesitate to recommend Wikipedia as a reference right now, but I do value support from the WP:MEDCABAL, especially if we still have a dispute as to keeping the verified word. John Wallace Rich 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that this will probably be shot down as WP:OR but the Table 5. U.S. Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2004, Part II, Cause of Death as shown in this URL, [7] shows table headings of "Calendar Year, Total Deaths, Accident, Hostile Action, Homicide, Illness, Pending, Self Inflicted, Terrorist Attack, Unknown"

The table 12 of the same URL, [8] has the casualty type on the left which separates out "Killed in Action, Died of Wounds, Died While Missing In Action, Died While Captured," and has a subtotal for these which they call "Total Hostile Deaths" and then they follow with the Non-Hostile Death categories i.e., Accident, Illness, Homicide, Self-Inflicted, Undetermined, Pending"

This is why I am concerned that you want to keep the word "Homicide" in the article on KIA - which are a hostile death category when the militaries (and IMHO the WHO also plays along here though you seem to not see this) record homicides under Non-Hostile Death categories. This is what made the article first paragraph jump out at me when I initially read it: homicide is not a normally used term in this case.

Hand on heart I'm perfectly happy for any mediation stuff, though somewhat bemused little why you would want to do this. I have actually enjoyed this exchange as it has made me dig deeper, though you've been somewhat disparaging of my contributions so far across all of Wikipedia but I won't let that stop me. I'm happy that the 2nd sentence is as it is but the last sentence is wrong as it is unclear what the "These casualties" is referring to. Is it the part in the previous sentence i.e. "accidents, such as accidental vehicle crashes, terrorism, or other "non-hostile" means." or the "KIA of that previous sentence ?. Homicide is only used for certain Non-Hostile Deaths of which "accident" isn't a case. I'm not going to change that sentence until we've discussed the validity of the reference I've provided. I was trying to find a world-view (i.e. non military thus my use of WHO) but right now I'm probably doomed to stay with a US-centric military source. Ttiotsw 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your claims use casualty classifications in the Navy tables which include "death" as a definition only since you prefer the term. The main categories in your example even contain the word "death," the higher-level categories such as "Non-Hostile Deaths" and "Hostile Deaths," yet for you, the term "death" still applies to all classifications under them, even "total deaths," and it's a double standard.

Even a category "accidental vehicle crashes" includes "death" in your example above, though it's not in the term. Likewise, the terms "illness" and "died while captured" (DWC) often both include "illness," but moreover, they always include death in your example above because they're part of the category "hostile deaths" or "non-hostile deaths." Likewise, the classifications "homicide" and "killed in action" (KIA) always include homicide. Homicides in combat, noncriminal ones in other words, are different than homicides out of combat, where they are often criminal in some form or another.

Your entries make it seem you don't want to understand simple concepts of something being part of something, not the same thing. An orange color is different than an orange fruit. Likewise, produce sold to Canada can be a different type of produce than, say, than that sold to Mexico, but that doesn't mean that a Florida orange isn't an orange, just not included in produce sold to Mexico, let's say. I'll give it a hiatus and try to provide some simple set theory demonstrations or something, but try to understand rather than attack, and examine your citations more as they don't pan out. John Wallace Rich 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone looking up "homicide" in the tables I have provided and the WHO ICD-10 definitions would skip over the Killed in Action entries or the in-cases-of-war entries. Someone looking at Killed in Action would skip over the Homicide entries. Though homicide as a word means A kills B, the word is not neutral in this case but a loaded term which is primarily used by the law enforcement. Again I am bemused by the idea that I am attacking and feel that your behaviour has not been very nice to another editor. Ttiotsw 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disengagement in Misunderstanding or Dispute about Term "Homicide" to 1/26/07

We can begin here on 1/26. Anyone can provide the first entry. Thanks! John Wallace Rich 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. 1/26 begins 8 hours later than the time we cite here. It's two days from now. John Wallace Rich 01:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup - hopefully then people may look at the Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements as I have just added it. On another matter, I've just saw your cabal request. Given we hadn't got a 3rd opinion as per the WP:DR process in Wikipedia I feel it was a bit premature. You really should understand that I want to avoid such a process, informal though it is, as I want to avoid a RfC and it is not for my sake !. Ttiotsw 21:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep misquoting sources. I don't see what I want about it. I'd like to see better authority here, someone who knows English style, not just British English.

Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution Process says disengagement comes before the Mediation Cabal. You've jumped ahead with it and misquoted again, just like your confusion of the citation of "assault," WHO definitions (X85-Y09), under "[e]xternal causes of morbidity and mortality, "(V01-Y98), with "homicide," and your citation does not appear as it does at the WHO URL. The WP:DR article says that "failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it."

First step: Talk to the other parties involved

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and do not mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary. If you want assistance, request an advocate to help you in presenting your thoughts in the issue (see Section 6 on this page).

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.

Further information: Wikipedia:Negotiation

[edit] Second step: Disengage for a while

A simple solution to a dispute is to stop having it — by leaving the article and/or bringing in an outside editor. This is particularly helpful when disputing with new users as it gives them a chance to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policy and culture. Focus your contributions on another article where you can make constructive progress. Avoid going back to the page of dispute. Respond to questions about it on your user talk page and direct the questioner to take their issues to the article talk page to keep all relevant discussion in one place.

Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again.

[edit] Further dispute resolution

If talking to the other parties involved and taking a break fails, you should try one of the following methods to resolve the dispute. Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved.

[edit] Informal mediation

If things are getting a bit tricky, it might be useful to ask some cool heads to look in and help out; this might turn out to be sufficient to do the trick. See the Mediation Cabal for one example of informal mediators whom you can just pass by and ask for help.

[edit] Discuss with third parties

Wikipedia works by building consensus. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience. Options for doing this include:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for general disputes

Wikipedia:Third opinion, for disputes involving only two editors

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, for problems with uncivil editors

Asking at subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProjects or policy pages relevant to the issue.

If you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now. This allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of ongoing edits, which are likely to aggravate the dispute. If an edit war persists and parties refuse to stop, you may request that the page be protected to allow the process to move forward.

See also Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, and Wikipedia:Protection policy.

Apparently, the current Third Opinion, obtained without follwing Wikipedia's recommended steps, only addresses the change you made, not the term "homicide." Scott Wilson also actually questions my name, but I suppose I can prove who I am somehow or another. Less important, though we discuss more casually, it would certainly show poor style in formal context, runon sentences in both paragraphs and way-too-excessive use of passive voice. I will address it formally when we agree on how to manage the situation, if we do, as you have moved ahead out of order, not even respecting the disengagement. It reminds me of the glee one of my younger brothers (the second eldest) used to wrongfully take in always getting me in trouble. Plus your posts reek of the inconsiderate "high road" attitude. John Wallace Rich 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

John, you're splitting hairs here. Perhaps things happened in a slightly different order to that suggested at WP:DR, but that's no reason to invalidate the solution proposed - if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. I'd also like to ask in what way my third opinion doesn't address the word homicide - it's about all the second paragraph talks about. Secondly, I would like to take issue with your criticism of my writing style. Perhaps it's not the best, particularly at ten at night, but that doesn't invalidate my arguments either. If you wish to disregard my opinion you should put forwards some sort of argument as to why they are correct, rather than an ad homiem attack. Finally, my questioning of your name was in no way intended as an assault on your credibility; I was merely attempting to point out that a name is merely a designation; it doesn't matter what we use - ceci n'est pa un pipe. If it means that much to you, consider it retracted. Everyone here would do well to look solely at the issues, rather than the users advocating particular views. --Scott Wilson 12:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Facts are I have done my 1 and only edit to the article in the past week-10 days (last edit on the 23rd Jan) (excluding a vandalism revert on the 17th Jan). I have also edited other articles across Wikipedia unrelated to this on a variety of subjects (as I normally do) and I have disengaged from this one issue for a period of time. I have asked for a 3rd opinion 2 days (the 25th) after my only edit and they have given it.

I'm at a lost as to how you can call my slow and cautious following of the WP:DR procedure "not following Wikipedia guidelines" when you have started mediation in a few hours after my only edit to the article. Contrary to your further characterisation of me, I do not watch this with glee but it does distress me somewhat. Wikipedia is global and runs 24x7 (except for the odd times the databases are in read-only mode) and having children I work on a completely different timescale to others and fit in edits when I can based on my schedule. I don't need to justify myself here.

I have asked for 3rd opinion quite some time after my only change to the article; we are not in an edit war here, but a discussion on sources for a single NPOV word to use. I have provided 3 sources for my term (and they actually include your own NOLO source). If you think that's going against some schedule you have in mind then you're working from your own rulebook. I think my 1 change to the article in 10 days is probably not what the WP:DR had in mind.

The 3rd opinion also feels that the word "homicide" does not apply. Why not leave it at that. I have been civil (well within what I feel other Wikipedia editors would expect) whereas you have persisted with personal attacks, innuendoes and snide comments across the board which in my opinion fail in the spirit of personal attacks. I really must repeat that I do not want it to get any further.Ttiotsw 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've been asked to give a third opinion on this dispute. First of all, John Wallace Rich, I'd like to take issue with your insistence on Ttiotsw revealing their real name. While some people, you and I included, choose to use their real names on WIkipedia and other online spaces, others do not; please respect that. If you really feel the need to 'judge' other users in any way (and ideally you shouldn't; you should be looking at the issue at hand and the arguments on either side; not the users putting those arguments forwards), look at their contributions, which will sum up who they are in terms of Wikipedia. Who cares what name someone uses - heck, your name may not be your real one, either.

Now, on the real issue, I'm broadly in favour of death, mainly because it's more natural language - when was the last time you used 'homicide' in casual conversation? The longer sentence proposed by John ("The deaths occur directly by other combatants from "hostile action" while in combat...") rather than "These casualties occur from homicides while in combat." is also, arguably, clearer, especially to the layman, who may not be familiar - or have the wrong idea about - the meaning of homicide, as it more explicitly states the conditions that must be fulfilled. Finally, the sourced WHO usage swing it for me. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not solely for the United States, so internationally-agreed definitions should take precedence, and by that one, homicide is just too narrow a term. --Scott Wilson 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Third Opinion :-)

I have no opinion myself on the content of this article. I got to this link through the Mediation Cabal request. I do agree with all the points made by Scott Wilson above. I do think that although the word murder is indeed verified it does contain certian connotations not consistent with someone killed in military action. To a non-expert reader (like myself) of this encyclopedia article the word murder does seem distracting and a more common usage word like death or KIA itself seem more natural and communicative- though I make no claims to know the proper military usage of KIA. The source WHO usage also swings me firmly over to thinking homicide is too narrow a term.

It is challenging when someone has an opinion different than ours. Part of what makes Wikipedia work is our capacity to deal with the content rather than the contributor, and be civil rather than attacking. John, although you feel strongly about the vocabulary issue under discussion here please don't mock or belittle Ttiotsw, or create an unfriendly environment- like insisting that he reveal his name. You clearly have a depth of experinece in this area and clearly have a passion for it. Let's compromise and keep deepending the article as you yourself suggest below! I will keep an eye on this page. Thanks and Good Luck! Alex Jackl 07:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jackl we are not disputing the word "murder" but the word "homicide". Like Vietnamese catfish (illegal to sell it as this in parts of the US even though it is a catfish as far as scientists are concerned), the issue is not that the cases of KIA fit the word "homicide" as per the dictionary definition but that there is no authority that uses this term for cases of KIA as far as I know. Someone just has to show a KIA that has a cause of death recorded as "homicide". Even NOLO Press doesn't mention KIA in its dictionary definition (it just says that... "Homicide is considered noncriminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court.". The NOLO Press entry is too imprecise. The WHO and the other reports I have linked to show that others either exclude the use of the word or have separate categories. Ttiotsw 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad- I put murder instead of homicide. I blame the brain gremlins. I understand and my point holds. I agree with you based strictly on how it reads to me- a total non-expert in this area and therefore a reasonable model for the article audience. LOL. Alex Jackl 07:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

HOMICIDE CONVERSATION

In review of the discussion over which word to use started with homicide, apparently two other words were introduced and is now reduced to homicide and death. Both words do appear to have a word identifier to specifically relate to KIA, i.e., justifiable homicide and non-hostile death. Thus use of either word is, at present, not a clear choice. Finding authority sources which both editors agree, whether it be Lectric Law Library, Nolo, WHO or Wikipedia presents a similar problem. None really met a worldview per Ttiotsw and WHO’s was neither representative of a worldview or properly chosen under the morbidity and mortality category per John. Let’s use this Resolution. let the word death be used in the first sentence as suggested by Ttiotsw. Although neither word is totally safisfactory, for more substance and style as well as expanding the concept and encyclopedic explanation, use homicide in the last sentence as suggested by John. KSCHO 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Subcategories of KIA

I think that work should be done on future additions to the article, such as statistics, and subcategories of KIA, such as KIA-BNR and KIA-"Friendly Fire," rather than the attack on the verified term "homicide." John Wallace Rich 02:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article appears way too short in its present form. It looked better before. The Gladius 03:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I came to this page from The Battle of Okinawa. I was surprised to see that 4 of 5 Japanese Commanders were listed as KIA (on the Okinawa page). Upon reading their individual pages I found they had committed seppuku. I think subcategories would be very useful. When completed, the idea of including subcategories next to / with the dagger symbol should be discussed on WikiProject Military history. Vac1911 (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"Disengagement" Extended to at Least 1/27, 1/28 at Latest

I've got a meeting tonight at the American Legion Post for my Sons of the American Legion (SAL) squadron, so I don't know if I'll respond to posts today. I do want to note, breifly, the difference between "homicide" and "muder." Wikipedia provides different articles for the two terms, and Wikipedia's and Nolo Press's definition for homicide includes, "The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another." Murder, on the other hand, is criminal homicide. John Wallace Rich 01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here are other references to the relationship of homicide to KIA. On the first page of a Yahoo search for "justifiable homicide, definition," we find information from the Lectric Law Library. The description includes:

...A soldier on duty is justified in committing homicide in obedience to the command of his officer, unless the command was something plainly unlawful...

I also notice that Wikipedia has a justifiable homicide article which describes war deaths as one reason to make a homicide noncriminal. See the second section, "The potentially excusing conditions common to most jurisdictions."

Where a state is engaged in a war with a legitimate casus belli, a soldier from one of the combatant states may lawfully kill a soldier in the army of the opposing state so long as that soldier has not surrendered. This principle is embedded in public international law and has been respected by most states around the world. Thus, if there is no formal declaration of war or the casus belli is not legitimate, all those who engage in the fighting and kill combatants could theoretically be prosecuted. Otherwise, protecting the national interest against external aggressors will be considered an excuse on utilitarian grounds, i.e. the greatest public good will be derived from the defeat of the enemy.

These references also say killing in war, like a state execution and self defense, involves noncriminal homicide. The Wikipedia entry also specifically cites international law as a source. John Wallace Rich 06:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Article is terrible

This article is terrible. It has no references, does not follow any Wikipedia conventions or style guides, is full of irrelevent information, and includes many questionable assertions. You guys need to start from scratch. I'm cleaning up this article to remove anything not up to Wikipedia standards. Please add only referenced information from here on out. If you can't find sources, don't write anything. Any by sources, I'm not talking about dictionaries. Kaldari 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was only trying to change one word as opposed to a complete re-write as I saw that this article was owned and "be bold" wouldn't have worked. You have no complaints from me here on the changes. Ttiotsw 07:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It had references. It's not a joke. Discuss changes if you want to make them. I'd argue you vandalized the page (almost verbatim from entry in Mediation Cabal Request/Response Page) because you removed verified information from a "Start Class" article without even discussion, most of the article, and Kaldari doesn't even spell the word "homicide" correctly. The user should use much more care. Doesn't Kaldari realize people actually get killed in war? It's not something funny! Said user also made more than three edits in less than 10 minutes. The page needs contributions, not joking, and Ttiotsw would like the baby cut into 20ths! John Wallace Rich 16:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Where were the references? Dictionary entries? Everything in the article needs to be referenced, not just the definition of KIA. Please use inline citations for your references so that people can tell what references pertail to what sections. Thanks! Kaldari 22:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the previous version of this article:

1. The article has no lead. You can't start an article with a header.
2. The article does not stay on topic. This article is about the military term "Killed in action", it is not about war in general. Most of the paragraphs in the "Examination" section should be moved to more appropriate articles such as military tactics, military funeral, Memorial Day, etc.
3. The discussion of male vs. female casualties is completely irrelevent.
4. Article includes too many weasel words and uncited assertions. "Common sense indicates that the side with the most KIA loses the conflict." According to who?
5. Musings such as "It's kill or be killed..." have no place in an encyclopedia article.
6. Article has virtually no references other than links to dictionaries (which if they are references should not be listed under External links). Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FN for guidance on how to create proper references and inline citations.
7. Article does not follow style conventions. Please read WP:MoS for how to properly format Wikipedia articles. This includes when to use bolding, when to created headers and subheaders, When to capitalize words, etc.
8. "Other Military Terminology" section is redundant with Military terminology category. This is why we have categories, so that we don't have to create lists like this in articles.
9. External links section does not follow WP:EL guidelines.

With all of these problems, you're better off starting from scratch and building a quality article rather than bickering over the current content. Kaldari 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to overhaul the article to address the above concerns (and added a few shiny commons images in the process). How is it now? Cowman109^Talk 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As Sacha Cohen would say, "very nass"! Kaldari 23:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Is this case still necessary or can I close it? --Ideogram 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it still needs mediation. Has your "cabal" provided any? Kaldari at best made a joke out of a serious matter, and I've warned the user about vandalizing the article, something Ttiotsw also did in changing my request for mediation. It's rather frustrating and difficult labor, and I'm defensive and would like Wikipedia to make it easier to ask for help in protecting work in cases like these, though the Wikimedia Foundation's answering machine asks to "please leave a message" even on Sunday. John Wallace Rich 17:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

John, I'd like to remind you that no-one, least of all you, 'owns' any of the content on Wikipedia. Try to be a bit less possessive; you aren't the only one who can write good articles. --Scott Wilson 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no vandalism of the article, John Wallace Rich. Vandalism would be replacing the page with images of phalluses or something inappropriate of the sort. Instead, this is (or was, hopefully it's past) a content dispute. Kaldari was indeed correct to remove such unsourced information, so in fact he did the right thing. Hopefully the article has been changed enough for this to be put past us now. Cowman109^Talk 23:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice clean-up

I was planning on trying to rewrite this article myself when I had a chance, but it looks like JzG and Cowman109 beat me to it. Nice work. I have no complaints with the current version. Kaldari 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They've made changes unlike your second-level warning of vandalization, but they've also removed pertinent stuff. I'm editing again. At least I follow the rules so far, unlike you. John Wallace Rich 00:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

John Wallace Rich, Kaldori is a sysop and I'm sure he is familiar with policy enough to not vandalize pages (else he would have been desysopped long ago), and as a neutral administrator myself it is indeed true he broke no policy in his edits. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the changes made to the article, John Wallace Rich. Your edits do not comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style in terms of bold lettering and the external links section, and you are basically undoing the gramatical improvements that have been made thus far. Please come discuss your changes instead of continuing as you are close to breaking the three revert rule. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 01:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

John your edits violates WP:MOS a key wikipedia policy, it's unneeded here, it makes the article worse, also stop with your personal attacks calling other admins vandals, I would block you for that Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned I use The new St. Martin's Handbook, and I spoke about formatting looking funny, not to mention the use of the passive voice and deletion of much pertinent and verified information. The spaces do not look right. It sounds to me like you just graduated high school whereas I believe we have much higher level users here. Yours truly has completed the last English requirement for a 4-year degree at least, not to mention graduate-level courses in linguistics such as Generative Syntax. Your entry here provides an inappropriate comment about your reversion to an inferior entry.

I mention the term slavery because I put a lot of work into the article as it holds much personal and professional importance. I'm also discussing it with someone here who has a Wikipedia account who will also contribute further, but he asks "why don't we have dinner first?" We also wonder about multiple-user accounts by one person.

Different presidents did sign both of the Parchment Presidential Certificates honoring the close relatives I have who were KIA. Moreover, Plato also talked about how members of KIA families should be able to speak better than those without, as the "Golden Race" would provide them better expression. Specifically:

Yes, I said; and when a man dies gloriously in war shall we not say, in the first place, that he is of the golden race?

To be sure.

Nay, have we not the authority of Hesiod for affirming that when they are dead

"They are holy angels upon the earth, authors of good, averters of evil, the guardians of speech-gifted men"?

See one copy, among many online, of The Republic. I'm going to have dinner, but I don't see what I want here, and it reminds me of feelings I had when the WTC went down. John Wallace Rich 02:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I once again cleaned up/copyedited the article to properly match Wikipedia's manual of style. I'll hold off on more edits until tomorrow just to make sure we're on the same page. Cowman109^Talk 04:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed two minor referencing problems after that per WP:REF, so I lied about the last comment. Now I'm done for the day :D. Cowman109^Talk 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your bringing it up, and someone's done some work putting those pictures in. What about statistics? Also, style manuals don't always concur with putting the footnotes at the end with numbers only. What's wrong with providing a link. My The New St. Martin's Handbook (1999) lists MLA, APA, CBE and Chicago styles, and linking also provides a well-formatted reference IMHO. Besides, even WP:STYLE says it's not the final word.

Some military-history knowledge would help the article as well as statistics. Hopefully we'll get good sources. John Wallace Rich 06:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use The New St. Martin's Handbook. The only manual of style applicable to Wikipedia is the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Please read it and familiarize yourself with it if you want to significantly contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a free-form free-for-all. There are very specific guidelines about how to write and format articles. Having recently guided Mary Wollstonecraft through the process of becoming a featured article, I would like to think that I know a little bit about that. Please stop with the defensive paranoia, edit warring, and article ownership. You'll get much further by constructively collaborating with experienced editors until you are more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and style conventions. Kaldari 08:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As stated by Kaldari and Cowman, WP:MOS is the commanding format that we use throughout all Wikipedia articles. This article is flawed in its current state, and I ask if you would read WP:MOS and fix up the article to conform to Wikipedia's standards. The whole layout of the article is a bit off, and the fact that there is no lead in the article is problematic. Please also remove the excessive bolding of terms throughout the article. Note that this is not some outline for a history course. Thanks, Nishkid64 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:STYLE itself says it's not the ultimate authority, just a reference. What about good content, not to mention style? John Wallace Rich 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs) is the only one objecting out of multiple users to the changes. I would re-make them myself but after my first revert I feel as though I've had enough edit warring for a good long while :P. Are there any objections to returning the article so that it properly follows formatting guidelines of WP:EL (in reference to removing the external links that don't add encyclopedic use to the article) and WP:MOS (removing the improper bolding of acronyms which are not to be bolded by Wiki style)? Also there is the issue of the 'other military terminology' section which is argued to be redundant in the article as the category Category:Military terminology already covers all of it. I don't care so much for the category issue, but the manual of style issues really should be addressed. Any comments on this, please? Cowman109^Talk 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the improper bolding once more as there have been no objections. Can we go on to discuss avoiding self references, then? The text that says "See below for various references under "Similar Terminology" and "External Links" for further information on acronyms and definitions." is self reference and as such should be removed as we need not redundantly explain what is listed only slightly down the page. That is what the sections are for in the first place, to be 'seen also' :D. Also, the cites John keeps changing makes it difficult to determine what specifically is being cited, therefore it is imperative that the refs are placed directly after the sentence that they cite. Could we get some opinions on this, please? Cowman109^Talk 19:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support the changes Cowman109. User:John Wallace Rich I of course would support you offering your suggestions and edits, but you've been attacking other editors. I'd hope you can edit without attacking. Somitho 19:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken both the sections from Cowman109 and John Wallace Rich and merged them together. Any proposed changes? Somitho 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The classical reference seems out of place. I think it should go or have a section about KIA in literature or something. UnfriendlyFire 05:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article had a start-class rating according to Wikipedia, and it needs more information, not less. It included ideas such as these. What about statistics? John Wallace Rich 06:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the classical quotations seem to have little relevance. I would support removing them. Kaldari 05:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's military history and an article entry in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary definition. Wikipedia shouldn't score so high on search engines if attacks like these continue. John Wallace Rich 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning gender

What is the significance of this statement?

U.S. front-line-ground-combat forces remain male only. However, U.S. naval, air, and support troops contain females, as well as other nations' forces, and militaries can consider them KIA.

What does someone's gender have to do with whether or not they are KIA? Front line ground combat troops for the United States are not the only ones who get killed. The KIA article should be about the military designation of being killed in action, regardless of which nation's military or branch of service is being discussed. I'd like to strike this section from the article. Thoughts? -Etoile 23:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on this a bit tonight, but it's been bothersome and made me defensive. However, our nonprofit organization also has a lot of work to do, sending out items to those who honor KIA, and one of our printers also went bad today, a nice Canon one, so we had to revert to a backup printer my brother donated, get a cartridge for it, also a nice device though. I also gave a friend a ride to the DMV and waited for her for two hours while she got her permit.

As far as the comment, in the past, support troops did not receive consideration as KIA, only front-line combat troops. In addition, I'm trying to be gender neutral but use the proper third-person singular for Indo-European languages, i.e. English. Man is a sexual being. My great-grandmother, Dr. Beatrice Gelber, worked on one-celled animals, asexual ones, and they were all daughter cells, on the other hand. I will add more later on tonight, but I've been busy today. Thanks for the break, but I think even the most recent edit attacked. Again, even WP:STYLE says it's not the ultimate authority to say the least, but I will review it. John Wallace Rich 02:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. It really has no significance on the article. It was removed earlier but was re-added by John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs). Cowman109^Talk 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Cowman109. The few sentences rabbiting on about the male/female stuff cancel each other out anyway and were next on my list once the other disputed wording was fixed. Mentioning gender would only be significant if there were any militaries that discriminated against classifying women as KIA. AFAIK that isn't the case. That men predominate as KIA is simply because most militaries deliberately exclude women from combat roles (e.g. the UK does this). (I'd insert something about my personal life here but WTF would that have to do with the article ?!) Ttiotsw 08:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw:

You're missing the significance of the issue. It wasn't by discriminating against women that militaries didn't count them as KIA, on the contrary, but they would not classify support troops as KIA. Just because we don't have a great war or even a real war or even large-scale combat going on doesn't mean we should forget that. Remembering's important so that we can learn from the past. Moreover, the U.S. military still does not officially allow women to serve as combat troops.

Do you have close relatives KIA? Besides a lack of learning on the subject, your statements ask for a bleached-out, sterile view of the situation. So far, like Howard Hughes, your arguments say people should live in clinics with antiseptic, not even aesthetic, qualities. Structures should be torn down till then, no matter whose they are or how much work they put in? IMHO, a Jew who survived the Holocaust would write a better Wikipedia entry about it, and many things, than a Nazi.

You already speak for yourself. Talk about breeding rights and living to a ripe old age instead of attacking my work! Your entries use veiled profanity, passive, if not outright, aggression, and it's also hypocritical when they keep bringing up the awkward sob story about your 3 kids like it really matters to the articles when my relevant work does not. I work with KIA every day, hear the pride and priceless sacrifice from family members in the stories both from long ago and today. Plus I experience it myself -- so when entries make a user appear to gloat over cheap and unjust victories, it bothers me.

The most popular British condolence card saying after the Great War (World War I before 1939) went:

Safe in the homeland singing today,

Waiting for dear ones still on the way,

Trials are ended, hardshps are past,

(Loved One's Name Goes Here) is save in Heaven at last.

U.S. General Sherman said, "War is hell." Yet it happens, and I imagine there are very few who like it when it does. I may not be able to smile or grin here, but minor conflict abounds, and you can't stay out of the way when you're, at least hypothetically, on the front lines unless they make you - like they did to my great uncle because of the Sullivan tragedy. Granted, I do still have learning to do, but I've also done a lot.

I'd ask more about learning or if someone's confused user IDs when he makes hypocritical, inappropriate, and awkward comments, and I'd talk about someone seeming selfish to me. However, I've been criticized for "attacking" here by at least one other user, a well-educated authority, and I don't see what I want about it at that. Moreover, I'm not trying to attack here, just respond to your entry and provide productive articles and prevent strategic-bombing-like destruction of them. The song went "a time to build, a time to destroy," but who's to say if and when? Moreover, I suppose everyone's very different. Be more aware of it. John Wallace Rich 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

John Wallace Rich you really have to just comment on the article. I am still not attacking the article. I have done one edit two weeks ago (which had partly stuck), one revert for vandalism a few weeks ago (true vandalism not wishful thinking) and one addition of the "See also" links to the War memorial and War graves (few days ago and which has still stuck). I have since fixed a redlink and broken image in War memorial plus raised some talk on why there is no Canadian images any more for the Vimy memorial in France (which is quite a spectacular sight and as it'll be re-opened this year in April so we should have some copyright-OK images). Carrying a New Zealand passport I'm well aware of the contribution that the ANZACs made so any Gallipoli link very much needs to not be a redlink wherever that appears. As for my family, well anyone who comes from Britain or the Commonwealth has holes in their family trees; fortunately my older relatives were Military Police or machine tool designers and engineers; MPs had a higher chance of survival (around 2.5% died according to [9]) but they had a vicious job to do. That's about all you'll get from me. I think I mentioned my kids once (back on 26th Jan ?) as you were trying to set some timetable on my Wikipedia activity; I'm happy to accommodate where I can but we live in different timezones and have completely different schedules so not always possible. If you weren't so aggressive on people's contributions you would get a lot more help presenting your view plus extending this and related articles. As you have mentioned with non-combat roles the article could be extended to include statistics and commentary for KIA for various groups other than front-line troops but truthfully stuffed if I'm going to have you denigrate every word I try and add or change because you got your view on grammar, my education, spelling et al. Ttiotsw 09:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"your statements ask for a bleached-out, sterile view of the situation"

That is exactly what we are looking for. This is an encyclopedia, John, not an editorial. Can you think of anything more bleached-out and sterile than an encyclopedia? I can't. If you want to write something that is not bleached-out and sterile you should consider writing a book instead. Wikipedia is not the place for compelling and emotional exposition. It's a place for dry, boring facts. Sorry if that doesn't suite you. Kaldari 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Someone would write more sterile dictionary definitions, but encyclopedia entries require information and style, including not using the passive voice extensively. Just because you don't understand military history or "PLATO to NATO" doesn't mean you're right. Moreover, a Nazi article on eugenics would look a lot different than a real scientific one. Ethics have importance. John Wallace Rich 18:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Clean up

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

Request for Comment

Here's how the RFC poster characterizes the article and its dispute:

An edit war currently exists with large blocks of information removed, including a contested classical reference. However, the article has already achieved "Start-Class" quality rating according to the Military history Wikiproject. Attacks abound in other articles, and they've spread here now. So far, users have commented on an "article cleanup" and "nice clean-up" when important sections get removed, threatening the article's quality. Also, edits often revert to poor style, including the passive voice

I'd say that that description is essentially wrong in every respect, including the brandishing of the "Start-Class" quality rating: "Start-Class" doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form "good", as a quick glance at its description shows:

The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials...

And passive voice is perfectly acceptable in many contexts, particularly those in which subjects are acted upon or the identity of the actor is secondary (as in, "Important sections get removed"): there's no knee-jerk prohibition.

And as for the "important sections" getting removed, they weren't particularly important, and their removal, in my opinion, was a net plus. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the RfC was a bit premature and not neutrally written. The consensus is fairly clear and has been since, well since the 3rd opinions weighed in over the past week or so and since the re-write was done. I think we can fairly work out what the consensus is by observing the article over the next "week". Are people happy if we get this protected for the next week from IPs and new users ? Ttiotsw 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

John Wallace Rich was blocked, and obvious sockpuppets of his will be blocked as well for block evasion, so I don't think there is a need to semi-protect the article at this point. Article improvement should be able to continue as normal. Cowman109^Talk 00:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This could be a really interesting article, but isn't

This could be a really interesting article, on the origin of the term, on which militaries use it, etc. But at the moment it has only info on contemporary US usage. There is not even info on what other countries use the term. Really deserves further expansion. - PocklingtonDan 14:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you take out specific classical references if you value the origin of the term? The Republic reference specifically relates to the same concept as killed in action. The article has a lot of damage, and I hope to handle it better.

Along with gifts to KIA families and sales to others, someone sent our nonprofit, the USA KIA/DOW Family Foundation (USAKIA), an E-mail asking what "DOW" stood for, and even that's been damaged in the article. It's standard to use a left out term in brackets whereas someone's even removed the brackets. I had to tell the person and mentioned Wikipedia and its problems, something I have also investigated and pursued further.

Larry Sanger, a founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, wrote a relevant article on what's going on here, a lack of respect to references and authority. See his "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism" article.

I do plan to update the article further and request arbitration in Wikipedia, specifically use different formatting for the references but provide them at the end of the sentence rather. However, I also have other things to do which have higher priority right now. John Wallace Rich 13:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Civility

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

"non-hostile means,,,"

This passage is just strange:

"...incidents such as accidental vehicle crashes, terrorism, or other "non-hostile" means...".

It seems to classify "terrorism" as a "non-hostile" mean to kill people. --Abu badali ^(talk) 05:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess "hostile" means enemy combatants in this case. Maybe it should be phrased as "non-combat" or something similar. UnfriendlyFire 04:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

POWs and assassinations

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

Why the cross?

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

GET RID OF THE 'CROSS' SYMBOL!

I totally agree with you concerning the cross symbol. I was VERY, VERY SURPRISED to see the cross next to Islamic Shaheeds (martyrs) in the number of Wikipedia Articles, such as:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Siffin

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel

and perhaps many other Articles that I didn't realize about.

I know, some of you might think it's a small, insignificant matters, and that I just overreacted or something. But hey, have you read the history of the The Red Cross and the The Red Crescent symbols? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Relation_to_the_flag_of_Switzerland)

At first, I didn't notice that, I was too tired of doing research about Islamic history that concerned Muslim law of war. Until I carefully looked at this unwelcome symbol and my eyes suddenly got widened. Oh my God! It's a Christian cross! God forbid, you don't put that symbol besides Muslim Martyrs names! It's an insult to their memories who died defending the religion of Islam!

Someone in authority better do something about this, otherwise I might, launch some sort of worldwide awareness campaign regarding this matter, maybe on Facebook. Many Muslims will definitely get upset about this (upset is an understatement!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.166.169 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised this was started nearly ten years ago and hasn't been addressed. Perhaps it can change to a skull? Better yet, have multiple sub-categories of KIA with skull being default, KIA-Christian = cross, KIA-Muslim = Crescent (total guess if that's appropriate), KIA-Jewish, etc. Elminstersage (talk) 12:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

'not global' tag

This article has been tagged as not representing a worldwide perspective. This may be a misunderstanding of the article's purpose. (Hard to say since I don't see any explanation for the tag on the talk page.) KIA is an acronym for the English phrase "killed in action"; neither the phrase nor the acronym would apply to militaries using other languages. The question, then, is whether other Anglophone militaries use the same phrase; do the Brits use it, for instance, or do they have another term? Or do they define it in a way that differs from the US Dept. of Defense? The section on "societies" who honor those killed in battle is thus too broad to be of any use; this is not an article about war dead, or about the practice of honoring those who died in battle. It's an article that explains what the military term "killed in action" means. The non-specificity of the section is indicated most strongly by the sentence "Many of the dead were honored." Cynwolfe (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Brits do indeed use the term, it was they in fact who originated it, which is why the term includes the word 'action', an 'action' being any skirmish or encounter with the enemy. The US equivalent term I believe is 'combat'.

The UK terms (mostly RAF) were/are:

• KIA - Killed In Action.
• MIA - Missing In Action.
• MBK - Missing, Believed Killed.
• MBS - Missing, Believed Safe.
• MBPOW - Missing, Believed Prisoner of War
• LOA - Lost In Action.
• DNR - Did Not Return (from a non-operational flight).
• KWF - Killed While Flying - usually means died as a result of an air accident.

KIA => casualty or not

Please excuse if this already has been discussed. The article marks KIA as a casualty. The article about casualty says: "In military usage, casualties usually refer to combatants who have been rendered combat-ineffective, or all persons lost to active military service, which comprises those killed in action, killed by disease, disabled by physical injuries, disabled by psychological trauma, captured, deserted, and missing, but does not include injuries which do not prevent a person from fighting." Is this a contradiction? P.S.: I'm not a native speaker. Kind regards from Germany! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.166.235 (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! Casualty refers to both those who are KIA or WIA. For example, a person who is dead is combat-ineffective. On the flip-side, a person who is wounded and pulled out of battle is also combat-ineffective, albeit for a different reason. Regards. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Dagger symbol for marking KIA

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 119#Dagger symbol, confused with cross symbol, alternate symbols, and default settings for template:KIA for a summary of everything that I could find.

Use that thread/page for further discussion, to keep things centralized in a high-activity area. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Killed in action. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303201526/http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf to http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Accidents

"KIAs do not come from incidents such as accidental vehicle crashes and other "non-hostile" events"

What about such accidents which occur during the heat of combat? E.g., driving into a ditch while attempting to avoid hostile fire, or inadvertently killing oneself with an explosive weapon in an attempt to attack the enemy? 108.34.201.56 (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@108.34.201.56 220.152.112.24 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@220.152.112.24 220.152.112.24 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Disrespect for the dead

† using the sign is disrespectful to the deceased, Remove this sign next to the names of Muslims who died in wars. --45.135.206.230 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The claim is that this is supposedly a "dagger" sign. It's clearly a cross sign and should be changed with something appropriate. Not only a disrespect towards Muslims but all the other religions and non religious people.

No, it's definitely a dagger and its usage is covered in the corresponding Wikipedia article. It descends from a mark that came to be used in manuscripts to denote material that was dubious and/or should be excised. At no point was it meant to be a Christian cross. The usages that are or were specific to Christians still derive from that original purpose. WP Ludicer (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

KIA symbol is Christian symbol

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