Talk:United States military casualties in the War in Afghanistan

Some suggestions
I just wanted to show you how we grouped casualties from specific incidents together on the Canadian Page. You'll probably find that for incidents that involved multiple casualties, info such as unit, location, and the incident description are the same for some (as in with the unit info) or all of the info will be the same. the command rowspan= "2" would take the data in a column and stretch its cell over 2 rows. usually what I'll do when I'm editing the Canadian page, is look for a previous incident with the same number of casualties, cut and paste it to the bottom of the table, then input the new info in-place of the old info. I put this in for the 1st helecopter crash in pakistan.

Also, I noticed that most (all?) of the citations lead to the same page. It may be worth taking the time to find either media reports about specific incidents, or seeing if the DOD has press releases on its site that you can link to. This will also help you find details about each incident that can be added to the 'circumstances' column and verify details such as the date and exact location.

Finally, maintaining an article like this can be a lot of work. you may wish to recrute some dedicated editors to help you keep on top of new casualties. Mike McGregor (Can) (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I already sent messages to two editors who had been regulary adding coalition fatalities to the Coalition casualties in Afghanistan article. Since that list has been removed I told them they can edit this one now. Because I had to build the list first I was using one source as a basis for all of the names, but I will see to maybe replace those references with DoD notifications of the deaths of the soldiers. Thanks again.BobaFett85 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename
Just looked at the AfD. Not sure where i'll come down on that. But if this is going to survive, it should be renamed to either "United States casualties xxx" or, if there's some concern that non-US citizens serving in the US military would be excluded on that basis "United States military casualties in the Afghan war." A mouthful, but "American" sometimes means different things to different people.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Article should be renamed to U.S. casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). I think non-US citizens serving in the U.S. military would not be excluded from that article.

Compromise solution - copied from user talk page
I think you need to link to a source which mentions the discrepancies between the figures the DoD uses and the figures given in icasualties.org, otherwise it is OR. At the very least, you need to provide links to the two figures for reference. Creating a whole article just for you to reconcile two different sets of figures seems a bit excessive, and as another editor suggests, reeks of original research. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to your comment of references for the figures, I did provide them in the article Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, I put references, both icasualties.org and DoD. I stated that 608 soldiers were reported killed (608 names on icasualties.org, all confirmed by DoD) but also noted that the number is higher than the one given by DoD. If you want I can put the DoD's number also and so we state the number of dead is between 601 and 608? But currently I think you should consider my compromise proposole about listing the incidents of deaths of soldiers like in List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq. We don't list the names of soldiers so it wouldn't be in violation of the Memorial rule. What do you think?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that you have indeed provided the two links, but it seems to me that any discrepancy between the two (the reconciliation of which you are using to justify the entire article!) is original research. I propose everything below the Fatalities header be deleted and replaced by a table listing the number killed by province/country of death if not in Afghanistan. This would remove the problem of the memorial "violation" and result in a more concise article.
 * Also, the footnotes of the DoD pdf file should be mentioned, as it appears that deaths which have previously been counted in the Afghanistan numbers are now being retroactively counted in the Operation Iraqi Freedom numbers. Note that I have added "fact needed" tags to the introduction of the article. Please add inline citations so it is clear which source you are using. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What you just said on my talk page. That's exactly what I have been proposing to do. Replace the names with incidents and numbers. No name, no rank, or anything like that. So in that case it wouldn't be a Memorial. I would gladly do just that and I am ready to start on the work tonight, but the problem is I can't talk Nick into it. There is no point in me doing the reconstruction of the article if it is just deleted again because of the current nomination. The current nomination has to be withdrawn, Nick doesn't want to accept this compromise.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be even coarser. Just the number killed to date in each province/country. The article length needs to be kept reasonably short. Each figure needs to be clearly sourced and if you have performed any calculations to arrive at a particular number, that needs to be mentioned in the article as well (as a comment perhaps). Other editors need to be able to follow how you arrived at a particular number for verification/validation purposes. Any discrepancies between figures has to be mentioned in the article-proper, with explanations of how each source arrived at its figures.Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I totaly agree with you. If everybody agreed I will delete the list tonight and replace it with a table with numbers of deaths by province and country. I will replace it tonight so I hope the AdF nomination will be withdrawn.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: The New Proposal
Re the new proposal posted on my talk page i think that goes along way to combatting the issues raised. However it still is POV pushing in regards to the figures. Something along the lines of "the DOD has stated x killed in XYZ while the internet source states x have been killed in XYZ". That would help do away with some, if not all, of the the OR and POV isssues.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is that http://icasualties.org doesn't appear to be a reliable source - it provides no background on itself that I could see and doesn't state what its sources are. Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with you there.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That surprises me. They did have a section on their methodology on the website at one stage. But it was attacked at some point in the last few years which resulted in them changing the design, so maybe it's no longer there. Maybe an older version is archived somewhere...? Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reorganised a bit more the article so there are two sections, one for the DoD number and one for the icasualties number. But I still think that Nick's comment that icasualties is not reliable is unfounded since here on Wikipedia iCasualties.org has been accepted as notable, like it says The website is considered an "authoritative" record of MNF casualties in Iraq and has been cited by, among others, the BBC, Voice of America, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Like I said all of the major news outlets that we use as sources here on Wikipedia use icasualties as their own source. So in essence icasualties is the king of sources in this specific field.


 * As for your concern what the website's sources are, like it says here on Wikipedia itself The website compiles information on casualties incurred by the Multi-National Force (MNF) in Iraq and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan using news reports and press releases from the U.S. Department of Defense, CENTCOM, the MNF, and the British Ministry of Defence.BobaFett85 (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont want to entrench myself to much here but the article in question is very much unsourced. The second paragraph in mention does not have any supporting evidence and none can be found on the website itself. Further more the website has been considered an authortive source by one online article and the last paragraph stating "among others, the BBC, Voice of America, The New York Times, and The Washington Post." is only supported by evidence linking to an article by the Washington Post and Palm Beach Post.
 * Am not saying the website is making everything up but so far it is looking to be a weak secondary source that wouldnt get pass the Reliable sources issue.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Lawrence just added a link to an archived page of icasualties that explains their methodology. Here it is . They say they are using exclusivly only DoD, MNF, ISAF and British MoD sources. This can easily be confirmed with their list of Iraq war casualties, go to that page and you will see that every last one of the soldiers listed as killed in Iraq are linked to the indivudal press releases by the DoD itself. They themselves say they don't add a name until the DoD confirms it. Also, here are two reports, one of them by Reuters, that praise the work at icasualties.org and one report , by the Associated Press, which calls icasualties.org authoritative in this field. Also here is a link to a page of BBC news where it can be clearly seen in their RELATED INTERNET LINKS section that they link their readers, besides to the official NATO site, also to icasualties.org so their readers can read more about casualties inccured. And those are the only two links they put, NATO's and icasualties.org's.BobaFett85 (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to add some of this information to the relevent wiki page to further support it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

List
Replace

This would cut the size down a lot. The reference column can be removed, as the ref is repeated. There can be common references at the end of the table. Wallie (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Which would still be breaking the memoiral rule and would further divert away from everything referenced and verifiable. I think the proposal by Bobofett went along way to correcting the issues raised by everyone.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

With

OR?
In addition to these deaths another 68 soldiers were reported to have died as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); 42 of these have been confirmed to have died in Africa, Southeast Asia or Cuba in support of Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa, Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines, Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara and the detainment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Thus the remaining 26 fatalities are generaly regarded[citation needed] to have died in support of combat operations in Afghanistan making a total of 627 United States servicemen deaths in the war in Afghanistan. Of the remaining 26, two died due to hostile action while a Marine and a civilian DoD employee killed by terrorist gunmen in Kuwait.[2][3]

Explain the relevence of these additional deaths, considering the missions talked about are not linked to the fighting in Afganistan as far as i can tell (bar a simliar mission name). Who generaly regards the remaining 26 fatalities to have died in support of the fighting in Afganistan? Does the DoD state this 627 figure anywhere in contary to their 601 figure? Who directly claims 627 US soldiers have died in Afganistan?

It does still seem to be some OR going on here--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply for the additional 26 US deaths. This article was created as to list all of the US soldiers killed in support of combat operations in Afghanistan and not just those killed within Afghanistan itself. There have been dozens of US deaths in Kuwait and those have been linked with the Iraq war. It has been clearly confirmed that 42 soldiers died in OEF - Horn of Africa, OEF - Trans-Sahara, OEF - Philipines and at the detention center in Cuba. Except for OEF - Afghanistan there is no other sub-operation of OEF, thus logic dictates the 26 killed in Arabian countries were killed in support of combat operations in Afghanistan. There is no other sub-operation of OEF they could have been supporting. Example, two of the three sailors who died in the Arabian sea were kiilled in late 2001 onboard the USS Kity Hawk, at the time the USS Kity Hawk was lanching air and missile attacks on Afghanistan.BobaFett85 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the DoD state they died in result of OEF?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, they always say when a press release is given by DoD that they identify eather a casualty supporting Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom and they say the servicemen died while supporting operation Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as there is a reference to support this i think this covers all the OR points raised.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re AfD
The article is hugely improved (very well done!), and while it needs further work I think there's no need for an AfD relisting at this point, though obviously I'm only speaking for myself. The "Numbers of fatalities" section is quite good, giving as it does both sets of figures without any editor commentary. I'm not sure if we need the subheadings, but that's really a stylistic issue - I may give the article a slight copyedit, if no-one minds ;)

The last remaining issue for me is the casualties table. Is it possible to change the table to match the DoD figures and give their 626 total, but then add a few additional rows underneath giving the 'missing' casualties from icasualties.org and the adjusted total of 634? I think this would avoid any impression of giving preference to one figure over the other, and clearly show where the discrepancies lie. EyeSerene talk 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an excelent idea, I was thinking to do something about that, so the article wouldn't look like preferences are given towards one specific number. But the problem is how do we know which soldiers the DoD left out of their number. As stated according to icasualties.org's methodology all of the names that are on their list were confirmed by DoD as OEF casualties, but obviously the DoD has gotten it's math wrong by seven. It would be excess if we made to separate tables. Damn, it would be great if the DoD had an online list of fatalities so then we would know which were left out. What do you think?BobaFett85 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In regards to style issue i think the word "none" in the table should be replaced by the numnber "0", so to keep it all numerical.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, will correct.BobaFett85 (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise the DoD don't have an online list. I guess the only way to do it would be to cross-reference every casualty on icasulaties.org with the DoD press releases, but that would be an awful lot of work and would put us in the realm of OR again. The article mentions the discrepancy, so I think we may have to be content with that. By the way, directing the reader to the full casualties list via the external link to icasualties.org is exactly what the 'External links' section is intended for. Nice work ;) EyeSerene talk 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I've also copyedited slightly for style and prose. I left a tag in the notes to the table; I think we should say who confirmed the four additional deaths (and source it!). EyeSerene talk 17:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Style
I noticed the sub-headings have gone back in - the reason I removed them was that they divide the article and set the two figures against each other, artificiality creating a 'conflict' where none need exist. I'm also uncomfortable with having a website listed so prominently in a heading. To me it seems like borderline spam, but maybe that's just me ;) EyeSerene talk 10:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad data?
The tables in this article use the numbers of fatalities on the iCasualties website (eg, 303 total in 2009, of which 260 were killed in action and a total of 867 fatalities since 2001). However, these appear to be based on a different accounting to that used to develop US Department of Defense's figures (859 deaths in and around Afghanistan, including 663 KIA). As both iCasualties and the DoD's figures include deaths in countries which neighbor Afghansitan, 1) what makes iCasualties a reliable source and 2) why doesn't this article use the official DoD figures? Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct the US casualities by month wise
According to icasualities 15 US soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2010.And all killed in action.And all casualities are in Afghanistan, i mean they are not around afghanistan or other locations.They are only and only in Afghanistan. http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx I correct the figure several times but some other people again write wrong figure that 6 soldiers killed in 2010. http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx All 15 killed in action.

Correct the casuality figure.
Undo Nick-D activity to add correct figure of casualities.Or check the icasualities.org and correct as manually.If you want to correct automatically then undo the Nick-D activity on below page.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan&action=history

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United States military casualties in the War in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111120212817/http://icasualties.org:80/oef/ to http://icasualties.org/oef/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Subjective Context
"More than two-thirds of those deaths have occurred since the American military presence in Afghanistan was doubled under President Barack Obama in 2009." This aspect of the text has no reference and suggests a correlation between the United States administration body and the number of deaths in Afghanistan. However statistically speaking the increase of military presence is the most probable cause for a larger number of causalities during these times. (If you add more, more could be lost). I do not want to remove this text as such an action could also be subjective but I do recommend it be removed or replaced with accurate (referenced) and objective facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.176.186 (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Definition of causalities
The definition of a casualty is not just those KIA but also all those WIA or MIA as well as those kept as POWs

While the KIA rate in Afghanistan is very low, leaving out the hundreds of thousands of wounded servicemembers paints an incomplete picture of the war's effects.

"More than 320,000 soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq have traumatic brain injuries that cause disorientation and confusion, as of 2018. Of those, more than 8,000 suffered severe or invasive brain injuries, and more than 1,600 soldiers lost all or part of a limb. More than 138,000 have post-traumatic stress disorder. They experience flashbacks, hypervigilance, and difficulty sleeping.

On average, 20 veterans commit suicide each day according to a 2016 VA study.​ The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America found that 47% of its members know of someone who has attempted suicide after returning from active duty. The group considers veteran suicide to be its top issue."

If someone can view VA records and find the firsthand report with more accurate numbers it should be added to the article.

Legomationer (talk) 14:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)