Talk:Friendly fire/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pentagon figures

Can you provide a reference for those Pentagon figures? - Khendon 13:32 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the word 'supporting' from the intro because in cases where friendly forces are attacked thinking they are enemy the fire is not really 'supporting'. DJ Clayworth 15:12, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Do the percentage figures refer to percent of friendly fire casualties among all casualties in that conflict?

Friendly Fire

Recently added by someone else:

"such as the destruction of British Infantry Fighting Vehicles by a US attack aircraft."

to

"Errors of identification Where friendly troops are mistakenly attacked in the belief that they are enemy. Highly mobile battles, and battles involving troops from many nations are more likely to cause this kind of incident as evidenced by incidents in the first Gulf War, such as the destruction of British Infantry Fighting Vehicles by a US attack aircraft."

I think this has the possibility of being seen as a NPOV issue. Yes, I know it did happen - however the wording gives the Gulf War as an example ("evidenced by") so a further one is unecessary. If it is considered appropriate, then consider rë-wording to "where British Infantry Fighting Vehicles were destroyed by US Attack Aircraft".

Furthermore, the edit seems to refer to a single attack - so a source is necessary.

--ReviewDude 16:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that one is too far back to find a reliable source, it was an A10 which shot upp two Warriors flying Union Flags and wearing the agreed indicator markings, caused a huge furore. However I have found a source for the Patriot Battery shooting down a returning Tornado during the Iraq invasion. :) ALR 16:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"fratricide"

The quote "but more properly refers to deliberate attacks upon one's own forces" doesn't jibe well with my own recollections of the phrase, which are in the realm of strategic nuclear targeting. In this context, fratricide is the destruction of later-arriving warheads by the detonation of earlier-arriving ones, caused by high target density in a target area and poor mission planning. As such, it was always considered accidental and to be avoided greatly (as a waste of weapons and a significant risk of inadequate target coverage--if, for instance, you launch two warheads at a target area, it's because you actually need two warheads to adequately destroy the targets in the area. A shortfall of one weapon in a laydown could necessitate a restrike or allow targets to survive.)

But, of course, in the article we're talking about friendly fire which kills troops, not friendly fire which destroys weapons, so the domain is a tiny bit different. I guess I'm just pointing out that "intent to kill friendly forces" isn't automatic in all contexts of the word fratricide. I'm going to be a tiny bit bold in editing and remove the bit about intent if I don't see mildly pursuasive counterarguments in the next day or so. Gnoitall 16:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, semantically, fratricide refers to deliberately killing a brother. Accidentally doing so wouldn't strictly be fratricide in that context. We can presumably reason from that to friendly fire. Though I object to the term on the basis that it's needlessly dramatic and a bit silly. Friendly fire, while somewhat oxymoronic, is also descriptive and concise without venturing into hyperbole. Zabieru 09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary defines "fratricide" as "the act of killing one's brother." There is nothing about it being deliberate, not is killing necessarily deliberate. And in any case, to the extent it is a term of art in the U.S. military, its original meaning is besides the point.--agr 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Would appreciate a cite for use of "fratricide" as synonym for "friendly fire" - even an obvious example would suffice. This use is novel to me. I assume good faith but rely on verifiability. SmithBlue 09:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Found example of Fratricide =FF in External links section. satified. SmithBlue 09:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Error-prone US armed forces?

"Rightly so, the armed forces of the US are widely believed to be more prone to friendly fire incidents than the military of other nations." [emph added]

Is there a source for the accuracy of this belief? What are the rates for other nations? —wwoods 01:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The edit which introduced this little bit of unsubstantiated NPOV was from User:152.78.254.243 at 17:53 29 Apr 2005. It was only automatically summarized; no actual user comments. I don't know; seems gratuitous to me. Actually the entire opening parenthetical "Rightly so" and its previous incarnation "Rightly or wrongly" are both unnecessary to the meaning of the sentence. It is pretty true that the US military has a highly-publicized fratricide problem; it seems to my shallow reasoning to be because it's more active than other militaries, larger than most, and most accessible to the press. So it's fair to say the U.S. military is perceived to be prone to friendly fire. I'm inclined to strike the opening parenthetical and let the statement about public perception stand without further editorializing. Gnoitall 19:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I struck the opening sentence. Without a source, I think this is unsubstantiated POV. If there is a source somewhere, then it should go back in, in a NPOV phrasing. 68.207.105.199 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, does anyone have a source for the claim that French regiments flew white flags following a friendly fire incident? - without a souce this looks an awful lot like French bashing. --Nick Dowling 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How about how incredibly bad it looks on the US airforce for two of these incidents to happen to Canadian soldiers in pretty much the SAME war? I can understand the first one was more of a bad mistake but the second one is ineptitude by the pilot. A-10 Thunderbolts are among the slowest of military aircraft. .... You can pretty much get out and run faster than fly one. Hence if you miss your target when firing you're a bad gunner and if you can't tell that the vehicles are friendly (as those soldiers were in vehicles the enemies don't have) you're blind and really shouldn't be out there.

US Forces provide nearly all of the Air Support in the wars they have fought. Other nations like Canada, the UK, etc, have provided comparatively little and that is the reason that when friendly fire incidents happen, US Aircraft are naturally going to be the offender. As US-allied nations provide more air support, the incidents of friendly fire caused by non-US forces will predictably increase. Just like Amish people rarely cause DUI related deaths.Walterego (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that this notion that USA army is more prone to friendly fire accidents is because they are better covered by historians. For example, during the closing part of the Battle of Berlin, on April 25, bombers of the 1 Belarussian front hit a Mech Corps of the 1 Ukrainian Front, killing and wounding over 100 people, however, it was a relatively minor incident. Soviet problems with friendly fire (as well as German) are barely covered in the article, creating this bias. My guess is that the Soviets suffered the most friendly fire incidents in history (in terms of men killed and wounded), followed by the Germans, and than the Americans. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Blue on blue

The British military refers to these incidents as blue on blue, which derives from wargaming exercises where friendly forces are "blue" and enemy forces are "red".

I thought that it was a Nato expression and based on Nato's wargaming colour which was based war gaming by the US in which its forces are tradtionally blue (and conviniently Communists in Red). I thought that British war gaming before joining Nato (or possibly the US enty in to WWII) was Red, with Blue for the French, and Grey or Black for the Germans. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The colours you are talking about refer to british maps ( and I am not sure about black for Germany ). I was not aware of any particular british war gaming prior to WWII : and no specifed colours. 217.7.209.108 13:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft losses to 'FF'

An interesting article, especially the % approximations of losses to friendly fire. Does anyone have any similar approximations/data regarding losses of military aircraft to its own side ( to other aircraft or AA fire)? Harryurz 18:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cultural views (Revert)

This view is supported by incindents such as those in Iraq recently where American aircraft have strafed clearly makred British conveys and then flown around and starfed them again and the shooting down of an RAF Tornado GR4 by a U.S. Patriot battery.

Reverting this edit, because not only is the paragraph riddled with spelling mistakes and bad grammar, but it represent a point of view with few references or facts and it was inserted in a hap hazard manner. Pointing to a few incidents (already listed in the rest of the article) doesn't contribute to the section. The entire sub heading (Cultural views) is already a contentious enough, since it is a subjective viewpoint not supported by much statistics. Yes, there will be friendly fire incidents as there is in all wars, but to state that the U.S. is more likely to damage friendly forces than enemy ones is patently ridiculous. Deon Steyn 06:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Classification

The classification of fratricide should be based on two factors: either it is deliberate, or it is unintentional.

If deliberate, then it is either murder, or it is state sanctioned. The latter refers to such actions as wartime executions and the shooting of recalcitrant troops, both acts considered fratricide under the general definition provided in this article.

If unintentional, then one should look at the factors that have contributed to that event: poor navigation, failure to maintain situational awareness on the battlefield, incorrect identification of targets as friend/foe, equipment errors, equipment malfunctions (e.g. the 1968 napalming of a church by an American F-4 as a result of an equipment malfunction), and the unintended results of battlefield hazards like unexploded ordinance, mines and boobytraps. --Milbuff101 14:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Request Citation

The line about Allied forces annihlating their opposition seems both taken from a biased POV and quite innacurate. Personally, I can't think of one example to support this. It would seem more likely to me that case of friendly fire were simply never recorded. LuNatic 06:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Cultural Views section

Tfine80 has removed this entire section due to it being "POV" and "unsourced," which strikes me as being both revisionist and POV in itself. The British viewpoint of an American propensity to inflict FF casualties on British troops and other Allied forces is certainly common and is widely referenced in both the news media (e.g. Wounded British soldiers condemn US 'cowboy' pilot, Accusations fly over lack of action on friendly fire deaths , Friendly fire threat to Gulf troops, [1], & Iraqi police 'were too scared' to help Americans in Fallujah) and in popular culture (e.g. in the TV series Monkey Dust, where a group of British soldiers is shown being targeted by a US aircraft for no good reason). There's even a "joke" in the dialogue of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (developed by Rockstar North, based in Scotland) about an American aircraft deliberately engaging a supposedly friendly target with an excuse along the lines of, "We can always say we thought it was a British tank." Obviously opinion will vary on whether these attitudes are justified, but they do exist.

Nick Cooper 08:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that a section on this could be useful, the removed piece was definitely POV; consider these couple of sentences:

Many in other nations - particularly those in Britain - hold the view that the US has a severe record of friendly fire. The popular opinion is that the US is more likely to injure its own or its unfortunate allies, the British, than anyone of an opposing army. (emphasis added)

On top of that, some of the text was clearly confused:

However, a more accurate view is that the United States, as a world superpower, is simply more likely to have "friendly fire" events [snip snip] By sheer numbers, the odds are that the US will have more casualties, regardless of whether they are from enemy or friendly fire.

starts off by addressing the US causing more friendly fire incidents, but ends up talking about the US sustaining more casualties.

So, if the section really needs to be there, it should be rewritten for accuracy, sense, and NPOV. The removed section should probably have deserved a weasel tag too, given its lack of sources; the sources you've kindly dug up should, however, be a useful set of citations should the section be reinstated. Carre 12:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the use of the word "unfortunate" was biased. I'll see if I can pull together something short and concise together about the British perspective, and will include some detail on British-inflicted FF incidents as a counterpoint. The argument about numbers as relates to American forces is useful, but really needs some statistical back-up. Nick Cooper 13:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation requests

User:Bryson109 is removing fact tags without justification, whilst there may be supporting information in the sources mentioned the requirement at each fact tag is for an expliocit, credible reference. At present the article down not meet the requirements of encyclopedic standards, and will not do so until this verifiable evidence is provided.ALR 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I also note that the request directly on the users talk page hass been removed without response.ALR 15:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• You added citation tags to statements that were common knowledge such as:

“(e.g. missing the enemy and hitting "friendlies")”

I have actually added four citations to tags. --Bryson 16:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You pick the one example where I chose to place it at the end of the sentence rather than at the place where the tag was required. Fair enough, I would have anticipated some lateral thought, but clearly it needed to be made exaclty clear what was being asked for. You may have now added four citation tags, but the initial effort was just mass clearance of fact tags with no explanation, and I'm not convinced that you were actually going to produce evidence given the few comments left. If I misread your intent then I apologise. Regardless, the article is now closer to being credible. Although actually eveey example requires supporting evidence.ALR 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Added 3 "citation needed" tags to instances where info is sketchy, ie no dates, nor vessel ids, or where recent research is mentioned. In one case, it sounds too similar to Wikinger. Folks at 137 15:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've dealt with the Douglas Bader and HMS Oxley/HMS Triton incidents, although they were already covered on their respective pages. Nick Cooper 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the following ( The Pentagon estimated 21,000 American incidents alone during World War II.1939. No citation entered as requested Sept 2008 and the entry is not factualJacob805 (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

Vietnam war: 8,000 (14%) - where those numbers came from ? Here are some statistcs - http://www.archives.gov/research/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html. And there is number we are looking for - "Misadventure 1,326". That was the name for friendly fire in those times. It amounts to ~ 2.3%. Here is excerpt from Lt-Col Shrader, Charles R. Amicicide: the problem of friendly fire in modern war

"It appears that amicicide incidents account for something less than 2 percent of all casualties in battle. American casualties in the Second World War were about 774,000. If 2 percent is a reasonably accurate estimate of the total casualties attributable to amicicide, then about 15,480 Americans, or the equivalent of one full infantry division, fell victim to friendly fires in World War II. Similarly, out of 57,000 US casualties in Vietnam more than 1,100 could thus be counted as victims of amicicide."

--Tigga en 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Punishment

Does anyone have the common punishment for friendly fire in US/NATO? I am curious. If you do have this info please add it to the article. --Voidvector 12:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The US doesn't punish its soldiers for FF. They just refuse to cooperate with coroners and withhold evidence until it's leaked by the media. Jetekus (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Jetekus is a prime example of what wikipedia shouldn't be about. Opinionated and loaded with sarcasm. Jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

USS Liberty incident

Does the US Liberty incident count as friendly fire? The US and Israel were not officially allies engaged in the same war. 15:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, the circumstances are sufficiently disputed that it would imply a POV on listing, never mind the legalities when we consider the complex network of internaitonal defence agreements.ALR 18:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

something wrong in picture

heres what it says "Sergeant Ken Kozakiewicz(left) breaks into tears at the moment he learns that the body bag next to him contains the body of his friend, killed by friendly fire. The three men were rescued after their Bradley tank had been severed by a missile." his bradley is incorectly referd too as a tank. i would change this myself, but i do not want to mess it up, thank you (Esskater11 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Fixed. Nick Cooper 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Operation Enduring Freedom

Operation Enduring Freedom is called an "error of position", but it seems to me that it should be considered an "error of identification" instead. The Canadian forces were bombed because they were thought to be Taliban forces. It had nothing to do with inaccuracy of the weapon. Kazuko 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Or that the Canadian forces were wrongly reported to be in a location where it was thought there were no friendlies. Nick Cooper 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

BBC Friendly fire Link

Doing some research, I came across this link on the BBC website. I find it gave a well informed, well written, balanced view on the subject (and, no, I don't work for the beeb ;p), and I think it would be helpful to anyone researching friendly fire. I thought that I'd ask for opinions before including it however. 82.27.21.157 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

duck

I have moved the following quote here:

During WWII there was a popular saying that was widely spoken between Londoners. Referring to the Americans and 'friendly fire' -
When the Germans fire, the British duck. When the British fire, the Germans duck. When the Americans fire EVERYONE ducks!

Because it seems to fit WP:PROVEIT perfectly."There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

As far as I remember a very similar quote to this one is made in the The World at War series (not sure of the episode) by an American soldier talking about the Italian Campaign as a voice over as one American bomber drops its full load of bombs on another bomber flying under the first one. If someone can find the source (for Londoners or the US soldier) then all well and good but until then it should not be included in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

To keep this page from being one sided.

Throughout history, since standoff weapons have been around, friendly fire has existed. It is not one army’s problem. In reviewing this page it seems that it is a little one sided, America incidents being focused on and historical events being excluded. Please read your history, as the British military as well as other army’s have had their share on incidents and accidentsJacob805 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Claimed "Greatest loss of life, due to Friendly Fire"

I've deleted this newly-added section, as generally it does not seem to fit what most would defined as "friendly fire," and the account presented seems very skewed in an attempt to present it as such. None of the cited sources - with the exception of an inherently inadmissible blog - classify it as a "friendly fire" incident, nor do they substantiate the claim that the ships were "clearly marked with white and Red crosses and flying white flags." In fact, one source indicates that another ship that was flying a white flag was not attacked, suggesting that the others (i.e. those that were attacked) probably weren't. The cited sources also note that the German plan was to scuttle the ships themselves, with the prisoners still on board, that some prisoners died on board the shops before the RAF attack, and that many potential survivors were machine-gunned in the water by the SS. Collectively this calls into question attributing the full death toll to the RAF attack itself, and one could more appropriately say that the deaths were due to the wilful negligence of the Nazi heirarchy, which was intent on killing the prisoners itself, anyway. There is no valid source to substatiate the claim about the British being informed by the Swedish Red Cross, nor about British records being "sealed" until 1945, nor about any sought or denied apology. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove someone work without first using the discussion page

otherwise it is vandilism and will be reported as such. All the context of the article is valided and sourced using various articles and references. please read up on the incident before passing your judgement, by removing somelese workJacob805 (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great loss of life

Your case to remove this is not founded, what the Germans were planning to do doesn't make a differnce. What are you saying, since the germans were going to murder these people it was Ok for the british to bomb unarmed merchant ships. Yes they were painted with white and red crosses. all sources are valid, please visit the muesum in Lubeck before you making your claims. I ask you to source your claims on what the germans planned to due, how many would have lived if the germanys didn't kill them in the water? You reason for removing this addition is that of your own opinion, filled with what if's??? I source the red cross claim that they inform MG the day beforeJacob805 (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Newly added - especially inadequately sourced - material can be removed if it seems inappropriate. You seem to be overlooking the main issue here, namely whether this actually constitutes a "friendly fire" incident in the first place. German merchant vessels were legitimate targets for Allied attack, just as Allied merchant vessels were legitimate targets for Axis attack. If we use the measure that you seem to be applying - i.e. that the vessels in question happened to be carrying nominally Allied prisoners, then we would have to concede that the Laconia Incident was also "friendly fire," yet nobody seriously advances that proposition. We would also have to add numerous other occasions where Allied bombing killed Allied PoWs, and vice versa. This would be a dilution of what most people would recognise "friendly fire" to mean, in line with the "classification" section on this page. This was clearly a terrible and tragic incident that certainly deserves to be covered on Wikipedia, but it does not appear to fit what most people would recognise as "friendly fire." Nick Cooper (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No you cannot remove material based upon your what you think is correct, that is what this page is about. if you remove it again I will make a report about your conduct. I have sourced and referenced numerous links, books, reports,newspaper articles, DVD documentaries. I would suggest to you constructively contribute the entry rather then just remove it based upon your own idea's and thoughts. Please reference the Hague convention, britain was a signee.section X about attacking hospital ship's and note that 2 out of three were clearly marked. if the Brit's?? have nothing to hide, why seal the record for 100 years....and I have references and cited this as wellJacob805 (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote: Source: Unknown to the RAF From the Till report of June 1945: "The Intelligence Officer with 83 Group RAF has admitted on two occasions - first to Lt H. F. Ansell of this Team (when it was confirmed by a wing commander present) and on a second occasion to the Investigating Officer when he was accompanied by Lt. H. F. Ansell - that a message was received on 2 May 1945 that these ships were loaded with KZ prisoners but that, although there was ample time to warn the pilots of the planes who attacked these ships on the following day, by some oversight the message was never passed on...

From the facts and from the statement volunteered by the RAF Intelligence Officer, it appears that the primary responsibility for this great loss of life must fall on the British RAF personnel who failed to pass to the pilots concerned the message they received concerning the presence of KZ prisoners on board these ships"., the ships were carrying between 7,000-8,000 prisoners from the German concentration camps in Neuengamme, Stutthof and Mittelbau-Dora, half of whom were Russian and Polish prisoners-of-war, along with others from 24 nations, including French, Danish, and Dutch.

Other sources: Roy Nesbit, Cap Arcona: atrocity or accident?. Aeroplane Monthly, June 1984

Benjamin Jacobs and Eugene Pool, The 100-Year Secret: Britain's Hidden World War II Massacre. The Lyons Press, October 2004. ISBN 1-59228-532-5.

Benjamin Jacobs, The Dentist of Auschwitz, University Press of Kentucky, Reprinted April 2001, ISBN 0813190126, chapters 17, 18.

Günther Schwarberg: Angriffsziel "Cap Arcona", Steidl Verlag, 1998 Göttingen, ISBN 3-88243-590-9

Lawrence Bond, Typhoons' Last Storm, documentary film 2000

Drawing

Wilhelm Lange, Mythos und Wirklichkeit - Eine "publikumswirksame" Präsentation der Cap-Arcona-Katastrophe vom 3. Mai 1945 (page 27) 2/2000, in Schiff und Zeit, Panorama maritim N° 52

Hal Vaughan, Doctor to the Resistance: The Heroic True Story of an American Surgeon and His Family in Occupied Paris, Potomac Books Inc. 2004Jacob805 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Addtional sources on the british bombing 1945

Here is some references and sources: Fritz Brustat-Naval, Unternehmen Rettung (Herford: Koheler, 1970), pp. 197-201; C. Zentner & F. Bedürftig, eds., The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich (New York: Da Capo, 1997), pp. 126, 644-645, 952; W. Schütz, Hrsg., Lexikon: Deutsche Geschichte im 20. Jahrhundert (Rosenheim: DVG, 1990), pp. 66, 455; Dr. Bernhard Steidle, Hrsg., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Band 2 (Munich: 1995), pp. 212, 230; "Britische RAF mordete Tausende KZ-Häftlinge," National-Zeitung (Munich), May 19, 2000, p. 11; Kay Dohnke, "5 Minuten, 50 Meter, 50 Jahre: Gedenken an die Cap Arcona, nach einem halben Jahrhundert," taz: die tageszeitung (Hamburg Ausgabe), May 3, 1995, "The Cap Arcona, the Thielbek and the Athen," Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust (New York: 1986), p. 806; M. Weber, "Bergen-Belsen: The Suppressed Story," May-June 1995 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 23-30; M. Weber, "History's Little-Known Naval Disasters," March-April 1998 Journal, p. 22.

For further reading, these books are available: Rudi Goguel, Cap Arcona (Frankfurt/Main: Röderberg, 1972); Günter Schwarberg, Angriffsziel Cap Arcona (Hamburg: Stern-Buch, 1983/ Göttingen: Steidi, 1998),

Nick ...I am thinking of expanding this possibly into its own page. would you like to help????Jacob805 (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would still strongly question the claim about British records relating to this incident being "sealed" until 2045. The National Archives catalogue shows four documents, namely:

• FO 371/56890 - Request by Military Attaché, Moscow, for details of Russian internees and prisoners of war lost when German s.s. CAP ARCONA was sunk in British air attack (1946)
• WO 309/637 - Sinking of SS Cap Arkona in Neustadt Bay, Germany, and ill-treatment of allied nationals (1945 Nov-1946 Aug)
• WO 309/851 - Neustadt Bay, Germany: killing of allied nationals (1945 Aug - 1947 June)
• WO 309/1592 - Neustadt Bay, Germany: death of allied nationals on board ship and investigations into conditions at Neuengamme Concentration Camp, Germany (1945 May-1946 Feb)
• WO 309/1788 - Neustadt Bay, Germany: killing and ill-treatment of allied nationals (1945 Nov - 1947 Nov)

All of these were subject to a standard 30 year closure, and so were released to the public in the 1970s. The same goes for the combat reports of all three RAF squadrons involved (i.e. in AIR 50/81, AIR 50/82 & AIR 50/114). Of course, these are all primary sources, which are not always ideal for Wikipedia. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the foregoing: The online source (Think Israel) reproduces the article by White-Harvey, published in the Jerusalem Post, in which the author makes the claim about the records being unavailable until 2045. He cites an additional source: The 100 Year Secret: Britain's Hidden World War II Massacre. (Lyons Press, 2004). The White-Harvey source is thus sufficient.

In addition, a reliable source is given for the claim that the ships were marked with Red Cross or white flag markings. It is not an online source, but by all means check it out at the library if you doubt its veracity. This information is corroborated by White-Harvey, although he does state that the SS Deutschland was "poorly marked." We can modify the wording if you wish. White-Harvey also confirms that there were four ships bombed. In light of the information provided in the various sources, I consider the "citation needed" tags unnecessary. If I've missed something, please let me know. We need to stick with what the sources say, no more, no less. Sunray (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The White-Harvey article may very well make that claim, but it appears to be at odds with the fact that some records relating to the incident are very much available to the public, and appear to have been so since the 1970s (I note that Jacob805 has now added 184 Squadron, whose combat reports are in AIR 50/76 at the National Archives). In fact, one of them is the "Till Report" that Jacob805 has been citing so extensively! This makes White-Harvey's absolute claim inherently unreliable, so at the very least it should be qualified - we simply cannot repeat such a claim parrot-fashion when it demonstrably cannot be true. Also, WHite-Harvey does not confirm that four ships were attacked, not least because he only mentions three ships, one of which - the Athen - was not attacked at all.

Obviously one should assume good faith, but the fact is that Jacob805 is relying heavily on sources that other editors cannot easily check. In fact, it's not clear if they have actually read all the suggested sources, or if they are just repeating sources cited in what they have read. I have ordered a copy of the Jacobs/Pool book, but I'm not due to be at the National Archives again for another couple of weeks, so will have to reserve judgement on both for the time being.

The piece from the Journal of Historical Review, however, is available here, but I was disturbed to discover that it does not actually corroborate the section of the text that it has been cited as a source for, specifically it does not mention any claimed red/white crosses on the ships (merely "many large white flags" - even then, it relies on a quote from that the Encyclopedia of the Third Reich that suggests they were only put up during the attack), and does not mention the Deutschland at all. In this context, it it highly misleading to claim that the "RAF Bombed four merchant/Hospital ships" - only the Deutschland could be classed as a hopsital ship, but to be more precise it was only about to be converted into one (which may explain the inadequate markings). More to the point, the Journal of Historical Review page indicates that it is a "controversial" source, and that "[its] subject is primarily Holocaust denial." The article in question itself has more than a whiff of apologism and the minimisation of Nazi culpability to it. For example, it claims that survivors in the water were machine-gunned by the RAF aircraft, but not that - as stated in another cited source - anyone not in German uniform was shot by the SS; nor does it mention that the reason the prisoners were on the ships was so that they could be "disposed" of by deliberate scuttling of those vessels. Another diversion is the claim that the ships "had no military function or mission" when, in fact, merchant vessels - particularly what would have seemed could be troop transports - were seen as legitimate targets by all sides, and until the previous month two of the ships had been under naval command.

Another cited source - www.thepatrioticgentleman.com - appears merely to be an opinion piece, based heavily on material on Wikipedia at the time it was written, so again, not one we should be using here. Jacob805 has also added a link to Google Books, but it is unclear how this corroborates the statement it is adjacent to (relating to a claimed lack of any apology), as the link opens in the reference section of the book in question. Overall, this is very poor sourcing, even before we get to the intrinsic point of whether this was a "friendly fire" incident at all. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the above comments and suggestions, I have revised the clearly marked entry with one that is referenced and historically correct, Deutschland was marked poorly, having only white crosses on one side of the funnel, this has been referenced. As for the other citation needed, I have sourced and referenced where required, using links and available DVD doc's made on the subject and books available.

As for the comment on the if this fits the page. I think is does and has great bearing on the subject. Sources cited, state the British knew and that is the difference, if the failed to inform the pilots and mission went ahead, even makes this more disturbing. the point of freindly fire is that freindlies are mistaken killed during combat. This took place and british covered it up for over 63 years, if you ask them for a report on this matter, the reply is the investigation is still opem???? this should tell us all somthing?Jacob805 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As outlined above, many of the sources you have used do not meet the standards Wikipedia requires, while some are either omitting important details, or making claims that are clearly factually incorrect. Similarly, your claim that the "British covered it up for over 63 years" clearly makes no sense, given that - as I have explained above - the Till Report and other records relating to the incident have been available to the public since the 1970s. Again, I would question whether the deaths of non-combatant prisoners makes this a "friendly fire" incident, and have already made the comparison with the Laconia Incident. It was collateral damage, certainly, but the circumstances are radically different from what would normally be understood to be "friendly fire." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage is "damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome." If the RAF pilots were aiming at another target and unintentionally hit these ships, it would be collateral damage. But these ships were targeted. The incident thus qualifies as friendly fire, IMO, and is similar to other cases in which allied foreign nationals were mistakenly targeted. Sunray (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there lies the problem. The 'ships were targeted, and they were German merchant vessels. And anyway, the definitions of "friendly fire" used here are in the context of "friendly forces" being hit in error, not "allied foreign nationals," and from skim-reading the page I can't see any examples already given that fit that much wider definition. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Certainly the WP article gives only examples of combat forces being fired upon. On the other hand, definitions I looked at do cover both cases:

• Accidentally firing guns or dropping bombs on one’s own soldiers[2]
• Fire that injures or kills an ally[3]

The fact that they were a mix of citizens and POWs further muddies the water. However, I'm inclined to think that you have a point that this incident is more properly classed as "collateral damage." Perhaps the section could be written so as to discuss the distinction between the terms. Do you have any references that would help us decide how to handle this? Sunray (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A major problem is that - as far as I can see, only the number of Polish POWs has been quantified, at 316 as per [4]. As noted above, one primary document held at the National Archives does relate to the Russian POWs, but as I've said, I'm not due back there for a few weeks. Similarly, the "Till Report" (also at the NA) may contain a summary breakdown, which may be of use in determining the number of claimed resistance fighters. All that said, none of them represent combat forces, as per what seems to be the accepted definition of "friendly fire." There is certainly no reason why this incident should not be documented on Wikipedia, and indeed it already is on Cap Arcona, which I think is the more appropriate place. I also think we should lose the Journal of Historical Review citation, for the reasons I've already highlighted. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If the British knew there would be collateral damage and did it anyway, then this is NOT friendly fire. Reprehensible and unnecessary possibly, but if they knew what they were doing then this is obviously deliberate action against an enemy. Friendly fire is much more where there is mistaken belief that the fire is directed towards an enemy. Of course there are shades of grey and incidents need to be assessed on their merits. One of the problems here is the attention drawn to itself with a separate paragraph and saying its the biggest incident ever. Without more clear cut evidence I'd say this onme needs to be relocated or at least dramatically scaled down. Mdw0 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mdwo, please site a larger loss of life, when the commander of air force was warned in advance and still the combat operation take place, estmiated loss of the emeny less to 400 and the POW and Camp prision, over 7,000. Also note there were Polish, Russian POWs, French and Dutch resistence fighter killed in this action, all friendies. It is not collateral damage, when you kill less then 400, sink 4 obsolete ships and send 7000 freindies to the deaths the day before the war is overJacob805 (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nick cooper basically doesn't like the entry on personal resaons, as he deleted the entry no less then 3 times, withour discussion. Quote" Friendly fire that is the result of apparent recklessness or incompetence may fall into this category. The concept of a fog of war has come under considerable criticism, as it can be used as an all-encompassing excuse for poor planning, weak or compromised intelligence and incompetent command"

RAF pilots, interviews, with those still alive have been sited, they all state they knew nothing about the allied POWs and Camp victims. They also state they were order to fire on those in the water. I have also proven the British goverment knew about the people and POWS's on these ships, sited by two independent sources and they still bombed the ships. NicKcooper also states the Germans were going to kill them anyway, again what if's. If you remember you history, ship loads of prisons had already been shipped out of this port safely to Sweden. H. Himmler also agreed days before to release large amount of Jewish prisons to the allies, in a show of good faith and that he had the power to due so. There is no proof other then speculation, what the Germans plans were. We do know they shot them on the beach, but lets not foget how they got there. They were loaded safely on these ship to be bombed the day before the war end. There was not military objective in sinking these ships the day before it was over. All the sources are well sited, I suggested that you visit the musesnm, rent the DVD The typhoons last storm, ect... before making your judgement. Please feel free to ask the British for the investigation report. As it is sealed. Not the squadrons after action report, as we have already sited they knew nothing. As for Nick cooper, please try review the soucres other then what you can find sitting at homeJacob805 (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jacob805, I would suggest that you temper your aggressive tone and false accusations. I did not remove the text "no less then 3 times, withour (sic) discussion," as you claim. I removed it the first time (12:55, 13 October 2008), then added my reasons on the Talk page. You then reinstated the text without replying on the Talk page, so I removed it a second time (16:41, 13 October 2008) and referred you to the Talk page. The third set of edits I made (20:58-21:02, 13 October 2008) did not constitute a deletion, but rather a request for more appropriate citations than had been given. I offered discussion, which you did not engage with before reverting my clearly explained deletion, and I did not delete again once you were discussing the issue.

It is nonsense to claim that there was no "military objective in sinking these ships the day before it was over," with the full benefit of hindsight. As German merchant vessels in the vicinity of a German port, they were legitimate targets in themselves.

You seem to want to play this both ways on a number of points. For example, you seem resistent to including the known/assumed intention to scuttle the ships that White-Harvey mentions, yet are happy to cite him on other points. Likewise, you seem to be intent on painting this as an incident that was "allowed to happen" when higher command knew of the prisoners on board the ships, yet this would automatically mean it was not "friendly fire," because such incidents are inherently accidents that happen because of incorrect information or assumptions.

Your implication that someone must visit a certain museum or rent some obscure DVD before being in a position to make a "judgement" on this issue is preposterous. I would also ask you to clarify your claim that the "investigation report" is "sealed". Is this not the "Till Report" (WO 309/637) that is freely available at the National Archives, which you have cited yourself? Have you actually read it? If you have, then it cannot be "sealed," but if you have not, then you should not be citing it. I am very much in the process of reviewing the sources - and once my honeymoon is out of the way, that will include the documents at the National Archives - but have already found a number you have cited to be wanting, e.g. do we really need to rely on a Holocaust denial publication? Nick Cooper (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting fact on Germany's intensions: April 24 (0100 hours) Heinrich Himmler meets with Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte in Lübeck, Germany. With Adolf Hitler in poor health in Berlin and surrounded by Soviet forces, Himmler considers himself responsible for Germany's future. He asks Bernadotte to pass on an offer of surrender to British, American, or Swedish troops. The surrender would include German armies only on the Western Front, and in Norway and Denmark. [391.12] (Aoril 23 [29.167])

April 24 2300 hours Swedish time, 1700 hours Eastern War Time) The Swedish Foreign Minister informs British and American representatives of Heinrich Himmler's surrender offer. [391.12] ref: Chronology of World War II Copyright © 1998-2008 Ken Polsson

April 28 Adolf Hitler dismisses Heinrich Himmler, after learning that Himmler had offered to discuss peace terms with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. [15.34]

On April 30 the two Swedish ships "Magdalena" and "Lillie Matthiessen" sailed from Lübeck, the first with 223 female prisoners and the latter with 225. The transport had been organised by the Swedish doctor Hans Arnoldsson with assistance from Bjørn Heger. They had to leave behind thousands of prisoners on several other ships that were bombed on May 3 by British planes, the Cap Arcona disaster. The last group of female prisoners travelled from Copenhagen to Malmö by ferry on May 4.

This shows lubeck habour being used to release prisoners and the allies knew it. So safe to assume these prisioner were to be release by Germany.Jacob805 (talk) 08:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP doesn't only list combat deaths, please read the page, cilivian deaths are listed, and always included under friendly fireJacob805 (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't know for sure what was in the minds of the commanders who ordered the attack. There is information that the Swedish authorities advised the UK authorities (who?) about the transport of concentration camp prisoners. We don't have reliable sources on what intelligence the British authorities actually had. The pilots claim they didn't know the true identity of the passengers. We have tried to stick to the most reliable sources, but the records are sealed until 2045. Taking into account all that has been said above, I have: a) changed the section heading, and, b) quoted from the Jerusalem Post article regarding the claim of "friendly fire." Sunray (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, I have already presented evidence that the claim that "the records are sealed until 2045" cannot be wholely true, since some records are available. I am hoping the Jacobs/Pool book - from which White-Harvey's comment seems to stem - will clarify this point, when my copy arrives. White-Harvey actually says, "The RAF records of the disaster are sealed until 2045" (my ephasis), which runs contrary to the fact that the combat reports of the squadrons involved do appear to be available.

In addition it is worth noting that quite a lot of WW2-related records are subject to a 100-year closure, so even if true it is no so unusual, but even if not accessible now, records still appear in the NA catalogue (e.g. Series HS 9). Nick Cooper (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jacob805, which civilian deaths are you referring to? The only instances I can see on the page are one during the Falklands War that shouldn't be included (as it is more obviously collateral damage), and two recent ones in Iraq (i.e. the Black Hawk Incident and the one in which John Simpson was injured), both of which involved civilians mixed in with combat forces. I would note that Terry Lloyd was previously included here, but was rightly removed. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, I have no problems changing the cover to read the current title. I do have a probelm with the topic being slowly change from a freindly fire incident to something that doesn't resemble the actual incident. I have cited over 20 sources of the incident, including that the british were informed prior to the attack. If they new and failed to act, it is, in its own case irresponsible and such goes under the definition of freindly fire. Friendly fire that is the result of apparent recklessness or incompetence may fall into this category I have personnally contacted some of the soucres listed and I have asked for assistance in sourcing additional information and references on this incident, in time I hope to shed more light on this subject. But you have to admit, every time I enter a british act of friendly fire it is met with the up most resistence and most of the time, just removed based upon that fact "they" don't wish it to appear here. Please review the history of my entries, numerous times the material is deleted for no reason. This is the bias attitude that should have no place among these pagesJacob805 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jacob805, you seem to be virtually alone in thinking that this constitutes what would normally be regarded as a "friendly fire" incident, which is primarily combat forces being attacked by their own or an allied side, and generally not civilians and/or non-combatant POWs. Also, you have only been editing this page for the last four days, so your claim about some sort of long-term bias against your additions seems misplaced. The incident under discussion is the only one that you have added, so how can suggest that it is one of a larger number? Also, whatever your "contact" with "sources" may produce would be classed as original research, and therefore unusable. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jacob805, you may be pleased to know that after considering this incident, I believe there is a case for it being friendly fire. If the commanders knew that there was a risk of hitting POWs but the pilots did not then there could be a case made. The civilians are not relevant, as this would not be counted. The term 'friendly fire' is actually quite limited in its definition, and civilians definitely do not count. It really does not matter whether you think it was friendly fire if the incident is ruled out by the definition of what friendly fire is. I think you can see that although the incident was the British firing on their own POWs, the issue is whether POWs count as friendly units, as they cant be counted as troops on a battlefield or in training or in transit. There is also the issue of the Germans deliberately placing the prisoners on targets in order to have them killed by their own forces. I doubt whether deliberate human shields count as friendly fire victims either, but this needs to be investigated further. This is not a desire to place or remove anything for political purposes, as you are very quick to accuse. It is merely to point out that the non-combative nature of the victims and the added complication that the commanders of both sides likely knew POWs wuld be targeted makes this incident a borderline case as far as 'friendly fire' is defined, and more 'collateral damage' as far as that is defined, ignoring the other political double-speak used by media pundits and vested interests these days.

However, because the pilots did not know and because the status of POWs in terms of friendly fire is not clearly defined in the article, I would be OK with this incident being listed. This could count as incompetant command not passing on vital information, or it could count simply by taking the pilot's point of view. BTW, I wasn't suggesting that this incident didn't total a high number, merely that putting your pet incident in a paragraph by itself as though it was more important or some sort of classic case brings a LOT of attention to your segment. I would suggest editing it down a little - your style is a little senationalist - highlight the section regarding the pilots not knowing they were firing on possible friendlies and then put it into the WW2 section with the same format as the other incidents. Mdw0 (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Above suggested edit actioned - I think it looks OK here. A good compromise Mdw0 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting the citation to the Journal of Historical Review since - as I've outlined about - it can't be considered a reliable source. I've now receievd my copy of Jacobs/Pool's The 100-Year Secret, and although I've not read the whole thing yet, the final chapters covering the initial investigation and events up to the time of publication, but they do not actually seem to present a clear explanation for the claim of the records being sealed until 2045, merely noting that that is the longest elapsed time period after which records can theoretically be released (page 171). There is no statement that anything is actually being retained for so long, or even any specualtion as to what might be. The only mention of 2045 appears on the book's dustjacket, which doesn't inspuire much confidence. However, this is all a bit academinc, now that the claim no longer appears on the page, but it should be addressed on Cap Arcona. We are also still missing any quantification of the number of POWs killed, beyond the known 316 Poles. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is report about the British goverments rule on 100 year secrets. D-Notice. http://news.scotsman.com/worldwarii/Time-to-remember.3477901.jp .Quote " So traumatic was the disaster that Winston Churchill, the prime minister, slapped on an order preventing details being published for 100 years. Now this report is about another ship sinking costing the lives of 4,000, but it is most likey not the only time this was done and when dealing with 7-8000 deaths, use your imagination, I will however write the reporter of the article and see if we can shed light on the cap arcona.Jacob805 (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but this seems to be nothing more than journalistic hyperbole in repeating the strandard Chinese whispers, coupled with a bit of personal flag-waving by The Scotsman. While a DA-Notice may very well have been issued at the time, we have already established that the Till Report (i.e. WO 309/637) was made available to the public under the 30-year rule in the 1970s, as were other documents relating to the incident. A DA-Notice does come with an automatic time-limit, so the journalist in this case may just be putting two and two together and getting twenty. What we need is a proper, reliable source that can say exactly what - if anything - is being supposedly suppressed for 100 years. It is simply not good enough to keep parroting vague claims that are clearly untrue. As noted above, I now have the Jacobs/Pool book, but while I took it on my honeymoon, the delights of Malta proved too distracting. Now that I'm home I'll read the whole thing, but as I've said, despite its title relying heavily on the supposed 100 year restriction, it does not seem to be able to justify it. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is another page that references the 100 year sealed report. When I get more reliable source I will revise the entry to reflect this.http://www.think-israel.org/white-harvey.friendlyfire1945.htmlJacob805 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "new" - it's the White-Harvey article you referenced previously. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

'Use in comedy' section

I have removed this section, as it seemed non-neutral, trivial and poorly referenced. The references provided did not support the claim that in Britain, the term 'friendly fire' is used in an 'ironic' or 'comedic' sense; on the contrary, they mostly use the term straight, without any implied humour. The quotes from Have I Got News For You and Dave Lyons are trivial and irrelevant. The main purpose of this section seemed to be to get a link to the article List of British friendly fire incidents by the U.S. military in here somewhere; I have kept that link but moved it to the 'see also' section instead. Terraxos (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but only because it was poorly referenced. It wasn't non-neutral, it described the reaction to a seemingly careless attitude by the American military to friendly fire incidents. Describing a position doesnt entail bias for that position. The reaction of artists and comedians to world events and attitudes is far from trivial, it's vital. The section never said the whole of Britain only ever uses the term in a comedic sense, but it is used in comedy for that purpose, hence the name of the section - Use in comedy - which presupposes use in comedy. I thought some of the quotes showed fairly well the ironic use of the term. Just be careful you're not coming in with your own opinions as to what's funny or trivial or ironic and purely on that basis be cutting out chunks of a potentially important section that just requires cleanup. You've also made it more diffuclt to police this whole article. People whose experience of friendly fire is soley through TV sources are constantly trying to insert their 2c and having this section allows those reactions to be recorded at the bottom where they belong. I know that's not the Wikipedia ideal but we dont live in an ideal world. We'll see how it goes. Mdw0 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that that section used to be more specific and was well-referenced a year ago, but it got pared down over the months by various editors who apparently took exception to it. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also as the guy who added the link to List of British friendly fire incidents by the U.S. military, the page history will show that the 'Use in comedy' section was there long before that list was even created. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good page on Bias British news,related to friendlt fire

It also mentions numerous incidents, including the lubeck bombing, http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3774/Jacob805 (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit flatering that much of it is obviously lifted from this very article as it stood at the time (especially the now lost "Use in British culture" section), but that's web "journalists" for you... Nick Cooper (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Cooper, what are you talking about, the article appeared August 2007 and the page according to the history didn't include the lubeck bombing at that timeJacob805 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you re-read my comment again, paying attention to the appropriate use of "much" and "especially". I recognised immediately that the article had lifted bits of the "Use in British culture" section, since I was the original author of much of it. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Wintergewitter

Like to discuss this, as I don't think this is a friendly fire inicident, heroic yes! but to call fire support on your own postion has no bearing nor clearly meets the definiton of Friendly fireJacob805 (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it counts for the same reason as the Lubeck bombing in that those doing the shooting believed they were firing at the enemy, and soley the enemy. I don't mind a bit of variation in these examples as it contrasts the definition with actual incidents. Mdw0 (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mdw0, the action was not friendly fire and needs to be removed, sited heroic yes, friendly fire no. Please read the incident fully and you will understand. The friends knew that they were fire on him. He asked for it, to cover the eescape of fellow solders. He is the exact story from the citation " Fox, that will be right on you. I can't do that, the artillery officer at headquarters yelled into the phone.``Fire it! Fox yelled back. As you can see, it is not friedly fire Fox knew that the artillery would kill him too. self sacrifice is not friendly fire, medal of honor yes... Please consider contributing to Sgt Fox page and remove it from this pageJacob805 (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I did actually read that section, but that deals with the officers in charge of ordering the strike. Those doing the firing - did they know? Would need to be confirmed but 'need to know' would suggest they didn't. You'd need to see if those details were issued with the orders to definitively rule this out as a freindly fire incident. You'd also need to make a case for saying incidents where officers know but those carrying out the firing don't know are not friendly fire. If it is, this should be in. If its not, the Cap Arcona must go. Mdw0 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mdw0, this case has no bearing on the Cap Arcona incident. Please tell me if I should take your entry here as I threat or ultimatum? I will clarify one more time for you. Cap Arcona, I have listed and referenced that the General in charge and his immediate subordinates were informed that POW’s and Camp Victims were on the ships. They still went forward with the bombing. Please read the definition of the Friendly fire.

Classification, Friendly fire incidents fall roughly into two categories: The first classification is "fog of war" which generically describes accidental friendly fire incidents due to the confusion inherent in warfare. Friendly fire that is the result of apparent recklessness or incompetence may fall into this category. The concept of a fog of war has come under considerable criticism, as it can be used as an all-encompassing excuse for poor planning, weak or compromised intelligence and incompetent command.

It is safe to assume that, in dealing with the Cap Arcona and British knowledge and failed to act or stop, it fulfills the recklessness and incompetence category!! Furthermore, it touches on incompetent command. 7000 deaths due to the fact, they forgot or failed to advise the wing commanders or was it plain murder? which also is discussed on this page?

As for the Incident on Sgt Fox, it is self sacrifice. I think the burden of proof is on you. I have asked for a citation in reference to this being a friendly fire incident. The individual in question is quoted asking for fire on his own position and the artillery officer replies that he cannot do that. Sgt Fox and officer himself, says quote “do it”. You also might want to consider this action. The US government would not give the victim of a friendly fire incident the MOH. In closing don’t ask me to do your work, I have asked for a citation that is relevant to the content of this page. If it was not you that contributed this entry, then I will post it next to the article. In reading the referenced material on this incident, there is no mention of Friendly fire. So is safe to assume that you thought this up all by yourself? Here is also a quoted entry from the discussion page of FOX:

The use of the term friendly fire in the lead paragraph of the article on Lt. Fox appears to be incorrect, especially after following the link to the article on "friendly fire". This was not an accident or a mistake, but rather a deliberate action called for by Lt. Fox as the only way to defeat the attack then in progress against his position. This was pointed out by the supporting artillery unit, and the coordinates for the fire were confirmed by Lt. Fox, knowing what the likely result would be. Recommend changing the lead paragraph to: John Robert Fox (May 18, 1915–December 26, 1944) was killed in action when he deliberately called for artillery fire on his own position in order to defeat a German attack in progress in northern Italy during World War II. He belatedly received the Medal of Honor in 1997.[1] Since this discussion the article read, deliberately call for the artillery fire on his own positionJacob805 (talk) 09:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're funny! So explosive! If anyone actually TRIED tried to say something threatening you'd probably spontaneously combust. The link between the two is that there's a good chance that the people doing the killimg believed they were firing on the enemy, not their own troops. Therefore they should both be included in our list so that the reader has a chance to make up their own mind. And then have a talk about it. A debate. Without any threats or paranoid ultra-defensiveness. I think you need to realise that throwing around unwarranted accusations of threats and brinkmanship is quite insulting and doesn't do you any favours. Fact is I figured you'd be so attached to your Cap Arcona inclusion that you'd be able to see why the Fox incident should be in as well. Both had commanders who knew there may be or would be friendly casualties, but those doing the firing didn't, so they count as friendly fire. As for your other comments, I didn't put the Fox incident in originally, just edited it back to match the rest of the listing. You say above that you asked for a citation - it that respect I may be blind because I cant see that request. You just said the Fox incident should be removed from the friendly fire listing. I'm much more prepared to acquiesce to additions than subtractions, especially when you want to add in and take away incidents that are in the listing for the same reason. When I said 'you'd need to do certain things' I wasn't giving YOU orders, I was merely stating what would need to be done by anyone wanting to rule these incidents in or out. Rather than deciding in our own minds whose work is what, how about we just agree its up to both of us to improve the article as best we can? I do understand that definition paragraph you quoted - I wrote it. Glad you like it. However you might want to note the qualifier - 'may.' Recklessness or incompetance MAY fall into this category. You MAY continue to make your case and edit accordingly. Mdw0 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mdwo, sorry for the late reply, After the reading both stories, I am sorry I don't see the connection. The british commander did not sacrifice himself, when he knowing sent the bombers in 3 days before the war ended to bomb ships carry POW and Resistence fighters. On the other hand Sgt Fox knew he was calling fire on himself and the emeny. As for the FAC, he knew that the SGT would be killed, but it was not his decision. It was the Sgt's. In any case if you wish to leave it in, be all means do so. I think it is a great piece of reading. MOH winner dies to to friendly fire... it makes for a good story, possibly a movie? Why don't we put in Col. Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, he wass killed by his own army. How about the 7,000 British and French solders executed by there own Armies during WW I. Where does it stop. I suggest that we enter only factual friendly fire cases. Do our research and add citation to back up our claims. I just entered another Brit or Brit case. L/cpl Ford. July 15, 2007, recently ruled FF and I cited 2 sources. b'rgds83.64.176.178 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The British commander didnt sacrifice himself, but he wasnt doing the firing. The pilots were. In the Fox incident, those doing the actual firing also would not have known they were firing on Fox. That is the connection - the ones doing the firing, the actual killing. Until recently the American military have done everything they can to pretend friendly fire is minor and isnt worth worrying about, hence the deperation to cover up famous incidents - hence no movie. Technically incidents of murder aren't friendly fire either, because those doing the firing arent under any mistaken belief they are firing on the opposing forces. I havent worked out a way to adequately fix the section in the article that says murder is one of two types of friendly fire, because it really isn't. That whole bit needs to be rewritten. Mdw0 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have not had time to get back to you on this, In reviewing what you are sayig and comparing it to the other entry, this makes no sense. Please tell me where the Negligence is. In the case I made and I must say I sourced it as well, the British where negligent in the deaths of these people. In you case where is the negligaece? The man called fire on himself and you say it is friendly fire. As for your POV on the Amercian cover up of famous incidents, please tell me what that has to do about what we are discussing, if you are referencing your entry on , nothing has been covered up , if there has? " where is your sited source, "do you have proof " or is this just another POV. In reviewing the pages on the individual and his page on wikipedia, there is nothing to suggest this is friendly fire, Please give us one source that even hints at friendly fire, otherwise it is just your point of view. jacob805

I dont know where you got negligence from - I certainly never mentioned negligence. My point is that what constitutes friendly fire primarily depends on the attitude of the person firing - whether they believe they are firing on the enemy or not. Whether their commanders are negligent or culpable really doesn't matter. If those firing on Fox believed they were firing on the enemy then the case for friendly fire is there, and that is why it should be included in the article. Even if those doing the firing believed there may have been a risk of friendly fire while they were hitting the enemy, its still friendly fire. That is why I mentioned the similarity to the Arcona incident - in both cases commanders may have known about friendly fire risk or certainty, but the question as to whether it can be friendly fire or not depends primarily on who the pilots believed they were firing on. In both bases the ose doing the firing believed they were firing on the enemy. Of course in talking about "belief" at a particular time we need to acknowledge this can be very subjective. We are talking shades of grey in many cases.

The bit about cover-up of incidence was in response to the question of a movie. Sorry if that was a bit obscure - the bit which says "hence no movie" might be a clue. The Americans DO have a sorry history of covering up friendly fire incidents - the most obvious example of that history being Pat Tillman. However, this attitude is being addressed as it should be, and the American military should be credited with making that change. Mdw0 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mdw0. See this is the point I am trying to get at. The men firing (e.g.) the artillery office knew the position was too closed and advised this. The Sgt knew it too, as it was self sacrifice. Leave it in if you wish, but I beg to differ. Please do me one favor, please site one additional source claiming this to be friendly fire. Just so we all know this is not a POV, from our discussions. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If those doing the firing were aware they would kill Fox then it shouldn't be in the list. Mdw0 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of friendly fire

Mwd0 Here is a little intro from a book I am reading. This guy has a really handle on the term and causes.

read this intro as this is the best I have read on the subject.

Qoute: The first problem in a study of this sort is to define in clear and concise terms the topic under consideration. The phrase friendly casualties due to friendly fire," although accurately describing the type of events we wish to investigate, is both clumsy and subject to misinterpretation. Another term, commonly used to describe the type of incidents with which we are concerned, is fratricide. Although common and handy, the word fratricide has a well-known technical usage with respect to artillery projectiles and has connotations of intent and civil conflict inappropriate for the types of incidents we shall undertake to investigate. In the interest of clarity, brevity, and convenience of usage, the resort to a neologism seems desirable. The noun amicicide, derived by the legitimate combination of the Latin noun amicus, -us (friend) with the common latinate suffix for killing (-cide), provides a single word that adequately describes without distracting connotation the incidence of human casualties (both dead and wounded) incurred by military forces in active combat operations as a result of being fired upon unintentionally by the weapons of their own or allied forces.

Instances of amicicide may be conveniently divided for the purpose of our study into several descriptive categories, each of which may be further subdivided. One category, artillery amicicide, includes all incidents in which friendly ground forces are subjected to the fire of friendly artillery weapons, mortars, and rockets, as well as guns and howitzers, employed in either direct or indirect fire. Also included in this category are instances in which friendly ground forces are struck by spent projectiles or fragments from friendly weapons directed at aircraft. A second category, air amicicide, includes all incidents in which friendly ground forces are bombed, strafed, or rocketed by friendly aircraft, either fixed or rotary-wing, of whatever service. A third category, antiaircraft amicicide, incorporates those incidents in which friendly aircraft are taken under fire by friendly surface forces (both ground and naval) employing either small arms, automatic weapons, missiles, or anti-aircraft artillery. The final category that we shall consider here is ground amicicide, incidents in which friendly ground troops and variously armed armored vehicles fire upon other friendly ground forces or armored vehicles. Such incidents may be further divided into those involving infantry against infantry, infantry against tanks and vice versa, antitank weapons against tanks and vice versa, and tanks against tanks.

There are, of course, several other obvious categories of amicicide that are excluded from this study. These involve air-to-air engagements, air-to-naval vessel incidents, and incidents involving the engagement of one friendly naval vessel by another. In a few cases we shall discuss incidents involving friendly air and ground fire attacks on friendly boats (as opposed to ships). Naval gun fire incidents are included here under the category of artillery amicicide. A few bizarre instances involving aircraft will also be considered.

There are also a number of other types of incidents in which friendly casualties may be inflicted by friendly weapons. Most of these are excluded from our definition of amicicide. Cases of homicide (both intentional and unintentional), suicide, and self-inflicted wounds (whether intentional or not) are excluded, as are what may be termed pure accidents, for example, the explosion of a gun due to faulty ammunition or unintentionally walking in front of a gun being fired. We shall also exclude from our definition of amicicide so-called disciplinary actions and the intentional calling-in of fire on one's own position in extremis. The former category includes legally prescribed executions, the shooting of recalcitrant troops in battle by their officers, and the rare, but not unknown, practice of firing upon friendly troops as punishment for failure to advance or for some other infraction of military discipline such as mutiny or riot.

Please give your thoughts, as I think this page would be better written in listing the causes, actions, definitions what is and what is not and the actions taken place to avoid such incidents in the futre. If we keep listing actual accounts and incidents, we will run out of space soonJacob805 (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I definitely think the section dealing with the definition of the term needs to be rewritten, and it could be based on the above extract, but with some necessary adjustments. Rather than try to define what friendly fire is, your author has avoided the issue of definition by inventing a similar word and defining that instead. That might be convenient for the author but we don't have that luxury. Friendly fire is the common term, and the name of the article, so that's what we need to be tackling, and we probably should be mentioning the vagaries of defining the term.

A lot of the above is already in the article, such as excluding things like suicide, misfiring. As I said earlier, the section dealing with murder should really be written out. I'd have a real problem including disciplinary actions such as firing on troops who won't advance as friendly fire, though.

He doesn't mention the belief of those firing that they are attacking the enemy, whether or not their commanders are aware or whether intentional calling in on a friendly position is the impetus, which I think is important - but that's my POV searching for a source. Using that 'belief' of the firers as a guide I think is quite useful. It automatically excludes murder, disciplinary actions, suicide and accidents. Dont forget, though, that POV is not always avoidable and shouldn't necessarily be eliminated as long as NPOV is maintained overall. Mdw0 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

removed Vietam reference

I have removed Vietnam reference of 8,000 incidents, as it was labeled for over 3 months that a citation was needed. I researched and could not find any reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a reliable source in 2 seconds. 59.101.177.139 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

59.101.177.139. Please sign when making changes and using the talk page. This is for everyone benefit. In regards to your entry. The reliable source is not reliable at all. Global Security has made many mistakes on the web pages and is not viewed a reliable source. Take for instance there reference list on the article you are wanting to use. Ref: Sources: Pentagon, Reuters well this is not acceptalbe citation. Who in the petagon, what publication from the Pentagon, as for reuters, what date, reporter ect... I have no problems leaving this in, once sourced, but until then, it is unreferenced material and should be excluded. I put the citation needed in 4 months ago and no enter the source. It should be the responsibility of the person making the claim to reference there source. I did some research and found nothing claiming that number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's citing The Guardian, which is a reliable source. 59.101.177.139 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what date and issue of the Guardian, how to we check the source and read the article. Does the Guardian list there source. until we can find out where we can review a copy, it is not sourced. Please advise if you undersrtand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.190 (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have researched the Guardian Article date April 8, 2003. There is no mention of an article cliaming 8,000 incidents of friendly fire. As a matter of fact there is no article discussing friendly fire date April 8, 2003. I have add citation needed again and suggest that you find a more credible soucre. Please feel free to check the Guardian web sit as you can still review 2003 articles onlineJacob805 (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint is entirely spurious. Global Security is a valid source. Your claim to the contrary is unsupported and can be disregarded. The full citation for the Guardian article republished by Global Security is as follows: Engel, Matthew, "Accusations fly over lack of action on friendly fire deaths", The Guardian (8 April 2003), p. 9. The table showing losses quoted by Global Security is omitted in the electronic version of the Guardian article: "Accusations fly over lack of action on friendly fire deaths". However the same percentages are also quoted in Time magazine: Bower, Amanda (2003-04-07). "Misfiring in the Fog". Time. The same estimates can also be found in Table 2 from the following reliable source: Steinweg, K. K. (Spring 1995). "Dealing Realistically with Fratricide". Parameters. I will add these citations to the article. 61.68.164.120 (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk 61.68.164.120, please sign in when making changes so we all know who we are talking about. You citation for the guardain, is not founded, it doesnt mention the 14% you quoted. This is your problem... using a source that does not list the correct information. The Guardian artical does not mention over 8,000 incident nor 14%...Please remove this citation as it is not true in the context you are using it for. This is what I mean about Globel, that state number and the source is invalid!!! As for the others, your second and new citation, time mag, quotes a Col that studied at the War college in states, his quote is estimated and quotes hard to prove, unquote.... Estimated, not fact and he states is hard to prove. The way you write it is fact, but in reading the actual articles, this is not the case, I suggest you word it as such, using estimated and on the COL I have read the fully read the third citation and it does mention 14% but I don't see where you came up with 8,000 incidents. As it is not mentioned here either and once again it is just an estimate, please also explain why you used just US in Veitam, as all three catation you listed give other estimated % in WW1, WW2, KOREA, AND OTHER COUNTRIES SUCH AS FRANCE, BRITIAN AND GERMANYJacob805 (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Vietnam estimate was restored with a reference because you deleted it without one. The existing wording in the article already says it’s an estimate, so it’s not presented as certainty like you claim. Global Security republished the print version of the Guardian story. The Guardian's sources are Reuters and the Pentagon. The percentages quoted are consistent with those in other published sources like Time magazine and Parameters. We stick to published sources. Unless you can find a more detailed source to supplement it, or one explicitly challenging the estimate and that clearly supersedes it, just leave it alone. We don’t do original research here. 59.101.166.88 (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

59.101.166.88 please sign it, as it is better for involved, that we know who we are talking too. don't you have a log in? As for your reference, I really don't have the time to keep up with you on this. 1) fact- It is nice that you have now deleted the forma lead in "the Pentagon Estimates 8,000 incident" to your current version "It is estimated" is this because you could not find a valid source that the Pentagon made this statement. I think it is safe to think they didn't, concluding that your sources are questionable? I have read the Guardian numerous times and find the paper to be bias towards anything Amercian. I also knew that US Army and the Pentagon, would never make a statement like that, because no records exist on the matter. I still think you need to further your sources as the guardian article can not be verified. As orignal research, I am not saying that, but when you now google Vietnam US freindly fire, your 8000 incidents now appears and I feel that it is irresponsible to make such quotes, with out real data.I asked you before why you just put in the figures on the Vietnam war, you source gives percentage of friendly fire on all war, so why do you just site this 11% percent from Vietnan,knowing that your reference states WW2 was the highest at over 16%. If you have the time I would like to knowJacob805 (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Desert Storm

Are you sure it was an AH1 Cobra? this site claims it was an AH64 Apache. LunarEffect (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

citiation needed removed cap arcona

The fact was sited and reference and when another contributered revised this ref was removed, if you look at the orignal citation in the history, it is there. I will however put the citation back in to keep nick quite, as I thought this issue was resolved in October but apparently he still has his POV and is now putting in citations needed, because other contributer are now changing the cap arcona page...even after 65 years there still seem to be people that don't want to believe this happened.Jacob805 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A vague reference to a publication most editors would have difficulty accessing is not particularly ideal. Can you give a specific page number for this claim? Quoting the relevent text in the citation footnote would be of immense help. "POV", I would remind you, cuts both ways, since you seem intent on pushing a certain interpretation of events in this case. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nick like I said, this was referenced before, you lost your POV on this matter and feel the need to start it up again. All was referenced, please check the history and don't delete reference without first discussing, like you did with the historical journal piece. The proper way about this is using this page. If you continue on this course of action, I will tag it as vandalism, jacob80583.64.176.178 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I deleted it because - as I noted on 14 & 16 October times above - the "Institute for Historical Review" is a Holocauset-denial organisation, and therefore neither it nor its publication Journal of Historical Review can be regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. I explained my deletion of the reference again at 13:17 on 20 October and neither you nor anyone else objected at the time. I am therefore deleting it again, and will continue to do so. I would suggest that you read the Wikipedia pages on both the "Institute" and the "Journal" to appreciate the standing that they have (or rather not, as the case may be). I would note that Jacob's book does not claim that the three ships other than the Deutschland were marked as claimed. I am also yet again deleting the Google Books reference because (deep breath) IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT POINT YOU ARE REFERENCING. You seem to have a habit of "bombing" this issue with vague references, and then being unable to clarify what they are supposed to be backing-up. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In addtion I have cited another source, there sources are clearly referneced at the bottom, I have also encloded a copy for your review Sources: Fritz Brustat-Naval, Unternehmen Rettung (Herford: Koheler, 1970), pp. 197-201; C. Zentner & F. Bedürftig, eds., The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich (New York: Da Capo, 1997), pp. 126, 644-645, 952; W. Schütz, Hrsg., Lexikon: Deutsche Geschichte im 20. Jahrhundert (Rosenheim: DVG, 1990), pp. 66, 455; Dr. Bernhard Steidle, Hrsg., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Band 2 (Munich: 1995), pp. 212, 230; "Britische RAF mordete Tausende KZ-Häftlinge," National-Zeitung (Munich), May 19, 2000, p. 11; Kay Dohnke, "5 Minuten, 50 Meter, 50 Jahre: Gedenken an die Cap Arcona, nach einem halben Jahrhundert," taz: die tageszeitung (Hamburg Ausgabe), May 3, 1995, also on line at http://www.theo-physik.uni-kiel.de/~starrost/akens/texte/diverses/arcona.html; "The Cap Arcona, the Thielbek and the Athen," on line at http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035/arcona.html; Konnilyn G. Feig, Hitler's Death Camps (New York: 1981), p. 214; Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust (New York: 1986), p. 806; M. Weber, "Bergen-Belsen: The Suppressed Story," May-June 1995 Journal of Historical Review, pp. 23-30; M. Weber, "History's Little-Known Naval Disasters," March-April 1998 Journal, p. 22.

For further reading, these books are available: Rudi Goguel, Cap Arcona (Frankfurt/Main: Röderberg, 1972); Günter Schwarberg, Angriffsziel Cap Arcona (Hamburg: Stern-Buch, 1983/ Göttingen: Steidi, 1998), with portions on line at http://www.reger-online.de/buchcd/w7506002.htm; Wilhelm Lange, Cap Arcona: Dokumentation (Eutin: Struve, 1988)Jacob805 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of references, Jacob, but how many of them have you actually read, as opposed to merely repeating the sources others have claimed? I would note that both the http://www.theo-physik.uni-kiel.de & http://www.reger-online.de URLs you have included return errors, which calls into question the validity of you including them, and doesn't inspire much confidence for the rest, either. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In closing you have had problems with all the cited sources, China, Israel, Germany and even the Sctsman. Apparently no source is good enough for you. Please tell us what happen with the book you supposely purchased? remmeber the 100 year secret? well it has been 4 months, have you gotten through yet? Please read up on the wikipedia rules on sources. Exact copy from wikipedia:

A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source. For example:

Ritter, R. (2002). The Oxford Style Manual. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860564-1. It allows a reader to find the source and verify that it supports material in Wikipedia

Further information There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation style or system for Wikipedia. If you cannot decide on which style to use, or if you do not know what information to include, an example partially based on the APA style is given below. In APA style, a widely accepted format for writing research papers, the references are listed at the end of the article in alphabetical order by author, and by year for identical authors. Also see MLA style and Harvard referencing.

Note that most editors use citation templates to format article references, though the use of such templates is not required. The reference style given below complies with these templates, and differs from APA style in several respects; for instance in that it permits and encourages extra information such as the author's full first name, and in that titles are formatted according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles).

Books Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9. For an edited book, put "(Ed.)" or "(Eds.)" in parentheses after the last author, before the date.

The ISBN (which is wikified automatically) is optional. If a book does not have an ISBN number, an LCCN ({{LCCN}}) or OCLC ({{OCLC}}) number may be used instead. Note, however, that use of ASIN numbers in Wikipedia is considered controversial.

For a specific article or chapter in an edited book, use:

Pooh, Winnie T. & Robin, Christopher (1926). "Modern techniques in heffalump capture". In A. A. Milne (Ed.), The Karma of Kanga, pp. 23–47. Hundred Acre Wood: Wol Press. A good guideline is to list author names as they are written in the original article/book, without further abbreviation. The APA guidelines recommend abbreviating first names to initial letters instead, but since Wikipedia has no shortage of space, you need not abbreviate names. Indeed, there are good reasons to include the full names of authors; such information makes it much easier to find the cited work, and it also makes it possible to find other related information by the same author.

If Wikipedia has a page for the book, make the book title a link to it, but retain the full reference (for example, for printing). If the authors are notable (as above) and have not already been linked to from the article, then make their names link to their pages. It is also occasionally relevant to link a publisher, place of publication, etc.

In closing please read : Wikipedia:Verifiability All of my sources and citation have references attached, such as historical publications, book and eye witness accountsJacob805 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have read The 100-Year Secret, so there is no "supposedly" about my purchase of it. As I have noted previously, it seems startlingly wanting on a justification of its title, and does not - to my recollection - back up a number of points you have been pushing, such as the "white flags and red crosses" on the three ships other than the Deutschland. I'm visiting the National Archives tomorrow, and have reserved the Till Report and other related documents for study, so no doubt I will have more to say on the subject in due course. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

typhoons last storm

This is a transcript of the actual history channel peice on this incident. Nick give it a read. http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:mxk2e8gnCL0J:www.lumiere.gr/script/history%2520scripts/SPECIALS/Typhoon%27s%2520Last%2520Storm.doc+CAP+ARCONA+WHITE+FLAGS&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25Jacob805 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another one sited source, states Britsh Armey were advised that the ships contained POW's but failed to pass it on the the pilots.www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raf-pilots-tricked-into-killing-10000-camp-survivors-at-end-of-war-634445.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 February 2009

That's clearly just regurgitated PR fluff for the documentary, not an investigative piece by the newspaper itself, the quote from one RAF crewman notwithstanding. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again Nick. You refute every reference and source that I have given, even a paper in good standing in the UK. Now I don't think the the Indepedant would print that the RAF Intelligence was informed about the prisons and never passed it on, if in fact it didn't happen. There are I witness account, including RAF pilots that stated that they shot people in the water. But you still say it is all fluff, as you put it. I think it would be best to put this to rest. If you wish to go on, the Till report is available in Holland. Just google the report and it number and you can contact them about getting a copyJacob805 (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I also like the notion that you avoid the fact that this little documentary was produced by the History Channel, are you now saying that there research on the matter is nothing more than fluff, too?Jacob805 (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the piece is clearly reactive to the History Channel documentary, rather than a spontaneous proactive investigation by the newspaper itself. As I have said previously, though, perhaps you would like to explain exactly what point in particular you consider the piece supports?

Thank you for your suggestion r.e. the Till report, but I spent several hours at the UK National Archives looking through those files relating to the Cap Arcona incident that we're not supposed to be able to see until 2045, and a photocopy of Till's report specifically is sitting on the desk next to me now. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removel of F18 bombing of observation post 2001

This is not friendly fire, it is neg discharge, no active combat taking place and was a training exerciseJacob805 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope of article

I recently added several WWII friendly fire incidents concerning French aircraft. On reflection, it occurs to me that it might be too much detail. If these are representative of the frequency of such incidents, then the list could stretch to several hundred unless some inclusion "rules" are applied. Criteria could be 1) historically interesting (eg, the Battle of Barking Creek), 2) illustrative of a particular circumstance (eg, the Swordfish attack on HMS Sheffield), 3) current or recent interest (eg, bombing of Canadian troops in Afghanistan), 4) summaries of various similar incidents (the French incidents I added, ie, "n cases of attack on aircraft of Allies between two dates"). This is far from a polished proposal, but does it find support? Folks at 137 (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Disciplinary Fire" ?

Can someone discuss and give historical examples of "deliberate firing on one’s own troops for disciplinary reasons" - ?

Karl gregory jones (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not following this - are you saying it never happens? Or are you after a list of something which has just been defined as having nothing to do with this particular topic? Mdw0 (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it happens, but I'm ignorant of the instances or general history. Never even thought about it until I read this article; I'm a civilian, not ignorant of history but I don't know much about military history. The idea struck me in an emotional way, kind of shocking -- it seems like an important topic in its own right, and I'm curious about it. That said, as you say, it's not relevant to this article. I guess I'm asking for Talk page discussion, preparatory to creating a new article on the topic (if there's enough substantial history to merit an article). I dunno, it just seems to me, intuitively, that it's a heavy topic, there must be a history worth telling. Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts. Karl gregory jones (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

numerous soldiers were executed by firing squad for desertion/cowardice especially during WWI. I took that phrase as refering to that sad episode of military history. --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

...or those shot while fleeing or retreating in contravention of an order (e.g.). –xeno^talk 15:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Does John R. Fox really belong here?

Reading the section for Observer John Fox, I don't think this falls within the defininition given of Friendly fire, as being inadvertant. It's clear that Fox called in the strike, fully aware that it would result in his own death. This surely makes the shooting deliberate, and so outside the scope of friendly fire. What do others think, does this belong here?--IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding previous discussions on this, this incident is a borderline case, but is included because it appears those doing the firing were unaware of Fox's position and belived they were firing on the enemy. Since this is a key characteristic of friendly fire it was included, even though both the friendly victim and commanders were aware of the friendly fire risk. Mdw0 (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

mdwo Hello I am back. I am really leaning removing this, as one calling fire onto himself is not friendly fire, I would ask anyone else monitoring this page for there thoughts. Jacob805

The key to this one isnt Fox himself, as in any friendly fire incident, the focus is on those doing the firing. The ones who were doing the firing believed they were firing on the enemy, which they were. This is obviously borderline collateral damage. If you feel strongly about removal I wouldnt revert. Mdw0 (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Red on Red: Zhukov VS Konev

Before the start of the Berlin Offensive, Soviet Marshals Georgy Zhukov and Ivan Konev argued with each other over who would attack Berlin and receive the symbolic honor of raising the Soviet Flag over the Reichstag on May Day, the deadline which was ordered by Joseph Stalin for the capture of Berlin. Stalin, who was secretly jealous of Marshal Zhukov's popularity in the Red Army, had encouraged this rivalry first by reducing Zhukov's command, from three army fronts to one army front, and then by redrawing the operational boundary between the 1st Belorussian Front and the 1st Ukranian Front to end just south of the Reichstag. This would permit Marshal Konev to move into Berlin and started off a competitive race between the two for the capture of Berlin and the Reichstag which ultimately ended in a "Red on Red" Friendly Fire incident when troops of the 1st Belorussian Front were hit by artillery fire from the 1st Ukranian Front which had supposedly misidentified Zhukov's advancing Soviet forces for retreating Germans. As a result of this, Stalin redrew the operational boundary one last time which halted Konev's advance and gave Zhukov the full honor of capturing the Reichstag.

Reference: "The Conquerors: Zhukov" by the History Channel --Arima (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. Put it in. Mdw0 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

removal of 1943-1944 suspected sub sinking

I asked December 2008 for citations, nobody including the author would submit a citation to the claim. removed failed to cite source. jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

thoughts on removing the following

Iowa battleship fire torpedo during training while president Roosevelt was on board. I would like to remove this on the basis on:he Friendly fire is inadvertent firing towards one's own or otherwise friendly forces while attempting to engage enemy forces, particularly where this results in injury or death. A death resulting from a negligent discharge is not considered friendly fire.

Since the the USS William D Porter fire a torpedo during a naval exercise (accidentally)this constitutes negligent discharge and therefore is not friendly fire. jacob805 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Good spotting - I didnt even see that one Mdw0 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Waited a week, no comments other agreement, section removed due no relevance.(Jacob805 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC))

changes made without discussion

GraemLeggett, please do not make changes to other peoples contribution without first using the talk or discussion page, I have changed it back to my original text, if you would like to contribute or add to this advent, please lets discuss this matter first. jacob805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Jacob805, your original text had emotive and sensationalist language, spelling mistakes, link errors and deserved a good edit. You really should have recognised this before reverting. How about this? Mdw0 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion before editing is generally reserved for cases where the text might be presumed to be controversial or against consensus. I copywriter for formatting clarity and in light of what the sources said. Where do you think I went wrong in my editing? GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well please explain (emotive) and sensationalist language? spell well we are guilty of that are we not? we was removed was the intent of the RN office, to ward off the attack, raising white ensigns so forth. This was omitted, I think it show the intensity of war and what can happen in the heat of battle. In reference to my revert, I suggested that it should be discussed. I don't mind people adding or correcting, removal based upon (your opinion) is another. I don't practice removing with out first asking. jacob805 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My changes did not remove the activities of the flotilla to indicate their identity nor that the aircraft. I did remove the implication (by omission) that the whole matter was hushed up and nothing came of the enquiry by material from the source. Wikipedia works by being bold and edits are rarely discussed first unless the topic or content is controversial. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well don't you think it is relevant the truth was withheld from the public....??? In reading the article on Tillman it is clearly stated about a cover up. Please explain why it is OK to list this cover up, but not to this one 1944, that was kept secret for over 50 years . I look forward to your reply. Jacob805 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC) As I believe it should be mentioned. as to keep this page NPOV...

It's been added. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

do anyone know the out come of this friendly fire incident

• The MoD said an inquiry had been launched into whether the men were caught in a so-called "blue-on-blue" incident. A spokesman said: "We can confirm that an investigation is under way into a suspected friendly fire incident in Helmand province on Wednesday 14 January 2008 in which Captain Tom Sawyer and Corporal Danny Winter were killed. The two men may have been killed by a mortar round launched by other British troops, said an official, adding: "The wrong location seems to have been fired upon." No further information will be released until a full investigation is complete." Awaiting the final inquiry since 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob805 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

cited for removal

not relevant to this page, It researching the incident, this was an accidental discharge during a training exorcise.

In 1992, the USS Saratoga participated in a no-notice exercise that included a simulated RIM-7 launch. Incorrect terminology was used in the orders and a live missile was launched into the bridge of the Turkish destroyer Muavenet killing 5 crewmembers.[citation needed].

any thoughts on this ? Jacob805 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Would like help creating a page on Sunday Aug 27 1944 friendly fire incident

Jacob805 (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First thing you need to do is to assemble sufficient evidence to show that the incident is notable enough to warrant its own article Wikipedia:Notability. You may have trouble with the first element of general guidelines in that it requires significant coverage. Besides the Daily Telegraph reporting post release of the National Archives material, has there been other coverage in eg books on the RN minesweepers, the Typhoon during the Second World War and the like. If it doesn't pass on that account, I would recommend adding the infomation to one of the relevant ship articles - I would suggest Jason - and then give a link from the other ships to the particular section of the expanded article (to avoid excess repetition). GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

depending on your editing style - a sentence at a time or a complete block of text eg - you might want to consider drafting it in a user sub page first and inviting editors to advise on the draft before moving it to the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion refuted with opinion

This statement seems to have little supporting evidence:

"However, a much more accurate view is that the United States, as a world superpower, is simply more likely to have "friendly fire" events because the US is much more likely to be involved in combat operations."

Perhaps some figures on the proportions of friendly fire incidents and fatalities for other superpowers or UN peacekeepers would lend come credence to the statement.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.103.248 (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Highest friendly fire loss

The article says that (Lt.) Gen. Buckner was the second highest US friendly fire loss of WW II but doesn't list the highest: Gen. Leslie McNair, commander of all US Ground Forces. He was killed with about 100 other soldiers in US bombing attacks during Operation Cobra, July 44. He was posthumously promoted to full (4-star) general.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.139.236 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

About the Canadian Friendly Fire in Korean War and UK 17th divisions friendly fire

Hi. i tried contacting the CBC contact about this two weeks and no reply at all. When I also found this the Korean War, "Canadian officer Dan Loomis called in mortar fire to help Canadian troops being pursued by Chinese forces, but the fire hit his own men after he mistakenly transmitted the wrong map co-ordinates". But i don't know what kind of battle they are talking about and how many were killed in this? does anyone know? i tried look for it everywhere and i can't seem to find one. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/fogofwar.html

I also heard that the British(or Indian and British i think) 17th division during the retreat from Burma was repeatedly bombed by RAF planes causing hundred of casualties in the Irrawaddy River. Tried look for it and its still heard to find.

can anybody answer me or something? Thanks (Paulioetc (talk) 09:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)).

hey guys

it i ok i add this?

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/friendly-fire-may-have-killed-australian/story-e6frfku0-1225965648421

cannot confirm whether friendly fire or not but is it ok to add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You should probably wait till its confirmed. Mdw0 (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward Vakabua incident not friendly fire

This incident does not match the introductory description of friendly fire nor does the source identify it as friendly fire. Is there any alternative source that identifies it as a friendly fire incident?GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there is. http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=68040. it's confirm he's been killed in a friendly fire accident so could i just add back you just remove?Paulioetc (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 04:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

that report does use the term friendly fire but others eg BBC and British newspapers do not. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

the BBC has a comprehensive list of fatalities in Iraq http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7495380.stm GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

oh BTW, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/3117072/First-SAS-soldier-killed-in-Iraq-war-may-have-been-victim-of-friendly-fire.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6967044.ece

These two links i tried very hard looking for who killed these guys and still haven't find any. i don't know whether it was the British or the Afghans. Chris Ronney was killed as a result of friendly fire. Help me please.(Paulioetc (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)).Paulioetc (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 10:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll get further is you use the right spelling of Christopher Roney but sometimes th einquests cannot determine what happened and you'll get a "narrative" GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

well Christopher Rooney has been confirmed to be killed by friendly fire cause the same day it was find out that other British soldier that got shot on a 2nd friendly fire incident was found out to be a UK soldier. I don't know the same for this guy.

Now to my 2nd question, what about the SAS officer may have killed by FF? The first article i gave u said that inquest continues and can u help me do some research as a favor? I'm still looking for it though.(Paulioetc (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

hey about British soldier private Andrew Barrie cutts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510338/Soldiers-death-Afghanistan-probably-friendly-fire.html

Is there any news regarding who actually killed him? Because the coroner said that The shots seemed to come from an area patrolled by the 3rd Battalion Parachute Regiment. It also stated that the "assistant deputy coroner for Oxfordshire Andrew Walker halted the inquest for today" for the Royal Military Police to get further statements from the soldiers of 3 Para. this was from 2008? any news regarding who actually killed him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Megeney - shot by Wilcox

Though the incident has been described in some news reports as "friendly fire", the situation does not match that of one according to the definition in the article lead. Wilcox was convicted by court martial of various offences including negligence but has appealed and will face a second court martial. "N.S. soldier in shooting death wins appeal" dated 20 October. As such even if the situation was borderline for inclusion we might be best to avoid including it due to the considerations of information about living persons GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we do defined the term as used and where a source incorrectly reports it we should not compound the error. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

I reverted two edits by Paulio. One used an WP:SPS to support an edit claiming the Luftwaffe were tricked into bombing their own troops by "German speaking" partisans on the radio. I find that a very dubious claim and the source is not reliable per WP:RS.

The second alleged Leigh-Mallory, CinC of Fighter Command made a mistake on a bombing mission. To be frank, that I doubt very much. I doubt the CinC of Fighter Command would be flying a bombing mission. Please source and cite your edits with reliable sources. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As there was no response to comments on the use of WP:SPS, I have removed all of those references and replaced them with a {{fact}} tag. I've also removed a number of incidents that do no meet the criteria for inclusion as a Friendly fire incident. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 15:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

hey

is there a page that has a Aug 27 1944 friendly fire incident where RAF hawker Typhoons destroyed 4 RN ships?Paulioetc (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think anyone is going to answer your questions when you are so unresponsive to the requests of others to discuss your destructive and biased edits? Nick Cooper (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I seen your message on my talk page. Fine i admit. Because everytime i had to change something, like for example an allied bombing mission carried out by the RAF(this part was cut off) and i had to go back and edit it everytime. or for USS Sargo, it was March 4(remember that partyou just cut off) when they were attacked by an Australian plane but the USS Sargo Wikipedia stated that it happened in February 25. If that's not right, then does this day on February 25 attack came true? That's why i'm feel afraid to talk to u guys. you guys even cut off when the RAF bombed the US 13th infantry then who does it the bombing? it took place in operation cobra cause i think the majority of the bombing was with the US yet i don't see the RAF bombing about it. What about the book someone cited? do u think they are lying?Paulioetc (talk) 13:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Alan Tarng‎

I have reverted the recent edits by Alan, they are a verbatim copy from [5]. I hope I'm wrong but it looks very much like Paulio is back. I've checked references I have available on Pegasus bridge and found no mention of this incident. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it should be pointed out that in the case of the D-Day incident, the forum posting about does not indicate the nationality of either the ships in general or its gunners in particular at all, let alone identify them as British. Our friend continues to push a very baised agenda.... Nick Cooper (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed as a sock. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)