Jump to content

Talk:190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Video still

[edit]

Does anyone know how to copy a still from the cockpit video of the incident and then upload it to use as an image in this article? The still would be copyright-free (despite what The Sun says on their website) because the video was made by the US Government and is, therefore, public domain once released. Cla68 23:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Also made the video available. --Cat out 14:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take care with this. If the video were modified or processed enough that it would be consider a deriviative work it would be copyrightable and would not be in the public domain unless Sun or whoever owned the deriviative work choose to release it into such. This is the same as the way we license all our content as GFDL even tho some if it was taken from the public domain. People can take the public domain work from us but if they take any of our derivative work, they would have to release it under the GFDL. Note also that outside of the US, the kind of effort required to make it copyrightable remains unclear. The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. suggests unless they've done something fairly major requiring originality, it's unlikely to be copyrightable in the US but in any case, it's always advisable to get it from a source which doesn't claim copyright if at all possible. Remember the public domain isn't GFDL. Deriviatives of work in the public domain doesn't have to stay in the public domain. Nil Einne 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've looked into it a bit more and it appears it's a little simpler then that. Only the derivative portion of the work would be considered copyrightable evidently [1] so this case should be fine in the US (although obviously you should still stick to stuff that doesn't claim copyright) Nil Einne 13:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome a better quality version of the video but the US military seemingly isn't very cooperative. All SUN did was rencode the video into flash format - which was later converted to a .ogg format by a wikipedian. If you convert a png into a jpg you do not get a new copyright. -- Cat chi? 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

This is a remarkably clumsy title. Couldn't it be better placed at something like March 28th 2003 friendly fire incident? Shimgray | talk | 18:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could just AfD it and be done....ALR 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be in the news again in a few days when the British inquest reconvenes. We'll see what happens to the story after that. Cla68 08:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think it's all that notable, blue/ blue incidents happen frequently, particularly if one is operating with US forces. I've been fired on twice by USMC. It definetly doesn't deserve the half dozen articles it has dedicated to it.
ALR 08:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the incident itself that is notable, it's the handling of the aftermath of the incident by the U.S. and UK governments that has contributed to it being the size of a story that it has become. Like I said on the discussion page of a related article, if the U.S. had been more open about the incident investigation, had sent a representative to the inquest to fully explain the results of the investigation, shown the video, and answered questions, and had expressly apologized to Matty Hull's family, then this story probably would have been barely mentioned by the media. Cla68 10:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the reasons for it's noteability, it's IMHO largely irrelevant. It's not up to us to decide whether it's fair that something is noteable or whether something should be noteable. What we do know and what is important is that it is noteable. Cla68's story sounds plausible but whether it's that or "Stun" as ALR calls it or whatever it's irrelevant. Besides that, I think ALR is missing the point. The fact that friendly fire incidents involving the US happen so frequently means that there was always probably going to be something like this because they're something the media sees as significant. As with most things, they prefer to concentrate on one case to highlight the issue Nil Einne 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like using just the date as the title, it's much shorter and still unambiguous. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about someone searching for the information - are they more likely to know the date or the parties involved? OK title and good article for detail. Mdw0 (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Video

[edit]

As I understand it, the existance of the video was continually denied by the British authorities initially. It was only when the inquest came up that they finally confirmed there was a video. If so, this should be in the article Nil Einne 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POPOV vs. POPOFF

[edit]

This article seems to use the term POPOV to refer to the fighter pilots, but the British MOD report (linked at the end of the article) uses POPOFF. Which is correct? Adw2000 15:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in the British media use "POPOV" while, as you point out, the MOD report says "POPOFF". Using either one in the article is probably fine since both are used in the article's sources. Perhaps a note should be inserted in the article discussing the difference in spelling by the sources. Cla68 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

[edit]

This really needs a sentnce regarding what happened. We dont know who shot who until well down the page. Mdw0 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Nothing personal, but it saves time when you see a problem if you try to fix it yourself first. Thanks for pointing this out, though. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but when I saw this I was short on time, and figured by the time I got back to it someone more familiar with the article would have it finished, saving time. Mdw0 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request

[edit]

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed the request for a third opinion from the Third Opinion Project request list because the guidelines for that project require disputes to be discussed on the talk page before being listed there. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, one coroner with a history of controversial rulings does not make the "friendly fire" thing appropriate. Unless you have indisputable evidence that those airmen went out gunning for friendly troops (and if you do I'm sure the media would love to hear it), putting friendly fire in quotations implies that the action was intentional homicide, and not friendly fire at all. I'm going to remove the quotes once more, and I'm going to request a third opinion once the guy that keeps putting them back responds. 99.250.244.54 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that the other editor keeps adding the quotation marks simply because the phrase "friendly fire" is a slang term or idiom for this kind of incident. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly fire is the recognized term, among others (fratricide, blue-on-blue). Either way, the article here on Wikipedia for the killing of one's own troops (or allied troops) is Friendly Fire. 99.250.244.54 (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think Gus Kohntopp should be merged into this article. That article seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E: living people 'notable' for a single event. That article has a considerable overlap with this one, as there's not very much to say about Colonel Kohntopp that isn't related to the friendly fire incident. As such, he doesn't need an independent article; a summary of his biography can be incorporated into this one. (Note that the article on the victim, L/CoH Matty Hull, was merged and redirected to this one for the same reasons.) Robofish (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Done. This was tagged, discussed and agreed in June 2007, but was untagged as no consensus (!) in August 2008: It has been discussed and agreed again, here. So I've gone ahead and done it. There was nothing to merge (rationale is here) so I've simply blanked and redirected it. I trust everyone is OK with that. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

THIS PAGE IS A JOKE

[edit]

Really a whole separate page for this incident, just because of the British media hype. You really need to look at the British freindly fire incidents using ground attack aircraft - as well as close range misidentification. 217.16.113.220 (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media hype you refer to has made this a notable incident and it is indeed well known in the UK, so yes, it has it's own page. Other apparent British friendly fire incidents are irrelevant to that end.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not.
THIS is a joke:
"When the RAF comes over the Germans take cover. When the Luftwaffe comes over the British take cover. When the Americans come over, everyone takes cover".
That's from World War II.
I believe its origins are German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.164 (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The German joke comes from the Battle of Normandy. Anthony Beevor gives this version in his book D-Day: 'If British planes appear, we duck. If American planes come over, everyone ducks. And if the Luftwaffe appears, nobody ducks.' The Germans said this because, in Operation Goodwood on 18 July 1944, the US Eighth Air Force B-24s bombed about six miles long, completely missing their targets in the German defensive line. In Operation Cobra on 24 and 25 July, Eighth Air Force B-17s and Ninth Air Force B-26s, A-20s and P-47s attacked the US 30th Infantry Division near St-Lo, killing 25 on 24 July and 111 on 25 July including Lt-Gen Lesley McNair, the highest-ranking US officer to die in World War II. In Operation Totalize on 8 August, to the amazement of the watching German armoured units, Eighth Air Force B-17s attacked British, Canadian and Polish positions, inflicting 300 casualties. That's the kind of thing they do.

The same American military culture resulted in this: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash and of course this: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998) -- because, as you can hear on the cockpit audio of the A-10 attack on the Blues and Royals, the US military are complete strangers to the notion of discipline. That ludicrous film of West Point cadets en masse eating soup by numbers at the height of the Vietnam War -- 'Hup two three sip two three down two three scoop two three!' -- that's not discipline, just moronism. The A-10 pilots who attacked the Blues and Royals, like the psychopathic Lt-Col Holland who crashed the B-52 at Fairchild AFB and the Marine goons who ploughed their Prowler into the cable-car in Italy, had never been disciplined or even taught to recognise discipline, or to recognise anything beyond psychopathic machismo and 'USA #1!' lunacy. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is the image in the infobox relevant?

[edit]

Unless the aircraft pictured are the ones involved in the attack, why is the image there? — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:190th_Fighter_Squadron,_Blues_and_Royals_friendly_fire_incident&oldid=1195895476"