Talk:1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

Interservice Rivalry?

Not sure this is an established issue in this case. IFF has been around much longer and actually precedes this incident, and it isn't a case of not "sharing" the code. There were differences in operation before this incident and now the two services are generally on the same page. --Born2flie 15:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Snook's book goes into this issue in some detail. Once I get to this article I'll add details about the problems in cooperation between the Army and Air Force at that time that contributed to this incident. CLA 23:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous assesments

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmhermen (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

image formatting

I made several changes to the image sizing & alignment on 2008-02-16, and was summarily reverted by Cla68 (talk · contribs) [1], requesting that I not do so. I don't understand this user's rationale for reversion, so I'll explain myself here before doing so again.

I removed the image sizing and alignment specifications per the manual of style for images (WP:MoS#Images): the non-specification of image sizes for end-user preferences and only left-aligning images under certain circumstances. Does anybody have any thoughts re: this article's special needs to disregard to manual of style in this fashion?

I also converted "indent/manual numbering" to "wikinumbering" for ease of editing purposes; as well as added carriage returns for the same reason. Cla68 made no comments to those effect but reverted nontheless, so I thought I would explain. Thoughts anybody?—pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the MOS is wrong on this. Images should be sized to help them fit the text and layout of each specific article. Also, images look better if the object in the picture, whether a person or a thing, is facing inwards towards the article. Furthermore, alternating the images between right and left helps prevent white space from occurring in different views of the article that can occur depending on the browser used. I appreciate you trying to help the article follow the MOS but I don't agree with the MOS in this instance. Cla68 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I gather what you're saying then is, that you don't like the manual of style and don't need to apply it to your articles? I'm sorry, but the MoS itself expects that "[e]ditors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional breach will improve an article." You're citing your point of view as common sense, and disregarding my changes and explanations out of hand.

Images shouldn't be sized specifically because w/o allowing user-set preferences to dictate the thumbnail sizing, they can either be ridiculously and uselessly small or can take up half of the article's width. I disagree with your alignment argument as (again) only your point of view; I left left-aligned images where it would conflict with the articular flow, or otherwise necessary. Otherwise, the MoS only recommends right-facing profile pictures be specifically aligned to the left. And if differing alignments would improve the readability in specific browsers as a result of the MediaWiki's interpretation, that would (a) be necessarily addressed in the software itself, (b) be directed or recommended by the MoS, or (c) be utilized in the large majority of articles as opposed to not.

I realize you don't like my editing your article, and apparently you don't like to use the manual of style as it pertains to images, but they're instrumental to the very nature of Wikipedia and a stylistic consistency across the site, respectively.—pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, this is apparently the second time somebody has removed the image sizing specifications from your article: [2].—pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article passed FAC with the images like this. I think your point about the image sizing makes sense, because they could appear messed-up for people with user-set preferences, which I don't have (I don't think). I don't agree on putting all of the images on one side, for the reasons I listed above, and I'm going to remain in respectful disagreement with you on that point. One piece of advice...don't personalize disagreements, like suggesting to editors that they don't want you editing "their" articles. It can get in the way of reasonable debate. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess that it passed FAC like this because it doesn't violate MOS. Although the guidelines say that right-alignment is preferred, it says "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". It merely states that setting image sizes "is not necessary", and allows that it can be appropriate to aid readability of the images. Removing these settings simply to comply with MOS is a misreading of the guidelines, which were deliberately worded as they are to allow judgments to be made on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming that one size fits all. Some of the photos are rather difficult to read at default thumbnail size, and I would suggest scaling some of the portaits down, as they could be read easily enough at smaller sizes. The default thumbnail sizes tend to make portraits bigger in comparison to landscape-format images, which does warrant compensation when the landscape images have more information. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just our huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Location?

The location of the shootdown is given as 36°46′N 45°05′E / 36.767, 45.083 but this corresponds to a area just inside of Iran a few miles north of Piranshahr, which cannot be correct.--75.25.136.186 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember which source those coords come from. Next chance I have I'll look at Snook's and Piper's books to try to validate if those are right or not, which they don't seem to be. Cla68 (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed:

Since the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, friendly fire incidents in which USAF aircraft and personnel were involved that have resulted in deaths and/or injuries to Americans or their allies have continued to occur. These incidents include the killing of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan by USAF F-16s in the Tarnak Farm incident in 2002 and the killing of a British soldier by USAF A-10s in the 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident in 2003. Nevertheless, as of August 2005, no more U.S. Army helicopters are known to have been shot down by USAF fighter aircraft.<ref>Moran, "Battling friendly fire", BBC, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6962071.stm "'Friendly fire' kills UK soldiers"].</ref>

The citation does not support any of the claims in the paragraph. It is a news report about a friendly fire incident involving the USAF that killed three British soldiers in Afghanistan in 2007. Moved to the talk page for review and discussion. Vassyana (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember where that info came from. If I can't find a supporting source, then this paragraph should stay out. Cla68 (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

IFF

I propose we audit some of the squawk talk. It starts off about them squawking the wrong IFF code. In this case they really mean they were squawking the wrong Mode-1 SIF Code. Later we have discussion in two places where they said they tried two IFF frequencies. What they really mean, is that they tried both IFF crypto codes (A and B). There are two codes loaded, so you can fly for two days, but some people put the switch in the wrong position, so it doesn't hurt to check if they are on the wrong code. Another problem, is if you don't turn on the bypass switch, then when you land, the squat-switch will dump both codes. At this point you are no longer a participant, and will see a lot of "IFF Caution" lights and beeps in your headsets, signifying that someone is interrogating you and you are not sending any proper reply. Pilots are trained to contact the airborne command post and/or fly a safe passage corridor. The Brit shootdown at the start of the current Iraq war was another case of an aircraft not having an IFF capability, and not flying a safe-passage corridor. The A.D.A. Motto is "If it flies it dies." That's how it should be in war. You mess-up, you die. The Mode-1 SIF is an important sorting tool in modern air warfare. K5okc (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to simplify the details about the IFF when I wrote the article, but I understand that I may have oversimplified it and lost some important detail. Please feel free to take a shot at improving what it says. I had a hard time figuring out how to synthesize how the IFF works. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I modified the frequencies to modes. The GAO report shows the correct terminology. K5okc (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. Should Mode wikilink to this? Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the underlying encryption is, stream or block?? Probably confidential anyway. K5okc (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just finished reading Hall's book and I understand better now about the IFF Modes. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unit Issues

The following text:

convert |4|nmi|km|-1

Attempts to convert 4 nautical miles to km, but is way off. It results in 10km, when it is only ~7.4. Am I missing something?--MikeyMoose (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Amount of Supplies Delivered

62,000 sorties over 6 years, and they supplied 16 tons of supplies to the Kurds? Is that a mistaken figure? You could fit that in one 18-wheel trailer!````

I think that number must have been a typo in the source (Ms Piper's book). I haven't been able to find a better number, however. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

At: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/provide_comfort.htm the figures they give are: "Operation PROVIDE COMFORT I ended on 24 July 1991, and PROVIDE COMFORT II began. Up until this point the task force airdropped 6,154 short tons of supplies, flown in another 6,251 by helicopter, and delivered a further 4,416 tons by truck". Though note that this source does not give the total number of rotary and fixed wing sorties in relationship to tonnage of supplies delivered, so I'd be leery of using the supply numbers with the figure of 62,000 sorties. Note that if you add up the tonnage (including delivery by truck) it comes to: 16821 short tons (which provides an obvious handle for the typo) Pmarshal (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

16,000 tons sounds more likely, and I'll keep an eye out for a source. Until then, maybe it's better just to remove the "16 tons" from the article. Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

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!

• http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/vp941122/11220782.htm
  • In 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident on 2011-05-25 06:08:35, 403 Forbidden
  • In 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident on 2011-06-24 20:34:05, 403 Forbidden

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

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!

• http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/1995/t081795_tsklu-81.html
  • In 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident on 2011-05-25 06:08:35, 404 Not Found
  • In 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident on 2011-06-24 20:34:12, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)