Talk:Killed in action

I want to avoid a revert war...

But issues such as the honoring of military casualties belong in a separate article. KIA and DOW are first and foremost statistical categories. The term is not specific to the U.S. If need be, that's my ruling as a Military Workgroup Editor.

The CIB, CAB, CMB, etc., have nothing directly to do with KIA. See Pyramid of Honor; they are certainly worth individual articles. The material I deleted is valid, but just not in this article. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(moved here from my talk page)

Howard, what's going on? You deleted most of my "killed in action" article, and I undid it. I run a nonprofit for families of killed in action (KIA) and died of wounds (DOW) for one, not to mention having KIA in the family, and the nonprofit has directors with family KIA and DOW from every conflict major since at least World War II, including Vietnam, Korea, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Moreover, I have taken classes in nonprofit management, was the incorporator, worked on the Plato to NATO military-history series, and a similar description of the topic exists at our Website, http://usakia.org, which receives about 400 hits a day.

Thanks! Vincent H. Bartning 00:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the points you make are perfectly relevant to your nonprofit, or to U.S. practice regarding KIA/DOW. The points I removed, however, belong in another article. The article is not specific to the U.S. There is perfectly good material, but it simply does not belong in this article. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the U.S. position is valid. Should I go back to the ancestor who should get me the UE title if I want it? Anyway, the CIB, CAB, and CMB result from combat, or hostile action, what defines KIA versus someone who dies in an accident while in service. They're as related to KIA and DOW, if not more so, than accidental deaths while serving. I thought Citizendium was supposed to respect authority?

Thanks!

Vincent H. Bartning 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

May I, as a Constable, who has known *nothing* about this article until a few minutes ago, jump in? Thanks! Vincent, we *do* have a semi-authoritarian structure here at CZ, one designed to prevent revert wars such as at WP. We have lots of authors, who do writing. And we have few editors, some in each workgroup, who sometimes do both writing and editing, in the sense that, as Editors, they can also make final policy decisions on the content of articles that come under their authority. So that if an Editor in the Literature group, for instance, tells a couple of authors who are writing an article about Huckleberry Finn, say, that all of their seven fine paragraphs about slavery in the Old South do not belong in that article but rather in any one of half a dozen other articles, possibly in other Workgroups, then that is an official decision by that Editor and is the last word on the subject. It can be appealed, of course, but to do so, you're going to have to either find other Editors in the same Workgroup or go through some long, official process that I don't fully understand. So my suggestion here is to discuss this matter with Howard and see if there is some common ground on which you can compromise and rewrite. But you do have to remember that in this particular case, Howard is the final authority. In any case, I'm sure that you'll work it out in a professional manner. Best, Constable Hayford Peirce 01:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)