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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military aviation task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	British military history task force
	United States military history task force

1 Video still
2 Title
3 Video
4 POPOV vs. POPOFF

[edit] Video still

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)

Already done. Also made the video available. --Cat out 14:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Title

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)

We could just AfD it and be done....ALR 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Video

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)

[edit] POPOV vs. POPOFF

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)

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)