Talk:1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident

Waaay tooo long

This article is great, but it's waaay tooo long given its relative importance (or lack of). It's a third as long as the article for the 2003 Iraq War. Any chance of trimming it back a little? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.76.26 (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor suggestion. The obvious remedy is to expand other articles if it is felt they compare unfavourably.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to cover many different aspects in a complicated investigation process. Therefore it is going to be long as to sufficiently cover all the US Government investigations. It is an excellent article and I commend those who have done major contributions. It does however lack foreign government investigations and or reactions. It would be improved if these were added. My experience is in the fighter and helo community and this tragic event could have been avoided many times and hopefully some who are involved in these fields can learn from the article. Finally my condolences to any of the family members who have read this in order to bring some closure on their tragic loss of loved ones. Pheasantpete aka Marine Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheasantpete (talk • contribs) 10:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle infobox

I don't agree with using the battle infobox in this article. It wasn't a battle. It was an accident, so I think the generic incident box should continue to be used. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It did use {{infobox military conflict}} before. That it was an accident is the reason it says "Participants" instead of "Belligerents", the infobox doesn't imply that it wasn't an accident. This infobox is used in the same way on USS Liberty incident, USS Panay incident, and USS Stark incident, all of which are (or at least are claimed to be) accidents. There is a dispute on weather {{infobox military conflict}} should be used at all on friendly and neutral fire incidents, but considering that was already used here, I didn't think fleshing it out would be a problem. If you think this should only be used in a limited way on FF and/or NF incidents, feel free to participate in the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#Should_this_be_used_in_Friendly_fire_incidents.3F. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

2011.09.08, User:Apokrif added:

Not to be confused with Black Hawk Down (film).

Month later, User:Gary vetoed: (already disambiguated) I propose either:

"Black Hawk Incident" redirects here. Not to be confused with Black Hawk Down.

"Black Hawk Incident" redirects here. For other uses, see Black Hawk Down.

I believe it is quite important for this disambig reminder to stay; most importantly because the title of this article Black Hawk shootdown incident contains every word in the existing similar Black Hawk Down title, therefore it succinctly separates the two events. A person arriving via search engine may not immediately realize they are looking for the other event, because although being very different, their similarities are fairly significant:

• both helicopters were shot down
• short time-frame between events; happened within 7 months of each other
• both events were culturally and militarily significant
• same general area (Iraq and Somalia)

Dtgm (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1994 Black Hawk shootdown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414221859/http://www.efdmmf.org/index.html to http://www.efdmmf.org/index.html

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 1994 Black Hawk shootdown 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521081354/http://www.asianweek.com/2005/05/06/friendly-fire-doesn%E2%80%99t-shoot-down-wang/ to http://www.asianweek.com/2005/05/06/friendly-fire-doesn%E2%80%99t-shoot-down-wang/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302225430/https://fas.org/man/gao/osi-98-013.htm to https://fas.org/man/gao/osi-98-013.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319124501/http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=4537 to http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=4537
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319160716/http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=5116 to http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=5116
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319115457/http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=5148 to http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=5148
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319150328/http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=5352 to http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=5352
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319150700/http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=6765 to http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=6765
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319153708/http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=6900 to http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=6900
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319165824/http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=7033 to http://www.af.mil/library/biographies/bio.asp?bioID=7033
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1090000/1082052/p3-ladkin.pdf?key1=1082052&key2=5204272711&coll=&dl=ACM&CFID=15151515&CFTOKEN=6184618

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

FA Review (or major clean-up) needed

Looks like lots of time and editing has passed since this article was promoted to FA. Sadly it is now a B, or possibly C class article. I just reviewed a lot of the citations and found that commas only were used to separate the authors AND page references. Thus it was impossible to be sure what name or page was being cited. The article has numerous other copy-editing errors. Accordingly, I ask that other editors jump in and help clean up this mess. And I think I'll ask for a FA review. – S. Rich (talk)