Military categories: Relate "died in Service" to "Died of Wounds," "Killed in Action," etc.?

Question

I just added a profile to Category: Died in Military Service, Germany, World War II (I chose that category because my information was only "died on the Russian front", with no more details), and was surprised to see that "Died in Military Service" was not a parent category for the associated categories Killed in Action and Died of Wounds for that same war and country.

Aren't "Killed in Action" and "Died of Wounds" more specific subtypes of "Died in Military Service"?

Comments

Suggest adding tag roll_of_honor

Answer 1

These categories are meant to be mutually exclusive:

• Killed in Action
• Died While Prisoner of War
• Died of Wounds
• Died of Disease
• Died in Military Service

That is: pick only one of these options that best suits your person. 

"Died in Military Service" is a catch-all for deaths that don't come under one of the narrower death options in this list.

These categories are part of the "Roll of Honor" project. See https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:Roll_of_Honor for further explanation ; there are also some non-lethal category options listed there.

If you use the Roll of Honor template then you get a nice sticker, and you don't directly add the person to the category. The template simultaneously adds the person to the category as well as producing the sticker.   Example of usage: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Mitchell-38883

Comments

OK, so those categories are meant to be mutually exclusive, but I don't understand why that should be. It seems to me that logically "Died in Military Service [during a particular war]" ought to be a catch-all umbrella category that includes Killed in Action and the other three categories.

And note that I was categorizing a man who died while serving in Hitler's army. This is a profile I created because of the man's interesting life before the war. I wanted to categorize him to make his unconnected profile more visible, not to pay him some sort of honor for his military service. It's not obvious to me that categories of death used for reporting by the United States military during the 20th century must necessarily applied to everyone else who died during a war.

---

@Ellen Well it's a shorter name than "Died in Military Service but not killed in action"... https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Died_in_Military_Service explains the intended usage

Answer 2

My take is

Killed in Action : died while in active combact.

Died of Wounds : died as a result of wounds that occurred in active combact but at a later date, even years later.

Died in Military service : died as a result of non combat injury, disease, fell off a bridge, car accident or anything not related to combat.

As far as died on the Russian front I would call that Killed in Action.

Comments

Hmm... I clearly don't understand the terminology used by the military, but I do think of "killed in action" as death attributable to active combat. I believe that many deaths of soldiers serving on or near the front lines (particularly prior to the 20th century), were due to things like disease and malnutrition, not military action. The family may only learn that their son or brother died "on the Russian front," not whether combat or cholera caused his death, so it seems like an exaggeration to assert that he was "killed in action."

---

I agree, Died in Military service seems like the right one for the info you have.

---

I'm not an expert in this area and found the military death categories confusing as well. In the Bible for the family of my biological great grand uncle, Charles Ferman Davis (died while serving in the U.S. Army in France during WWI), his death date/place were listed as 11 Jun 1918 "on the Argon[n]e fields in France". So I was inclined to use the Killed in Action category.

But I found home town newspaper articles (dated well after the death date - information didn't spread as quickly back then as it does now) that indicated that he was wounded (or "severely" wounded, depending upon the particular newspaper article), and eventually found a Paris, France death record indicating that he appeared to be declared dead on 11 Jun 1918 at "rue Piccini 6", which appeared to be a medical facility in Paris at the time. I included all the sources and associated abstracts on his profile. Based on the information that I have to date, I used the Died of Wounds category for him.

Hopefully there will be some guidance from the Military and War Project folks.

Answer 3

My answer to the question is: It would make sense for them to be. In the U.S. military c WWII, the top level categories used seem to  be Disease and Non Battle Injuries (DNBI); Killed in Action (KIA); and Died of Wounds (incurred in battle). There is a formal definition (perhaps one for each service) that separates KIA from Died of Wounds. That definition has certainly changed through time. These categories serve distinct analytical purposes. I have not seen DNBI used in the Civil War context, but the concept was there and used in regimental reports of what became of members of the regiment.