Talk:Iraq Body Count project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] First talk section

Clearly this is a propaganda website. Probably they are trying to make the argument that each civilian death caused by the US and its allies is a "war crime", and that only the US and its allies are committing war crimes in Iraq. After all, they can say, we have a whole website chock full of documented civilian deaths, and as you can see, none of them were caused by Iraq -- only by the US and its henchmen. Fah! --Uncle Ed 22:18 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

I really question the 37% by allied forces figure, but it's gathered from their study. Does anyone have an opposing source to quote? Also the "mass killings" that are claimed. Certainly, people are claiming that. It seems very conspiracy theorish. I know I wasn't tasked with being part of any death squads when deployed, though perhaps I'm not high enough up the conspiracy to be invited. But as with UFO theories, when there's no documentable evidence of the Aliens/Mass Killings, the simplest conclusion is that there aren't any. Is there a way to make this point and maintain a neutral POV?Mzmadmike 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is propaganda, and besides, even if it is propaganda, it's not unimportant. (For example, there was an article about this project just today in the biggest german webbased news magazine, http://www.spiegel.de). I argue strongly pro informing about this project on Wikipedia. It's not just one propaganda project, but the only account to give somehow independent figures for civilian deaths (and an intersting use of the web, too). The Swiss government announce, they would provide independent measures of war casualities starting with today, but I didn't have seen anything from them until now. So, Iraq Body Count is at the moment the only project giving reasonable figures and showing the sources (their database is public, you can go and look for each entry if you believe it or not). In the actual form, the article gives a good NPOV balance, I'd say. From my point of view, it underlines the "propaganda"-aspect a bit too much (e.g. all the bios of the project members), but I can life with that ... till we *) 13:50 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive2 -- a discussion on whether or not IBC should be cited in what is now called 2003 Iraq war timeline:

Text removed:

The total civilian death toll -- including western journalists -- until now is estimated to lay between 126 and 199 casualities, according to Iraq Body Count project.

Is it possible to cite a more neutral source than this? --mav 01:57 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I doubt it. [1]—Hephaestos 02:04 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I doubt it too, but for different reasons, I think. A simple tally of figures given in newspapers does not make an independent estimate. The Iraq Body Count project makes no attempt to record or assess the original sources for their information. If they see a report in a major newspaper saying "Iraqi authorities claim 100 civilians were killed, but Allied command calls the figures greatly exaggerated", they enter it into their database as "minimum 100, maximum 100" since the Allied side failed to state an alternate figure. Unfortunately, we're not likely to get more balanced figures since the Allied side, and even the independent journalists in Baghdad, are generally not in a position to make numerical estimates. -- Tim Starling 04:25 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Removed text:

According to the Iraq Body Count project, the total civilian death toll—including Western journalists—until now is estimated to be between 126 and 199, although this has not been independently verified.

This requires independent verification. We don't report things just because some website that gets 59 hits on Google says so. See above thread for more. --mav

I've put the text back in, because I find the methodology of the Iraq Body Count project convincing. They describe on their website en detail how they work, and I doubt they would a headline like the one cited here include as min 100 max 100, but as min 0, max 100. till we *) 23:17 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Just because they describe it in detail doesn't mean it's flawless. You've actually got to read the detail to judge that. Here's a quote from the website:

Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.
Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum column.
As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present clearly identifying some of the killed as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians within the total will be entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6 -CIA Factbook 2002.]

It seems quite clear that my sample statement above would be considered "max 100, min 100", as long as the report appeared in two major newspapers. -- Tim Starling 00:26 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Also, the fact that IBC's current figures (199-278) are quite a bit higher than the Iraqi estimate of 158 [2] suggests that something is wrong. -- Tim Starling 01:02 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

I would also like to know who are these people and why is their estimate so important that we should report on it? Just because somebody has a website, an agenda and supposed 'information' does not mean we should report the 'information'. Do these people have a track record of reliability? Are they famous? Do have expertise in statistics? News reporting? Anything? It doesn't really matter how accurate their estimates are because in the first place what they say is as important as any random group of people with a Geocities website. It would be far better for us to report that "Al Jazeera estimates there are 1,500 civilian deaths", "The Washington Post reports 25", the "United States government reports 3" and "Iraq says that 5,000 were killed". These are all well-known sources that we should report on - not some random website. --mav

In summary, this article needs some NPOVing.

The site has a POV. So does every other source mentioned above. The article makes their peacenik background clear as you like. It's a legitimate point of view, they seem to be trying as hard as anyone else to get the numbers right (and a whole lot harder than either the Pentagon or the Iraqi Disinformation Ministry ... er I mean "Iraqi Information Ministry", of course ...
So where is the problem? The only thing I'd suggest is that the background of the project participants (already amply described in the body of the entry) be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph or two. Tannin 13:59 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
Nicely done, Tillwe. Just right. Tannin

Sorry Tannin, I forgot to sign my entry above, and I didn't mention here that I actually fixed the bias I perceived, shortly after I wrote that comment. I see that Tillwe hasn't removed the most important addition I made -- i.e. the major flaw in IBC's counting method. As for Tillwe's removal of my claim that the figures are higher than Iraq's -- they were higher on March 26, and I gave a reference to prove it. But Iraq's figures have since jumped up to even higher than IBC's maximum, so I guess the removal was justified. -- Tim Starling 05:58 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

I have attempted to make it clear that the "body count" excludes (a) military casualties and (b) civilian killed by Iraqi forces. IMHO the project is misleadingly named, and purposely so. "Body count" used to mean "enemy soldiers killed by our forces" and was used extensively in Vietnam. I remember daily body counts on TV news in 1968. I bet they are trying to insinuate the idea that the US and its allies are deliberately targeting civilians.

Also, what is the context of their quotation from US General Tommy Franks: "We don't do body counts"? Does that refer to civilians, or what? The article makes it seem like Franks doesn't care how many civilians his forces kill. Is that what Franks really meant? If so, that's a major story in itself as it is unprecedented for a US officer to say he didn't care about killing civilians.

The article STILL NEEDS separation between fact and propaganda. --Uncle Ed 21:38 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, when you said "They DO RECORD original sources, but they don't display them fully enough", did you mean original sources as in the journalist, government, NGO, etc. that made the estimate or did you mean the newspaper, magazine, website etc. that reported it? Because I meant the former, and I can find no evidence for IBC's collection of this information. They do, of course, record the latter (albeit in an unsatisfactory way). -- Tim Starling 02:58 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

If deleted some of Uncle Eds additions, because if Wikipedia should not be present one point of view, it neither should not do a U-turn and present only the other point of view. Some of the additions suggested that Iraq Body Count is a propaganda project without backing in reality, and this really isn't NPOV. Hope the article is neutral enough, now. ((And I don't see Wikipedias aim in scientifically researching the one and only truth -- as in listening biographical details nobody is interested in, just to prove some implicit idea of an bias, or arguing paragraph and paragraph about why IBC doesn't do the right thing. -- till we *) 21:56 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

To Tim: I spent too much time looking at the site, and I'm just going to ignore it (and this article) for a while. But I meant that they (a) claim to record the full citation of each report of allied-caused civilian deaths, but (b) do not display the citation in a way that one can easily verify it. A URL would have been fine, because you'd be only a click away from seeing the facts -- and getting the facts out is what the SAY they're so interesting in...

Okay, I'll try to restore and clarify my argument. If I confused you I'm certainly going to confuse the readership. -- Tim Starling 01:48 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

To Tillwe: Actually, there's no policy against explaining a POV: it just has to be attributed to its advocate. I was trying to figure out and explain IBC's point of view. Maybe I was wrong, and they have a genuinely good and objective motive. I won't revert your changes, because I feel too strongly about it to be sure of my own neutrality. I'll wait a few weeks and see what develops then. --Uncle Ed 01:24 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think it is impossible to avoid adopting a point of view in an article. We just aim to adopt a "neutral" one, whatever that means. There are two points of view here, but we don't need to give equal column-inches to each. Is IBC a propaganda project or isn't it? This is a question we have to answer with thought and discussion, not dismissal on philosophical grounds.

Unfortunately, this article has turned into a presentation of original research. Usually we can present the various points of view by quoting advocates, but in this case, as far as we know no-one important has expressed an opinion. The 3 or 4 of us are forming our own opinions based on our own research. -- Tim Starling 01:48 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Well put. So you can subtract me from the total, levaing 2 or 3! --Uncle Ed 01:52 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)
The project quotes the top US general in Iraq, Tommy Franks, as saying "We don't do body counts [3]". The quotation was from a discussion of the Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan and was referring to counts of enemy soldiers killed, in the context of using enemy body counts as a measure of military success. The website, which omits the context of the quote, seems to conflate the meaning of "enemy body count" with "civilian deaths caused" and to imply that the US doesn't care whether their actions harm civilians. On the other hand, the US army in general doesn't give information about civilians killed and harmed by their actions, so one could argue if the quote is really wrong.

This is not useful information. If I wanted to learn about the Iraqi Body Project, it doesn't help me to know that they quote Tommy Franks, nor does it help to tell me the full context of the quote. We already explain who created the site and what their reasoning is. What does this paragraph add? DanKeshet 01:56 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Furthermore, the need for this project at all is proof enough that the US isn't engaging in a civilian body count. I think the author is trying to cloud something here; quite uneffectively, I might add. The quote doesn't imply that the US doesn't care whether their actions harm civilians, it simply implies that they don't engage in civilian body counts, which is an empirical fact for as far back as I can remember.

IBC keeps a full text database of all their sources, and they say "Where judged appropriate by the project team, this data may be released to bona-fide enquirers, for verification purposes." I would like to request this information, and I would like to forward any correspondence to anyone here who's interested in this article (especially "till we"). A draft request is below:


I am one of a number of editors for the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia, who are interested in reviewing IBC's data collection and extraction methods. Would you consider making your full-text database available to us? We understand that you would continue to hold copyright for this information.

If you are interested in this, please send your email address to me via the "email user" feature. -- Tim Starling 06:50 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, due to heavy work load, I couldn't work on Wikipedia the last weeks. I think it's a good idea to request the information -- did you get any answer? -- till we *) 20:24 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
I never sent it. I didn't want to be the only person involved, but if you're still interested, send me your email address and I'll do it now. Or you can send it yourself if you want. -- Tim Starling 05:52 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
I don't doubt the IBC counting method, so I'm not *that* interested in double-checking it all. But I would help if you think it's necessary ;-) My eMail is on my http://www.westermayer.de/till/kontakt.htm site. -- till we *) 12:20 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I sent the email just after that last message from Tillwe, but I haven't received a reply. -- Tim Starling 10:46 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] revert

I reverted Eds latest addition, because most of it is in the next paragraph already. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:41, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How can the site's sources be only for Americans? They recently did their own report, and they said only 37% of their statistics are due to US and allied forces?- Dan

[edit] Pro-Iraq?

From the last paragraph in the "Method" section: If a number is quoted from a pro-Iraqi source, and the Allies fail to give a sufficiently specific alternate number, the pro-Iraqi figure is entered into IBC's database as both a maximum and a minimum. The same works vice versa. The project claims that these over- and underestimations of different media sources balance out to give some sort of accuracy. Using the term 'Pro-Iraqi' for anti-coalition people is problematic, because there is a Iraqi government that is pro-coalition now, and it has at least moderate support of the Iraqi people. I believe the coalition itself has started using 'Anti-Iraqi Forces' to refer to insurgents now. Should we change the terminology to something else? Identity0 05:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

definitely. Anti-coalition is not automatically pro-Iraqi by definition.Mzmadmike 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Update - May 2006

A user named Kafziel deleted my original revision containing most of these changes I've now restored. Another user had begun making subsequent changes, adding in biased value judgments, but Kafziel deleted the whole lot claiming they constituted a "biased" and "catty back and forth".

I believe this was unwarranted and made in haste. My original edits (essentially restored here, with some minor changes) were nothing of this sort. "Biased" and "catty" do, however, accurately describe the comments that were added subsequent to my original revision.

In order that this confusion hopefully not arise again, I'd like to clarify the edits I made, and argue that these edits in no way fit the description that Kafziel applied to them, and which led him or her to delete them, reverting to an older and more inaccurate and outdated page.

The edits I made were:

- The previous page stated in the first paragraph: "For official estimate of number of casualties see Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

I deleted this line for two reasons. First, it is false. The Lancet survey is one study. It is not the "official estimate" of anything. Second, it is inappropriate for a page ostensibly describing one study to redirect readers to a different study in the opening description, particularly when it falsely describes describes that study, as in this case.

This line is no more appropriate for this page than adding "For official estimate see Iraq Body Count" to the first paragraph of the wiki page on the Lancet study. This deletion is entirely appropriate. I've added a reference to the Lancet study in the "See also" section, where it might actually be appropriate.

- The previous page had an outdated and false description of IBC: "This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation."

IBC does not include deaths from "inadequate health care or sanitation". It only includes violent civilian deaths. That phrase was on the IBC page for a time at the beginning of the occupation phase of the war, but it was changed and it is simply not true. So, I changed this to the current description from the db, which is accurate. Again this is an appropriate and accurate edit. The previous version misleads readers to believe IBC includes deaths which it does not.

- I also added more (entirely accurate) information to the "Method" section, discussing what IBC does and does not cover. Again appropriate and accurate.

I moved an inaccurate claim that IBC is a "Western Media Body Count", which was presented in the Method section as an objective truth, rather than as a claim (This was followed again with another direction to readers to see the miscited "official estimate" which is asserted to be the Lancet study). Anyone looking at IBC's sources will see dozens of non-Western media sources from all over the globe, so it is, at best a subjective and a disputed claim, not an objective fact as portrayed previously. I've moved it to the "Criticism" section and presented it appropriately as a claim - again leaving conclusions to the reader.

- I added the "Criticism" section in which recent criticism of IBC are presented accurately and in a value-neutral fashion. I take the following format: Critics have argued X. IBC has responded arguing Y. Then links are provided to these pieces, again, presenting the facts fairly and leaving all conclusions open to each reader.


"Media lens ENLISTING journalists Pilger and Jamail" seems a bit slanted wouldn't you say oh IBC "volunteer"? "Critics claim" sounds a bit desperate and slanted wouldn't you agree? Why are you so invested in defending IBC? Is it $ Is it ego? It certainly can't be a desire to end the war at this point.....

62.148.169.47

No, neither of the above are slanted. They are factual and fair. I'd assume that's why they seem slanted to you. Perhaps try a looser tin-foil hat.
Media lens did not enlist both of the above journalists. If you have evidence of this, please provide, but you won't find it....the statement is an unfounded claim, and is in fact untrue. Your attack on Media Lens and Pilger and Jamail, along with the consistent bias that you spill throughout the entry only further demonstrates how you cannot pretend to be objective when you yourself work for IBC. Why is IBC spending all this time defending itself? It strikes me as very odd and very atypical behavior for "researchers" and "academics"....It is more typical behavior of a public relations campaign.... 62.148.169.47
Ridiculous. In the pieces ML says they took their case to these journalists and asked them to contribute statements and views to the pieces. That's what I meant by "enlisted the help" of these journalists. It doesn't even say that line anymore anyway. There is nothing "slanted" about that at all. And you have no argument. Since you have no argument about the content of what I wrote, you attempt to turn to ad hominem fallacies. - 68.44.112.218 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Please cite your ML piece that says that they enlisted journalists.62.148.169.47

I feel all of these edits were accurate, fairly presented, and have vastly improved and updated the page that existed prior. The person who came after me began with the opinionated and "catty" additions, such as changing the wording to opinoinated conclusions, such as that IBC had written a "weak response", etc. I feel the baby was wrongly thrown out with the bath water.

I do not believe there are any grounds on which to delete or revert the accurate, corrective and informative edits above as "biased" or some kind of "catty back and forth". And I hope this clarification will be sufficient to prevent such hasty actions in the future.

[edit] Vandalism by user 62.148.169.47

As stated above, in making previous edits to the existing IBC page, I took great pains to avoid opinionated or leading wording regarding criticism. The same can not be said of user 62.148.169.47. This is the same user discussed above who made opinionated and "catty" edits such as changing the wording to read that IBC had written a "weak response". This user very obviously has a highly opinionated view of this project and wants to twist the page to reflect his or her entirely subjective, but always negative, conclusions.

The following is a list of other slanted and argumentative edits this user has since tried to insert into the page:

A new section called "Funding" read:

"A donation button exists on the Iraq Body Count website, and the IBC project claims to be staffed by volunteers. But many believe that given the enormity of the daily IBC research, that IBC could not exist solely on volunteers and web donations without undisclosed funding sources. Unlike typical scholarly research, the finances of IBC are not entirely transparent."

This is nothing but a baseless attempt to insinuate that there's some kind of covert funding of IBC and that its members are not who they say they are. Nobody of any note has asserted this conspiracy theory publicly. The user has an axe to grind and is adding nothing but slanted and argumentative material.

The same user changed the following sentence:

"The group is staffed by volunteers consisting mainly of academics and activists based in the UK and the USA." to read:

"The group is staffed by a team consisting mainly of academics and activists based in the UK and the USA. The source for funding for the project is obscure. A donations button exists on the website, but little else is known." - again using the wiki page to air and insinuate his/her own obscure and evidence-free conspiracy theory of covert funding and fraud. "Little esle is known" - How very ominous!

"The project, which is rooted in the peace movement" becomes "The project, which claims to be rooted in the peace movement" - another completely baseless insinuation implying the project is not who it says it is - yet more innuendo and conspiracy theory.

I will not run down each specific edit in the "Criticism" section, but they consist in spinning and slanting the wording to favor critics and disfavor IBC, ie: Critics do not make claims. They instead "state" and "point out" truths. This is biased and slanted writing techniques, transparent to any third grader.

Here's one example of this slanted style: "Dahr Jamail highlighted the increasingly important and popular use of IBC data in the pro-war propaganda campaign to minimize the extent of the death in Iraq. Most of these pieces are linked to below."

Note the completely slanted assumptions in the wording. The conclusions are assumed. It *is* "increasingly important" and part of this "propaganda campaign" etc. These aren't claims. They are merely truths. And Jamail is not asserting these claims. He's merely "highlighting" these assumed truths.

This is transparently biased editing by someone with an obvious axe to grind, and a complete inability to write fairly and without prostletizing for his own positions and conspiracy theories.

update: Immediately after posting the above 62.148.169.47 suddenly stopped editing, and a new editor "Blue sky12" (ip hidden, and no profile) began trying to do the same edits as 62.148.169.47. Pretty obviously 62.148.169.47 is now playing with a sock puppet which he's named "Blue sky12" 68.44.112.218 05:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 68.44.112.218 - Oh holy from the throne of "objectivity" - Who buys you?

Give me a break about sock puppets and whatever....talk about 3rd grade. It is laughable that you call changing a word from "claim" to "point out" slanted and biased. It is all biased. "Claimed" - as if your critics must bow before your IBC throne of self-proclaimed authority to request permission for dispute. "Pointed out" is more like it - The IBC methodology is flawed and the organization's role in the media is suspicious. There is no objectivity, anywhere. There are only the authorities that use the most persuasive language. Your language along with the rest of IBC has done a fine job of discrediting itself. So perhaps it is best to leave a dead horse than to kick it. You and the rest of the folks in Colorado would appreciate the American idiom.

But here's the simple fact: IBC is doing important work at recording deaths reported in the media.

Here's another simple fact: There is something odd about the vigor that IBC has exerted to defend itself while allowing itself to be misrepresented (or actually misrepresent itself). It is especially odd given that IBC has been coopted entirely as a tool for pro-war propaganda while the true extent of the carnage in Iraq comes to light. You'd think peace activists would recognize this simple fact and continue their research in silence rather than spend all this time on the web with counters and websites and Wikipedia and appearances on the BBC while being used by war mongers as a tool to downplay the carnage. This is beyond simple egos out of control....IBC is supposed to be promoting peace not war! And they have GW Bush using their statisitics without a whimper to give people the impression that all is fine and dandy in Iraq with a mere 30,000 killed and most of them from celebratory fire when all else indicates a much more massive slaughter than the voters in the US could stomach.

As a simple demonstration of the simple fact that IBC is involved in a massive advertising campaign, I'd ask you - 68.44.112.218 - to tell us who you are, what your connections are with IBC are and if you get paid for your role here on Wikipedia. Or even, if you'd be so kind, to reveal your political affiliations. Come on - in the name of your claimed and holy objectivity - I find it very difficult to think that you'd just instantly turn on your Wikipedia bot/software mastery and focus on nearly only two pages: IBC and the Lancet page out of the pure pursuit of objectivity (go on people, check the history of 68.44.112.218) Give me a break - your objectivity is delusion and your authority arises solely from the time awarded to you to monitor and tweak the Wikipedia IBC page. Either this time is awarded financially or it is awarded through your overly active ego and ties with IBC.

So out with it! :) And then we can really begin with some objectivity ;)

62.148.169.47


You're completely irrational. But thanks anyway for confirming everything I've said above. - 68.44.112.218 10:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ranting, absolutely. Irrational? - absoultely not.
Both.
No I'm not.
Yes you are.
No I'm not.
Here's irrational: A "humanitarian research project" that "abhors the war" that has allowed (helped, perhaps)itself to become a much more useful tool for promoting the slaughter in Iraq than a tool for reducing it.
Also irrational: That this organization continues with slanting Wikipedia entries, making appearances on the BBC, continuing its aggressive web advertising despite doing real and actual harm to the humanitarian cause of actually convincing people of the massive extent of death that is occurring in Iraq....
Please, in the name of humanity, just check your motives here - is it ego? Is it financial? Why do you so vigorously defend the IBC Wikipedia turf?

I'd like the page to reflect the facts of this project, not the "facts" which you attempt to insert, which is nothing but your completely subjective interpretations and opinions, like those above, or the baseless and obscure conpsiracy theories of yours that you've been trying to insert into the page.

Don't get me wrong, the IBC research is important. It is the aggressive and relentless selling of IBC data that is creepy given the fact that at this point, the data has become more helpful for those promoting the slaughter in Iraq than the data ever was for the humanitarian cause.
Obviously it's your opinion (which you try to present as "fact") that "the data has become more helpful for those promoting the slaughter..." etc. That's why I've deleted your edits. You can't seem to distinguish your own obscure, controversial and subjective opinions from fact. You present the former as the latter.
Again - a simple request: What is your relationship with IBC and do they pay you for this work that you do on Wikipedia?
Without this knowledge how can the rest judge your NPOV?

62.148.169.47

That's called the ad hominem fallacy. One can judge what I've written by looking at its content, just as we can judge what you've written. Your (and my) identity is irrelevant to this. As I've argued, what I've written has stuck to the facts and has attempted to avoid spinning with opinionated conclusions. What you've written has done exactly the opposite. You're entitled to all your opinions, but your blog is the place to air and prostletize them, not on a wiki page masquerading as "facts". - 68.44.112.218 18:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are right about one thing there: The Wiki page for IBC certainly does masquerade as "facts"....
The IBC page as it stands contains the facts. This is why you have no argument against what it actually says, and instead try to attack me. I don't claim to have a NPOV myself. Everybody has a point of view, including me and every other person who edits these pages. But I know that such a page is not the place for me to write editorials prostletizing for my point of view. It's a place for the basic facts, which - barring some actual *argument* about something the page contains - is what the page contains. As for the "debate" you seem to want to have with me about this hidden "reality" of which you are supposedly aware, and what others are supposedly doing with or to it, I think I'll pass, thanks. I have to go get the covert funding I need to help the Neptunian ant men take over the hidden salt mines of Atlantis, and so don't have the time.
The suggestion that you are associated and possibly paid by IBC is a far cry from a "conspiracy". You still refuse to respond to the question of your affiliation, dismissing it as irrelevant. On the contrary, it is quite relevant, as I've pointed out below. So I will ask you again: What is your role with IBC and how are you compensated for your time?
Look, clearly you are associated with IBC and monitor this Wikipedia page to promote (and defend) the IBC research - you may make it appear objective, but it isn't objective. I won't even get into the details because it is a waste of time arguing with you over "claim" versus "point out" when there are *much* larger issues in the world.
You can call my criticism of your IBC Wikipedia domination what ever high and mighty sounding latin "fallacy" that you'd like. Please get off the pretentious high horse. If you were a journalist that had huge amounts of stock in a particular company and you convinced your New York Times editor that you'd write a piece on the company would that be ethical? Now, after the NYT had fired you and the SEC had you in court could you really sit there on the stand and say, "Well, I was using the NPOV in my story and all of your criticism is based on a fallacy encoded into Latin in higher circles of education as the ad hominem fallacy." No way. There is no difference here.
So now that we've dispatched with your claims of neutral purity, here's a larger and more worthy issue that we can debate: IBC's fascintation with advertising is odd behaviour for a group of researchers - don't you think? This is the work of Public Relations! Not "science" nor of objectivity. What you have done with this page is an opinion piece masquerading as objectivity.
Some complex facts in the world - like the extent of the slaughter in Iraq - need research. But some facts in the world are so obvious that suggesting research is silly: We didn't need a team of scientists to walk around New Orleans after the hurricane to verify that a storm had occurred, and we didn't need sophisticated polling and statistics to figure out that the incident was a major PR catastrophe for the White House.
You work with IBC. Now if IBC and you are truly "Humanitarians and activists" as you claim ( what 3rd party did the research to verify that fact that you have included in the piece BTW? - Even including the factoid advertises the affiliation of the author ;) ), I'd just ask you to step back a bit and look at what all this Public Relations with websites and press releases and appearances on the BBC, etc etc has done to the public perception of the extent of the slaughter in Iraq: IBC data, with your intention or not, has served to convince the massess in the West, despite research to the contrary, that the numbers of civilians slaughtered in Iraq is much, much less than the reality.
This excercise is like imagining Katrina and calling it a hurricane. You won't have to do any polls. No research required. Just follow the news a bit, and look into yourself. You call my claim that, "the [IBC] data has become more helpful for those promoting the slaughter..." as biased and untrue. This statement is indeed true. It is like the hurricane. Just look around you; Bush uses you data while smirking smuggly and the masses in the US think all is well in Iraq, and IBC hardly whimpers.
It makes no sense that the "Humanitarian" IBC would continue to shoot the Humanitarian effort in the foot with little self reflection. I am just baffled. Ego alone cannot entirely explain it, and Humanitarians tend to have a bit more self-knowledge than to allow egos on that level. Logic certainly doesn't it.
But here's a little conspiracy - since you seem to love (along with the rest of the right wing lunatics) to discredit any rational inquiry as "conspiracy": Maybe IBC was never an innocent "Humanitarian" effort when its research was coopted by the war propagandists. Perhaps IBC was really simply a pro-war PR mechanism from the get-go. The story certainly makes more sense than trying to figure out why a bunch of "activist Humanitarians" are working so hard to deflate their own claimed Humanitarian objectives.

62.148.169.47

62.148.169.47, your edits seem to be to be in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. You may wish to (re)read these policies to see how they apply to your edits. In particular, they prevent you from including your own theories about IBC in this article. Cadr 00:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


OK, thanks for the reminder. I am having difficulty discerning what is objectively a NPOV and what isn't on the IBC page - it all looks like a thinly veiled editorial to me. Let's discuss the "facts" then on the IBC page. Here's a start:

"The project, which is rooted in the anti-war movement" How do we know this? Do we have a reference or citation? This seems to be an unsubstantiated and frankly dubious claim especially considering the recent comments by IBC spokesperson John Sloboda on the BBC regarding the peace movement as extremists and likening them to terrorists. It would appear that one of the founders and the spokesperson at least doesn't consider hiself part of the anti-war movement. But aside from that, lest it seem to be non-neutral, let's look at Sloboda's specific comments regarding IBC roots: "Our motivations for starting the work were political but from a humanitarian more than ideological motive." (see Jamail's recent piece on IBC) "Anti-war" seems to be an ideological motive by Sloboda's definition, so let's axe that, but even if we were to exchange it with "Humanitarian" we would need to substantiate the claim. Are we to simply quote what the Spokesperson says as fact without any corroborating evidence? If I were to write "The project, which is rooted in a pro war propaganda PR campaign" some "author" would claim I wasn't using NPOV and make disparaging comments about conspiricies involving Neptunian ant men unless I could prove it. The same standard should be applied to IBC being "rooted in the anti-war movement" Both my claim as well as the claim on the page that I am quoting should not appear on the page unammended. Agreed? 62.148.169.47

After a bit of Googling, it would seem that you have been reading media lens [4]. We could cite them. That way your criticisms of the project could be incorporated into the article without violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Cadr 00:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Yes, the Pilger article you cite would be a good source for several critiques not represented on the IBC page. But I suspect that they would be removed by the current IBC watchdog (68.44.112.218)of the IBC Wiki page. If I wouldn't be wasting my time with some deletion by somebody working for IBC with some bot on this page, then I'd gladly compile a NPOV list of criticism.
But Pilger's article isn't all there is. Perhaps a citation for the several other (and unmentioned) studies involving civilian mortality due to the war as detailed by journalist Jamail ( http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000381.php#more ) would be helpful as well to properly contextualize IBC.
A section on funding sources for IBC is appropriate, since this IBC claims to be "scholarly research" and the funding for "scholarly research" should be transparent as is its methodology by convention. I would invite the IBC Wikipedia monitors to add this section to clarify. I can't write this section because I haven't a clue about how they are funded. And if I write a funding section with "Little is known about the funding of IBC" it gets removed by IBC for sounding ominous. But it is appropriate given the size of the IBC task and their proclaimations of scholarly research, not to mention the University affiliations, along with the media popularity of the project.
It would also be helpful if "Media Reported" were inserted into the first sentence of the page "ongoing effort to record civilian deaths resulting from the 2003 Iraq war and occupation". The IBC Wikipedia watchdog has continually removed that fact from the first sentence despite the fact that IBC was finally pressured to put that on the first thing that people see related to the IBC: Their web counters.
Then there is the task of requiring that all of the unsubstantiated IBC promotional material on the page (such as the "The project, which is rooted in the anti-war movement") be credibly cited, and not in some sort of self referential way: ie IBC claims something as being rooted in the anti-war movement, their PR apparatus ensures that the BBC repeat the information, and then some IBC PR watchdog defending the Wiki page cites the BBC. It is the same self-referential media stunt that the US pulled with the NYT and claims of WMD leading up to the invasion of Iraq: Government sources tell the NYT something, and then Cheney references the NYT to give his cause credibility. The "rooted in the peace movement" is really only a claim made on the IBC website, and actually seems to be innaccurate given current comments by IBC spokesperson Sloboda ( http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000381.php#more and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4950254.stm ). Sloboda's comments on the BBC are particularly interesting because not only does he associate his critics with terrorists, but he also works hard to discredit the very "anti-war" movement this wiki page claims his organization is part of.
Let me know if I can help get any of this together for the page. I won't strike forth on the task just to be whipped into submission by 68.44.112.218
62.148.169.47

[edit] More lies and nonsense from evangelical editor 62.148.169.47

"The project, which is rooted in the anti-war movement" How do we know this? Do we have a reference or citation?"

Ridiculous. There are endless citations calling IBC an anti-war group. And we know this by the fact that nobody of any note, in over three years of being in the public eye, has publicly challenged IBC on who they are or their backgrounds, which are posted publicly on their page. If anyone has doubts they should investigate. Until then it's just some anonymous kook's conspiracy theory.

"This seems to be an unsubstantiated and frankly dubious claim especially considering the recent comments by IBC spokesperson John Sloboda on the BBC regarding the peace movement as extremists and likening them to terrorists."

Lie. He said no such thing about "the peace movement".
Thank you for the correction, you are correct. Sloboda did say the following about IBCs critics however:
"They like the sense of being a beleaguered minority."
"This is also the mindset that draws angry young men towards terrorism."
Yeah, he said that about Media Lens. So what? He could done much worse, such as gone to their wiki page and tried to plant unfounded smears implying that "many believe" they're really CIA agents who try to write absurd pieces that make the left look uncredible.
Sloboda did blast the peace movement in other ways, saying things such as, "frustration and anger and despair of the peace movement at its utter lack of ability to make any difference to what is going on in Iraq." Bizarre commentary for a "spokesperson" of the peace movement on the BBC I think. The statement is false, and Sloboda's comments on the BBC were well prepared; this was no slip of the tongue. What humanitarian or peace activist would ever lie in such a way? And so publicly62.148.169.47
I think others who've read it will generally find a different interpretation more appropriate than the one you provide.

"Are we to simply quote what the Spokesperson says as fact without any corroborating evidence?"

The "spokesperson" knows who he is, and the members know who they are. Therefore citing what they say about their own origins - that they and their project are rooted in the anti-war movement - is first hand testimony, which is of course - while not necessarily "proof" - a form of evidence. They could of course be lying, but what is lacking is any evidence for a claim that they are lying.
You also say on the page that you are staffed by volunteers. Yet you have a donation button and Sloboda said that the pocketbooks had been hit with the recent criticism.
Look, if you want to include a credible citation for a comment such as "rooted in the peace movement" then I'd buy it. We're looking for a NPOV here, and references that readers can follow. First hand knowledge on the part of the authors of this wiki page simply are not credible sources. How do the readers know that IBC is "rooted in the peace movement"? If I had first hand knowledge to the contrary, the IBC watchdogs of this Wiki page would require that I cite the claim.
Similarly, Cadr - to whom you're appealing - could really be a covert CIA agent or a Martian. We don't really *know* do we? Can he prove he's not a CIA agent or a Martian? So certainly those claims should appear on his own wiki page huh? *Nonsense*!
If there was controversy over Cadr's planet of origin, I would suspect Cadr would need to provide credible citations on his Wiki page to demonstrate that he was in fact from Earth.
That's just it. There is no controversy over whether IBC is rooted in the anti-war movement. It's just your conpsiracy theory. That doesn't amount to a controversy over it, let alone one worthy of citation or consideration on a wiki page.
But in the case of IBC, we aren't talking about anything so outlandish; there is plenty of ligitimate controversy regarding IBC. Unsubstantiated claims made from first-hand knowledge on the part of the IBC authors on this page should be cited.62.148.169.47
And, in addition to the evidence of their own unchallenged first hand testimony, countless news citations describing them as anti-war activists, and the total lack of any public challenge to any of this, we also have the editorial content on their website which says things such as:
“Today’s figures are an indictment of three years of occupation, which continues to make the lives of ordinary Iraqis worse, not better. Talk of civil war is a convenient way for the US and Iraqi authorities to mask the real and continuing core of this conflict, which is between an incompetent and brutal occupying power on the one hand and a nationalist insurgency fuelled by grief, anger, and humiliation on the other. This conflict is proof that violence begets more violence. The initial act that sparked this cycle of violence is the illegal US-led invasion of March and April 2003 which resulted in 7,312 civilian deaths and 17,298 injured in a mere 42 days. The insurgency will remain strong so long as the US military remains in Iraq, and ordinary Iraqi people will have more death and destruction to look forward to.” John Sloboda. Iraq Body Count Press Release 13. 9th Mach 2006. Iraq Death Toll in Occupation is highest yet. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php <http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php>
That's just one example. There are many other such comments, adding more evidence that they are indeed "anti war" just as they say, as many others have publicly said of them, and as nobody has challenged publicly. The only thing that is lacking is *any evidence whatsoever* for your absurd and paranoid conspiracy theory that you'd like to add to the "NPOV" page.

If I were to write "The project, which is rooted in a pro war propaganda PR campaign" some "author" would claim I wasn't using NPOV

And they'd be exactly right. None of your edits have even attempted to use an NPOV. They've attempted to evangelize for this one obscure Media Lens critique, while adding in your own paranoid theories in order to create converts to your view and hopefully make this critique less obscure.

and make disparaging comments about conspiricies involving Neptunian ant men unless I could prove it.

Yeah, how dare anyone prevent you from putting your own theories on the page and present them as facts when you have no evidence. But one step at a time. You haven't even offered a scratch of evidence, let alone "proof".

The same standard should be applied to IBC being "rooted in the anti-war movement" Both my claim as well as the claim on the page that I am quoting should not appear on the page unammended. Agreed? 62.148.169.47

That's not the same standard.
                           After a bit of Googling, it would seem that you have been reading media lens [4]. We could cite them. That way your criticisms of the project could be incorporated into the article without violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Cadr 00:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Media Lens already is cited and their articles linked.

Sure, a citation for the Pilger article

What Pilger article? And why do you only want to add "NPOV" additions that recycle the same (actually rather obscure and not widely held) Media Lens critique which is already represented? Why are you not demanding more space for the right wing critiques that claim IBC is an inflated scam by biased anti-war activists?
Because the the right wing loves IBC - The cite it, they don't criticise it.
You appear to have a difficult time saying anything that's true:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/spruiell200507260924.asp
"The group’s antiwar credentials are impeccable" from the article above - a classic use of your dubious claim by the right wing - demonstrating
prejudices are very easily "demonstrated" to those who hold them.
why citing the IBC is such a prize from the right: Not only is IBC an easy target, but it vastly undercounts the dead in Iraq,
Not proven.
and it claims to be an anti-war undertaking!
It is. Show some evidence to the contrary.
The right wing criticism isn't really criticism though.
It's attempting to smear them as unreliably biased, raise doubt about their methodology and findings, and invalidate their efforts, just like you're doing. The only difference is they aren't pretending to be giving a NPOV, which would seem to make their smear efforts slightly more noble than yours.
They just take your data, ignore the important "media reported" aspect and then make claims like the deaths are occuring from Iraqi celebratory fire and whatnot. Perhaps the largest mistake IBC has made is its advertising campaign. Difficult to not become a target when there is such an advertising agenda. Perhaps the best way to avoid the attacks is to quit the aggressive advertising.
Yes, I'm sure once IBC is an obscure outfit that nobody pays attention to - like Media Lens - they'll be satisfied.
The research is important...it is the advertising agenda that gets you in trouble with pretty much everyone.
I think you're treating the word "everyone" rather loosely, like the facts.
IBC unfortunately continues to be an enormous gift to the right wing propaganda effort. And the relentless advertising and PR which IBC engages in continues to be the gift that keeps on giving for the war effort! Nobody from the right wing seriously criticises IBC anymore.
blah blah blah, opinionated and paranoid gibberish.
Simply astounding that a group of humanitarian psychologists would not do a little introspection on this piece of criticism!
If you look at their detailed response, they looked at it long and hard, took it apart piece by piece, and concluded that it was a crock. "Introspection" pretty much ends there. - 68.44.112.218 01:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Come now. Drop your insecurities and defenses and check yourself to see if there is any truth to the claim. To dismiss the criticism that IBC is unfortunately doing less good for the Humanitarian cause than it is doing good for the cause of defending the war in Iraq as "paranoid gibberish" is childish and appalling behavior for a Humanitarian or a Psychologist.
IBC's rigorous PR campaign combined with its wide use as a Iraq War propaganda device, whether IBC likes it or not, invites speculation about its motives. It simply does not add up why a group of Humanitarians would be wildly promting their research results for the benefit of all who are promoting the war.
One could imagine a scenario where the IBC research occurs how typical research does - without massive advertising campaigns. Why the massive ad campaign? Clearly to sway public opinion...But where to? How does IBC want to sway public opinion? You have stated the research goals of IBC....Now what re the advertising goals?

"for several critiques not represented on the IBC page would be welcomed, but I suspect removed by the current IBC watchdog (68.44.112.218)of the IBC Wiki page."

They wouldn't be critiques "not represented". They'd be more recyclings of the very same Media Lens critique, which is already represented, probably more than its obscurity warrants.

"If I wouldn't be wasting my time with some deletion by somebody working for IBC on this page, then I'd gladly compile a NPOV list of criticism. But Pilger's article isn't all there is. Perhaps a citation for the several other (and unmentioned) studies involving civilian mortality due to the war as detailed by journalist Jamail ( http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000381.php#more ) would be helpful as well to properly contextualize IBC."

The descriptions provided by Jamail of "other studies" are disputed ones which he lifted from Nicholas Davies almost verbatim, but regardless, his article is *already cited* in the list at the end. I myself added citations to two other studies in "See also", the UNDP study and the Lancet.

"A section on funding for IBC is appropriate, since this IBC claims to be "scholarly research" and the funding for "scholarly research" should be transparent as is its methodology by convention. I would invite the IBC Wikipedia monitors to add this section to clarify."

Baseless conspiracy theory and entirely inappropriate. If you have this theory about covert funding, ask Dahr Jamail or somebody to investigate and publish his findings. Then it might be something noteable or citeable.
There is no accusation here. Any accusation is entirely interpreted on your part. I am merely suggesting that since Univerisities are involved by proxy, and since the study makes a claim of being scholarly research

It would also be helpful if "Media Reported" were inserted into the first sentence of the page "ongoing effort to record civilian deaths resulting from the 2003 Iraq war and occupation". The IBC Wikipedia watchdog has continually removed that fact from the first sentence

Another lie. That fact is described *twice* in the first section and several times afterwards. I removed your *bad faith* attempts to add petty redundancy to the first section, based on your ridiculous and petty claim that IBC is not an effort to record civilian casualties.

"despite the fact that IBC was finally pressured to put that on the first thing that people see related to the IBC: Their web counters."

And another lie. IBC changed that in 2003 (http://web.archive.org/web/20031207054356/iraqbodycount.net/webcounters.htm). That's before any of your favored line of criticisms appeared. They say there that they made the change in response to "reader feedback" with which they apparently agreed. No evidence of "pressure" which they "finally" had to bow before, as you imply. And this point is already all over the wiki page and appears twice in the first section. The web counter has very limited space in which to give a description. The wiki page does not have the limitaton that everything must be forced into one phrase, or the first sentence.
Thank you for the correction on the reader feedback. The first sentence of the Wiki page is indeed important. And the "media reported" is very important. It is in fact the single most important fact about IBC that heads of state and many in the Media consistently fail to mention. Why IBC doesn't feel that they need to clarify this is difficult to comprehend. Why are you even debating this? What are you defending? Where is the scientific objectivity? IBC is an effort to record civilian deaths in the war in Iraq reported in selected media sources. IBC most certainly *is not* an effort to record all civilian deaths in the war in Iraq.
You're nothing but a liar and all your edits have been bad faith attempts to turn the page into a completely slanted smear job, containing only, and reflecting as fact, one obscure and highly disputed critique held only by a very small group of people on the far left, adding in your own even more obscure and paranoid theories along the way.
Why does IBC get so worked up about criticism? All this name calling and defensiveness. And massive media campaigns. PR. Wikipedia pages. Web counters. Tight "symbiotic relationships" (Sloboda in interview with BBC) with the media. Strange behavior for Humanitarian researchers to say the least. Unprecedented, in fact, in the history of population research.
Could you please provide a citation for your claim about the criticism of IBC only being made by a very small group of people on the far left? And please avoid the interview with the BBC where Sloboda makes a connection between his critics and terrorists. As a psycologist knows (even a music psychologist), if you want to dismiss your critics, you attempt to create the perception that they are some fringe element. If you have the support of the BBC to mouth off all the better. Again, very odd behavior for humanitarian researchers.
I am certain that if IBC used its methodology to survey favorable opinions versus criticism of IBC in their selected media sources, their results would suggest that yes, indeed, there has been very little criticism of IBC and that even the president of the United States enjoys citing IBC.
But, responsible scientists would expect more. Find a different methodology than polling the media and you would find that of those that have looked closely at the issue there is significant doubt regarding IBC and real questions that IBC needs to address (without name calling please)62.148.169.47
Prostelytize for your political views on your blog, where they belong.
That's ridiculous and you're ridiculous.

68.44.112.218 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that Media Lens was already cited in the article. Since they are, I really don't think there's anything more we can add. Cadr 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
With all respect, Cadr, could you please define the "we" in "we can add?" Given the reponses on this wiki page, "we" worries me. Is the "we" that you use the same "we" that guards this wiki page where the IBC folks continue their odd ad campaign to promote war propaganda? Or is the "we" all of the Wiki community?
"We" is all of the Wiki community. All of your arguments against IBC which can be sourced are already given due mention in the article. Cadr 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about anonymous blanking

Please discuss things here before deleting sourced material. --Timeshifter 19:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some useful pages:

From that last page:

"... continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. ..." --Timeshifter 19:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the anonymous editor's comments to here from my user talk page. This way other editors of this page can comment also. --Timeshifter 19:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I've reverted your edits is that they are all, to the last, pov edits designed to shift the page to reflect the _criticisms_ that are already amply represented in the criticisms section (there are more references to media lens inspired material than almost anything else already). Worse, you've now started deleting all references to IBC responses to these criticisms. Your edits are completely pov top to bottom. all you're interested in is spraying the whole page with these criticisms, redundant repetition of the same 'caveats' over and over again, and redirecting people to the Lancet study. You're not fooling anybody Truthshifter.71.246.104.28 19:25, November 2006 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything you have added, nor anything about IBC responses. Show me what I have deleted. Maybe you are confused by my moves of some of the external links to the references section. This is common practice in Wikipedia. In fact Wikipedia prefers links to be put in the references section. Too many external links are frowned upon.
Most of the undercount criticisms I added were hardly mentioned before, if at all. I filled it out in detail with sourced info. I also put in a link to a National Review article that had criticism about the body count being too high. Any editor can look at the edit history to see all this for themselves. Yes, most of the info I have added lately to the article has been about alleged undercounting. This is allowed in Wikipedia because it is a significant viewpoint. Before this latest focus on undercounts, I was working on making the article more clear. I moved stuff around. Someone had put a big long quote from IBC at the top of the article. I kept all of it, but I broke it up, and spread it around in different subsections. I added subsections too. The article is much clearer than before.
What you are doing is called blanking. You are selectively deleting most of the info I am adding on a particular significant viewpoint: undercounts. This is not allowed in Wikipedia. Look it up on the NPOV page: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --Timeshifter 19:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Both of you need to read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE , and WP:V. Make sure your edits conform to those standards. This will probably clear out most of the confusion that you two seem to be having. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Truthshifter, what you're doing is nothing but vandalizing the page to add yet more media lens-inspired criticisms, which were already amply represented on the page. furhermore, you're removing anything that discussed ibc responses to these, to pretend that such criticisms had no answer. you're being a pov hack here, to promote the media lens critique, to bury ibc responses to it, and to redirect readers to the lancet study. you're not fooling anybody.71.246.104.28 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are many people, groups, and articles indicating an IBC undercount. Including IBC. Including the Iraqi Health Minister. Including John Pilger, Dahr Jamail, and Les Roberts. The Associated Press articles on Iraqi morgue stats. And much more. Very little of this was fleshed out in the article before I added it. I again point out that I deleted no IBC responses or links. Are you even reading what I am writing in this talk page section? You seem fixated on the Lancet study. I am not. It is only one of at least 8 independent estimates of war-related deaths. You keep blanking much of this undercount info. That is a violation of NPOV. You are censoring and blanking a particular significant viewpoint. Have you read any more wikipedia guideline pages lately?--Timeshifter 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

you deleted, among other things, this paragraph:
"IBC has recently published a lengthy response to these critiques entitled "Speculation is no substitute: a defence of Iraq Body Count", in which they argue that their critics have several key facts wrong and that, while IBC agrees it is bound to be below the full toll, these errors have led these critics to greatly exaggerate the likely extent of such an undercount and that the available evidence does not support their claims of a pro-US bias infecting the IBC database."
That paragraph appeared after several which aired the Jamail, Pilger, Media Lens critiques which you claim were not adequately represented. then, after adding still more variations of the same critique, you delete the only paragraph which discusses an ibc response to these.
you're not fooling anyone Truthshifter. btw..can you cite those "8 independent estimates" for me?71.246.104.28 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
That paragraph is still in the full undercount section that you keep deleting. You are the one deleting it. You can find it here in my last revision before you blanked much of the undercount section the last time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraq_Body_Count_project&oldid=87045262
In fact several revisions ago I clarified that paragraph by adding the April 2006 date for the article, and I converted the external link for it to a reference link. --Timeshifter 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. You're right on that one, the paragraph was still there. i didn't notice it as it was newly buried in the middle of ten paragraphs of media lens/lancet related criticims and innuendo, culminating in a presentation of the Lancet study, followed by yet another variation of the same criticism by the Lancet study author. So, can you cite those "8 independent estimates" for me and maybe give me a short description of each one? thanks.71.246.104.28 01:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph about "8 independent estimates" found in my last revision before it was deleted by you:

Les Roberts, lead author of the 2 Lancet reports (2004 and 2006), wrote on August 22, 2005: "There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq. The source most favored by the war proponents (Iraqbodycount.org) is the lowest. Our estimate is the third from highest. Four of the estimates place the death toll above 100,000. The studies measure different things. Some are surveys, some are based on surveillance which is always incomplete in times of war. The three lowest estimates are surveillance based."

The reference link that was with it is

Medialens, "Paved with good intentions - Iraq Body Count - Part 1", Medialens Alert, January 25, 2006.

We could put in a short description of some of those studies. And some info about the claimed differences in accuracy of passive (surveillance) studies versus active (surveys) studies. In the Iraq War talk page people said that passive studies of war-related deaths typically report 5 to 20% of those found with active studies. I haven't had time to find the expert sources for that yet. Wikipedia readers would be interested in this info. It is encyclopedia type of info. It is typical stuff for criticism sections. Some experts would differ on the percentage. That info would be sourced too. Others would disagree that active surveys are more accurate. Or they would claim that some active surveys are not well done.

Wikipedia articles often have long criticism sections, and response to criticism sections. Check out, for example, these other wikipedia pages about the Iraq War:

The bottom line is: Why is that paragraph not relevant to this wikipedia article? What wikipedia guideline is being broken by having it in the article? --Timeshifter 12:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The first problem with the paragraph would be that it's a falsehood. That's described in detail here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.1.php, and in the sections of that which follow. The second problem with it is that the same theme was already described. It's all part of that same media lens group of critiques that were already described in several paragraphs in the article, before being filled out with many more paragraphs re-stating more variations of the same criticisms. Repetition of the same theme, such as your repeated insertion of the "English-language" caveat everywhere you could fit it is indicative of POV. Such redundant repetition is designed to lead readers to a certain POV, namely, gee this "English-language" thing is some really crucial point, which is toward one side of those comments of Jamail and Sloboda about the issue.
And you now reveal you don't know what the "8 studies" are you keep citing and talking about. You also don't know where this "5 to 20%" stuff you're talking about comes from or if it has any foundation. And a page about Iraq Body Count project does not seem the place to air a debate about these broad categories of "active methods" and "passive methods". If you want to write a page about that issue, why don't you start a page about it? That it has some specific relevance for this IBC page is already argumentative.71.246.104.28 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There was no mention of the 8 independent estimates in the wikipedia page until I put it in. The IBC article you link to lists 7 of them. Les Roberts is referring to the first Lancet study results, since he wrote the comment in August 2005. Overall his comment is accurate as to the ranking, and even the IBC article points that out. The IBC article also points out one mistake in the ranking. The IBC article points out that it believes that the IBC count is the second lowest, not the lowest count. These things can be mentioned in the IBC Wikipedia article. --Timeshifter 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not all it points out. It points out that one of the "independent estimates" is a fabrication, and not "independent". Another one may be a fabrication but has no documentation to tell. And two of the others have no documentation for the supposed "studies". You should read that whole IBC thing. You may learn something.
And these claims were from Les Roberts the Lancet study author. If you believe they should all be discussed why don't you start a section on these "8 independent estimates" on the Lancet study page? Since it's the Lancet author's quote, it would certainly be more relevant there than on the IBC page.71.246.104.28 17:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I did read the IBC article. The point of putting in the Les Roberts quote was to show that there were many estimates of casualty counts in Iraq. The rest of your comment about which estimate is independent, real, well-documented, etc. was not my point. It is fine by me to not use the Les Roberts quote, and instead to use the IBC link to point out that there are a number of estimates. We can also use it to point out that the IBC count is second from the bottom. You keep thinking that I have an agenda to glorify the Lancet study. I only want to point out all significant sides of the issues of undercounting and overcounting so that an NPOV picture is painted. --Timeshifter 17:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like you read the article until I pointed it out to you. It also still doesn't seem like you read it. Or you would have read: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.4.php, which concludes saying "Four studies, Iraqi Ministry of Health, IBC, IMIRA (more often referred to as ILCS — standing for "Iraq Living Conditions Survey") and Lancet, are the only remaining sources which merit consideration as serious contributions to the understanding of Iraqi mortality totals". If you'd read this you wouldn't have been citing the "8 independent estimates" claim. And, sorry again, I don't buy your 'no agenda' stuff. When you've put discussions of all these other estimates on the Lancet study page (which I see you've also been editing), come back and let's talk.71.246.104.28 17:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I had seen that page long ago. As I said I made no claims about the merit of those studies. If you want to edit the Lancet page, feel free. I added a couple paragraphs awhile back. I am going to continue editing on this IBC page (and on many other pages). You are not a wikipedia god that tells people what they can and can not put on wikipedia pages. If you have specific problems with some stuff I put on the page, then bring it up on the talk page before deleting it. That is standard wikipedia practice. --Timeshifter 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Better yet, just correct errors that you see. That is what the wikipedia guidelines say. They say that one should edit whenever possible, rather than delete, other's work. For example, here is how the issue is currently addressed on the Iraq War page in the intro of the casualties section:
Casualty figures, especially Iraqi ones, are highly disputed. This section gives a brief overview. "There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq." [1] The merits, and even the existence, of those studies are hotly disputed. See this Iraq Body Count project page for example: [2]. For more information, see the information box at the top right of this article, as well as Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003. --Timeshifter 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Next point. IBC only uses English-language media sources for its data. IBC does not hide that fact. Others fault IBC for that. Both sides of that issue are in the wikipedia article, as it should be. --Timeshifter 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not mention the 5-20% issue in the IBC wiki page. On the Iraq War talk page we discussed the 5-20% issue. We decided not to leave it in the Iraq War page until we could find sources for it. Wikipedia does not like people to start separate pages for an issue (such as the active/passive, 5-20% ratio, casualty counts issue) unless a wiki page is getting too long. In fact it is called POV forking to do so. A way to censor one POV from an article by sending it elsewhere. Even when a separate page must be started, it is summarized in the original article, and a link is made to the separate page, so that it is not perceived as a POV fork. --Timeshifter 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Below is something I found today on the wikipedia page for the 2nd Lancet study. It is a quote from the Lancet article:
"Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance [used in the IBC] recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods [used in the Lancet studies]. ... Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence."
So that is new sourced info that is relevant to the undercounting criticism section of the IBC page. --Timeshifter 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that you think every assertion by Les Roberts is something that should be on the IBC page? This time about what he can or can't find. The IBC article again shows that claim to be nonsense (but then you won't find them if you don't look): http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.6.1.php71.246.104.28 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lancet study authors are Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts. There is also a supplement to the second Lancet article. It is written by Gilbert Burnham, Shannon Doocy, Elizabeth Dzeng, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts. It answers the IBC article you keep referring to. Here it is:

So info from that supplement needs to be allowed in the undercount section of the IBC wikipedia page. What say you? Also other researchers, experts, and epidemiologists answer the claims made by the IBC article against the Lancet study. What about that info too? Or do you only allow a few sentences of token criticism on "your" IBC wikipedia page? --Timeshifter 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in that pdf addresses the IBC article I keep referring to. If you have references to these "other researchers, experts and epidemiologists" that have addressed the article, let's see them.71.246.104.28 11:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I am starting a new subsection. It replies to your above comment.--Timeshifter 14:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Do I need to full protect this article? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Lancet study quotes.

--Timeshifter 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC). Reply to last comment by 71.246.104.28 in the above section.

You (71.246.104.28) did not read the Lancet study supplement article very carefully then. Especially Appendix C. The IBC article you refer to (and other IBC articles and IBC-supporting articles) argue against the Lancet study. All the other studies and estimates that IBC discusses in their article (other than the Lancet study) are NOT population-based, wide-ranging, scientific, peer-reviewed, mortality surveys. Only the Lancet studies are such surveys. The rest of the studies are all inadequate according to the Lancet authors and nearly all other epidemiologists worldwide. See the Lancet wikipedia page for quotes from those epidemiologists:


Here are some quotes below from the Lancet study supplement here:

-
The [Lancet] survey is the only population-based assessment of fatalities in Iraq during the war. ...
-
Many reports have been circulated based on mortuary tallies, reports from the coalition, and news media accounts. These reports provide a picture of escalating violence in the areas from which the information is collected. Such methods can provide important information on the types of fatal injuries and trends. It is not possible, however, to use these methods to estimate the burden of conflict on an entire population. Only population-based survey methods can estimate deaths for an entire country. ...
-
In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimate that the number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000. That these two surveys were carried out in different locations and two years apart from each other yet yielded results that were very similar to each other, is strong validation of both surveys. ...
-
In the news media coverage of the 2004 survey report, much was made of the wide confidence intervals, which is a statistical technique that was frequently misunderstood.With the much larger sample of the 2006 survey, the confidence intervals are narrowed significantly. ...
-
The number of persons dying in Iraq has continued to escalate with each year. ...
-
This is far greater than reported by various media accounts and morgue tallies. This is not surprising, as reporting of events from incomplete sources cannot, in any statistically meaningful way, be converted into national death rates. Other than Bosnia, we are unable to find any major historical instances where passive surveillance methods (such as morgue and media reports) identify more than 20% of the deaths which were found through population-based survey methods. ...
-
In the Vietnam War, 3 million civilian died; in the Congo, armed conflict has been responsible for 3.8 million deaths; in East Timor, an estimated 200,000 out of a population of 800,000 died in conflict. Recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur over the past 31 months. Our data, which estimate that 654,965 or 2.5% of the Iraqi population has died in this, the largest major international conflict of the 21st century, should be of grave concern to everyone. ...
-
Appendix C.
-
Other Accounts of Mortality in Iraq.
-
There are several other efforts to account for the dead as a result of the Iraq war.
Iraq Body Count (IBC) has been the most widely cited source for ongoing civilian casualties in Iraq since the 2003 invasion (www.ibc.org). This independent UK-based project accounts for deaths through comprehensive and thorough surveys of news media sources around the world.
-
The IBC uses passive surveillance techniques, which depend upon available reports from the news media, in contrast to an active search for dead bodies. This brings about the possibility of gross underestimations. A significant number of deaths are not reported by the media, especially ones that occur in less populated or well known areas. In addition, the IBC methodology is conservative and excludes data that do not meet their set standards. Marc Herold, an economist on the IBC team, believed that the count is likely too low because thousands of deaths may go unreported due to lack of media coverage. ...
-
Unfortunately the careful and conservative numbers recorded by IBC are often taken out of context and cited as the true body count, thus lulling people into thinking that the human consequence of the war is far less than it really is. IBC has played a highly commendable role in making people aware of the upward spiral of deaths in Iraq.
-
Working for the U.N. Development Program, the highly regarded Norwegian researcher Jon Pederson led a survey that recorded between 18,000 and 29,000 violent deaths during the first year of occupation. The survey was not focused on deaths, but asked about them over the course of lengthy interviews that focused on access to services. While this was more than twice the rate recorded by IBC at the time, Pederson expressed concern for the completeness and quality of the data in a newspaper interview last year. The surveys reported in The Lancet were focused solely on recording deaths and count about two and a half times as many excess deaths from all causes over the same period.
-
There is also a widely circulated UPI report of a count by ‘Iraqiyun, a humanitarian organization, totaling 128,000 dead over the first 27 months of the war. The methods of this organization—reported to be direct accounts from relatives of those killed—could not be confirmed.
-
Even with the death certificate system, only about one-third of deaths were captured by the government’s surveillance system in the years before the current war, according to informed sources in Iraq. At a death rate of 5/1,000/year, in a population of 24 million, the government should have reported 120,000 deaths annually. In 2002, the government documented less than 40,000 from all sources. The ministry’s numbers are not likely to be more complete or accurate today.
-
The figure below shows trend lines from three different accounts—our mortality survey, Iraq Body count, and the Department of Defense report. Although the numbers we estimate through population-based methods are substantially greater than the numbers of deaths counted by the other two, the figure shows that over time the trends are almost identical. This is clear evidence that the three studies have measured the same events, and further reinforces the results of the population based data. This difference in numbers but similarity in trends is typical of the differences between active and passive public health surveillance seen in many conditions.
-

Here are quotes below from the Lancet study's main article:

-
Various methods have been used to count violent deaths, including hospital death data from the Ministry of Health, mortuary tallies, and media reports. The best known is the Iraq Body Count, which estimated that, up to September 26, 2006, between 43 491 and 48 283 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion. [Other studies are then discussed] ...
-
Post-invasion excess mortality rates showed much the same escalating trend, rising from 2·6 per 1000 people per year (0·6–4·7) above the baseline rate in 2003 to 14·2 per 1000 people per year (8·6–21·5) in 2006 (figure 2 and table 3). ...
-
Deaths attributable to the coalition accounted for 31% (95% CI 26–37) of post-invasion violent deaths. The proportion of violent deaths attributable to the coalition was much the same across periods (p=0·058). However, the actual number of violent deaths, including those that resulted from coalition forces, increased every year after the invasion. ...
-
The post-invasion crude mortality rate increased significantly from pre-invasion figures, and showed a rising trend. The increasing number of violent deaths follows trends of bodies counted by mortuaries, as well as those reported in the media and by the Iraq Body Count. ...
-
Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures. This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally hidden. ...
-
The striking similarity between the 2004 and 2006 estimates of pre-war mortality diminishes concerns about people’s ability to recall deaths accurately over a 4-year period. Likewise, the similar patterns of mortality over time documented in our survey and by other sources corroborate our findings about the trends in mortality over time. ...
-
At the conclusion of our 2004 study we urged that an independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw in Iraq. This has not happened.
-
---

So there above is vast detail answering many of the IBC criticisms of the Lancet study. It also is a detailed criticism of the IBC methods and count. It needs to be adequately summarized and/or quoted in the criticism section of the IBC wikipedia page. There may also need to be a "responses to criticism" section. That is fairly typical in Wikipedia pages. See this one for example:

Please do not reply within the above quotes. Too confusing. Please reply below this last comment of mine. --Timeshifter 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The above is not answering anything you claim, and is not addressing the IBC article, as you had claimed. It's someone entirely unrelated to IBC giving their opinions about some other studies, which all elevate their own above all else in importance. And this is all you have any interest in doing on the IBC page, turning it into a kind of promotional vehicle for the Lancet study, like the above. 71.246.104.28 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
--Timeshifter 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC). It directly addresses the most important points of the IBC article. The criticisms of the IBC concerning the Lancet studies. The Lancet study articles have many of the same criticisms as the IBC about the other studies. It is interesting how you tell other people to read stuff and to reply to it, but you don't really read the stuff yourself. You hardly read the stuff you censored from the undercounting section of the IBC wikipedia article. You accused me of deleting something of yours when it was actually in that big part of the undercounting section you deleted. LOL. --Timeshifter 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
And IBC has already shown some of the claims above false, such as their claims about MoH: 71.246.104.28 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"The figure of 40,000 claimed [by Lancet authors above] as the number of deaths recorded by the MoH in 2002 is false. No specific citation is offered by the Lancet authors for this figure other than a vague attribution to "informed sources in Iraq". But official Iraqi figures for 2002, forwarded to IBC courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, show that the Ministry registered 84,025 deaths from all causes in that year. This excluded deaths in the Kurdish-administered regions, which contain 12% or more of the population. Thus, the actual MoH figure for 2002, even while excluding Kurdistan, stands at 70% of the estimate of 120,000 that, per the Lancet authors, "should have been recorded" nation-wide in 2002." 71.246.104.28 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC). From the supplement to the 2006 Lancet study:
"The normal or expected death rate was based on survey results in the period from January 1, 2002, until March 2003. This can also be considered a 'baseline' death rate. In these two surveys, the expected or baseline death rate we found pre-invasion, and which we will use as the basis of this report, is very similar to estimates of the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency."
That baseline mortality rate is higher than the one discovered by the LA Times. And how come the US census bureau and the CIA agree with the Lancet? Hmmm? "Official" figures of almost any kind concerning Iraq are laughable to anyone who has bothered to really read stuff. That is why the Lancet study figured out the baseline themselves through their 2 surveys in 2004 and 2006. Which agreed with each other concerning that 2002 baseline mortality rate. And they surveyed different people. All over Iraq. See the related quotes in the above section. The fact that the 2004 and 2006 survey got the same baseline is good statistical proof of the validity of their methods. As almost all epidemiologists have said concerning the 2006 Lancet study. --Timeshifter 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In addition, Les Roberts has been reported as having said, after being challenged about certain things in these appendices, that the "appendices were written by a student and should be ignored". 71.246.104.28 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108 71.246.104.28 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read all the appendices. They are in the supplement and not in the main Lancet article. Most of what the appendices say is covered in the Lancet article. The student put in some additional info on other casualty surveys. The author of the article you linked to, like you, did not really read and understand the statistics of cluster sampling methods. It sounded like Les Roberts did not want to have to explain the additional material versus his own material. I can understand why. The main 2006 Lancet article explains the cluster sampling statistics fully. I could explain both the appendix material and the main article statistics to you if you want. But you have to ask. And be sincere. And promise to really read my explanation. :) --Timeshifter 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proselytize for the Lancet study on the Lancet page.71.246.104.28 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the IBC study occurs on the IBC page. That is why it is called criticism. Get it? --Timeshifter 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

---

--Timeshifter 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC). I moved one of your comments down here, because it was mixed in with the big section of Lancet quotes and will confuse other readers. Here is the Lancet quote (bold text) and your comment about it:

The [Lancet] survey is the only population-based assessment of fatalities in Iraq during the war. ...

But that's false. ILCS is a "population-based assessment of fatalities". This is the Lancet authors misleadingly promoting themselves, and provides nothing of value for the IBC page. 71.246.104.28 22:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
--Timeshifter 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC). Here is the relevant Lancet quote from the above section concerning the ILCS (UN survey):
Working for the U.N. Development Program, the highly regarded Norwegian researcher Jon Pederson led a survey that recorded between 18,000 and 29,000 violent deaths during the first year of occupation. The survey was not focused on deaths, but asked about them over the course of lengthy interviews that focused on access to services. While this was more than twice the rate recorded by IBC at the time, Pederson expressed concern for the completeness and quality of the data in a newspaper interview last year. The surveys reported in The Lancet were focused solely on recording deaths and count about two and a half times as many excess deaths from all causes over the same period.
As you can see it was not a survey focussed on deaths. That was secondary and the author of the survey said so, and "expressed concern for the completeness and quality of the data in a newspaper interview last year." --Timeshifter 06:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 08:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC). Please wait for a blank line in my comments before adding your comments. It is against wikipedia policy to divide up and/or edit other people's comments on a talk page. I reverted the page back to before you edited my comments by dividing them up. Your comments can be retrieved here:

Let me save you some time. I don't want to play a semantic game about whether the UNDP (ILCS) study was a genuine or half-assed population-based survey of deaths. I can see both sides of that point. Was it peer-reviewed? What were the problems referred to by its author. Etc., etc.. But right now in 2006, it is true that there is only one relatively up-to-date "population-based assessment of fatalities in Iraq during the war." The UNDP study was back in 2004. --Timeshifter 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


You cut all my comments, great. Here are the relevant points:
1. Yes, you are playing semantic games to evade from the fact that the Lancet appendices you cite made a flatly false claim (in addition to what appear to be more false claims about Iraqi gov statistics). This false claim says: "The [Lancet] survey is the only population-based assessment of fatalities in Iraq during the war." That's false. Period. The UNDP study was a "population-based assessment of fatalities", full stop. That the Lancet authors choose to have doubts about its accuracy does not change the fact that the statement is false. That UNDP assessed other things *in addition to* fatalities, or that its author (who seems to have faith in his estimate) referred vaguely to concerns, does not change this basic fact. In fact, quite contrary to the Lancet claims, the UNDP author appears to believe his estimate was right, and believes Lancet's estimate is: "high, and probably way too high. I would accept something in the vicinity of 100,000 but 600,000 is too much." http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/Forum9/HTML/001952.html 71.246.104.28 08:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I reply to this in the UNDP ICLS section of the page. --Timeshifter 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
2. After I cited that Les Roberts had said, after being challenged about certain things in these appendices, that the "appendices were written by a student and should be ignored", you wrote that "The student put in some additional info on other casualty surveys." I asked you how you came to know what, specifically, the student did in the appendices. You cut my comments and did not respond. Can you please do so now? Is there are source somewhere containing this information about what the student did specifically? 71.246.104.28 08:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
All one has to do is to read the appendices and the main Lancet article. Then one sees that the student added some more references, studies, etc.. The article writer was discussing with Les Roberts about the number of clusters used in the Lancet study versus other studies for other wars and conflicts.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108
The article writer was asking why some studies used more clusters than the Lancet study. He was referring to the additional studies added by the student concerning other wars and conflicts. Les Roberts referred the writer to the main article. Seems logical to me. The issue is covered thoroughly in the main Lancet article.
This Washington Post article you referred to
http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/Forum9/HTML/001952.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/10/is_iraqs_civilian_death_toll_h.html
had an interesting quote in reference to the number of 1849 households being interviewed by the Lancet study:
"The numbers do add up," said Daniel Davies, a stockbroker and blogger for the Guardian. He argued that the sample of 1,849 households interviewed by Iraqi doctors working for the JHU research team was as large as that used by political pollsters. --Timeshifter 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
But I hope this doesn't take too much of your time or become boring for you Truthshifter, as you said you have no particular interest in the Lancet study.71.246.104.28 08:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have an interest in presenting all significant sides. That is NPOV. Look it up in the wikipedia guidelines, along with the various guidelines about dealing with controversial issues. Really read in depth the various wikipedia guideline pages this time. You will note that we have discussed the IBC, ICLS, and Lancet studies in detail. Those are the significant studies, the main studies discussed in the media. --Timeshifter 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNDP Iraqi Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS).

Iraqi Living Conditions Survey 2004: http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm

Do the math. Period covered was 18 months (Lancet) versus 13 months (ILCS). ILCS used baseline 2002 mortality rate of 9 deaths per thousand per year. The Lancet study used 5.5 deaths per thousand per year. Population of 27 million in Iraq in 2003-2004 according to the Lancet study. 3.5 times 27,000 equals 94,500. There is the difference in the results right there.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. First, you get ILCS ("ICLS" sic) and Lancet backwards. ILCS was 13-14, Lancet was 18. Second, the 24,000 estimate in ILCS is not an "excess" estimate. It is independent from the pre-war rates. I'm not sure what "difference" you think you're explaining, but you're not making sense.71.246.104.28 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I just fixed the periods covered by ILCS and Lancet. So others reading this aren't confused too. I was in a hurry while typing it all the first time. Let me explain more. The difference between the 2 baseline rates (ILCS versus Lancet) is 3.5 deaths per thousand per year. That difference alone equals 94,500 more people dead in a year. --Timeshifter 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted 71.246.104.28 (User contributions) addition of the phrase "this crappy La" (whatever that means) to the end of my above Timeshifter time stamp. See it here in this revision comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIraq_Body_Count_project&diff=87732294&oldid=87728171
--Timeshifter 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

To avoid confusion please reply after the excerpt below from the Washington Post. Is Iraq's Civilian Death Toll 'Horrible' -- Or Worse? By Jefferson Morley. October 19, 2006 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/10/is_iraqs_civilian_death_toll_h.html

-
A 2004 study by the same authors of the [2006] Lancet article estimated 98,000 violent deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion, a figure four times higher than the findings of a much larger survey done at approximately the same time by Norwegian researchers working for the United Nations. That study, the Iraqi Living Conditions Survey, estimated 23,743 civilian deaths in the first 13 months of the conflict.
-
In a telephone interview, Jon Pedersen, research director for the 2004 study, said several factors probably account for researchers' different findings.
-
One key issue is how researchers extrapolate from the deaths identified in their field research to a death toll for the whole country. Pedersen noted that the Lancet study is based on a pre-invasion mortality rate of 5.5 deaths per thousand people [per year]. The U.N., he said, used the figure of 9 deaths per thousand. Extrapolating from the lower pre-invasion mortality rate would yield a greater increase in post-invasion deaths, he noted. If the higher pre-invasion mortality rate is more accurate, then the deaths attributable to the war would be lower.
-
Another difficulty, he said, is doing accurate research under dangerous conditions. Pedersen wondered how tightly the study's authors could oversee the interviews as they were conducted throughout Iraq.
-
The JHU [Lancet] study, he noted, asked Iraqis only about mortality. The U.N. study asked Iraqis about many aspects of their living conditions. Pedersen said his study probably underestimated deaths caused by the war because the interviews did not focus on the issue, while the Lancet article probably overstated them because no other subject was discussed.
-
Pedersen said he thinks the Lancet numbers are "high, and probably way too high. I would accept something in the vicinity of 100,000 but 600,000 is too much."

---

Pedersen's "100,000" would amount to something like his 24,000 in the first 13-14 months scaled up to today. You highlight him being paraphrased as saying he "probably underestimated" in ILCS, which he may or may not have said in exactly those terms, but his "100,000" suggests that he is not talking about a very significant amount, and believes his estimate was pretty close.71.246.104.28 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Who knows what he meant. Point is still true though about his starting with a higher 2002 baseline mortality rate. He still had to calculate his total of deaths partially from comparisons of mortality rates. Because many violent deaths found through surveys are not identified as to whether they were due to insurgency or murder. A body is found with a gunshot wound. Also, I am not clear yet whether (like the IBC) he is also counting deaths due to increased lawlessness. That also requires some comparison of mortality rates. At least violent mortality rates.--Timeshifter 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like he meant that he thinks his estimate was about right. If we look at IBC's analysis: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.6.1.php, his "100,000" would be basically his estimate scaled up along IBC's trend-line. Your point about baseline rates is still irrelevant. The ILCS estimate is not an "excess" calculation, so is independent from 2002 rates, and does not rely on "compaisons of mortality rates" with 2002 as Lancet does.71.246.104.28 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
ILCS did use baseline mortality rates in their calculations. Sometimes it seems like you don't even read my replies, quotes, etc.. I quoted the Washington Post article that you pointed out to me. The quotes are higher up in this section. ILCS author was discussing his use of the 2002 baseline mortality rate. --Timeshifter 08:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You then question whether ILCS includes murders from crime. IBC says ILCS does not include these, and assumes this in their comparison cited above. Under this assumption IBC amounts to "over half the ILCS estimate". If ILCS did include all or some of criminal murders, that would mean that IBC has undersold itself, and it has actually covered a much higher propotion of the ILCS estimate.71.246.104.28 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
But ILCS uses too high of a 2002 baseline mortality rate. If it used the same baseline mortality rate as used by the Lancet authors, then the ILCS estimate would be much higher. So the IBC number would be a smaller fraction of it. --Timeshifter 08:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That ILCS used a "too high" baseline rate is your opinion. But it's an irrelevant one in any case, as I've pointed out to you repeatedly. The death estimate did not reference a "baseline rate" because it wasn't an "excess deaths" estimate. If you would take your head out of the proverbial buttock of your own preferred methods for a minute every once in a while you might know some of this.71.246.104.28 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In either case, as I have previously noted above, ILCS is a "population-based method" which measured fatalities, full stop. This renders the claim about Lancet being the only one false, but it also renders another claim in the main Lancet report false: "Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods." They certainly "found" the ILCS & IBC. They discuss it in the appendices. It looks very curiously like they just chose to say otherwise in their report because the example is inconvenient for the argument they're trying to make. Perhaps a section on these falsehoods and the questionable honesty of these claims should be added to the Lancet wiki page.71.246.104.28 00:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It is a study of Iraqi Living Conditions. The estimate of deaths was a side issue, and if you read how a peer-reviewed population-based estimate of deaths is done, then the ILCS study is not a truly population-based method. It is a half-assed synthesis of several methods of estimating. I agree with you that the ILCS probably did not use the baseline mortality rate as the main tool for their estimate. But that is exactly why it is not a truly population-based method. That method depends on a baseline mortality rate assessment. And not a half-assed one. But because the ILCS did use baseline mortality rate in some fashion it got higher numbers than the IBC estimate. Looking at the raw estimates the 20% generalization is true. Bosnia is the only exception to the 20% generalization. ILCS does better because it used the 2002 baseline mortality rate in some fashion in their calculations. If one goes beyond the raw estimates and looks solely at violent deaths of non-combatants, then the generalization may break down. But this exception to the rule does not make much difference. The bottom line is that the ILCS and IBC estimates are still inadequate, and still much lower than the Lancet estimate. --Timeshifter 08:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Your nose is growing Truthshifter. Your own personal opinions about whether ILCS is "half-assed" have no relevance. ILCS is a population-based method measuring fatalities. That it also measures other stuff doesn't change this. That you think it was "half-assed" doesn't change this. It appears the Lancet authors chose to exclude it from consideration because it was inconvenient for their argument. If they hold some of these same stupid and self-serving opinions about ILCS as you do, and want to exclude it from consideration on that basis, then they must - in order to maintain a particle of honesty - clarify and explain that they are doing this, rather than lying and pretending not to have found any such examples in order to avoid having to make such an argument and risk complicating the deceitful fairy tale they're trying to pass off to their readers.71.246.104.28 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
See my reply farther down. The reply with the long Lancet quote. --Timeshifter 20:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted too, that another case of "passive surveillance recording more than 20%" of "population-based methods" that the Lancet authors somehow failed to "find" is the comparison of IBC to the 2004 Lancet estimate shown here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.3.php. This shows IBC to be 32% of the violent death estimate in their own first study, and that comparison is even before considering the exclusion of combatants from IBC and their inclusion in Lancet. That's two obvious cases (IBC/ILCS & IBC/Lancet 2004) that they somehow "could not to find", but which it appears like they must have found. Very strange.71.246.104.28 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
See my previous replies. Both the ILCS estimate and the IBC numbers are much lower than the Lancet number. Because neither one are fully population-based like the Lancet study. If you read the various quotes on the percentages you see that the non-population-based death estimates in conflict areas get worse as the conflict gets more violent. The Guatemala estimates for example: "Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence." Notice how the IBC numbers get more and more out of whack with the Lancet numbers each year. That is because the violence and the mortality rate has been increasing each year in Iraq. The level of violence in Iraq is high in many areas of Iraq, not just the Baghdad area. The Lancet study shows this clearly. The 20% quote you are talking about is a generalization. They mentioned Bosnia as an exception. IBC did not find a direct comparison between Lancet and IBC numbers. IBC used the word "implied". Because it is hard to separate combatant deaths from other violent deaths. A gunshot wound by itself can't sort this out usually. 20 or 32% are both much lower than the Lancet estimate. --Timeshifter 08:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Your previous replies are self-serving, circularly self-referential rubbish, saying the excuse for the lie was that Lancet authors assumed their own subjective opinions, with no declaration or explanation to that effect - about other studies they don't like for some reason (they aren't their own!) and then pretended they don't exist. Instead of lying, they should have just said: "Our methods are the only ones we accept as valid "population-based methods". There are many other studies that would appear to fall into such a category, but they are all deficient to whatever degree they deviate from the one truth that only we can reveal, and so we will exclude them from consideration without telling you. We've deceitfully used broad-sounding jargon like "population-based methods" to mislead you into thinking we're talking about a large category of diverse sources, but we are not." Not as impressive, but at least it's honest.71.246.104.28 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
And I've read the Guatemala study, the claims about that are bogus too. Also, they didn't mention Bosnia "as an exception". They mentioned it as the *only* exception. It is not, period. Both the IBC/ILCS comparison and the IBC/Lancet 2004 comparison are examples, which you know damn well they "found". Trying to massagingly define it out of existence is a fraud to cover over the deceit of pretending it didn't exist. Also, I do not see where IBC numbers "get more and more out of whack". If you're speaking of the graph on the Lancet wiki page, the Lancet line is plotted along a vertical axis that is independent from the other two, so it's difficult to tell anything from that. The two independent axis can be adjusted until they show the desired result.71.246.104.28 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I think the question is settled about whether you care about "8 independent studies" or not Truthshifter. You care only about the one and only "true" one which is the only "true population-based method", just as I've said since I started noticing your deceitful farce here. All you're interested in is proselytizing for the Lancet study, using, as I accurately desribed "fraudulent POV edits".71.246.104.28 10:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
--Timeshifter 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC). You are making personal attacks on me, or bordering on it. That is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, nor on talk pages. See: WP:NPA. Please discuss the issues as strongly as you want, but not my character. People can decide for themselves about my character. Here is the quote again from Lancet that you are discussing. It is in context below:
-
"Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures. This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally hidden. Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods. In several outbreaks, disease and death recorded by facility-based methods underestimated events by a factor of ten or more when compared with population-based estimates. Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence. Nevertheless, surveillance tallies are important in monitoring trends over time and in the provision of individual data, and these data track closely with our own findings (figure 4)."
-
"Mortality rates from violent causes have increased every year post-invasion. By mid-year 2006, 91 violent deaths had occurred in 6 months, compared with 27 post-invasion in 2003 and 77 in 2004, and 105 for 2005, suggesting that violence has escalated substantially. The attributed cause of these deaths has also changed with time. Our data show that gunfire is the major cause of death in Iraq, accounting for about half of all violent deaths. Deaths from air strikes were less commonly reported in 2006 than in 2003–04, but deaths from car explosions have increased since late 2005. The proportion of violent deaths attributed to coalition forces might have peaked in 2004; however, the actual number of Iraqi deaths attributed to coalition forces increased steadily through 2005. Deaths were not classified as being due to coalition forces if households had any uncertainty about the responsible party; consequently, the number of deaths and the proportion of violent deaths attributable to coalition forces could be conservative estimates. Distinguishing criminal murders from anti-coalition force actions was not possible in this survey."
-
The article version has footnote numbers in it that one can follow up on too. When one reads it all in context it clear that the Lancet info is correct overall. No other study gets over 20% of the total excess deaths it has estimated. That is all the Lancet article is saying. It is not comparing individual categories of deaths. --Timeshifter 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary, when reading the footnotes and comparing them to the claims, these Lancet claims looks like a big and very carefully constructed hoax designed to disinform its readers. And of course nobody else has come within 20% of *their* estimate, because their estimate is a wild outlier from any other data in the world, and probably massively inflated. If they were trying to say that everything in the world is lower than them, they should have said that instead of lying and pretending to be speaking about broad categories over a long history. In any case, repeating the same falsehoods from the Lancet report, but this time in bold, does not make them any less falsehoods. The IBC/ILCS comparison disproves the claim, as does the IBC/Lancet 2004 comparison. Play semantic games all you want, as that's all you can do here, but these Lancet claims are fraudulent and misleading. And we can trade opinions all day, but after looking here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.6.php, these Lancet studies, which you are trying to do blatantly POV proselytizing for on the IBC page, look like second rate junior high-school science projects next to that "half-assed" ILCS that isn't a "TRUE" (cough, cough) "population-based method". 71.246.104.28 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to confuse you with the emphasized facts again, but here they are below. From the analytical report of the ILCS study:
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf --Timeshifter 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey. Although the date was not asked for, it is reasonable to suppose that the vast majority of deaths due to warfare occurred after the beginning of 2003." --Timeshifter 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The date is essential to determining the 2002 baseline mortality rate. If you bother to read some of their PDF articles, it becomes quite obvious that estimating deaths due to the war was way, way down the list of goals they had. The word "deaths" is not even in the 160 page tabulation report:
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Tabulation%20Report%20-%20Englilsh.pdf --Timeshifter 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The last IBC page you linked to was written in April 2006 before the 2nd Lancet study came out. That IBC page did not even mention the baseline mortality rate used by ICLS. That is a big flaw of the ILCS estimate of deaths. Also, the second Lancet study surveyed more people, and that narrowed the confidence interval range. The 2nd Lancet study confirmed the first one. Peer-reviewed. Accepted by epidemiologists worldwide:
Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq#Responses to criticisms
So there should be a genuine criticism section in the wikipedia IBC page explaining some more of these criticisms of IBC and other passive methods for estimating deaths. Case closed. Point, set, match. You can also put a response to criticism section, too. But IBC hasn't really attacked the 2nd Lancet study as far as I can tell. So there is little real response to the criticisms of the IBC study by the Lancet study. IBC says their numbers are low, anyway. Now we know that it is much lower than the actual number of deaths. --Timeshifter 04:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Truthshifter, you are really, really bad at paying attention. A "baseline mortality rate" has no bearing on the ILCS estimate of war deaths. I've explained this several times. And a comparison of ILCS to the 2nd Lancet study would not look much different than the IBC comparison to the 1st, as it's still a tiny jr high project in comparison. And the 2nd one did not confirm the 1st. That's yet another one of their self-serving whoppers. Look at the data closely and you'll see they're wildly different, almost opposite in some respects. They may as well have been looking at two different countries. In any case, there remains no grounds for putting a bunch of lies and distortions from a Lancet paper on the IBC page. Though there may be some grounds for putting a discussion of all these lies and distortions on the Lancet page.71.246.104.28 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
--Timeshifter 19:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC). Just because you say it doesn't make it true. I prefer the facts to your speculation. I have shown the facts to you several times. Pedersen, the author of the UN ILCS study, said they used it: "Pedersen noted that the Lancet study is based on a pre-invasion mortality rate of 5.5 deaths per thousand people [per year]. The U.N., he said, used the figure of 9 deaths per thousand."
-
The Lancet article is a peer-reviewed study published in one of the premier medical journals, The Lancet. Here are some facts below from the Lancet study supplement here:
http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf
-
"In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimate that the number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000. That these two [Lancet] surveys were carried out in different locations and two years apart from each other yet yielded results that were very similar to each other, is strong validation of both surveys. ..."
-
"In the news media coverage of the 2004 survey report, much was made of the wide confidence intervals, which is a statistical technique that was frequently misunderstood.With the much larger sample of the 2006 survey, the confidence intervals are narrowed significantly."
-
Point, set, match. I am going to post the criticisms of the IBC study in the IBC wikipedia page. You can post the responses to criticism section. How about that? What are you afraid of? Are you afraid people will not come to the same conclusions as you? Wikipedia does not take sides. It presents all significant viewpoints, and lets people decide for themselves. When someone like you blocks or blanks a significant viewpoint that is considered POV. If after discussion someone continuously blanks a particular viewpoint, then that is considered vandalism, and can be reverted by anybody. Look it up. --Timeshifter 19:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthshifter, Pedersen did not say they "used it" in the manner you have repeatedly claimed, for an "excess deaths" calculation like Lancet. You are simply wrong. You make up some nonsense about me "speculating" which make no sense, then you declare victory (Point, set, match), which is an indication that you insist on being wrong. And if you look closely at the actual Lancet data in the 2 studies, you'll find that the "very similar" claim is yet another self-serving deception. But you will not look, because your only interest is in proselytizing the Lancet POV, which is your POV, and not in anything else. Which is what all your edits have been about and why I've properly reverted them to the more neutral page which is only partially sullied by some of your POV manipulation.71.246.104.28 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You said "A 'baseline mortality rate' has no bearing on the ILCS estimate of war deaths." So tell us exactly what Pedersen "used" that baseline mortality rate for. From the Washington Post article: "Pedersen noted that the Lancet study is based on a pre-invasion mortality rate of 5.5 deaths per thousand people [per year]. The U.N., he said, used the figure of 9 deaths per thousand." --Timeshifter 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The "used" is not his quote. It's a paraphrase by the reporter, who probably knows as little about the study as you do. They did not "use" it to do an excess deaths calculation as you keep trying to say. The estimate of war deaths in ILCS is not an "excess deaths" estimate, meaning there is NO substraction of "baseline mortality rates", which means your points are false and irrelevant. You don't know or understand this study. Just as you did not know of or understand the supposed "8 independent estimates" when you were deceitfully claiming to be interested in them to parry my accurate point (as has become only more and more clear) that you were only interested in proselytizing a POV for the Lancet study.71.246.104.28 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
See my reply in the section farther down called "UNDP ILCS 2004. Full text on war deaths." --Timeshifter 04:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You said: "And the 2nd one did not confirm the 1st. That's yet another one of their self-serving whoppers. Look at the data closely and you'll see they're wildly different, almost opposite in some respects." --Timeshifter 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Lancet said: "In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimate that the number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000." --Timeshifter 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
100,000 versus 112,000 sounds pretty close to me. Give it up. --Timeshifter 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks close to you because the claim has been designed to deceive you, as have most of the claims in the Lancet report. It's supposed to make you think the two studies found the same things and thereby have corroborated each other. If you'd like to know why that's not the case, and why the claim is deceptive, look closely at the data that makes up these numbers. Replicate from the data their calculations that produced the "112,000" figure they claim. But I suspect you won't do this, because your priorities are not an objective analysis of the facts. They are only to proselytize for this specific Lancet POV. So you will not research this, just as you didn't research what ILCS is or what it did before making false claims about it and declaring your worthless opinions about it as "half assed" and just as you didn't research those supposed "8 independent studies" before making false and deceptive claims about them too.71.246.104.28 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You are just spewing in order to justify your continued selective POV blanking. The Lancet study was peer-reviewed. So the results match the data. The ILCS used the wrong baseline mortality rate, and didn't record the dates of the deaths it found in their survey. The 8 independent estimates claim was a quote. I only used the quote to show that there were a number of estimates. I made no claim about their merits. Next. --Timeshifter 00:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UNDP ILCS 2004. Full text on war deaths

Info from the interview with the study's author by the Washington Post:
-
Washington Post. Is Iraq's Civilian Death Toll 'Horrible' -- Or Worse? By Jefferson Morley. October 19, 2006
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/10/is_iraqs_civilian_death_toll_h.html
-
"One key issue is how researchers extrapolate from the deaths identified in their field research to a death toll for the whole country. Pedersen noted that the Lancet study is based on a pre-invasion mortality rate of 5.5 deaths per thousand people [per year]. The U.N., he said, used the figure of 9 deaths per thousand. Extrapolating from the lower pre-invasion mortality rate would yield a greater increase in post-invasion deaths, he noted. If the higher pre-invasion mortality rate is more accurate, then the deaths attributable to the war would be lower."
-
---
-
Here is the all the ILCS text below (emphasis added) that I could find on their website concerning war-related deaths. I searched their web pages and their pdf files for the word "deaths"
-
UNDP Iraqi Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS).
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm
-
From this web page:
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/population.htm
-
War-related Death
-
The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey data, children aged below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare.
-
---
-
From page 54 of this PDF file titled "Analytical report."
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf
-
War-related deaths – between 18,000 and 29,000
-
The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that have raised controversy. The ILCS data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. The confidence interval was estimated using a linearisation technique (using SPSS Complex Samples, version 12).
-
Table 39: Number of war-related deaths by region
95% confidence interval
Region Number Lower Higher
South 12,044 8,007 16,081
Baghdad 7,547 4,173 10,920
Centre 3,686 2,046 5,326
North 466 - 1,173
Total 23,743 18,187 29,299
-
Another source (Roberts et al. 2004) estimates the number to be 98,000, with a confidence interval of 8,000 to 194,000. The website “Iraq Body Count” (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) estimates that between 14,619 and 16,804 deaths have occurred between the beginning of 2003 and 7 December 2004 (IBC 2004).
-
The ILCS data has been derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey. Although the date was not asked for, it is reasonable to suppose that the vast majority of deaths due to warfare occurred after the beginning of 2003.
-
The question asked in ILCS was formulated and posed in a relatively standard way typical to large surveys and censuses (UN 1983). The question underestimates deaths, because households in which all members were lost are omitted. It is therefore common within demographic studies to use a correction for this, based on a number of assumptions derived from stable population theory (UN 1983). This has not been attempted here, as it is unlikely that the assumptions are satisfied. It is not common to make this correction in epidemiologically oriented studies, and this was not done in the Roberts et al. study.
-
According to the ILCS data, children aged below 18 years comprise twelve percent of the deaths due to warfare. As the data on infant mortality make clear—as does the data on malnutrition, presented elsewhere in this report—the suffering of children due to war and conflict in Iraq is not limited to those directly wounded or killed by military activities.
-
---

So the question is where did they get that 2002 baseline mortality rate of 9 deaths per thousand per year? Their reports do not say. Neither does the Washington Post interview. And there is no way to make an estimation of war deaths from their survey of deaths without a pre-war 2002 death rate. It is not rocket science. And they admit not getting dates for the deaths. They just know the deaths were in 2002 or 2003 or a few months into 2004. Did they assume all gunshot deaths were war-related, and after 2002? --Timeshifter 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Truthshifter, you just will not listen. The ILCS estimate is not an "excess deaths" estimate, therefore the estimate is independent from any "baseline rate" or "pre-war 2002 rate". Such a concern is only applicable to an "excess deaths" estimate like Lancet, which is what Pedersen was talking about in the quote. The ILCS estimate comes from the respondents classifying them as war deaths. They asked for all missing or dead. If the house had missing or dead there were follow up questions asking for the cause. The respondents said these were war deaths. All he's saying about the date issue is that even though they did not ask for a specific date, it's reasonable to assume that these are referring to deaths since the start of the invasion, because Iraq wasn't at "war" before the invasion so it would be a stretch to assume that respondents would put pre-invasion deaths in that category. If you think that's an unreasonable assumption, then the estimate should be lower, but it seems like a reasonable assumption. And if you were interested in this topic, instead of just narrowly-focussed proselytizing for the Lancet study, you would have already known all this long ago.71.246.104.28 10:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You said: "If the house had missing or dead there were follow up questions asking for the cause. The respondents said these were war deaths." You must be reading something different from me. Because the above text is all there is on the ILCS site about war-related deaths. The only other info from the author I have seen is the article from the Washington Post. That article says Pedersen used a baseline mortality rate. Only you say differently. People are found dead from gunshots. There is no way to know in many cases whether it was a simple murder, a criminal gang murder, a civilian caught in crossfire, an insurgent death, etc.. So the standard procedure is to subtract the baseline murder and mortality rates. Only you say differently. --Timeshifter 11:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2002 baseline mortality rate for Iraq

The Lancet study authors did not choose to use the lower 2002 baseline mortality rates from the US Census Bureau, or the CIA, or the Iraqi government, or the Los Angeles Times. This adds credibility to their study. Because if they had used a lower baseline rate that would inflate the number of total excess Iraqi deaths due to the war. Both the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies surveyed the population to get the 2002 baseline mortality rate. Both times they came up with around 5.5 deaths per thousand per year. From all causes. --Timeshifter 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the supplement to the 2006 Lancet study:

For the purpose of analysis, the 40 months of survey data were divided into three equal periods—March 2003 to April 2004; May 2004 to May 2005, and June 2005 to June 2006. Following the invasion the death rate rose each year.
  • Pre-invasion: 5.5 deaths/1,000/year
  • March 2003-April 2004: 7.5 deaths/1,000/year
  • May 2004-May 2005: 10.9 deaths/1,000/year
  • June 2005-June 2006: 19.8 deaths/1,000/year
  • Overall post-invasion: 13.2 deaths/1,000/year --Timeshifter 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for graphic

Wouldn't it be useful to include a graphic version of the body count statistic? As I understand it, the confidence interval, and the probability of the deaths being (in the original study) about 100,000, is best described by a bell curve, but as you probably know, everyone seems to think of it as a "dart board" [5]. This is the most widely-known public interpretation of the study, and the basis on which most criticisms of the study were founded.

Unfortunately I can't find a bell curve graphic that applies to the study. Maybe if we sent emails to the authors they would be willing to create one and release it into the public domain? Novickas 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 06:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC). That article concerns the 2004 Lancet study. I haven't seen a bell curve for the 2006 Lancet study. There are other charts and graphs in the supplement to the Lancet study: http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf
And here are relevant quotes from the Lancet study:
"In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimate that the number of excess deaths during that time were about 112,000. That these two surveys were carried out in different locations and two years apart from each other yet yielded results that were very similar to each other, is strong validation of both surveys. ..."
"In the news media coverage of the 2004 survey report, much was made of the wide confidence intervals, which is a statistical technique that was frequently misunderstood. With the much larger sample of the 2006 survey, the confidence intervals are narrowed significantly. ..." --Timeshifter 06:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link for IBC info needed

At the bottom of this paragraph below from the article is the sentence someone added, "However, IBC had already found and discussed one such case." The link at the end was: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.6.1.php - but I could not find the claimed info therein. Is there another IBC link with the claimed info?

The October 2006 Lancet study [3] [4] states: "Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance [used by the IBC] recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods [used in the Lancet studies]." However, IBC had already found and discussed one such case.

Anybody know? --Timeshifter 18:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


The ILCS is a cluster household survey. You've made no case for removing the comparison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.64.60.148 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Even with the addition of the 2nd link most readers will not see the relation of the linked material to the sentence the links follow. I think I see where you are going with it though. If you want the readers to see the logic you should explain the logic better. I believe you are saying that the IBC results themselves are above the 20% threshold when compared to the ILCS. IBC claims the ILCS is a legitimate population-based mortality survey. Lancet authors say ILCS is not a legitimate population-based survey. But IBC has a right to its opinion. --Timeshifter 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe it's quite clear from the links. ILCS is a random cluster sample survey measuring war-deaths. Explain how or why this is not a "population-based method". Next, you change the semantics to "legitimate population-based mortality survey", and claim that IBC asserts this semantically revised claim, and Lancet authors dispute it. I don't see where the claim from Lancet authors of it not being a "legitimate population-based survey" come from. Roberts thinks ILCS is wrong, Pedersen thinks Lancet is wrong. I'm not sure how or why that would change eithers' status as "population-based methods". If what you're saying is true, perhaps Lancet authors should have said that they "can't find any cases where passive surveillance captured more than 20% of those population-based methods whose results we like (ie, our own and those which can somehow be used to support our own)".
If that was their reasoning, and why Lancet authors did not "find" ILCS, this would require explanation, otherwise their assertion is misleading readers by hiding the underlying opinionated assumptions on which those assertions are relying. What you are doing is using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to selectively revise a dubious assertion after the fact. If you want to argue a "No True Scotsman" you need to clearly explain what your assertions are assuming and explain exactly how your particular version of a "True Scotsman" is being defined before your claims about Scotsman can be meaningful or credible. And I don't see how the Guatemala study could qualify, while ILCS does not. But that's the utility of the "No True Scotsman". Its user can do whatever he wants, as others are kept in the dark about the assumptions underlying the claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.64.60.148 (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


Timeshifter now put this on the page: "The Lancet study authors dispute this contention. See the section titled "UNDP ILCS study compared to Lancet study" in Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

The section he cites for his assertion there is a POV-tagged section of another wiki article which was written/edited almost entirely by himself. There is no "contention" addressed about whether ILCS is a "population-based method". What is quoted is the Lancet authors asserting an opinion that they think the ILCS estimate was too low. Whether this opinion of theirs is correct or not has no bearing on whether it is a "population-based method". 74.64.60.148 08:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The section uses sourced material. Some of which you added. Wikipedia does not take sides. You don't seem to understand WP:NPOV. IBC and Lancet both dispute each other. Whether they are right or wrong, or somewhere in between, or whatever, is up to the reader. --Timeshifter 08:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guatemala

The Guatemala passages are being removed because their relevance to IBC is entirely unclear. It uses a different, and much narrower, method of monitoring "newspaper accounts" limited exclusively to print media inside Guatemala, and it was based in a very different culture and war decades ago. And it is also unclear exactly what these "newspaper accounts" are being compared against to give these figures of "50%" and "5%", numbers which do not even seem to appear in the study. And since no other comparisons (particularly of less tangential relevance) are provided, citing this one particular source amounts to little more than tangential cherry picking and innuendo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.64.60.148 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 January 2007 74.64.60.148 (UTC)

I will make the connection clearer later. just as you should make the connection clearer for your point in the last section. --Timeshifter 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to write opinion editorials drawing your own 'connections' for people, perhaps you should try to get hired at a newspaper, perhaps one in Guatemala.74.64.60.148 06:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Iraq Body Count project. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You have deleted the same sourced info on the study of the number of Guatemala deaths 3 times in less than 24 hours. I also warned you of this in an edit summary and on your user talk page. --Timeshifter 06:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

sourced material needs to be directly relevant to the topic of the page.74.64.60.148 08:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It was always relevant to the topic of the page. As I wrote in my last edit summary: IBC and Lancet both state that each others' claims are inaccurate. Wikipedia does not take sides. It just presents all viewpoints. See WP:NPOV
Due to your 4th reversion in less than 24 hours a 3RR violation report has been made at WP:AN/3RR. --Timeshifter 09:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not an issue of IBC or Lancet saying each others claims are "inaccurate". You provided no discussion of the Guatemala issue from IBC, but then there probably isn't any because it has no clear relevance to IBC. You've just placed several paragraphs about it here from Lancet authors, elaborated by you. The issue is relevance. Why is the supposed "number of Guatemala deaths" from twenty years ago asserted by one other study that has no connection with IBC taking up several paragraphs on the IraqBodyCount page? Something on media coverage of Afghanistan deaths, or Israel/Palestine deaths or any number of others more recent middle-east conflicts might have some relevance. At least that would be somewhere within a decade of IBC, and on the same side of the globe. But even then the relevance would be debateable. You're just cherry-picking this tangential stuff to proselytize for the Lancet study POV again, which is what all of your massive editing of all these pages is about. The only question is whether Lancet's authors have hired you or if you're proselytizing purely on ideological conviction.74.64.60.148 08:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The Guatemala info is another example of undercounting of deaths by the media during a war. The info is in the undercounting section of the article. I originally had that undercounting section as a subsection of criticism. You moved the undercounting section to its current location. --Timeshifter 08:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"(as previously described from chapter 10 [27])", heh, yeah better to downplay those quotes. They must only be heard once, unlike your "English-language media" which needs to be repeated ad naseum and in the introduction, for some reason or other that I'm sure has nothing to do with POV pushing.74.73.39.219 06:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove. Guatemala was a different time and place with different media coverage, infrastructure and observers. I fail to see any relevancy for comparison between the two. A comparison to Bosnia, forex, or the Gulf War would be in order. Especially since the intent of the Guatemala data is to indirectly support the claims of a 10X undercount...which would equate to 2.5% of the Iraqi population, or a death count of 25 per 1000 exclusive of natural causes and mundane causes...a number that is ridiculous on the face of it, and unsupported by any legitimate study.Mzmadmike 17:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilink to more undercounting examples

I deleted some of the undercounting examples here. I linked to the article Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 where there are more examples. --Timeshifter 10:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journalist articles/books inaccurately cited

This is to explain to Timeshifter why I removed his references to Lila Guterman articles and a Noam Chomsky book in the Criticism section. He presents these as criticizing media or government willingness to quote IBC, but such criticism is not found. The Guterman article is about the Lancet study and responses to that. IBC is mentioned in passing but not criticized, nor is media coverage of IBC addressed. Neither is this in the Noam Chomsky book cited. Instead of saying "reread the articles" to vaguely imply that this is in the articles, perhaps you could just quote the passages from these sources that you believe is accurately represented by your description of them.74.64.60.148 00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to my idea rather than deleting sourced material. I put in a relevant Lila Guterman quote. I deleted all the Noam Chomsky quotes and references. He criticized the media ignoring the Lancet estimate, but he did not say that the media was using the IBC count as a way to ignore the Lancet estimate. I used the Amazon.com search of his book to search for all references to Iraq Body Count. --Timeshifter 08:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, you've now placed quotes. The first is very vaguely similar to your editorialized caption, not really, but I'm not going to bother. The Chomsky quote however is ridiculous. It's completely misplaced in a section on criticism of IBC, and is rhetorically placed into a collective of critiques by Dahr Jamail and others. And the quote used is a second hand, and dubiously truncated version of the original, and one wonders why this was chosen when the chapter from the book is available online here: http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=73753.

The full (and only) passage on IBC in Chomsky's book reads:

"A subsequent study by Iraq Body Count found 25,000 noncombatants reported killed in the first two years of the occupation -- in Baghdad, one in 500 citizens; in Falluja, one in 136. U.S.-led forces killed 37%, criminals 36%, "anti-occupation forces" 9%. Killings doubled in the second year of the occupation. Most deaths were caused by explosive devices; two-thirds of these by air strikes. The estimates of Iraq Body Count are based on media reports, and are therefore surely well below the actual numbers, though shocking enough."

This is what you cite as "other criticism of various kinds" of IBC and collectivize with pieces by Stephen Soldz, Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pfleuger which do heavily criticize IBC.

Nothing else is said about IBC in Chomsky's book. The rest of the doctored quote from the Jamail article comes from five paragraphs later, after Chomsky had long moved past the topic of IBC and has discussed several other topics. He eventually returns to the Lancet study (but not to IBC). A less truncated version of that part reads:

"The Lancet study estimating 100,000 probable deaths by October 2004 elicited enough comment in England that the government had to issue an embarrassing denial, but in the United States virtual silence prevailed. The occasional oblique reference usually describes it as the "controversial" report that "as many as 100,000" Iraqis died as a result of the invasion. The figure of 100,000 was the most probable estimate, on conservative assumptions; it would be at least as accurate to describe it as the report that "as few as 100,000" died. Though the report was released at the height of the U.S. presidential campaign, it appears that neither of the leading candidates was ever publicly questioned about it."

The first paragraph above is relevant to IBC, but is misrepresented by Jamail and now worse by Truthshifter as a "criticism" of IBC, while it's not at all like those of Jamail and the others. And the second part is not relevant to IBC. It's just about Lancet.

This is, frankly, absurd POV editing and another good reason why these sections are flagged due to your antics, and why I'm of the view that you have no interest with any of these pages other than POV-pushing and proselytizing for the Lancet study and for this Media Lens line against IBC. What purpose does the gross misrepresentation of this Chomsky book as "criticism" of IBC serve, other than the value that might come from conscripting a more notable name to lump in with the other less notable critics so that this notability might extend to the POV you're pushing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.64.60.148 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See reply to the other anonymous editor. Your tone is amusing to me. It is all a great plot isn't it? Everyone is plotting against you. LOL. It is funny. I actually don't like Noam Chomsky's style of writing. Too tedious, ideological, and strained. Like your writing. LOL. We spent weeks arguing in these talk pages, and I was always amused by your straining at gnats. I have no problem deleting Noam Chomsky's stuff. I only put it in because it was in the Dahr Jamail article. Dahr Jamail quoted Noam Chomsky just fine. He let the reader make the inference. But inference alone is not good enough for wikipedia. "Truthshifter", oh that is so clever. For weeks now I let you rant on and make a fool of yourself. Keep it up. I am amused. --Timeshifter 08:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV stuff in intro

The intro for the IBC page inserts two qualifiers or caveats which do not belong in an introduction and suggest POV influence. The first is describing IBC as using "English language news". This is misleading, particularly for an unqualified intro, because people do not generally know what is or is not available in English. Most will probably assume this means news sources in the USA and the UK. But IBC uses lots of international and Arabic sources. The project's co-founder says that many of these publish in English themselves, and others are translated by various translation organizations which they use. Putting this caveat in the introduction also seems to favor a POV regarding the section that follows about English and Arabic sources, as just having such a formulation in the introduction assumes and implies to readers that this is some crucial caveat, which is to take a side in that debate. The IBC uses news reports. The details about this are explained in the page.

The second problem is the FAQ caveat. This is again explained in the page and has most of the same problems as above. The introduction is not the place for selective POV-driven caveats and qualifiers. The issue of "undercounting" has a whole long section (which is also POV-laden, but that's another story).Seigfried4220 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back with your new user name, Seigfried4220. All the info you deleted was sourced and not POV. Deletion of sourced info is a violation of wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It fits the pattern though of the 4 anonymous IP addresses you used previously on this article page to delete sourced info.

One halmark of your comments is that you accuse other editors of everything you yourself are guilty of. You've spent the last few days trying to delete whole sections of sourced info from two pages. You got 3RR blocked for doing it in one case, along with getting me blocked for putting your deletions back. Another hallmark of your comments is 'wikilawyering' in which you selectively conscript various guidelines to intimidate other users (while violating all them yourself usually). The info I deleted was POV-laden cherry-picking of sourced material designed to convey a POV. In the case of your beloved "English-language" caveat, it's purpose is to make people think IBC only uses a tiny fraction of the media out there and therefore misses lots of stuff because of this. That is POV-pushing. If you'd like, I can go around and find every quotation or refernce to "uncertainty" etc., wrt Lancet estimates and plaster them on the Lancet introduction, or do the same to the table on the Casualties page. I could also maybe cherry-pick some facts like "recorded 21 deaths" or "629 deaths" and paste that everywhere the Lancet studies are briefly mentioned on wikipedia, as well as in the introduction to the page. Then maybe you'd see how and why doing so is POV-laden, in your case transparently so.Seigfried4220 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I added "(including Arabic media translated into English)". --Timeshifter 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not just say 'news media' then? What exactly is the purpose served by having this (now longer) qualifier in the introduction? Discussion of English and Arabic has a section in the page.Seigfried4220 07:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The intro of a wikipedia page is supposed to summarize the main points. The main point of a casualty estimate page is explaining the method used to get the casualty estimate. It only takes a sentence or two to summarize that method. --Timeshifter 08:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that IBC only uses english language media is accurate, relevant to the reader and notable-as many criticisms of the project stem from this fact-it is therefore entirely appropriate in the intro.Felix-felix 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

IP contribution lists with beginning and end dates:

The 71.246.104.28 account linked just above made frequent use of the word "Truthshifter" in comments on this talk page:

The 74.64.60.148 account linked below made this comment below using the word "Truthshifter." Thus helping to tie all 4 IP address accounts to the same person.

"The first paragraph above is relevant to IBC, but is misrepresented by Jamail and now worse by Truthshifter as a 'criticism' of IBC, while it's not at all like those of Jamail and the others."

Here is the revision difference link below showing the addition of the above statement to the talk page for the Iraq Body Count project.

---

"PS. I'm also going to use an account. I will be Seigfried.74.73.39.219 00:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)"

Here is the revision difference link below showing the addition of the above statement to the talk page for the Lancet study:

Article pages where many attempts at deletion of sourced info by this person has occurred:

--- --Timeshifter 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I checked the sources of this thing and some that are used are not on the list

I am in full agreement that the civilian count is extremely high, however, I noticed that some of the sources used are not in the sources list. I was writing an essay, and I wanted to check that my source was using meritable sources. I went to the sources list (second link) at the database (first link, link where sources are used) and found that some of the sources used in the database were not on the source list. Two sources (NINA and NcCla) out of the seven I checked were not in the sources. Just to let you know, I didnt look through the whole thing and find all of them, I used "control+f" and it didnt find those source abbreviations in the source list.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/sources.php

--Guitarplayer001 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Guitarplayer001 wrote in the article: "Sources of IBC May be False. See the Discussion Page, article 19".
Please elaborate. I do not understand what you are saying. I assume you meant section 19 in the talk page? --Timeshifter 02:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that some of the sources that are used to support the claims, are not listed in the sources page, which is supposed to have all of the sources, does not have several of the sources in it. I emailed the people in the contact thing, and I told them of the situation, and advised them to update their sources list. --Guitarplayer001 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, please do not use ALL-CAPS. :)
It is considered to be shouting. I changed the talk section heading to small caps. --Timeshifter 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. --Guitarplayer001 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


RESOLVED...
Iraq Body Count <comment@iraqbodycount.org> wrote: Hi -----, 'NcCla' is a typo which is supposed to be McCla. That's McClatchy, used to be called Knight Ridder (KR on our list). I've fixed the typos. 'NINA' is National Iraqi News Agency. Our sources list is updated periodically, and these will be added next update. Regards, ---- --------- For Iraq Body Count
-----Original Message----- From: ------- ------------------ Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:56 PM To: comment@iraqbodycount.org Subject: IMPORTANT About Sources Hey, about sources, your sources list either needs to be updated, or some of your sources are false, i checked some of your sources, and the NcCla and NINA were both not on our sources list. I only checked 7 sources, so you guys might want to check that. K bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.254.91 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 26 May 2007

[edit] Request to remove the NPOV tag

The recent edits to the opening description of the Iraq Body Count project have made it an extremely neutral description of this group and thier work. Whether you love them or hate them, they're a quasi-legitimate organization, and I think that's the real truth of the situation. I would add in a "request for cleanup" about some of the controversy, and I would also ask that progressive-minded editor could remove some of the detrius from this talk page. --Torchpratt (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graph

The graph on the right should obviously updated, as it stops exactly when the surge begins to take effect and casualties drop sharply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.178.142 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 January 2008

I moved the above comment from the article to here, and added the unsigned comment template to source it. Here is the diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)