Talk:ORB survey of Iraq War casualties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Some other sources of wiki material

Thanks for starting this wikipedia article, SDas.

There is more wikified ORB survey info (with references) here:

[edit] Name change

I was bold and changed the name of this article from ORB survey of casualties after the invasion of Iraq to ORB survey of casualties of the Iraq War. I hope this is OK. It maintains consistency of naming concerning the Iraq War. It also allows me to start wikilinking to this article right away. --Timeshifter 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job! The article looks so good now. SDas 11:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *crickets*

There was so much teeth-gnashing dispute of the Lancet studies, but not a peep about this one. No left-wing background of the authors, I guess. ←BenB4 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This one was - amazingly - not widely reported. But I don't think the Lancet authors had "left-wing" credentials. The teeth-gnashers simply can't comprehend statistics. In any case, if you stumble across any criticism, I think we should add it here. This article seems quite short, in spite of timeshifter's excellent efforts. SDas 21:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I had been looking for criticism to add and didn't find any. You are right though, now that I look there are less than 200 Google News hits on it. One of the Lancet study authors was a Clinton administration official, I think. ←BenB4 22:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I did find some blogs, but this is the best they can do. ←BenB4 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It is up to you to decide whether to include this as a section on criticisms of the ORB study (personally - I'd not add material from a blog into the article though). Sooner than later, there will be some other criticisms. SDas 01:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources. Niether are MediaLens or that Socialist site. The only sources that should be included are the Observer and LA Times. Isaac Pankonin 03:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Blogs may not be used. However what is wrong with MediaLens and Socialist sites? MediaLens may not be mainstream, but I don't see why it must be labeled "extreme". Here is a debate between IBC and MediaLens on BBC - obviously BBC does not consider MediaLens's opinion to be unworthy (in spite of a flame war):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4951508.stm
MediaLens won a peace award:
http://www.gandhifoundation.org/medialens.html
So is the Gandhi foundation "extreme" as well?
There are socialist nations (including the largest and second largest in the world). Are we not going to use the opinions of two-fifths of humanity? What about Xinhua?
Wikipedia policy is not to use extreme WP:RS sources. In my opinion this is not a blanket ban on the liberal media. Furthermore, if one were to use one's own judgment, there is nothing wrong or "extreme" in the specific articles that are cited here, regardless of the source. Even the article on evolution cites Muhammad Hamidullah, a proponent of Islam. As long as one is not taking sides - i.e. stating that MediaLens or WSWS are right - let the facts speak for themselves!
I do appreciate your patience and willingness to discuss this issue. SDas 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not just a ban on liberal media. The Republican website would also be unacceptable, as well as National Review or NewsBusters. It simply makes the article look bad to have them in there. The article itself might be neutral, but when a reader sees that kind of source, they will automatically throw up their guard and look at it with suspicion. Isaac Pankonin 05:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Nearly all of the sites you mentioned are considered acceptable under WP:RS. They are often used as sources on wikipedia. WP:NPOV states that we need to use info from those sites in the form of X says Y. Or... "claims are made about..." and then the footnotes. We can't state the info in the narrative voice of wikipedia to make it sound like wikipedia's official take on any issue. --Timeshifter 09:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths per day

There are 1613 days between March 20, 2003, and August 19, 2007. That makes the supposed average deaths per day in Iraq to be nearly 620, per week to be almost 4,340 and per month (4 weeks) to be almost 17,359. Apparently all these deaths are taking place in areas well away from the sight of the numerous international reporters in the country... 67.135.49.211 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious that reporters would only report a small fraction of all excess deaths? How many Darfur deaths or Rwanda deaths got reported? Not only is (or was) Iraq a developing nation, with this many deaths, it does not make a nice report to cover each one. SDas (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe Darfur or Rwanda have embedded reporters. Not many, anyway. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Which is why IBC exists. But embedded reporters are attached to the invading forces in Iraq, ergo severe restrictions in what they can access, and what they can report. And they came under criticism for being too biased. Anyway this issue is not related to the main article. SDas (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)