This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iraq Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Do we have a better resource than antiwar.com [1] for the death count? I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree - Why exactly wouldn't you consider them a reliable source? Antiwar are dedicated to reporting terrorism and war-related news from all over the world, and in my 5+ year experience in doing this, their tolls are always closest to the real ones and they keep reporting for at least a day after major attacks, updating tolls as necessary. Not to mention that every attack is linked to a news article so you can easily create the tally yourself - BBC and Al-Jazeera might say 65 or 70, but if you look around websites such as the National Iraqi News Agency, or the cited MSN News, you will find them mentioning both the separate smaller bombing in Ur (Baghdad), as well as the assault in Baiji and various smaller attacks, so in the end the death toll will turn out to be the same - Antiwar is just diligent in collecting all this information. I see absolutely no reason to stop using them - on the contrary, they have been a great source of information and have enabled me to fill up holes in the articles about some of the major attacks in Iraq that would have otherwise remained there. Skycycle (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side-note - Iraq Body Count's preliminary death toll is 109, higher than what Antiwar is reporting ([2]) - these usually are adjusted by at least 10% up when the details trickle in within a few weeks. Skycycle (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antiwar.com is not an NPOV, RS. It is an advocacy site, not a neutral media source as their "About Us" page makes clear: "This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, 'greens,' and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism."[3] There is clearly a danger that their strong ideological views color their reporting. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, agreed - but how does this affect them reporting on death tolls AND sourcing it to major news outlets? Skycycle (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]