Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Iraq Body Count project


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I added "(including Arabic media translated into English)". --Timeshifter 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

---

IP contribution lists with beginning and end dates:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.68.212.175 - 14:41, 6 November 2006 to 02:36, 10 November 2006
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.246.104.28 - 10:12, 10 November 2006 to 10:47, 16 November 2006

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.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.64.60.148 - 11:13, 21 November 2006 to 05:52, 9 January 2007.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.73.39.219 - 06:19, 9 January 2007 to Jan. 25, 2007.

---

"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:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seigfried4220 - 14:33, 19 January 2007 to ...

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay, thank you. --Guitarplayer001 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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)[reply]

Those "drive-by tags" (without any explanation or discussion) don't really help anyone. So, I've removed it; and if the original tagger has any specific issues with this article then he should probably list them here on the talk page first. Frescard (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I posted an updated graph, which includes the whole of IBC's range, from Jan '03 to Nov '08. Frescard (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of IBC figure as an 'estimate'?

From the intro: "The IBC has a media-centered approach to counting and documenting the deaths. Other sources have provided differing estimates of deaths, some much higher."

Taken together these two statements suggest that what IBC is trying to do is 'estimate' the number of deaths. I don't believe they have ever claimed that they estimate the total number of civilian deaths. Besides, it should be obvious given their methodology that this is not what they are doing. What IBC attempt to provide is a lower bound for the total number of deaths. That is, outside of specific errors of reporting or recording of incidents, they are trying to show that no less than the figure they give have died. The actual figure is likely to be much higher (as IBC itself states). Therefore, saying that IBC provides one (of the lower) 'estimates' is misleading. They don't.

This mischaracterisation of IBC as an estimate (not a lower-bounds) is common though. There's one example here http://iraqmortality.org/iraq-mortality, this in this case the article corrects itself after initially claiming IBC is an estimate (many other references IBC don't and just refer to it as an estimate). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.69.3 (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.69.3 (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial commentary

The section called "Undercounting", which is already flagged for objections over neutrality, does some editorializing with brackets in quotations. I removed this here:

The October 2006 Lancet study[30][31] states: "Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance [as used by the IBC]..."

WLRoss put the editorial interjections back, but they are, first, editorializing by a wikipedia editor so there is no particular cause for them to be there, but second, it is actually a POV interjection as well.

The bracketed fragment is editorial and it is a POV one. This label is not used by the IBC to describe what it does or uses. It does not seem to appear anywhere on the website, including in the lengthy sections describing the methods they use. Instead, it is a label applied by some IBC critics. Some IBC supporters have rejected the label: http://www.thecommentfactory.com/passive-death-counts-in-iraq-have-merit-3061/

Among other things, this quotes a peer-reviewed paper about the Lancet study which rejects this this use of that label as false. Thus the idea that this label describes what is "used by the IBC" is an assertion that has been made by some and been rejected by others. The editorial interjection asserting that this label is what is "used by the IBC" is a POV assertion, presenting a disputed assertion from one side as if it were a fact. Thus this is inappropriate.

Really, this whole section is just POV to begin with. It's like a bunch of cherry-picked references to "undercounting" in various random things where a connection to the IBC is often never drawn at all or just vaguely implied. The whole section just seems like a bunch of POV-pushing to me. But that's another story.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this diff, the added info in brackets is simply explanatory. You, and others, may disagree with the statement, but you don't disagree with it by removing clarifying info. Feel free to add referenced info that disagrees with the statement. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "clarifying". They are an editorial assertion of a disputed opinion as fact by a wikipedia editor.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is explanatory info in brackets POV? The explanatory info explaining the meaning of the terms could be moved to a sentence following the sentence in question. Please do not edit war. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, at best, a disputed and opinionated "meaning" for the terms. Show any source prior to the Lancet study giving a meaning or definition for this term that would define the IBC (or DoD) methods.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is their meaning for the terms. And that is what counts. Please stop the edit warring. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iraq Body Count project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Body Count project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iraq Body Count project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iraq Body Count project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Iraq Body Count project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Table updates in a few minutes

It only takes a few minutes to update the table completely. For more info see:

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_Body_Count_project