This template was considered for deletion on 2006 July 4. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Death NA‑class | |||||||
|
Military history: Middle East Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't see support for the "with roughly three times as many injured." in the Lancet study.-- Silverback 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me quote from Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq:
If that sentence is false, misleading or POV, the please discuss it on the talk page for Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Just because gwbush's speechmakers pretend not to understand the difference between iraqbodycount - which only estimates deaths for which e.g. at least 2 or 3 different "reputable" newspapers give consistent reports and sufficient identifying details (place, name, ...), it does not claim to estimate the total, many civilians are certainly killed without ending up with their names in a newspaper - and the Lancet study - which does attempt to estimate the total, but gives a conservative lower limit, is no reason for wikipedians to make the same error. Boud 18:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The DOD does NOT count soldiers who were injured in non-hostile incidents among the wounded. They DO count soldiers who die of wounds/injuries among the dead. That's why so many soldiers are listed as dying in the US or Germany. They died of wounds after being evacuated. See www.icasualties.org for more info.
Czolgolz 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting the commentary in the template. The US DOES report ALL Iraq fatalities, whether they happen in Iraq, Germany, or the US. They just reported the death of a US soldier in Louisville, Kentucky, from wounds received in September, 2005.
Czolgolz 12:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps putting the one australian death in the chart (actually, there've been two). If we do that, we'll need to list every country who's lost a soldier (Slovakia, for instance, has lost three). Should we do that, or still classify countries that have lost less than ten soldiers under 'other'?
The upper limit of civilian deaths is quoted as 100,000 from the Lancet study. The lancet study did not measure civilian deaths however, it measured all deaths (milirtary and civilian), using a comparison of death rates prior to invasion and post invasion [1] [2]. Iraq body count reviewed the publicly available sources of casulties and classed them by the types of casualties they included [3]. According to the IBC report only IBC and the Iraqi ministry of health have excluded military casualties. Mrdthree 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the IBC report only IBC and the Iraqi ministry of health have excluded military casualties. IBC claims that the Lancet tudy is also inaccurate and that a better study is the ILCS/IMIRA [4]. Ignoring the fact that both IMRA/ILCS [5] also includes military deaths, IBC says the most it is underestimating civilian deaths by is 61%. [6]. So, when appropriately compared to ILCS, the worst one could say of IBC is that its count could be low by a factor of two, a far cry from factors of "five or ten" [7]. Using this calculus the current lower and upper bonds are from 37813 to ~85000 [8]. Mrdthree 14:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the 'Iraqi Civilians' quote to 'Iraqi casualties'-- if the Lancet study is to be used. Mrdthree 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
On the CNN, it is said there are only 30 italian deaths so I lowered it from 31 accordingly. -- Cat out 11:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to list them all individually? It's kind of making the template look crowded and I'm not sure anyone is updating it. Czolgolz 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
BD2412 asks: "are you asserting that no one died in Iraq after the Lancet report was published? Or since Bush estimate 30,000 dead? Those deaths are very well documented."
No, of course not. But it was clearly stated when those figures were given, which obviously means they can not include deaths past Dec 2005 (Bush) and Sep 2004 (Lancet). I don't believe we should be creating new estimates in this way, by selectively combining certain sources with certain others. These would be selective choices made by you, not by any cited source. And for example, you selectively add 2006 figures from UN to the Bush figure, but why? The UN gives a figure of 50,000 for the whole time-frame. Why are we adding a portion of one to the other to make this new 'frankenstein' estimate which can't be directly cited to anyone but you and these combination choices you made?
Likewise, why are we adding post-Sep-2004 MSNBC figures to Lancet instead of just giving the MSNBC's figure? Or, why aren't we adding MSNBC figures on top of the UNDP study from May 2004 instead of adding them to Lancet from Sep 2004? These are all arbitrary choices made by you. Citing a source and a specific figure with a specific time frame has its own value.
If you wanted to add info from something like the UN report, I think it would be more appropriate to add it after the citable figures from the others, rather than conflating them. Something like this might be appropriate:
30,000-100,000 (The lower figure was given by G. W. Bush in a public speech on December 12, 2005; the higher one comes from the September 2004 Lancet study Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) In July 2006, The United Nations has reported that at least 14,000 deaths occurred in the first half of 2006.
The Newsweek number correlates in the sense that it is close enough to show that the combined estimates of Bush and the UN are in the ballpark - note that Bush's comment was made on December 12, and the UN report covers from January to June - there were additional deaths in the last three weeks of December, and I had previously noted in the template that over a thousand additional deaths were reported in July. As to your second point, that the IBC figure should stand as the minimum, this mischaracterizes the IBC report. IBC does not purport to reflect the actual number of deaths, but is only a count of those that were reported in media outlets. You have noted above that although Newsweek purports to have based its numbers on IBC, Newsweek's numbers are higher. This shows that Newsweek has captured some information that is not within the category of information that IBC reports.
With respect to the change in the count at List of wars and disasters by death toll, yes, I made this revision to correct an error on my part - I had counted the highest reported estimate from the Lancet study without observing that the study itself had discounted the underlying data as an outlier. This drew the highest statistically reliable number down to 194,000 (which is within the 95% confidence interval of the Lancet study). bd2412 T 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The template format changes made by Rnt20 on December 4, 2006 caused some unintended serious problems. When you make such changes in the template please go to some of the pages the template is on in order to see how the template looks in a regular wikipedia page. For example; Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003.
If the changes cause problems, then revert the template page back to what it was until you figure out the problem. I know the reference format is different for templates. Compared to references on regular wikipedia pages. But it was working before. I did not create the format. But as the saying goes "if it aint broke, don't fix it". :)
And feel free to add notes to the Bush links. Just please use the existing reference format. -- Timeshifter 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
From the Iraq Body Count project page:
The IBC overview page states: "This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion." [1]
The IBC was described *twice* in this short chart as being "English language media". This is misleading, particularly for short blurb, 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 IBC seems to have had a debate with some critics about what significance this might have for their count. The IBC believes little or none because they say most major Arabic sources publish in English and many others are translated by various services which they use. Using the "English language media IBC" formulation seems to clearly take a POV side in this debate, that this "English" thing is some crucial caveat for their count, and tends to imply to readers that IBC doesn't use Arabic reports, but they clearly do. Without a thorough explanation of what this might mean, its inclusion in this short description is misleading and POV. It's inclusion *twice* in the same little section suggests that a previous editor has gone a bit overboard in POV-pushing. Seigfried4220 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
If you keep up the personal attacks and insults I will be reporting you to the incident board for it. See my user page for links to the relevant wikipedia policies and incident boards. User:Timeshifter
Here below is what I added to Benwing's talk page. User talk:Benwing
Seigfried4220 (74.73.39.219) deleted your material from template.
Hi Benwing. You added some good info to this template: Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. See this revision difference.
Seigfried4220 (74.73.39.219) just deleted some of it with this edit summary: "deleted opinionated assertion about what the differences reflect". Here is the revision difference.
The sentence he deleted was this one: "The differences reflect differing methodologies as well as differing definitions of the types of death counted."
I like that sentence which is why I left it in when you first put it in. It is a good, simple, NPOV, and necessary introduction to complex casualty stats. I have deleted other info of yours, so I am not kissing your butt. Just pointing out how Seigfried4220 operates. -- Timeshifter 06:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Seigfried4220 (same person as 74.73.39.219) is currently on a binge inserting POV, and/or deleting sourced info, on several Iraq War casualty pages.
BTW..I consider this irrelevant little form letter about IP addresses that you're circulating everywhere to be nothing more than a deceitful smear campaign (to go along with your POV-pushing campaign to pimp the Lancet study). And you wonder why I've questioned your integrity. Seigfried4220 05:54, 25 January 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 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 July 4. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Death NA‑class | |||||||
|
Military history: Middle East Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't see support for the "with roughly three times as many injured." in the Lancet study.-- Silverback 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Let me quote from Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq:
If that sentence is false, misleading or POV, the please discuss it on the talk page for Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Just because gwbush's speechmakers pretend not to understand the difference between iraqbodycount - which only estimates deaths for which e.g. at least 2 or 3 different "reputable" newspapers give consistent reports and sufficient identifying details (place, name, ...), it does not claim to estimate the total, many civilians are certainly killed without ending up with their names in a newspaper - and the Lancet study - which does attempt to estimate the total, but gives a conservative lower limit, is no reason for wikipedians to make the same error. Boud 18:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The DOD does NOT count soldiers who were injured in non-hostile incidents among the wounded. They DO count soldiers who die of wounds/injuries among the dead. That's why so many soldiers are listed as dying in the US or Germany. They died of wounds after being evacuated. See www.icasualties.org for more info.
Czolgolz 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting the commentary in the template. The US DOES report ALL Iraq fatalities, whether they happen in Iraq, Germany, or the US. They just reported the death of a US soldier in Louisville, Kentucky, from wounds received in September, 2005.
Czolgolz 12:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps putting the one australian death in the chart (actually, there've been two). If we do that, we'll need to list every country who's lost a soldier (Slovakia, for instance, has lost three). Should we do that, or still classify countries that have lost less than ten soldiers under 'other'?
The upper limit of civilian deaths is quoted as 100,000 from the Lancet study. The lancet study did not measure civilian deaths however, it measured all deaths (milirtary and civilian), using a comparison of death rates prior to invasion and post invasion [1] [2]. Iraq body count reviewed the publicly available sources of casulties and classed them by the types of casualties they included [3]. According to the IBC report only IBC and the Iraqi ministry of health have excluded military casualties. Mrdthree 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the IBC report only IBC and the Iraqi ministry of health have excluded military casualties. IBC claims that the Lancet tudy is also inaccurate and that a better study is the ILCS/IMIRA [4]. Ignoring the fact that both IMRA/ILCS [5] also includes military deaths, IBC says the most it is underestimating civilian deaths by is 61%. [6]. So, when appropriately compared to ILCS, the worst one could say of IBC is that its count could be low by a factor of two, a far cry from factors of "five or ten" [7]. Using this calculus the current lower and upper bonds are from 37813 to ~85000 [8]. Mrdthree 14:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I changed the 'Iraqi Civilians' quote to 'Iraqi casualties'-- if the Lancet study is to be used. Mrdthree 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
On the CNN, it is said there are only 30 italian deaths so I lowered it from 31 accordingly. -- Cat out 11:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to list them all individually? It's kind of making the template look crowded and I'm not sure anyone is updating it. Czolgolz 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
BD2412 asks: "are you asserting that no one died in Iraq after the Lancet report was published? Or since Bush estimate 30,000 dead? Those deaths are very well documented."
No, of course not. But it was clearly stated when those figures were given, which obviously means they can not include deaths past Dec 2005 (Bush) and Sep 2004 (Lancet). I don't believe we should be creating new estimates in this way, by selectively combining certain sources with certain others. These would be selective choices made by you, not by any cited source. And for example, you selectively add 2006 figures from UN to the Bush figure, but why? The UN gives a figure of 50,000 for the whole time-frame. Why are we adding a portion of one to the other to make this new 'frankenstein' estimate which can't be directly cited to anyone but you and these combination choices you made?
Likewise, why are we adding post-Sep-2004 MSNBC figures to Lancet instead of just giving the MSNBC's figure? Or, why aren't we adding MSNBC figures on top of the UNDP study from May 2004 instead of adding them to Lancet from Sep 2004? These are all arbitrary choices made by you. Citing a source and a specific figure with a specific time frame has its own value.
If you wanted to add info from something like the UN report, I think it would be more appropriate to add it after the citable figures from the others, rather than conflating them. Something like this might be appropriate:
30,000-100,000 (The lower figure was given by G. W. Bush in a public speech on December 12, 2005; the higher one comes from the September 2004 Lancet study Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) In July 2006, The United Nations has reported that at least 14,000 deaths occurred in the first half of 2006.
The Newsweek number correlates in the sense that it is close enough to show that the combined estimates of Bush and the UN are in the ballpark - note that Bush's comment was made on December 12, and the UN report covers from January to June - there were additional deaths in the last three weeks of December, and I had previously noted in the template that over a thousand additional deaths were reported in July. As to your second point, that the IBC figure should stand as the minimum, this mischaracterizes the IBC report. IBC does not purport to reflect the actual number of deaths, but is only a count of those that were reported in media outlets. You have noted above that although Newsweek purports to have based its numbers on IBC, Newsweek's numbers are higher. This shows that Newsweek has captured some information that is not within the category of information that IBC reports.
With respect to the change in the count at List of wars and disasters by death toll, yes, I made this revision to correct an error on my part - I had counted the highest reported estimate from the Lancet study without observing that the study itself had discounted the underlying data as an outlier. This drew the highest statistically reliable number down to 194,000 (which is within the 95% confidence interval of the Lancet study). bd2412 T 20:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The template format changes made by Rnt20 on December 4, 2006 caused some unintended serious problems. When you make such changes in the template please go to some of the pages the template is on in order to see how the template looks in a regular wikipedia page. For example; Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003.
If the changes cause problems, then revert the template page back to what it was until you figure out the problem. I know the reference format is different for templates. Compared to references on regular wikipedia pages. But it was working before. I did not create the format. But as the saying goes "if it aint broke, don't fix it". :)
And feel free to add notes to the Bush links. Just please use the existing reference format. -- Timeshifter 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
From the Iraq Body Count project page:
The IBC overview page states: "This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion." [1]
The IBC was described *twice* in this short chart as being "English language media". This is misleading, particularly for short blurb, 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 IBC seems to have had a debate with some critics about what significance this might have for their count. The IBC believes little or none because they say most major Arabic sources publish in English and many others are translated by various services which they use. Using the "English language media IBC" formulation seems to clearly take a POV side in this debate, that this "English" thing is some crucial caveat for their count, and tends to imply to readers that IBC doesn't use Arabic reports, but they clearly do. Without a thorough explanation of what this might mean, its inclusion in this short description is misleading and POV. It's inclusion *twice* in the same little section suggests that a previous editor has gone a bit overboard in POV-pushing. Seigfried4220 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
If you keep up the personal attacks and insults I will be reporting you to the incident board for it. See my user page for links to the relevant wikipedia policies and incident boards. User:Timeshifter
Here below is what I added to Benwing's talk page. User talk:Benwing
Seigfried4220 (74.73.39.219) deleted your material from template.
Hi Benwing. You added some good info to this template: Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. See this revision difference.
Seigfried4220 (74.73.39.219) just deleted some of it with this edit summary: "deleted opinionated assertion about what the differences reflect". Here is the revision difference.
The sentence he deleted was this one: "The differences reflect differing methodologies as well as differing definitions of the types of death counted."
I like that sentence which is why I left it in when you first put it in. It is a good, simple, NPOV, and necessary introduction to complex casualty stats. I have deleted other info of yours, so I am not kissing your butt. Just pointing out how Seigfried4220 operates. -- Timeshifter 06:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Seigfried4220 (same person as 74.73.39.219) is currently on a binge inserting POV, and/or deleting sourced info, on several Iraq War casualty pages.
BTW..I consider this irrelevant little form letter about IP addresses that you're circulating everywhere to be nothing more than a deceitful smear campaign (to go along with your POV-pushing campaign to pimp the Lancet study). And you wonder why I've questioned your integrity. Seigfried4220 05:54, 25 January 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 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)