Talk:Iraq War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Suggestion on the Campaignbox Iraq War

I have a suggestion to add two more battles to the Campaignbox Iraq War. The battle of Ramadi, April 6 2004, and The battle of Husaybah April 17 2004, both were minor engaments, not on the scale of Fallujah, Baghdad or Najaf, and lasted only a day, but the soldiers themselves said that they were fierce fights, and in both battles more than a dozen Marines were killed, 12 in Ramadi and 5 in Husaybah, and also 150 insurgents per battle were involved. They were notable battles like the Battle of Mogadishu. So if anybody's for this say it. I think it would be a good add to the Campaignbox Iraq War, and also would help to diffirentiat these casualties from the casualties suffered in the first battle for Fallujah because they have been included in that battle because these battles were initiated by the insurgents to relive pressure from the siege of the city.

Minor suggestion

Change the flag by Zarqawi's name to ...the Al Qaeda flag...Zarqawi may have been Jordanian but he was a member of Al Qaeda first and foremost.

I don't think that would be necessary. They are listing the countries they come from, not neccesarily what terror group they are apart of.

ok I think I will put this here. I am absolutly appalled by the title of this article. "Iraq War" no there hasn't been a US war in iraq ever. Let me explain myself. If you have ever had a civics class they would tell you that congress and only congress can declare war on any country. The president has the power to send in troops into a country with a plausible reason. Which I am sure is a very hot topic on this page. Anyways I cannot remember congress declaring a war on Iraq> EVER. Not desert storm. Not even vietnam. and as I remember not even world war 2. The last declared war was world war 1. Know I understand the reasoning behind the calling it a war but since this is a encyclopedia I believe it should be entitled conflict:Iraqi Freedom. as desert storm was classified this woulb make more sense then calling something that isn't something.

The US did not fight the war alone, the UK parliament fully supported the 'war' and gave it official status as a 'war'. Also the Iraqis probably thought tanks swarming across their boarder was an act of war as well. Out of interest when I first read the title of this discussion I immediatly thought some American was going to suggest calling it a liberation instead! DarthTanner

Ok well by that logic you could also call 9/11 a war. That was considered an act of war. Acts of war doesn't make it a war that power stands alone with congress. What about panama? What about somalia? Kosovo? Agreed that the scale of this conflict is much larger and more relavent to a actual declared war.

Is this a war on Terrorism?

Several users have asked to discuss this issue so here is my opinion: By definition, a war on terrorism must be declared, and have a specific enemy who has committed a crime. It has been proven that Iraq had no links to Al-Qaeda, or 9/11, or that Iraq had WMD's. The Iraq war has never been officially declared. Therefore, it isn't even a war. However, Saddam did violently repel an uprising after the first gulf war which killed civilians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkpat2011 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, it is part of the so-called "War on Terror". Yes, anyone's semi-intelligent knows that there never was any link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda etc. However, it suited the Bush administration's agenda (and the PNAC etc) to attempt to link them to give their oil grab the veil of legitimacy.GiollaUidir 23:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism is equivalent to War on Drugs or War on Poverty. It is not literally a declared war, but is rather proper noun to describe a government policy, so a declaration of war is immaterial. Whether or not Iraq actually had ties to al Qaeda or 9/11 is also immaterial, the Bush administration pushed supposed ties and sold it as the overall package of why the Hussein administration had to be removed. So while it is true that there is no evidence that Iraq had any connection to al Qaeda now (and there's actually evidence to the contrary), at the time those connections were made. It's also difficult to say the occupation of Iraq is not part of the WoT now due to the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq and other foreign jihadists. So even if the 9/11 and al Qaeda links were fabricated when Iraq was invaded there are ties now. All in all, it's best to view "War on Terrorism" as a propaganda term used by the US and its allies. --Bobblehead 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term is part of a line of similarly named US policies of ongoing vigilance. I question it's use in an encyclopaedia, unless qualified as a US policy name. Considering the international nature of the coalition, taking the US protagonists term might be seen as clear POV, rather than the best non-controversial description of the phenomenon, which I guess would be War in Iraq, or similar. Looking back at other wars, the umbrella campaign name or term would appear not to be used. Although that's a gut feeling, so if there's any history buffs reading this, please enlighten. Widefox 16:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of countries call it the War on Terror. Cerebral Warrior 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm from UK, we don't call our actions that. Tony Blair uses it as part of alignment with the US, but you'll not find him using such terms with IRA negotiations, or some such! It is a US term, with alignment. Widefox 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One has to look at it in the context of how it was portrayed by the two primary aggressor* nations, the US and UK. Both refer to it as part of the wider War on Terror(ism)**. Thus, the appelation is correct.

*Before anyne gets their knickers in a twist, this is not a pejorative use of the term -- as the invaders they are in fact the aggressors, no matter what the provocation, real, perceived or imagined.

** The US Administration refers to it as the War on Terror, for reasons I don't want to go into other than to say that it's the same basic reason that covers why the RS-71 was renamed the SR-71, and why the EIC became the EITC. •Jim62sch• 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, instead of "aggressors", "protagonists" is the correct term. GWOT is more UK, or support for GWOT or some other watered down supportive phrase. Widefox 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The very concept of "aggressors" brings with it negative connotations. Remember, despite our personal views, we are writing an encyclopedia article. I agree with Jim62sch in that they are, in fact, the aggressors, but the term carries too much perjorative with it to be of use. Protagonists, while striking me as something from a novel, is better, though I'm open to suggestions on how to fix it. Silverlocke980, 3:25 p.m., November 2006.

On a note of the actual topic, I say this: it is *part of* the War on Terror of the U.S. While properly called the War in Iraq, it as a whole is part of a larger strategy, that of the U.S. War on Terror. Just as history looks on individual battles as part of a larger war, so too does this smaller war figure in a bigger political whole. That's my take, anyway. If you can shoot it down, go for it- I'm open to suggestions.

Front line of Iraq war

Visit www.youtube.com, search Iraq IED. US soldiers in Humvees, M1A1 tanks, Bradleys, Strykers, trucks, and other vehicles are getting blown up by IED's. Unfortunately, the perpetrators are often not caught. However, US soldiers often mistake insurgent terrorists for civilians, which increases the civilian death toll.

Current event template...?

I think there should be a current event template at the top of the page. I know it seems obvious that the Iraq War is going on, and therefore, it could be argued that it is unneeded. But I disagree. Please comment. Also, I do not know how to do it, so if I could get some consensus that would be great.

Fishy figures

During the Vietnam Conflict news reports always said something along the lines of "Oh, at this offensive, hundreds died and at that battle thousands lost their lives."

Is the number of Iraqi deaths like that?--Patchouli 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Although there is a section in the article (or was anyway, editing's happening so fast currently!) about different operations by the US army. Although I think it would be extremely difficult to categorise deaths by Operation etc. Esp given the under-reporting of deaths.GiollaUidir 08:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion groups?

Deos anybody have any information on any discussion groups that are going on for those with loved ones or family members in Iraq? I'm writing a paper on the problem that there is a lack of them for those of us who are in that situation so I need to make sure that there is a sufficient enough lack to make a paper out of it. Thanks!

Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an "estimate"

In the text it says that "estimates" vary from Iraqbodycounts minimum death count to the recent report. I think that's rather wrong. Iraqbodycount is not an estimate of how many people that have died because of the war, but of how many that has been reported killed, and that's a huge diffrence. Sure, use IBCs number as a number of confirmed deaths, but not as an estimate because that's not what it is. --Merat 00:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The only actual verifiable figures are the recent ones in the Lancet-all other figures/estimates/guesses/propaganda should be removed from the article.GiollaUidir 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I suggest that we put the confirmed number of deaths somewhere else in the article together with information about the difficulties of estimating the death toll etc, and use the Lancet study in (and other estimates of the total death toll, if there are any) in the beginning of the article and in the information box. Although with respect to IBCs work, using their numbers there is like saying that an unrecorded deaths is not a death at all. --Merat 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The figures used for Darfur etc were obtained using the same methods as the Lancet study for Iraq so should be included as the death toll in the info-box. The Iraqi Health Ministry and IBC have roughly the same number... I agree with a new section for documenting the controversy.GiollaUidir 10:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no opposition yet. I'll edit it and we'll see what happens next. --Merat 09:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some range, the 655,000 alone doesn't represent the fact that nobody knows for sure how many have died. I don't think we should simply find the study with the highest amount imaginable and use that as fact. Rmt2m 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, the Lancet study is, from what I know, the only study of it's sort. The US-led coalition has said that they "don't do body counts" (which is in violation of the Genève Conventions) and therefore information of this sort is scarce. Secondly, some range is given in the study. It says that they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died, but came up with 655 000 as a reasonable number (And there you also see that 655 000 isn't the "higherst amount imaginable"). --Merat 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To me, that brings into question the methodology of the report. How can anyone say that they are 95% sure that between 392,979 and 942,636 people have died? There's a gap of almost 550,000 in there, meaning that they are 95% certain of bupkus. Notwithstanding an official DoD count, there are other methods, like IBC, that have more verifiable ways of confirming deaths, such as using multiple sources. Rmt2m 20:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that one is 95% sure that a figure lies within a certain range is just about the best way to present statistics. It's not an empty statement, or "bupkus", at all. It means it's very unlikely that the casualty rate is as low as 200,000 or as high as 1,000,000, and it acknowledges just how much uncertainty there is in the count - a lot. Having studied some statistics, I would question the methodology of a report that doesn't present its results in terms of a confidence interval. Omitting the error bars is one of the most common ways to mislead with stats; let's not do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I suppose I expressed myself a bit bad. Instead of "they are "95 % sure" that between 392 979 to 942 636 Iraqis have died" , it should rather be "according to their research, the chance that the number of deaths is between 392 979 and 942 636, is 95 %." If you have questions on methodology then read the report. As I have previously said, IBC states that it only counts reported deaths, which makes it useless in this context. --Merat 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I fail to realize is why we shouldn't simply use a count of confirmed deaths. At least then the number has some veracity, because otherwise it's conjecture. Rmt2m 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already told you why we shouldn't use IBC's numbers. Look at any other war article with a large number of casualties, do you think they are less conjecture? Do you just distrust this special report, or statistics on the whole? --Merat 00:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, we shouldn't use IBC because those deaths are documented, but we should use this study because there not? Honestly the Lancet report seems a bit suspect to me. I don't doubt that there have been deaths that haven't been reported yet, but these numbers are beyond what is even remotely possible. The Lancet study was conducted over a period of three months which is hardly enough time to gather data for over 40. The Lancet study also mentions the fact that the DoD does in fact conduct body counts, "despite initially denying that they did." Rmt2m 01:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there we have it. You seem to think the Lancet study is suspect because it gives too high numbers. Why would three months not be enough to do a statistical study, and where are that DoD body count then? --Merat 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, ask Lancet where the DoD count is. Of course it gives too high a number! There is absolutely no way that there are that many undocumented deaths. It defies reason. That's what I've been saying all along. And next week or month when a study comes out with 2.5 million deaths or 3 million deaths, y'all will most likely accept that one as fact as well. Rmt2m 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that there cannot be so many undocumented deaths? It's close to civil war in Iraq, do you think a few western journalists have coverage over the whole country? Compared with IBC, the Lancet study says that abouth one tenth of the Iraqi deaths have been reported by western media, which I think is quite plausible. --Merat 14:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Because counts conducted by the Iraqi Health Ministry, Interior Ministry, Brookings Institution, the AP and virtually every other count don't even approach the numbers in the new lancet study. Listen, I don't question the fact that too many civilians are dying, but I think that it is irresponsible to display one study as fact when its' numbers vary significantly from others. That's all, I would just like to see some other studies used in the article for balance. Rmt2m 17:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying and I have never said that the Lancet study is right, but rather that IBC isn't very interesting for the infobox and the introduction of this article. They accept this themselves ("It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war." - quoted from the IBC homepage). Anyway, I proposed that we create a new section in the article where we can put forward the difficulties and controversies with the death count, and there we can have the IBC numbers. --Merat 18:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Another section in the article will be fine, but do you still want to use the Lancet study in the infobox? Rmt2m 21:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, but if there are other interesting estimations of the total death toll available then we can include them there as well. --Merat 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see maybe the Brookings and Iraqi Health Ministry counts if possible, they would take a line apiece at most. Rmt2m 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Let's clarify a few things. You may indeed find the Lancet study suspect, but statistically the chances that the death toll is under 400,000 is 2.5%, likewise the chance that it is above 1,000,000.
• The DoD figures say that from May to August the average number of civilian deaths per day in incidents that the Coalition forces responded to was 117. Given that there are certainly huge numbers of incidents that they do not respond to (and either Iraqi police do or no-one does) such as sectarian murders, it seems safe to assume that the daily death toll in Iraq has been running at a minimum of 200 deaths per day from May to August, and by the U.S. Army's own admission it has gotten substantially worse since then, so perhaps at least 300 per day for the past two months. That alone produces a death toll of 36,000 for the past five months. If we use only the average number that the coalition responded to then it is still at least 21,000 since May. It shows just how poor a source Iraqbodycount or the Health Ministry are - neither of these sources is suggesting that half the total casualties have occured in the past 5 months; so either the DoD has got it wrong or neither of these are even close to accurate estimates of the death toll.

NONE, and I mean, NONE of these "civilian casualty" reports mention the THOUSANDS who die every month from US military war planes. In fact, check out this from "The Nation":

Not surprisingly, the use of air power in Iraq remains a non-issue in this country. How could Americans react, when there's no news to react to, when there's next to no information to be had--which doesn't mean that information on our ongoing air campaign is unavailable. In fact, the Air Force is proud as punch of the job it's doing; so any reporter, not to speak of any citizen, can go to the Air Force website and look at daily reports of air missions over both Iraq and Afghanistan. The report of November 15th, for instance, offers the following:

"In Iraq, U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18s conducted a strike against anti-Iraqi forces near Ramadi. The F/A-18s expended guided bomb unit-31s on enemy targets. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcons provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Forward Operating Base McHenry and Baqubah. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles provided close-air support to troops in contact with anti-Iraqi forces near Baghdad.

"In total, coalition aircraft flew 32 close air support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions included support to coalition troops, infrastructure protection, reconstruction activities and operations to deter and disrupt terrorist activities."

This was a pretty typical day's work in recent months; there were 34 "close air support missions" on November 14th, 32 on the 13th, and 35 on the 12th--and note that each of the strikes mentioned was "near" a major city. These reports can be hard to parse, but they certainly give a sense, day by day, that the low-level air war in Iraq is no less ongoing for being unreported."

Just HOW MANY THOUSANDS of civilian do you think these air strikes kill EVERY DAY? Why does a 2.5 million figure seem "outrageous" to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.243.140 (talk • contribs) 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you have queries about the reliability of the Lancet study, I suggest you read this[1] analysis performed by a (conservative) British polling analyst who works for the highly respected British polling company Yougov [www.yougov.com]. Cripipper 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So given the fact that all these studies differ so much, which should we use? Rmt2m 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

IBC is not a study; it is a tabulation of deaths reported in the media. Personally I think it is just fine the way it is, though maybe the footnote could be expanded. Cripipper 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Study-tabulation, I really don't care much for semantics. Rmt2m 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Three points

These edits keep getting reverted So I shall explain myself:

• "Massive civilian casualties" is an emotional opinion, which is why it was removed.
• "Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" [2] is not documented in the link given, which is why it was removed.
• A badly done ref in the first paragraph has caused 3 paragraphs to dissappear, which is why it was replaced.

CJK 00:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "massive civilian casualties" was rather good, and i can't see any emotional part in, but okay. We can change "Massive civilian casualties" to "The deadliest conflict of the 21th century as of now, (according to the Lancet study)" if you like that better. And I'll find another link to support "Widespread damage to civilian infrastructure" if you want it. --Merat 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all of CJK's points. Cerebral Warrior 14:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be claimed that it is the deadliest conflict that started in the 21st Century (which is only 6 years old), but the deadliest conflict to take place in the 21st Century would be in the Congo.... Actually, now that I think about it, one could argue that the Iraq War began in 1998 with Clinton's bombing campaigns which continued up to OIF... that is, if we go by a strict definition of war which simply involves two nations attacking each others forces, not neccessarily regime change. CJK 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Much as I like and use that definition of warfare, the Iraq War we have right now is a tight, closed-circuit thing that is actually unrelated to the bombing campaigns. It's got a definite beginning and end, with the reasons behind it unrelated to the Clinton bombings. The bombings would fit under a different category- though I am currently unaware of what it would fit under. Silverlocke980, November 2006.

The fix was very simple...no one broke the ref with a / <ref name=IBC/><ref name="Second Lancet Study"> should be <ref name=IBC/><ref name="Second Lancet Study"/>. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraqbodycount and Iraqi health ministerim/Iraqi government count is not the same thing

Some people are talking about "Officially Iraqi government count" and "Iraqi health ministerium count" and later only linking to Iraqbodycount again, which is a rather useless count for estimating the casualties in Iraq (see discussion above: "Casualties - the use of iraqbodycount as an 'estimate'"). Unless you provide links directly to information about the Iraqi government count or Iraqi health ministerium count, I will remove the 40-thousandsomething estimates. --Merat 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So much attention towards Iraqbodycount is diverting from the realities of the conflict. Rather than an estimate of casualties, it represents a bottom line, a minimum, only those accounted via the media and other first hand reports. For example, we quote estimates of 400k-600k of dead iraqi children as a result of UN sanctions, but none of those would have qualified for the iraqbodycount.88.15.59.243 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush considers changing tactics in Iraq

Oct. 20: President Bush acknowledges that "staying the course" in Iraq is not working and says he will consider a possible change in tactics in the war. (source: NBC)You guys got three days to include this, or that's it. I will.71.236.225.50 23:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC

I encourage you to read up on WP:Civility. I have also left a message on your talk page regarding your comments on the Talk:George W. Bush page. AuburnPilot^Talk 22:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Commanders Infobox

Erm, where did they all go? I presume Bush has been left as he is "commander in chief" of US forces but is the box not meant to reflect commanders on the ground or in the region??GiollaUidir 12:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Body Count

Can you please stop reverting the infobox to say that the IBC gets is info from morgues and hospitals. It does not. As it says on its own website "Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources." Cripipper 13:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Only the US-led coalition troops use body counts and do everything exactly, Iraqis don't.--Patchouli 14:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

--Timeshifter 15:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

Mentioning only the media is not accurate. In my comment I asked that people check the IBC wikipedia page before deleting this:

"Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media."

Here are some quotes from the IBC wikipedia page:

IBC is also not an "estimate" of total civilian deaths. It is a compilation of documented deaths, meaning that any deaths not reported or which were not recorded or made public by morgues or hospitals will not be counted. Only the central Baghdad area morgue has released figures consistently. While that is the largest morgue in Iraq and in the most consistently violent area, the absence of comprehensive morgue figures elsewhere will likely lead to some undercounting. IBC makes it clear that, due to these issues, its count will almost certainly be below the full toll in its 'Quick FAQ' on its homepage.

Another factor is that some reports emerge weeks or even months later - for instance the emergence of Baghdad city morgue reports for 2005 in early 2006. The 6 December line above was taken from the IBC total as it stood on 6 December 2005, but the emergence of the morgue figures later increased IBC's figures for that period to 31,818 - 35,747.]

You did not check the IBC wikipedia page, or you ignored what it said. As I mentioned in our previous discussion on another article talk page, I have noticed that you have several 3-revert violations discussed on your user talk page. In the future I suggest you bring disagreements to an article's talk page BEFORE reverting something where someone has given verifiable sources. A wikipedia page is a verifiable source. If you have disagreements with the wikipedia source page, then I suggest you take it up there first before doing reversions based on your own analysis. I believe that normally a wikipedia page will have done a lot more verification and analysis than you have on a particular topic.

I will report this to the official wikipedia mediators if you keep reverting this without discussion here first. Let others reading this act as mediators for now. Try having a little respect and patience before reverting stuff so fast. Our previous discussion was centered around the fact that you thought that you had a better vision of what wikipedia should be, and that you had "specialist" knowledge that you thought should possibly have precedence over current wikipedia rules. Or that your rules and/or knowledge and/or methodology should become part of wikipedia rules and guidelines. As I said then, the wikipedia guidelines have precedence for now. And one of those guidelines is about reversion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_revert_rule

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting

Some quotes from that help page:

Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.

If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor posess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

I have another idea. I took out any source explanation in the info box, since there is not enough room there to explain just how inadequate the IBC count is. Mentioning only the media, as you do, is not enough. There is a link to the wikipedia IBC page, so people can check for themselves about how IBC gets its count. I used the image caption instead for more explanation since there is more room to explain it a little better. And since the image is right under the infobox, then there is no need for duplicating the explanation in both places. Hope this helps.

Better yet, I will remove any explanation of what the sources are for the IBC count from both locations until further discussion. --Timeshifter 15:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh stop talking rubbish. Our previous discussion centered around the fact you were trying to insert original research into an article. FYI, go check Wikipedia:Citing_Sources - Note: Wikipedia articles may not be cited as sources Therefore, it matters not one jot what the Wikipedia entry on the IBC says, it's what the IBC website says that matters, and they gather their death toll from reading online newspapers. Let us repeat, you cannot use wikipedia as a source in a wikipedia article. IBC get their figures from newspapers - it cannot be more clear. IBC has no contact with morgues or hospitals, as any cursory glance at their website makes clear. Use of the words official figures, and morgues and hospitals gives IBC a veneer of official status and on-sight credibility that it does not deserve. Stick to the facts. IBC get their figures from reading newspapers - so what is your objection to the qualification based on media reports? Cripipper 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember what I told you about the word "assume"? ass-u-me You are making an ass out of u and me by making assumptions about me, others, etc.. I made no claims at all in the other article. I asked questions on the talk page, and you assumed I was going to make unfounded claims. Similar problem here. In the wikipedia article itself I did not claim a source for my statement "Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media." I stated it as a fact. There was a link nearby to the Iraq Body Count project so people could get further info in general on them, the count, etc.. But I did not tie the two together. In this talk page I am using the Iraq Body Count wikipedia page as a shortcut. That page has verifiable sources for THEIR claims that support my statement "Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media." You are playing a semantic game here. But to avoid further petty arguments, let us just leave out the sources. Let people go to the Iraq Body Count website, and the wikipedia page for it, and let them figure it out themselves. Both are linked in the infobox. By the way, I did not insert the words "official figures." Someone else must have done that. I find that "official figures" phrase laughable. Many morgues, hospitals, and media have only functioned sporadically in Iraq, as the IBC wikipedia page and many other sources have pointed out. And many of these sources do not report many of the insurgent deaths as that. Many are reported as simple murders, etc.. Try reading the IBC wikipedia page as I asked people to do in my comment. Follow their sources. --Timeshifter 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You have misread what the IBC entry on wikipedia says. The IBC does not use morgues and hospitals as a source for their numbers - the newspaper reports that the IBC relies on use morgues, hospitals as sources for their figures. Nowhere on the wiki IBC page does it say the IBC uses hospitals or morgues as a source for their figures. I can see how you could have misinterpreted the statement on the page that IBC is also not an "estimate" of total civilian deaths. It is a compilation of documented deaths, meaning that any deaths not reported or which were not recorded or made public by morgues or hospitals will not be counted, (which I am about to correct), but that is why we do not cite other wiki pages (you can call it short-cutting if you want but it amounts to the same thing). The purpose of my edits was to clarify the misleading impression that the IBC bases its figures on sources from morgues and hospitals, which it does not. That statement has now been removed. Cripipper 21:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are trying to clarify the IBC wikipedia page a little. My statement is still true though. "Sources are morgues, hospitals, and the media." Maybe it should be clarified further though by saying this: "Sources are media reports (including their reports of morgue and hospital records)."

To see more clearly how morgue reports are used I found these mentions of morgues with a Google search of the IBC site:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.iraqbodycount.net+morgue

To confuse things further here are quotes from critical articles about IBC's casualty counts:

The contrast between the graph showing 400 violent deaths a month in portions of Baghdad served by this morgue, and oft-cited Iraqbodycount estimate of about 500 violent deaths per month in the entire country, could not be more dramatic.

Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/31508

Another valid criticism of IBC relates to its exclusively Western media sources, which tend to be large media organizations that do not report the day to day violence that occurs in Iraq. IBC requires a source to be an "English language site," excluding at the outset more than 500 Arabic and Persian news outlets that the people of the Middle East rely on for information.

Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041306J.shtml

A quote from IBC itself:

"We have not made use of Arabic or other non English language sources, except where these have been published in English. The reasons are pragmatic. We consider fluency in the language of the published report to be a key requirement for accurate analysis, and English is the only language in which all team members are fluent. It is possible that our count has excluded some victims as a result."

Source: http://reports.iraqbodycount.org/a_dossier_of_civilian_casualties_2003-2005.pdf

So one would have to say "Sources are English-language, mostly-Western, media (including their reporting of morgue and hospital records."

The more I learn of the inadequacy of the IBC methodology the less I am willing to explain it in a single sentence on the Iraq War wikipedia page. Even the above sentence gives it a veneer of too much credibility. Because it is essential that people also know that morgues, hospitals, and media have only functioned sporadically in Iraq. Especially Western media. So I have changed my mind completely on this. I say don't say anything about their methodology on the Iraq War page. Just link to the IBC wikipedia page. It has info and links that explain the inadequacies much better. Just linking to the IBC site itself is inadequate because they don't point out all the problems with their methodology as well as outside sources do. Those sources are on the IBC wikipedia page.

I think we should seriously consider removing the Iraq Body Count numbers from the Iraq War wikipedia page altogether. Why should wikipedia favor it over all the other estimates of war-related deaths?

"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." (Roberts, email to Media Lens, August 22, 2005)

Source: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060125_paved_with_good.php

I changed the infobox to read: "Civilian deaths recorded by the Iraq Body Count project as reported by English-language media"

That should give some idea of the inadequacy of the IBC count to newbies to the topic. Most thinking people will immediately wonder about the credibility of casualty numbers derived solely from English-language media in an Arabic-speaking nation.

I have another idea. I will also mention that there are 8 other casualty number estimates, or however many are currently listed on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

--Timeshifter 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on! Who's going to read through all this?--Patchouli 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel your pain, Patchouli. :) I think Cripipper prefers now to leave the source out of the IBC infobox wording. So the problem may be resolved. --Timeshifter 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

--Timeshifter 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC). I see from one of your recent edit comments, Cripipper, that you now want to leave the IBC entry in the infobox without explanation as to source. Your edit said: "I thought we had agreed 'official' was out and that we'd offer no explanation." OK, that is fine by me. I had compromised and was willing to live with "English-language media" as being the source. Either one is fine by me now. Someone else (Freepsbane) keeps reverting back to older wording: "officially reported by media" in the infobox, and "reported by morgues, hospitals, and the media" in the IBC image caption. I wish Freepsbane would read, and/or join in, our discussion here before making further changes. --Timeshifter 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

JackNicholson today added this back to the infobox section on IBC: "Includes only deaths, officially reported by media". I noticed on his talk page several warnings and blocks by admins. One of the blocks occurring today. Cripipper fixed the infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacknicholson

--Timeshifter 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

the failed states index by foreign policy magazine was done in 2005 not 2006. and sudan did not top the list it was the Ivory Coast. Sudan was third. Iraq was fourth (as the wiki article says)HELPFULL

A question about Pre Bremmer Iraq

I would like to write an article on the U.S. general who ran Iraq for a brief time before Paul Bremmer took control. But I cant remeber his name. Can some someone here refresh my memory on what this persons name was. He was an ex general & was only in charge of Iraq for just a few weeks to a month. Thanks

It was General Jay Garner. ～～～～

pkPat

A user named pkpat has been re-adding George Bush under the list of generals, stating that the US constitution makes him commander in chief. While this may be true, according to the UK constitution, Queen Elizabeth the second is commander in chief of the UK forces...Shall I put her up too? I think it's better that we keep this for the actual generals. Anyone disagree? I have given pkpat a once-only warning for posting a very offensive edit summary. He's also removing links to refs from reuters without giving a reason. Anyone know why? yandman 13:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)