Jump to content

Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: Please start new talk sections at the bottom of the page.


Iraq Body Count table updates in a few minutes

[edit]

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

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Tables > Overview: Death estimates by group > U.S. armed forces

[edit]

Dropping a note here to let editors know I performed a recent change to the Tables section > Overview: Death estimates by group > U.S. armed forces. I updated the paragraph containing counts (Total Deaths, KIA, non-hostile, WIA), relevant dates (pdf file title and access date), title [DOD pdf file], and Web archive pdf file link. I performed this update in order to update another article. As such, I did not update any other data in this article due to lack of time. Ping me with questions or need for clarification. Kimdorris (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION:
  • As of 1 August 2021 icasualties.org Iraq link is dead. There are 15 add'l instances of http://icasualties.org/Iraq in this article that I skipped checking/replacing due to time constraints.
  • Corrected dead defenselink.mil links and pointed them to https://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf
  • Updated http to https for defense.gov links
Kimdorris (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the Iraq War OR casualties of American invasion of Iraq

[edit]

Which one is true and should be used as this page Headlines ? Casualties of the Iraq War OR casualties of American invasion of Iraq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:EE18:6C01:F5FF:7785:4AA5:324A (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification

[edit]
The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.
Some subsection has four, five, and six inline citations. I cannot surmise a situation that requires such citation overkill. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations. The second to last sentence in the "Iraqi insurgent casualties" actually has nine citations. The "Lancet (2006)" has one sentence with eight and one with thirteen citations. I still don't see a reason for more than three, but certainly, not more than four as it absolutely impacts "the readability of an article".
There are sentences and paragraphs without any citations. Reassess the article to C-class.
[edit]
There are twenty-eight entries in the "External links" in five subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ELCITE ...and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
While this is not the worse I have seen it is pretty egregious.
  • Links moved from the "External links" section that may be used as references.
U.S. military casualties only
Coalition (including U.S. and contractors) casualties only
Iraqi casualties only
Casualty photos
General and miscellaneous

Iraq Body Count (IBC) table fully updated

[edit]

See User:Timeshifter/Sandbox106.

It's a simple copy and paste into the Visual Editor (VE) window. A blank window. Do not insert blank table first.

VE is able to detect when some tables are being pasted into it, and can produce a table on the spot. Save it.

Then open the table in source mode editing. Add this table wikitext back into the wikitext at the top of the table: 

{{mw-datatable}}{{sort under}}
{| class="wikitable mw-datatable sortable sort-under" border=1 style=text-align:right;
|+ Monthly civilian deaths from violence, 2003 onwards<ref name=ibcdatabase/>
|-
!
!Jan
!Feb
!Mar
!Apr
!May
!Jun
!Jul
!Aug
!Sep
!Oct
!Nov
!Dec
!Yearly<br>totals

Preview, and then save it. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the above table wikitext. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various estimates

[edit]

I've removed the "various estimates" section because these are an eclectic mix of statements by politicians, or somewhat informal tallies from media or other organizations, often simple for a single given year. By contrast, all the other sections are more detailed reports on specific scientific studies and are more comprehensive in scope. -Darouet (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be kept, but maybe moved to another location in the article titled "Media estimates". Basically they are a historical record of some numbers thrown out by the media. It is obvious from reading their descriptions that they are incomplete, and questionably sourced. Just like many of the remaining estimates. The Bush estimate said it was "based on media reports" too.
And most of the remaining estimates are not peer reviewed either. And the peer reviewed estimates were savagely criticized too. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Timeshifter, your solution sounds great. -Darouet (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't agree: your initial objection was well-founded, but this proposed solution is no solution at all.
To emphasise that the peer-reviewed estimates were "savagely criticised too" is to put epidemiological findings and unsourced press releases on equal footing, as though all sources are equally reliable, all criticisms equally valid, and a medical journal no more objective than the American military.
Wikipedia's treatment of the casualties of the American war in Iraq systematically overrepresents fringe viewpoints. It's clear, for example, that both of the Lancet surveys were "savagely criticised" — because the Wikipedia page gives an extensive account of every single objection ever raised against it, a substantial portion of which originate from a single academic critic: "Professor Michael Spagat". What is obscured by the undue weight accorded to these criticisms — the ulterior motive behind which could hardly be more obvious — is that the Lancet studies, now regarded as the most rigorous and accurate scholarly estimates of the excess deaths during this period, have been vindicated.
On the other hand, the claims of "Professor Michael Spagat" — whose professorship, incidentally, is not in epidemiology, but rather in economics — enjoy little to no support. Even Spagat himself appears to have moved on. Foxmilder (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

purposely misidentified heinous act...

[edit]

accurate, honest identification? the US invasion of Iraq... of which Chomsky refers to as, 'the crime of the century...' Bobarendt (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bobarendt. What specifically are you talking about as concerns this article? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the talk page header, mention that a media organization mentioned this article

[edit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/president-obama-likes-to-brag-about-the-terrorists-he-has-taken-out-how-many-is-that-exactly/ "Using a variety of sources, Wikipedia calculates a higher number through 2011 of 21,000 to 26,400 total."

Idk how to work with that weird template fuckery, so y'all edit it. Woozybydefault (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woozybydefault. I don't know how to either. Can you link to the relevant template? Someone else may have time to figure it out.
And could you quote more of the relevant part of the article? I no longer have any access to free pages on the Washington Post. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an open-access archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20230404154534/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/president-obama-likes-to-brag-about-the-terrorists-he-has-taken-out-how-many-is-that-exactly/
"There aren't many better numbers, however. A 2007 USA Today article put the tally at 19,000 at that point, the same year as the surge of U.S. military into the country. Using a variety of sources, Wikipedia calculates a higher number through 2011 of 21,000 to 26,400 total.
The independent site Iraq Body Count puts the tally between 2003 and 2013 at just shy of 40,000 combatants killed in Iraq -- including members of the American coalition. The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count has 4,800 coalition fatalities from 2003 to 2012, making the number of non-coalition fatalities around 35,000. That's mixing two sources of data, of course -- and conflating Iraqi defenses with insurgent fighters. The best numbers in this case are probably Wikipedia's." Woozybydefault (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I got the template thingy to work. I used {{Press }} and put the citation in the brackets. Woozybydefault (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woozybydefault. Thanks for getting {{press}} to work, and for the quote with links! --Timeshifter (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War&oldid=1233659698"