Talk:ORB survey of Iraq War casualties

Some other sources of wiki material

Thanks for starting this wikipedia article, SDas.

There is more wikified ORB survey info (with references) here:

• Template:Summary of casualties of the Iraq War
• Casualties of the Iraq War
• Iraq War#Casualties --Timeshifter 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I was bold and changed the name of this article from ORB survey of casualties after the invasion of Iraq to ORB survey of casualties of the Iraq War. I hope this is OK. It maintains consistency of naming concerning the Iraq War. It also allows me to start wikilinking to this article right away. --Timeshifter 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job! The article looks so good now. SDas 11:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

*crickets*

There was so much teeth-gnashing dispute of the Lancet studies, but not a peep about this one. No left-wing background of the authors, I guess. ←Ben^B4 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This one was - amazingly - not widely reported. But I don't think the Lancet authors had "left-wing" credentials. The teeth-gnashers simply can't comprehend statistics. In any case, if you stumble across any criticism, I think we should add it here. This article seems quite short, in spite of timeshifter's excellent efforts. SDas 21:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I had been looking for criticism to add and didn't find any. You are right though, now that I look there are less than 200 Google News hits on it. One of the Lancet study authors was a Clinton administration official, I think. ←Ben^B4 22:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I did find some blogs, but this is the best they can do. ←Ben^B4 22:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is up to you to decide whether to include this as a section on criticisms of the ORB study (personally - I'd not add material from a blog into the article though). Sooner than later, there will be some other criticisms. SDas 01:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. Niether are MediaLens or that Socialist site. The only sources that should be included are the Observer and LA Times. Isaac Pankonin 03:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs may not be used. However what is wrong with MediaLens and Socialist sites? MediaLens may not be mainstream, but I don't see why it must be labeled "extreme". Here is a debate between IBC and MediaLens on BBC - obviously BBC does not consider MediaLens's opinion to be unworthy (in spite of a flame war):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4951508.stm

MediaLens won a peace award:

http://www.gandhifoundation.org/medialens.html

So is the Gandhi foundation "extreme" as well?

There are socialist nations (including the largest and second largest in the world). Are we not going to use the opinions of two-fifths of humanity? What about Xinhua?

Wikipedia policy is not to use extreme WP:RS sources. In my opinion this is not a blanket ban on the liberal media. Furthermore, if one were to use one's own judgment, there is nothing wrong or "extreme" in the specific articles that are cited here, regardless of the source. Even the article on evolution cites Muhammad Hamidullah, a proponent of Islam. As long as one is not taking sides - i.e. stating that MediaLens or WSWS are right - let the facts speak for themselves!

I do appreciate your patience and willingness to discuss this issue. SDas 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a ban on liberal media. The Republican website would also be unacceptable, as well as National Review or NewsBusters. It simply makes the article look bad to have them in there. The article itself might be neutral, but when a reader sees that kind of source, they will automatically throw up their guard and look at it with suspicion. Isaac Pankonin 05:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all of the sites you mentioned are considered acceptable under WP:RS. They are often used as sources on wikipedia. WP:NPOV states that we need to use info from those sites in the form of X says Y. Or... "claims are made about..." and then the footnotes. We can't state the info in the narrative voice of wikipedia to make it sound like wikipedia's official take on any issue. --Timeshifter 09:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Deaths per day

There are 1613 days between March 20, 2003, and August 19, 2007. That makes the supposed average deaths per day in Iraq to be nearly 620, per week to be almost 4,340 and per month (4 weeks) to be almost 17,359. Apparently all these deaths are taking place in areas well away from the sight of the numerous international reporters in the country... 67.135.49.211 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious that reporters would only report a small fraction of all excess deaths? How many Darfur deaths or Rwanda deaths got reported? Not only is (or was) Iraq a developing nation, with this many deaths, it does not make a nice report to cover each one. SDas (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Darfur or Rwanda have embedded reporters. Not many, anyway. 67.135.49.211 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is why IBC exists. But embedded reporters are attached to the invading forces in Iraq, ergo severe restrictions in what they can access, and what they can report. And they came under criticism for being too biased. Anyway this issue is not related to the main article. SDas (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems this poll is a fraud: http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/viewArticle/2373 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.192.8 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Eric4223

Eric4223 (talk) has twice reverted my edit and removed clearly defined facts without, in my opinion, providing a legitimate reason. The suggested implication that numerous "peer reviewed literature" exist is also patently dishonest.

Here's my edit:

The ORB estimate was criticised as "exaggerated" and "ill-founded" by one peer reviewed study co-authored by economist Michael Spagat and Josh Dougherty of the Iraq Body Count project.

Here's what they reverted to:

This ORB estimate has been strongly criticised as exaggerated and ill-founded in peer reviewed literature.

Eric4223, I fail to see how your revision is "more accurate and less spin" when all it does is remove pertinent information about the study and cloaks the fact that it is the sole peer-reviewed study on the subject to offer criticism of the ORB survey. The Iraq Body Count project and the motives of those affiliated have also come into question in the past (see here and here for better insight than I could hope to provide).

Your edit ultimately relies on strengthening criticism against the ORB survey by removing information that identifies a single study written by those with a possible conflict of interest, rather than a potential multitude of "peer reviewed literature" as you put it, as the source of the main body of criticism directed at the survey. And as mentioned in previous summaries, "ONE source is not an arbiter of "STRONG" criticism". Your revision employs weasel wording and the spin is on your part, not mine. Perhaps you're a sockpuppet of the user Ronaldc0224? - G E Enn (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The statement that has existed for a long time on the page about this is factual and accurate. It is not "cloaking" anything or implying these special, and weird, inferences you're making, and further details are available in the relevant section further down the page. It would be more reasonable to say that your revision is an attempt to minimize the issue and to use wording to imply that there are a "potential multitude" of peer-reviewed sources evaluating the ORB poll, and only "one" of them was critical. If the original wording inherently implies multiple sources (it doesn't), then certainly so does yours, and attempts to frame the only detailed evaluation that has been published in the peer-reviewed literature as somehow a minor outlier. Morever, the ORB poll itself is "ONE source", and is a source which has never undergone any peer review and which ORB just posted on their website (though the facts discussed in the paper suggest they may have tried to get it into a journal and were rejected). This self-posted assertion/estimate by ORB has however been addressed in detail in the peer-reviewed literature. It's not clear why you think there would be multiple papers doing this, why the factual wording somehow implied this, or why this is even relevant (let alone for the intro section). It's just your attempt to minimize the significance (POV push) and imply that it's some kind of outlier (iow, to spin). The reason there are no other peer-reviewed studies evaluating this ORB poll is because the academic world doesn't take this poll seriously in the first place, it's already been discredited in detail in the literature, and no alternative supporting evaluation of it could pass muster in any serious academic context. Moreover, it is not the number of sources that determine what is "strong criticism", it is the content of the criticism. The peer-reviewed content and conclusions here are that ORB is completely wrong and that its "survey" is worthless. That is strong crticism.Eric4223 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy. "Existed for a long time"? Hate to burst your bubble, Eric, but when the 3 most recent years of an article's history can be displayed on one page, the length of time an edit exists for becomes largely immaterial. I'm sure ̶y̶o̶u̶ Ronaldc0250 took great pride in introducing that sentence initially, and ensuring it stayed. The thing about Wikipedia is that it relies on facts, and facts are preferred over vague or ambiguous statements which depend on obfuscation, half-truths, or implying things which might not be factual in order to get a point across. That means Ron's sentence is up for editing and fine-tuning at any time, no matter how long it's been sat there.

There's nothing "weird" about my concerns regarding your edits. It's pretty clear-cut, especially as I've limited it to the wording of a single sentence. Which "further details" do you claim are available? The fact that it's the sole study to offer criticism? No. The fact that Michael Spagat is involved? No. The fact that Josh Dougherty is involved? No. Any mention of the Iraq Body Count link? No. None of these facts are mentioned in the article (and don't get me started on the "Criticism" section). You have to comb through the references to glean this info. Every factual addition I made went missing from the entire article with your edit. Again I'll accuse of you of cloaking relevant information. Why? Because that's precisely what you're doing. Lying in order to cover your back and support your argument isn't a great strategy either, I might add. You seem to be under the impression that "peer-review" equates to "infallible". That's unfortunately not the case. We also have no knowledge of the anonymous reviewer(s). Your bias is crystal-clear; the academic world did take the poll seriously, and it took years for a counter-report to surface. Claiming it "worthless" is a statement not supported in their study; you'd do well to clearly differentiate your own opinion from that of Spagat and Dougherty. As an aside, determining the strength of criticism from one study is a subjective process. Let me reiterate: one study is not an arbiter of criticism. Numerous studies in agreement would be. You and I agree that criticism of the poll exists in the study, but your opinion on the strength of criticism found in the study is just that: your opinion. Including it in the article is POV-pushing.

I suggest you re-read each of our edits. If there's only one peer-reviewed paper which criticises the report, say so, rather than using weasel wording to imply that a greater number exist. The only reason one would choose to employ the latter is if it were their intention to define a greater sense of criticism of the ORB survey than that which exists. And why shouldn't a greater number of studies exist? By taking that line of defence and using the irrelevant "ORB poll = ONE source", you've put forward a straw man argument. There is nothing in your response that adds to the discussion; you either (a) regurgitate my own criticism of your edit; or (b) resort to ad-homs in an attempt to further your position. Eric, attacking the ORB poll is of little importance to the argument. Its legitimacy is of little importance to the argument. I can't make my stance any clearer. I completely reject the notion that my edit implies a "potential multitude" of peer-reviewed sources may exist in defence of the ORB survey. It's utter nonsense. I've said that the source of the main body of criticism stems from the Spagat/Dougherty study, and that's an undeniable fact. In your case, the obscure statement that "peer reviewed literature" exists does imply that more than one peer-reviewed study may have been critical of ORB's poll. We know this is simply not the case, and the sentence should be reworded to remove such doubt, which was the purpose of my edit. And why the obsession with using the term "literature"? Just call it what it is: a stu- Oh. That's right, if you were to use "study", you'd have to identify it in singular form. Wouldn't want that!

"If the original wording inherently implies multiple sources (it doesn't), then certainly so does yours"

False equivalence. An ambiguous statement (your edit) implies more than an explicit statement which leaves little room for speculation (my edit).

"...and attempts to frame the only detailed evaluation that has been published in the peer-reviewed literature as somehow a minor outlier"

Er, no. I have no issue with describing the study as "the first and only peer-reviewed paper", and this has never at all been a component of my argument against your edit. I prefer to call a spade a spade. However, describing the ORB poll as being "strongly criticised in peer reviewed literature" is dishonest. It implies numerous studies. It neglects to inform the reader of the authors' links to the Iraq Body Count project (as they're heavily invested with a "competitor", as mentioned in my previous post, such information is rather appropriate no matter how you look at it). It neglects to inform the reader that the main body of criticism stems from their report. These are facts relevant to the study, and I have no idea why you'd like for them to be swept under the rug and buried in the references, other than to possibly further an agenda. These facts are also missing from the Criticism section, making it appear as though the report published by Survey Research Methods has no affiliation with IBC and that IBC's criticism is separate to that of the report's.

And as much as I'd like to say that I appreciate your swift response, is this a joke? An IP editor with very similar interests to yourself suspiciously pops out of nowhere, finds their way to a (practically) dead Wikipedia article, and reverts my edit the same day it was made. Was that to get around WP:3RR? Nice try, Eric/Ronald (whichever name you prefer). - G E Enn (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"describing the ORB poll as being "strongly criticised in peer reviewed literature" is dishonest. It implies numerous studies." - It is not dishonest in the slightest. It is entirely factual and accurate. That fact simply doesn't suit your bias and POV pushing agenda. And no it does not "imply" numerous studies at all, and it implies it less than your edit does. There is no point in listing the authors in the intro section, any more than listing other details about the paper's arguments or conclusions, except that, as your comments reveal above, you hope to use the reference to imply (POV push) that there is a "potential conflict of interest" on the part of the authors. The point of the reference in the intro is simply to note that the poll has faced strong criticism in the peer-reviewed literature. That is true. If people want to know more about this they can read further. And, "the academic world did take the poll seriously"? You must be dreaming. If not, and instead of trying to insinuate ad-hominems at the authors (and wikipedia editors that disagree with you) you could try to cite something relevant showing this. Good luck with that. And make sure the myriad of academic sources taking it seriously don't have a "potential conflict of interest".Eric4223 (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

More straw man arguments, and you seem to be confusing "media blackout" with "academic blackout". Eric, here's the thing: you keep using the phrase "strong criticism in the peer-reviewed literature". That's what I have a problem with. Everything else you posted is irrelevant.

I'll repeat myself again:

- Why don't you want to include the authors?

- Why don't you want to include the study's link with IBC?

- Why did you lie about "further details" being available "in the relevant section further down the page"?

- Why don't you want to say that it is the sole peer reviewed article, and that the main body of criticism of the ORB poll stems solely from this study?

Please stop side-stepping the relevant issues. I posted a link on your talk page to WP:DRN, take a look. -- G E Enn (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to add the authors names or affiliations (and try to insinuate your "potential conflict of interest" theory, you should do so in the Criticism section where the paper is described. As for the issue of "sole", it is the sole peer-reviewed article examining this poll (as if there would be a multitude of journal papers examining an opinion poll that a marketing firm posted on their website), but it is not the sole source of criticism. The dubious part is that you think there's something special about the number of articles and this needs special stating in the intro, so that it doesn't imply something it isn't implying in the first place. The reference that has been on the page for a long time is entirely accurate and an appropriate brief mention for the intro section. You're just trying to manipulate to POV push here ("It's only ONE!...and they have a "potential conflict of interest"!). To anyone who doesn't have that agenda, the wording was perfectly fine as it was.Eric4223 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is it a "theory"? I've provided background information in the original post. This is all much cry and little wool, and more mudslinging on your part. You're adamant that everyone agrees that your sentence is A-OK, but you're the only person defending it. It's been altered in the past by others, but swiftly reverted (three guesses as to who it might be) - proof that it's not "entirely accurate" nor "appropriate". Everything you've typed is your opinion, not fact. I shall add to the criticism section only once this issue has been resolved (I assume you'll also be waiting to swiftly revert my edits, but we'll see), as it's dependent on the wording of the original sentence in question, which I still do not agree with you about. The only dubious part to all this is your wording and your impenetrable conviction to maintain the sentence strictly according to your wishes.

It's a "theory" of yours that an author being a member of what you chose to call a "rival" organization constitutes a "conflict of interest". That's your theory, and is at least highly debatable. The authors say it is not, and the editors of the journal did not seem to find it a "conflict of interest". Most would just say it's a member of a group that studies the topic criticizing the assertions or methods of another group on that topic. And the fact that someone tried to spin the wording before like you is not proof that it's wrong. In fact, to use your debating tactic, we should just assume that attempted edit was just you using a different name.Eric4223 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also wonderful that you've completely ignored WP:DRN and decided on continuing pursuit of your agenda here. Your most recent addition to the article is a nice (read: petty) dig at me, and isn't appropriate. As interesting a blog entry and opinion piece it may be (and surprise, surprise, Spagat and Dougherty's names crop up as the sole sources yet again - obsessed much?), I'm not sure how one journalist with no basis in the subject area can hold an opinion that would be deemed relevant enough to be acknowledged as a legitimate and valued criticism of a humanitarian report. Shall we round up every journalistic opinion on the topic and cram them into the article? It's great that you took that opportunity to extend your own bias within the article but continue to ignore my valid criticisms about the relevant sections, choosing not to alter anything else. Your inability to co-operate is duly noted. -- G E Enn (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you see the addition of Rentoul's criticism as a dig at you, unless, that is, you're here trying to POV push and defend and promote the claims of ORB (which you are), and he's therefore criticizing you. Yes, that page cites that paper too, but Rentoul was critical of ORB before that too. Also not clear why you think it isn't an appropriate reference, as it is relevant to the section and a proper source. It also shows that there has been some criticism of it in the media world, rather than just academics like the others cited. If there are other journalistic opinions on it that you think are relevant then cite them. And, so I have your claims right, you're saying the published opinion of a professional journalist at a major newspaper is not "legitimate and valued", but the opinions of the editors of the Media Lens website or the World Socialist Website cited in the next section are fine. Right? Or should we also remove these as "not appropriate" since they have "no basis in the subject area"?Eric4223 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make the same change, and I decided to check Talk first.

I also prefer the wording

The ORB estimate was criticised as "exaggerated" and "ill-founded" by one peer reviewed study co-authored by economist Michael Spagat and Josh Dougherty of the Iraq Body Count project.

I don't think the alternative

This ORB estimate has been strongly criticised as exaggerated and ill-founded in peer reviewed literature.

meets WP style. "Strongly" is one editor's interpretation, That's WP:OR and WP:WEASEL.

If you're going to call it "exaggerated" and "ill-founded" you should put the words in quotes. Otherwise, how does the WP reader know that the study actually used those words?

It's more precise to say that it was criticized by one study in the peer reviewed literature. Precision is good, right?

It also helps me to assess the charge when I see that the critics are from the Iraq Body Count, which has consistently argued for a lower estimate than any of the peer-reviewed studies, even the NEJM. The ORB estimates are an outlier on the high side. The IBC estimates are an outlier on the low side.

It's controversial, which make it more important to follow WP guidelines, especially in the introduction. I don't think this discussion has addressed the merits of the change. --Nbauman (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the line "This ORB estimate has been strongly criticised as exaggerated and ill-founded in peer reviewed literature.". No evidence was cited to illustrate that the estimate was "strongly criticised as exaggerated", it did not make mention of who criticized the report, the citation for the fact that the report was "ill-founded in peer reviewed literature" was broken, and the word criticized was misspelled.

68.80.252.199 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in criticism of the Lancet report.

http://dailysketcher.blogspot.com/2006/11/professors-michael-spagat-neil.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.218.48 (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"I am interested in how you came to write this analysis. In particular I am interested to learn whether you were approached by anyone specifically asking for your comments. If so, was it , by chance, someone from IBC, Iraq Body Count, or perchance from the Royal Holloway, University of London or the Dept. of Physics at Lincoln College, University of Oxford?

I ask because I notice that you are a research associate of CERAC, and as such, you are a colleague of Prof. Neil Johnson and Prof. Mike Spagat who are also "academic visitors" to CERAC, and who also, curiously, recently criticised the latest Lancet report.

I say curiously, because the overwhelming body of opinion of scientists in the field of bio-statistics, actually supports the Lancet methodology.

I also find it interesting that Prof. Neil Johnson and Prof. Mike Spagat were the co-authors of a research paper called "Universal patterns underlying ongoing wars and terrorism"(2), an updated version of a previous research paper called "From Old Wars to New Wars and Global Terrorism"(1). Curiously, in both research papers, calculations and conclusions were made, based on data for civilian killings provided by: IBC. (1) "For the Iraq data we work with killings of civilians as provided by the Iraq Body Count Project." (2) Appendices PART 2: Data and methods "For Iraq we work with the CERAC Integrated Iraq Dataset (CIID). The CIID builds on the event description from three datasets that monitor violence in Iraq: Iraq Body Count , iCasualties and ITERATE."

In fact, apart from CERAC using IBC as part of its Integrated Iraq Dataset (CIID), it transpires that the Dept. of Economics at the Royal Holloway, University of London, also uses IBC in its country specific datasets (click on 'datasets' link).

This leads me to believe that there is a conflict of interest here. If IBC figures are wrong, and the Lancet figures are correct, then the conclusions reached in these research papers and indeed any other that used the IBC figures, could be seriously compromised. Therefore, the scholars in question cannot possibly be 'honest brokers' in this affair but are merely defending their own interests." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.218.48 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ORB survey of Iraq War casualties. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090219212651/http://www.opinion.co.uk:80/Documents/Revised%20Casulaty%20Data%20-%20Press%20release.doc to http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/Revised%20Casulaty%20Data%20-%20Press%20release.doc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719105821/http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/viewArticle/2373 to http://w4.ub.uni-konstanz.de/srm/article/viewArticle/2373
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121130212139/http://medialens.org/alerts/07/070918_the_media_ignore.php to http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070918_the_media_ignore.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This organization and its non-existent article and non-existent poll on the death toll in Iraq is highly unreliable. They provide the highest count of deaths by far, without any sources, and without separating that into US killing of non-combatants, and Muslim on Muslim deaths.

This questionable source does not belong to Wikipedia, and is disinformation. Forkhume (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)