Talk:Iraq Body Count project

Clearly this is a propaganda website. Probably they are trying to make the argument that each civilian death caused by the US and its allies is a "war crime", and that only the US and its allies are committing war crimes in Iraq. After all, they can say, we have a whole website chock full of documented civilian deaths, and as you can see, none of them were caused by Iraq -- only by the US and its henchmen. Fah! --Uncle Ed 22:18 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think this is propaganda, and besides, even if it is propaganda, it's not unimportant. (For example, there was an article about this project just today in the biggest german webbased news magazine, http://www.spiegel.de). I argue strongly pro informing about this project on Wikipedia. It's not just one propaganda project, but the only account to give somehow independent figures for civilian deaths (and an intersting use of the web, too). The Swiss government announce, they would provide independent measures of war casualities starting with today, but I didn't have seen anything from them until now. So, Iraq Body Count is at the moment the only project giving reasonable figures and showing the sources (their database is public, you can go and look for each entry if you believe it or not). In the actual form, the article gives a good NPOV balance, I'd say. From my point of view, it underlines the "propaganda"-aspect a bit too much (e.g. all the bios of the project members), but I can life with that ... till we *) 13:50 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

---

---

Copied from Talk:2003 invasion of Iraq/archive2 -- a discussion on whether or not IBC should be cited in what is now called 2003 Iraq war timeline:

Text removed:

The total civilian death toll -- including western journalists -- until now is estimated to lay between 126 and 199 casualities, according to Iraq Body Count project (http://www.iraqbodycount.net).

Is it possible to cite a more neutral source than this? --mav 01:57 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I doubt it. [1] (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods)—Hephaestos 02:04 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I doubt it too, but for different reasons, I think. A simple tally of figures given in newspapers does not make an independent estimate. The Iraq Body Count project makes no attempt to record or assess the original sources for their information. If they see a report in a major newspaper saying "Iraqi authorities claim 100 civilians were killed, but Allied command calls the figures greatly exaggerated", they enter it into their database as "minimum 100, maximum 100" since the Allied side failed to state an alternate figure. Unfortunately, we're not likely to get more balanced figures since the Allied side, and even the independent journalists in Baghdad, are generally not in a position to make numerical estimates. -- Tim Starling 04:25 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Removed text:

According to the Iraq Body Count project (http://www.iraqbodycount.net), the total civilian death toll—including Western journalists—until now is estimated to be between 126 and 199, although this has not been independently verified.

This requires independent verification. We don't report things just because some website that gets 59 hits on Google says so. See above thread for more. --mav

I've put the text back in, because I find the methodology of the Iraq Body Count project (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) convincing. They describe on their website en detail how they work, and I doubt they would a headline like the one cited here include as min 100 max 100, but as min 0, max 100. till we *) 23:17 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Just because they describe it in detail doesn't mean it's flawless. You've actually got to read the detail to judge that. Here's a quote from the website:

Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.

Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources. "Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to an entry of "0" in the minimum column.

As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless details are present clearly identifying some of the killed as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians within the total will be entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi non-extended family size: 6 -CIA Factbook 2002.]

It seems quite clear that my sample statement above would be considered "max 100, min 100", as long as the report appeared in two major newspapers. -- Tim Starling 00:26 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

Also, the fact that IBC's current figures (199-278) are quite a bit higher than the Iraqi estimate of 158 [2] (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2448170) suggests that something is wrong. -- Tim Starling 01:02 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

I would also like to know who are these people and why is their estimate so important that we should report on it? Just because somebody has a website, an agenda and supposed 'information' does not mean we should report the 'information'. Do these people have a track record of reliability? Are they famous? Do have expertise in statistics? News reporting? Anything? It doesn't really matter how accurate their estimates are because in the first place what they say is as important as any random group of people with a Geocities website. It would be far better for us to report that "Al Jazeera estimates there are 1,500 civilian deaths", "The Washington Post reports 25", the "United States government reports 3" and "Iraq says that 5,000 were killed". These are all well-known sources that we should report on - not some random website. --mav

In summary, this article needs some NPOVing.

The site has a POV. So does every other source mentioned above. The article makes their peacenik background clear as you like. It's a legitimate point of view, they seem to be trying as hard as anyone else to get the numbers right (and a whole lot harder than either the Pentagon or the Iraqi Disinformation Ministry ... er I mean "Iraqi Information Ministry", of course ...

So where is the problem? The only thing I'd suggest is that the background of the project participants (already amply described in the body of the entry) be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph or two. Tannin 13:59 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Nicely done, Tillwe. Just right. Tannin

Sorry Tannin, I forgot to sign my entry above, and I didn't mention here that I actually fixed the bias I perceived, shortly after I wrote that comment. I see that Tillwe hasn't removed the most important addition I made -- i.e. the major flaw in IBC's counting method. As for Tillwe's removal of my claim that the figures are higher than Iraq's -- they were higher on March 26, and I gave a reference to prove it. But Iraq's figures have since jumped up to even higher than IBC's maximum, so I guess the removal was justified. -- Tim Starling 05:58 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

I have attempted to make it clear that the "body count" excludes (a) military casualties and (b) civilian killed by Iraqi forces. IMHO the project is misleadingly named, and purposely so. "Body count" used to mean "enemy soldiers killed by our forces" and was used extensively in Vietnam. I remember daily body counts on TV news in 1968. I bet they are trying to insinuate the idea that the US and its allies are deliberately targeting civilians.

Also, what is the context of their quotation from US General Tommy Franks: "We don't do body counts"? Does that refer to civilians, or what? The article makes it seem like Franks doesn't care how many civilians his forces kill. Is that what Franks really meant? If so, that's a major story in itself as it is unprecedented for a US officer to say he didn't care about killing civilians.

The article STILL NEEDS separation between fact and propaganda. --Uncle Ed 21:38 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

Uncle Ed, when you said "They DO RECORD original sources, but they don't display them fully enough", did you mean original sources as in the journalist, government, NGO, etc. that made the estimate or did you mean the newspaper, magazine, website etc. that reported it? Because I meant the former, and I can find no evidence for IBC's collection of this information. They do, of course, record the latter (albeit in an unsatisfactory way). -- Tim Starling 02:58 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

If deleted some of Uncle Eds additions, because if Wikipedia should not be present one point of view, it neither should not do a U-turn and present only the other point of view. Some of the additions suggested that Iraq Body Count is a propaganda project without backing in reality, and this really isn't NPOV. Hope the article is neutral enough, now. ((And I don't see Wikipedias aim in scientifically researching the one and only truth -- as in listening biographical details nobody is interested in, just to prove some implicit idea of an bias, or arguing paragraph and paragraph about why IBC doesn't do the right thing. -- till we *) 21:56 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

To Tim: I spent too much time looking at the site, and I'm just going to ignore it (and this article) for a while. But I meant that they (a) claim to record the full citation of each report of allied-caused civilian deaths, but (b) do not display the citation in a way that one can easily verify it. A URL would have been fine, because you'd be only a click away from seeing the facts -- and getting the facts out is what the SAY they're so interesting in...

Okay, I'll try to restore and clarify my argument. If I confused you I'm certainly going to confuse the readership. -- Tim Starling 01:48 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

To Tillwe: Actually, there's no policy against explaining a POV: it just has to be attributed to its advocate. I was trying to figure out and explain IBC's point of view. Maybe I was wrong, and they have a genuinely good and objective motive. I won't revert your changes, because I feel too strongly about it to be sure of my own neutrality. I'll wait a few weeks and see what develops then. --Uncle Ed 01:24 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

I think it is impossible to avoid adopting a point of view in an article. We just aim to adopt a "neutral" one, whatever that means. There are two points of view here, but we don't need to give equal column-inches to each. Is IBC a propaganda project or isn't it? This is a question we have to answer with thought and discussion, not dismissal on philosophical grounds.

Unfortunately, this article has turned into a presentation of original research. Usually we can present the various points of view by quoting advocates, but in this case, as far as we know no-one important has expressed an opinion. The 3 or 4 of us are forming our own opinions based on our own research. -- Tim Starling 01:48 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Well put. So you can subtract me from the total, levaing 2 or 3! --Uncle Ed 01:52 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

The project quotes the top US general in Iraq, Tommy Franks, as saying "We don't do body counts [3] (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)". The quotation was from a discussion of the Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan and was referring to counts of enemy soldiers killed, in the context (http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020323-attack01.htm) of using enemy body counts as a measure of military success. The website, which omits the context of the quote, seems to conflate the meaning of "enemy body count" with "civilian deaths caused" and to imply that the US doesn't care whether their actions harm civilians. On the other hand, the US army in general doesn't give information about civilians killed and harmed by their actions, so one could argue if the quote is really wrong.

This is not useful information. If I wanted to learn about the Iraqi Body Project, it doesn't help me to know that they quote Tommy Franks, nor does it help to tell me the full context of the quote. We already explain who created the site and what their reasoning is. What does this paragraph add? DanKeshet 01:56 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

IBC keeps a full text database of all their sources, and they say "Where judged appropriate by the project team, this data may be released to bona-fide enquirers, for verification purposes." I would like to request this information, and I would like to forward any correspondence to anyone here who's interested in this article (especially "till we"). A draft request is below:

I am one of a number of editors for the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia (), who are interested in reviewing IBC's data collection and extraction methods. Would you consider making your full-text database available to us? We understand that you would continue to hold copyright for this information.

If you are interested in this, please send your email address to me via the "email user" feature. -- Tim Starling 06:50 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, due to heavy work load, I couldn't work on Wikipedia the last weeks. I think it's a good idea to request the information -- did you get any answer? -- till we *) 20:24 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I never sent it. I didn't want to be the only person involved, but if you're still interested, send me your email address and I'll do it now. Or you can send it yourself if you want. -- Tim Starling 05:52 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I don't doubt the IBC counting method, so I'm not *that* interested in double-checking it all. But I would help if you think it's necessary ;-) My eMail is on my http://www.westermayer.de/till/kontakt.htm site. -- till we *) 12:20 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I sent the email just after that last message from Tillwe, but I haven't received a reply. -- Tim Starling 10:46 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)