Talk:Body count

message: The inclusion of Gen. Tommy Franks' quote in reference to the Iraq war is misleading and strips the quote of all its context. Even if the quote was "widely reported" by op-ed and feature writers in context of the Iraq war, the quote itself was in reference to the death toll in a specific bombing campaign in Afghanistan that occurred before the Iraq war started (see. e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/world/nation-war-casualties-us-military-has-no-count-iraqi-dead-fighting.html; http://concept.journals.villanova.edu/article/download/264/227). The inclusion of this quote in a section dedicated to the Iraq war, and couched in the passive "was widely reported," seems (in my non-Wiki-savvy viewpoint) entirely inappropriate and contrary to encyclopedic rigor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.248.242 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tommy Franks quote in Iraq section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Body count. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20160327213232/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/charles/pubs/VietnameseCasualtiesDuringAmerican.pdf to http://faculty.washington.edu/charles/pubs/VietnameseCasualtiesDuringAmerican.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , , you're both using rollback too much, both of you in the last series of edits have removed valid additions to the article alongside potentially questionable new data. I've locked this page for a week; take your own advice and discuss things here. Both of you are guilty of edit warring. Let's talk and improve the article, rather than rollback all over the place.
Note also that there are (at least) two specific issues here that need to be separately teased out. First, there's ample evidence that post-action reports from U.S. ground forces in combat in SVN inflated numbers of enemy killed and wounded. That is at a specific, limited, tactical scale, repeated over a large number of incidents. There may be less well attributed problems with VC/PAVN reports in the same way (one regrets not being able to speak more languages to seek more sources). 
Second, there's the overall casualty count where estimates up to thirty years later try and total overall losses for each side. This includes the U.S. (and VC/PAVN) tactical battle estimates after the individual fights, but also includes large numbers of estimates for actions where the two sides didn't physically meet: from the casualties aboard the ships in the Tonkin Gulf incident, to all the bombing raid / artillery casualties, and problems with differing counting rules (when does a WIA become a DOW, later casualties from things like Agent Orange, etc.). My guess is that these two levels of estimating problems need to be dealt with separately, and the sections on overall Casualties of the Vietnam War need to be coordinated with it. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust that you will similarly lock Vietnam War where  is also edit-warring the same issue. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both edit-warring, and you specifically Mztourist seem to repeatedly accuse, on pages I come across, a large number of other editors who disagree with you of large numbers of sometimes unsubstantiated wrong-doing. I'll take a look. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been raised here: Talk:Vietnam War#Current edit war and User talk:A bicyclette#Vietnam war article. and rather than just blaming me I suggest that you take an impartial look at 's edits on numerous Vietnam War related pages over the past few days. However as you have already shown your interest/views: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Declined) perhaps you should ask another disinterested Admin to do so instead Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

text: And out of interest who are these "large number of other editors who disagree" with me? If you are referring to the various IPs in relation to South Korea in the Vietnam War, if you do a geolocate you will see that they are all located in or around Ontario, Canada and  has acknowledged here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam that "172.xx IPs, which are my edits" and so these "large number of other editors who disagree" are in fact just one editor using IPs who has now set up a User page.Mztourist (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 172.x is mine, the other IP is definitely not mine. I made an account after anonymously editing but didn't really get interested in this topic until some time ago. I don't get why you literally launched three different admin complaints against me if you disagree with me. You do seem like a controlling person, well-bent on engaging in some kind of censorship/distortion to fit your narratives. Not only that, you literally went out of your way to delete articles, petition them, get them removed because they are from a Vietnamese source which you pathetically claim is GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA at the same time you literally accept the most obscure articles from obscure military websites, which you don't believe is propaganda. Its quite amazing really when I don't care to fit either narrative. A bicyclette (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Vietnam is rated as having among the lowest press freedom in the world and so all Vietnamese media sources (all of which are Govt controlled) are WP:BIASED, if not WP:PROPAGANDA in relation to the Vietnam War. All the articles that I have proposed for deletion were reviewed by other editors who concurred with my view that there were insufficient WP:RS to justify their retention. Several of them were outright hoaxes and I would point out that these were published in Nhan Dan and other Vietnamese media. What are the "most obscure articles from obscure military websites" examples please, not generalisations. I believe that it is in fact you who is finding obscure references for tenuous arguments to support your POV. You assert repeatedly that we should accept the testimony of Vietnamese usually many years after the purported events and knowing that reliable sources like AP can't speak to them without months of prior notice and having Vietnamese Govt minders present and yet you believe we should accept that as WP:RS, well I don't agree and I will continue to revert your changes that are unreffed or lack WP:RS. In relation to the specific question of VC/PAVN death toll, you have stated repeatedly that the AP mistranslates the Vietnamese Govt announcement and despite my repeated requests you have provided nothing to back this up, all you have done is repeatedly referred to a Vietnamese language document of unclear provenance which you claim supports everything you say. Meanwhile I have provided 2 other WP:RS that support the 1.1m figure.Mztourist (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Press-freedom, in relation to control of public media and dissent, is objectively different from reported facts and statements, made from internal records. DO you honestly think the fucking US Military, with the best press-freedom, engages in objectivity? This is a joke. Not even this, you deliberately DO NOT BELIEVE Vietnamese witness testimonies either. You should honestly understand press freedom is quite different than objectivity in reporting, the wave of fake news in the Western world is a testement to this. Instead of looking at it objectively, you are deliberately trying to re-write things for some reason, and distorting contrasting narratives instead of embracing either, and go through the weirdest lengths like reporting me for unfounded accusations you pathetic little man with too much time on your hands. A bicyclette (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you get it? There is no press freedom in Vietnam and so the facts are whatever the Government says and any official statements aren't open to questioning. So whatever the Govt says or what is reported in Vietnam can't be relied on. No I don't believe Vietnamese witness testimonies because they are controlled by the Govt (as shown by the AP story regarding massacre investigations) and Vietnam remains a 1 party state where people who don't follow the Government line can be locked up. There is no objectivity to Vietnamese reporting, because there is no press freedom, why do you find that so difficult to understand? WP is supposed to be based on WP:RS and Vietnamese sources are not WP:RS but you keep trying to insert them and hurl numerous false accusations and insults at me when I hold your edits to the WP standards and policies. Mztourist (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already stated the first source, is based on the second document which is the one released by the PAVN itself. They literally took it from that, and the AP article is literally 1 paragraph, not a thorough look. You just have no grasp of logic when you accept figures based on a document, but not the figure stated on the document itself. There is a clear difference between press-freedom, which largely just pertains to dissent opposing the government, and factual distortions. Vietnamese news sources rarely tap into much of the media outside of direct issues that directly affect the current government e.g. censorship of environmental issues. Because there's no freedom to open up independent newspapers, does not mean that everything that is said is a straight up lie. This is just gross distortion. Requesting Buckshot06 for input in this matter. A bicyclette (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Last edits

message: As soon as User:Buckshot06's page block expires User:A bicyclette is in there editing the page to "Removed bad sources (AP Articles), removed NPOV narratives." Inserting his "Vietnamese Government" document despite this being under discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties, deleting the 1995 AP story with no reasons given other than his POV that it is an incorrect translation of his "Vietnamese Government" document despite this apparently being issued 20 years later, deleting Mark Woodruff despite being told he has to take it to WP:RSN here: User talk:A bicyclette#If you've got a problem with Woodruff, take it to WP:RSN. Mztourist (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Really by who? Where have you raised that story at WP:RSN? Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbelievable... 

message: This article is about a piece of slang, is used as a WP:COATRACK, and is full of WP:OR []. EEng 12:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Was just going to say the same thing. Wikidictionary is that way, this is an encyclopaedia. It's a common term, I think people know what it means, we shouldn't have an article on this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary definition 

message: Discuss how he introduced this as a measure/term in the DOD, during the Vietnam War, and the consequences.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough  01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Robert McNamara]]

message: What’s your body count 2.28.80.44 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body count 

message: Killing people for no reason 216.49.31.72 (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing