Template talk:Summary of casualties of the Iraq War

message: I don't see support for the "with roughly three times as many injured." in the Lancet study.--Silverback 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I thought it did. I'll review. As they say, "DEVELOPING. . ." – Quadell (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks like you're right, Silverback. My mistake. Don't know where the "three times" estimate came from, but if it didn't come from the Lancet study, it can't be better than a guess. – Quadell (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a rule of thumb suggested by the body count site.  If, so it might be appropropriate to one of the other figures.  If it were a good rule of thumb, it would have been interesting if the Lancet study actually tried to assess injuries, as a sanity check on their mortality figures.  After all, the injured and wounded should still be around and easily verifiable, even if they had healed.--Silverback 06:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: with roughly three times as many injured

message: Let me quote from Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq:
:To date, this is has been the only serious scientific attempt to estimate the excess mortality as a result of the invasion.
If that sentence is false, misleading or POV, the please discuss it on the talk page for Lancet survey of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Just because gwbush's speechmakers pretend not to understand the difference between iraqbodycount - which only estimates deaths for which e.g. at least 2 or 3 different "reputable" newspapers give consistent reports and sufficient identifying details (place, name, ...), it does not claim to estimate the total, many civilians are certainly killed without ending up with their names in a newspaper - and the Lancet study - which does attempt to estimate the total, but gives a conservative lower limit, is no reason for wikipedians to make the same error. Boud 18:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  why was the lancet study removed? removing that was rather POV... 

message: The DOD does NOT count soldiers who were injured in non-hostile incidents among the wounded.  They DO count soldiers who die of wounds/injuries among the dead.  That's why so many soldiers are listed as dying in the US or Germany.  They died of wounds after being evacuated.  See www.icasualties.org for more info.
Czolgolz 14:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: injured/wounded/dead

message: On the CNN, it is said there are only 30 italian deaths so I lowered it from 31 accordingly. --Cat out 11:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Italian deaths

message: Do we really need to list them all individually?  It's kind of making the template look crowded and I'm not sure anyone is updating it.  Czolgolz 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non coalition civilian deaths

message: From the Iraq Body Count project page:
The IBC overview page states: "This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion." [1] 
*[1] = http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php --Timeshifter 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IBC. Civilian deaths due to insurgent/military action and increased criminal violence. 

message: The IBC was described *twice* in this short chart as being "English language media". This is misleading, particularly for short blurb, because people do not generally know what is or is not available in English. Most will probably assume this means news sources in the USA and the UK. But IBC uses lots of international and Arabic sources. The IBC seems to have had a debate with some critics about what significance this might have for their count. The IBC believes little or none because they say most major Arabic sources publish in English and many others are translated by various services which they use. Using the "English language media IBC" formulation seems to clearly take a POV side in this debate, that this "English" thing is some crucial caveat for their count, and tends to imply to readers that IBC doesn't use Arabic reports, but they clearly do. Without a thorough explanation of what this might mean, its inclusion in this short description is misleading and POV. It's inclusion *twice* in the same little section suggests that a previous editor has gone a bit overboard in POV-pushing.Seigfried4220 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted sourced material added by several editors. I returned it. I removed one of the English-language media comments. I clarified it by adding "(including Arabic media translated into English)". --Timeshifter 05:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a liar. I deleted only what I said above. I reworded a couple things and deleted no sourced material. I deleted *your* POV-pushing caveats and *your* opinionated assertion about what the differences reflect. That's all I deleted, as anyone can see by looking at the history.Seigfried4220 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing POV caveats and qualifiers

message: Seigfried4220 (same person as 74.73.39.219) is currently on a binge inserting POV, and/or deleting sourced info, on several Iraq War casualty pages.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Seigfried4220
:Pot, kettle, black. Take a look at Timeshifter's contribs if you want to see a 'binge' of POV edits and deletions of sourced info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seigfried4220 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your continued personal attacks may be reported to the incident board for it. See my user page for links to the wikipedia policies and boards concerning personal attacks, etc.. I operate openly. Not behind multiple anonymous IP addresses so that I can come back and create more problems by deleting the same sourced info without being noticed as much. --Timeshifter 06:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seigfried4220 and 4 previous anonymous IP addresses