Talk:International sanctions against Iraq

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Sanctions against Iraq. 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/20121028003924/http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/meria-rubin-sanctions-1201.htm to http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/meria-rubin-sanctions-1201.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mattwelch.com/Press/UPImead.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/2002/nov/07/opinion/oe-vincent7
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/38855
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20020315/ai_n9999150
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The user SeriousSam11 has four times in approximately 30 minutes done the following revert which introduces WP:WEASEL and WP:OR (the study "suggests" instead of "has shown", and the study "admits" something) to text that cites a BMJ study. The editor provides as reasons the following:
* A single conspirational-style article, which bases itself on many assumptions by the author, should not be stated as *the* absolute authority. It should be stated as "a recent study suggests X", and not in the absolute terms of "has shown"
* BMJ is not the direct source, but Tim Dyson. BMJ a journal that publishes articles by submitters. The author is unknown, has no experience or work with the Iraq sanctions, and the article leans into tactics oft used in Holocaust denial.
* The BMJ article is not a proper survey or study. It an article by an economics professor which skews data and itself contains holes and conspiracy-level claims, and it should not be treated as an absolute source.
The aforementioned rationales are ill-founded. Furthermore, the BMJ study declares in no uncertain terms that "the rigging of the 1999 Unicef survey was an especially masterful fraud. That it was a deception is beyond doubt". The BMJ study furthermore reviews existing studies that support the conclusion. This language does not get into a journal article in a journal with an impact factor of 20+ unless it's accurate. The study does not "admit" anything that requires the type of hedging language or qualifications that the editor tries to introduce. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The journal BMJ Global Health is a reliable source and the content is directly on point. Sam, it is completely inappropriate and offensive for you to call this academic article a "conspiracy" or liken it to "Holocaust denial." Neutralitytalk 03:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality. It is worth noting that even if the BMJ was not a first-rate academic source—which it most definitely is—the article in question is only summarizing existing research, and can easily be replicated. Anyone can compare the results of the three post-invasion UN surveys (or, indeed, UNICEF's data from the independent Kurdish region during the period of the sanctions) to the infant mortality rate claimed by the former Iraqi government to see the same howling discrepancy—and draw the appropriate conclusions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

text: and there's this https://www.gicj.org/positions-opinons/gicj-positions-and-opinions/1188-razing-the-truth-about-sanctions-against-iraq 199.188.192.194 (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of BMJ article gets distorted 

message: An editor has restored an argumentative non-npov version of the lead that attacks the aforementioned BMJ study. The sources that the editor is edit-warring into the lead don't appear to directly relate to the subject (the don't even mention "sanctions"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 2020 renewed edit-warring