This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Dropping a note here to let editors know I performed a recent change to the Tables section > Overview: Death estimates by group > U.S. armed forces. I updated the paragraph containing counts (Total Deaths, KIA, non-hostile, WIA), relevant dates (pdf file title and access date), title [DOD pdf file], and Web archive pdf file link. I performed this update in order to update another article. As such, I did not update any other data in this article due to lack of time. Ping me with questions or need for clarification. Kimdorris (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION:
As of 1 August 2021 icasualties.org Iraq link is dead. There are 15 add'l instances of http://icasualties.org/Iraq in this article that I skipped checking/replacing due to time constraints.
The B-class criteria #1 states; The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited., and #4, The article is reasonably well-written.
Some subsection has four, five, and six inline citations. I cannot surmise a situation that requires such citation overkill. Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations. The second to last sentence in the "Iraqi insurgent casualties" actually has nine citations. The "Lancet (2006)" has one sentence with eight and one with thirteen citations. I still don't see a reason for more than three, but certainly, not more than four as it absolutely impacts "the readability of an article".
There are sentences and paragraphs without any citations. Reassess the article to C-class.
There are twenty-eight entries in the "External links" in five subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
WP:ELCITE...and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use ((cite web)) or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
While this is not the worse I have seen it is pretty egregious.
Links moved from the "External links" section that may be used as references.
"Likely Humanitarian Scenarios", UN internal memo predicting 100,000 direct and 400,000 indirect casualties as a result of the invasion, December 10, 2002
I've removed the "various estimates" section because these are an eclectic mix of statements by politicians, or somewhat informal tallies from media or other organizations, often simple for a single given year. By contrast, all the other sections are more detailed reports on specific scientific studies and are more comprehensive in scope. -Darouet (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should be kept, but maybe moved to another location in the article titled "Media estimates". Basically they are a historical record of some numbers thrown out by the media. It is obvious from reading their descriptions that they are incomplete, and questionably sourced. Just like many of the remaining estimates. The Bush estimate said it was "based on media reports" too.
I'm afraid I don't agree: your initial objection was well-founded, but this proposed solution is no solution at all.
To emphasise that the peer-reviewed estimates were "savagely criticised too" is to put epidemiological findings and unsourced press releases on equal footing, as though all sources are equally reliable, all criticisms equally valid, and a medical journal no more objective than the American military.
Wikipedia's treatment of the casualties of the American war in Iraq systematically overrepresents fringe viewpoints. It's clear, for example, that both of the Lancet surveys were "savagely criticised" — because the Wikipedia page gives an extensive account of every single objection ever raised against it, a substantial portion of which originate from a single academic critic: "Professor Michael Spagat". What is obscured by the undue weight accorded to these criticisms — the ulterior motive behind which could hardly be more obvious — is that the Lancet studies, now regarded as the most rigorous and accurate scholarly estimates of the excess deaths during this period, have been vindicated.
On the other hand, the claims of "Professor Michael Spagat" — whose professorship, incidentally, is not in epidemiology, but rather in economics — enjoy little to no support. Even Spagat himself appears to have moved on. Foxmilder (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
accurate, honest identification? the US invasion of Iraq...
of which Chomsky refers to as, 'the crime of the century...' Bobarendt (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There aren't many better numbers, however. A 2007 USA Today article put the tally at 19,000 at that point, the same year as the surge of U.S. military into the country. Using a variety of sources, Wikipedia calculates a higher number through 2011 of 21,000 to 26,400 total.
The independent site Iraq Body Count puts the tally between 2003 and 2013 at just shy of 40,000 combatants killed in Iraq -- including members of the American coalition. The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count has 4,800 coalition fatalities from 2003 to 2012, making the number of non-coalition fatalities around 35,000. That's mixing two sources of data, of course -- and conflating Iraqi defenses with insurgent fighters. The best numbers in this case are probably Wikipedia's." Woozybydefault (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]