Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,594
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 346:
Line 346: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom (view source)
Revision as of 17:46, April 16, 2007
, 17:46, April 16, 2007→Civilian Casualties: Discussion moved from User talk
Okay, so why are the IBC numbers not allowed? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Okay, so why are the IBC numbers not allowed? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
''Discussion moved from User talk'' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS#Iraq_Body_Count]
== Iraq Body Count ==
Here is IBC methodological statement.Read it and tell me why their numbers don't belong in an encyclopedic article about the war but Fox News's numbers do.
Thanks. 13:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Methodology:
Overview
Sources
Data Extraction
Data Storage
Publication of data (including conditions of use)
Limitations
1. Overview
Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication.
2. Sources
Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post
For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.
The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the increasingly inter-connected international media network.
Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period, change their urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search engines. For this reason it is project policy that urls of sources are NOT published on the iraqbodycount site.
3. Data extraction
Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work in opposite directions.
1. Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that each incident is differentiated from proximate incidents with which it could be potentially confused.
2. Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of both production and public scrutiny.
3. Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same information is available for the vast majority of incidents. This is best guaranteed by restricting the number of items of information per incident to the core facts that most news reports tend to include.
The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to extract the following information only for each incident:
* Date of incident
* Time of incident
* Location of incident
* Target as stated by military sources
* Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
* Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
* Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
* Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2 above)
Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries will be kept under review should further details become available at a later date.
Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum
Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties and potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for the same incident. To reflect this variation, each incident will be associated with a minimum and maximum reported number of deaths. No number will be entered into the count unless it meets the criteria in the following paragraphs. This conservative approach allows relative certainty about the minimum.
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 or all of the dead as civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians 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.]
:Read it already; and there is a problem with the organization "Iraqi Body Count", not the least of which is the name of the organization to begin with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
So the name's in poor taste - that's an ad hominem attack - tell me what's wrong with their work. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 13:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:We have to begin with the undignified name of the organization--shows little respect for the victims and families. It appears to be extremely partisan in nature and insensitive to the deceased. The alleged "humanitarian" image this organization is attempting to foist upon the public must be adequately explained by that organization, and no other. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Again -do you know what "ad hominem" means? You keep talking about names and images - not about substantive questions concerning methodology. But in that spirit, the name "Iraq Body Count" arose from a response to a question anked of General Tommy Franks concerning civilian casualties. When asked for an estiamte, Franks replied "We don't do body counts." There's your respect for vicitms and families. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 13:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:The source must be properly qualified to be used becasue of the inherently serious and controversial nature of the claims. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
And these sources are not "properly qualified" as comparedd to Fox News or CNN?
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post
I know I have no part in this conversation, but i think that Iraq body count is not credible at all. It is just a bunch of Bush hating anti American activists [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/spruiell200507260924.asp][[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
Be that as it may, that doesn't mean their numbers are wrong. I think people here aren't interested in some unpleasant truths about this war. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:The source must be qualified. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)