Talk:Operation Iraqi Freedom
How about using a cite that doesn't require a $30.00 charge to view the article cited? Crackertalk 17:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
- sure, what have you got? I'll take a look as well. --Cgday 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
For starters, how is the war in Iraq "the largest war operation in the world"? That claim isn't even cited, it's just lazily thrown out there with no substantiated evidence. Can whoever wrote that provide some citations for that claim, or remove it if none can be provided?
Secondly, the Iraqi Body Count website is not "robust surveying techniques"; it's a collection of deaths reported by at least two Western news agencies, and the owners of that website acknowledge that their number is inevitably going to be far below what the actual death count is. Due to this, I've taken the liberty to introduce statistics from an actual academic study that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.
I've also added an overview of the Iraqi Resistance, and its popularity in Iraq, with several citations to verify what I have written.
--Accidents 00:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow, there is some hard-core censorship occurring here. Everything I've added is true, and has been rightfully cited. Deleting the section on the Iraqi Resistance is straight censorship at its worst.
I can understand disputes about the second Lancet study, as the numbers may be slightly off (either lower or higher) due to the fact that two of the sample zones were merged into 1 in several occasions for the sake of researcher safety on the ground. I think that criticizing that is absolutely valid, but at least acknowledge that the merged sample zones were similar in economic, social and level-of-violence aspects as well. Beyond that please provide your arguments and discuss them in here before simply changing the page. Thank you.
--Accidents 01:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I think there's a little more going on here than just some questions about figures and resistance. I think you're trying to inject some liberal bias into this page on the struggle in Iraq. No matter what way you slice it, that's inappropriate. Affirmlife 04:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- And if User:Accidents had tried to inject some conservative bias into the article on the "struggle" in Iraq (surely a term that indicates a bias), would that have been objectionable, or is that OK? Just trying to figure out the ground rules.McTavidge 06:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
How does providing -documented facts- about Iraqis' opposition to the occupation and support for the resistance/insurgency reflect "liberal bias", unless you're referring to reality itself as suffering from a "liberal bias" (which seems to be the case)? The figures I provided are factual, and cited; you can check the source documents themselves if you want. I stand by all of the information I provided, and I think it's reliable. I'm interested in the truth, not "liberal bias". If, in this case, truth doesn't conform to an "American conservative" viewpoint, it's probably your opinion that needs to shift, not mine.
And if you have any complaints about the Lancet study, I'll gladly discuss that with you. I studied statistics at the university level, and read the entire report - and the methodology behind it - last year. Apart from the doubling-up of certain similar clusters, the math checks out. Feel free to reply with any of your complaints. I am reverting the page to my last edit.
--Accidents 01:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I added a reference to the bit about Iraqis fleeing the country, though a better one will certainly exist. Also, I can't find anything about a MoD Iraqi poll in the first link? JamesK 05:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)