Talk:Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties

Reporting & Empiricism

The biggest objection to the Lancet survey is that if 654,965 excess deaths occurred in 1200 days, there would be an average of 546 deaths per day. Why aren't we hearing those kinds of numbers? On the other hand, I agree that the methodology used by Lancet if done correctly should yield the correct results. The question is - was it done correctly? The first thing that came to mind is the honesty of the interviewers. From Wikipedia's article:

Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, was quoted in an interview for Nature.com saying that Burnham's team have published "inflated" numbers that "discredit" the process of estimating death counts. "Why are they doing this?" she asks. "It's because of the elections."[34]. However, another interviewer a week later paints a more measured picture of her criticisms: "She has some methodological concerns about the paper, including the use of local people — who might have opposed the occupation — as interviewers.

Keep in mind that Robert's estimate of 1.7 million deaths in the Congo resulted in millions of dollars in aid and a U.N. Security Council resolution that all foreign armies must leave Congo. So, there certainly would be a good reason to answer dishonestly. However, I don't think it's fair to chalk it up to dishonest doctors without evidence, especially since they risked their lives in the survey. Here's another suspicious excerpt:

In the same article [58] Les Roberts has this to say about the ILCS (Jon Pederson) method of recording deaths:

"His group conducted interviews about living conditions, which averaged about 82 minutes, and recorded many things. Questions about deaths were asked, and if there were any, there were a couple of follow-up questions. A) I suspect that Jon's mortality estimate was not complete. ... Jon sent interviewers back after the survey was over to the same interviewed houses and asked just about <5 [less than 5] year old deaths. The same houses reported ~50% more deaths the second time around. In our surveys, we sent medical doctors who asked primarily about deaths. Thus, I think we got more complete reporting."

If Roberts knew that households were reporting higher numbers the second time around, then didn't he suspect that his pre-invasion mortality rate was too low? There are good reasons to be critical of this survey. These next two paragraphs expose the most disturbing issues:

IBC also enumerates several "shocking implications" which would be true if the Lancet report were accurate, e.g. "Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued" and claims that these "extreme and improbable implications" and "utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas" are some of several reasons why they doubt the study's estimates. IBC states that these consequences would constitute "extreme notions".

Borzou Daragahi of the Los Angeles Times, in an interview with PBS, questioned the study based on their earlier research in Iraq, saying, "Well, we think -- the Los Angeles Times thinks these numbers are too large, depending on the extensive research we've done. Earlier this year, around June, the report was published at least in June, but the reporting was done over weeks earlier. We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers kill. The U.N. says that there's about 3,000 a month being killed; that also fits in with our numbers and with morgue numbers. This number of 600,000 or more killed since the beginning of the war, it's way off our charts." [40], [41]

The implications of the Lancet survey are that local officials are oblivious to large-scale population decimation, a half-million unrecorded death certificates, and a huge inconsistency of the cemetery numbers. I doubt that a truly empirical survey would have raised so many inconsistencies.

Also, during the 12 years of sanctions, UNICEF reported that 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 died due to the sanctions. This would mean about 30% of the 5.5 deaths/1000/year figure would be children who died due to sanctions. If perhaps the deaths of those children were not reported, then the pre-invasion death rate would be much higher. The report states:

"The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces—with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships".

These common causes listed don't occur among children, so what of the validity of the UNICEF report? Perhaps the reason Jon Pederson sent interviewers back a second time was that he noticed households were not reporting the child deaths.

--Wicked222 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Along these lines, I'm wondering if the possibility of faked or inaccurate interviews should be split out as a separate section under "criticism." Thoughts? SkipSmith (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uk Government source refers to the methodology as "Robust"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm - useful source MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that this was lacking. Maybe that some good soul could update the article ? Quite essential information. 85.90.69.35

If we do include this article, let's be sure to summarize it accurately -- these same sources also say "we do not accept the figures quoted in the Lancet survey as accurate." SkipSmith (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox available

Code	Result
|{{User:UBX/Iraq War Lancet}}	This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong.†	Usage

--One Salient Oversight 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Split into two articles?

I think it would be a good idea to split this into two articles, one for each study. The material for the two studies is currently largely separate, so that would not be that much work.Crust 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Many of the criticisms and counter-criticisms are relevant to both studies. --Timeshifter 03:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Original study debunked?

The statistics of the original study have been alleged to be mistaken in a study submitted to Lancet by David Kane, but not yet published.[1]. I guess this shouldn't be a surprise, since the methodology was so questionable.--68.35.8.201 07:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Note "submitted" just means that Kane sent it to The Lancet. It does not mean that it was accepted (indeed, it hasn't been reviewed yet) or that it is necessarily correct. There's a detailed discussion -- started at Kane's request -- about whether Kane's paper is correct or not in the comment section to this Deltoid post. Kane's history on debunking Lancet is less than illustrious.Crust 22:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

David Kane is the CEO of Kane Capital Management, a far cry from a serious university researcher. This is hardly the kind of person who does serious scientific research that get published in the Lancet. On ther other hand, a CEO is precisely the kind of person to have vested interests in the Iraq war.

Further, what Kane has submitted is not even a "study". It is merely a comment, i.e. a minor issue. Also, "submitted" does not necessarily mean "accepted". Given Lancet's high standards, only a small fraction of submissions get accepted for publication.

Even if this minor comment were to get published, the original authors of the Lancet casualty study can always clarify the soundness of their methodology.

SDas 05:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Spin off second Lancet survey

I now agree with Crust that a second article is merited. See WP:SPINOFF. Back when Crust first suggested creating 2 separate articles there were still disputes occurring on a regular basis.

Plus some of the criticisms for the 2 surveys are intertwined.

Now that things have settled down a bit, I think it would be a good time to spinoff one Lancet survey from the other. The criticisms can be sufficiently untangled to place them in the correct articles. Some duplication may occur.

2 articles would allow room for some better explanations of the various points. --Timeshifter 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous Wording Re: Falluja Stats Exclusion from Lancet Survey 2004

The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase 2.5 fold (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).

The study says the following (emphasis mine):

When included, we estimate that the rate of death increase 2.5-fold after the invasion (relative risk 2.5 [95% CI 1.6-4.2]) compared with before the war.

The article prose seems it would most likely be read to mean a 2.5 times increase over the conservative estimate, rather than v. pre-invasion.

Could someone please confirm my impression of the text and understanding of the increase multipliers? —63.249.110.32 (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Or, in absence of such confirmation, I boldly edit. —63.249.110.32 (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

National Journal article

This needs some examination: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm -- SEWilco (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Title of this Entry

The two studies should not be referred to as the "Lancet Surveys" since the surveys were neither performed by, nor commissioned for, The Lancet.

To refer to the studies in this way, rather than by the titles of the studies or by the names of the lead authors (e.g., Smith et al., 1872) signifies that the person speaking or writing does not generally read scientific papers. We don't, after all, refer to the paper which first revealed the structure of DNA as "The Nature DNA study." We refer to it as the 1953 paper by Watson and Crick, because Watson and Crick -- not Nature -- produced the work! The two situations are, in this respect, the same, and the title of this article is, for this reason, inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.225.175 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 30 December 2008

It is proper practice to refer to a study by the names of the authors in most circumstances. However, these particular studies are widely known in the popular press as "The Lancet Surveys," so I think it is appropriate to use that as the title of the encyclopedia entry. SkipSmith (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lancet Survey found to be BS

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent group of polling researchers has accused the lead author of a 2006 study suggesting massive civilian deaths in Iraq of violating the polling profession's codes and ethics. The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research said Dr. Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins University professor, had repeatedly refused to cooperate with an eight-month investigation into his research on the Iraqi death toll that made headlines in October 2006 when it was published by The Lancet, a British medical journal.

The widely publicized study headed by Burnham contended that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died because of the U.S.-led invasion and war in Iraq.

"When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused," the council said in a statement. It noted that the group's Code of Professional Ethics and Practices calls for researchers to disclose their methodology when survey findings are made public so they can be independently evaluated and verified. [2] CENSEI (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel the article referenced is not useful. From the article "We are disappointed AAPOR has chosen to find Dr. Burnham in violation of the organization's ethics code. However, neither Dr. Burnham nor the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health are members of AAPOR."

So he has been found in violation of an ethics code of an organisation to which he doesnt even belong for not answering their questions. Its more gossip than news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.134.163.94 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 February 2009

AAPOR

i haven't visited this page in ages and only did so because i noticed the recent censure by AAPOR. i see you're still actively defending your pov on this page and i imagine you're going to remove the tag i added to the lead, saying it's enough that it's already mentioned somewhere far down in the middle. please don't remove it -- this is a significant new development and something that wikipedia readers should know about if they want to form their own opinions. if you bury it in the middle, it will never get noticed. imo it's rather more important than the other claims and counterclaims scattered throughout the article because this is a large professional organization, and censure, esp. of someone not in the organization, is very rare and indicates strong disapproval.

Benwing (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor Timeshifter removed the material from the lead on 04 March 2009, as you predicted above. I've returned it.151.204.136.82 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor Timeshifter keeps deleting this using a shifting string of excuses, and I keep putting it back. Ho hum. Quite the determined bugger.Stradov (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating what someone wrote above about AAPOR: "So he has been found in violation of an ethics code of an organisation to which he doesnt even belong for not answering their questions. Its more gossip than news." JoshNarins (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Burnham Censured by John Hopkins

John Hopkins University has censured Burnham for violating the study protocol. [3] The short story is that full names were collected on some survey forms, when the study protocol promised not to do this for ethical and safety reasons. This by itself has little bearing on the study's conclusions, but it does raise more questions about the quality of data collection, and no doubt will kick off a new round of debate, so I think this and the AAPOR censure should be mentioned. I should also mention that AAPOR is a big deal in the survey research field. SkipSmith (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating what someone wrote above about AAPOR: "So he has been found in violation of an ethics code of an organisation to which he doesnt even belong for not answering their questions. Its more gossip than news." JoshNarins (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Josh- this censure is by his own university. Rather a difference.Solicitr (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But if you read it It concludes that the ethics violation they were criticized for "...did not affect the results of the study."97.91.188.60 (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in lead sections

From WP:LEAD: "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them."

Please see this diff: [4]

A new editor User:Stradov keeps adding this inaccurate, startling, summary to the lead section:

Gilbert Burnham, the lead author of the second study, was censured in February 2009 by the American Association for Public Opinion Research for violating its code of professional ethics by refusing to disclose details of his work. Burnham was also censured in the same month by Johns Hopkins University for violating the study protocol by collecting the full names of some survey respondents.

Stadov wrote in his edit summary: "summary is accurate. ...what will be the next excuse. ...also returned deleted sources. the controversy over these differences is not limited to those two surveys"

Burnham was not "censured" by either organization. That word was not used by either organization. Therefore the info goes against WP:BLP rules concerning info about living people. Burnham is not a member of AAPOR. And John Hopkins did not harshly criticize him at all. See the definition of "censure":

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Acensure

The info is covered accurately in a nuanced way farther down in the article:

In February 2009, the Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) said that Gilbert Burnham had repeatedly refused to cooperate with an eight-month investigation into his research concerning the Iraqi casualty numbers. Neither Dr. Burnham nor the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health are members of AAPOR. AAPOR announced that Burnham was in violation of the organization's ethics code. "Dr. Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research," said Mary Losch, chair of the association’s Standards Committee.

In February 2009 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published the results of an internal review of the study. The review pointed out that in some cases the study protocol was violated by collecting the names of some survey respondents, but that no individual was harmed, and that no identifiable info was ever out of the possession of the researchers. The press release also discussed an examination of all the original data collection forms:

"An examination was conducted of all the original data collection forms, numbering over 1,800 forms, which included review by a translator. The original forms have the appearance of authenticity in variation of handwriting, language and manner of completion. The information contained on the forms was validated against the two numerical databases used in the study analyses. These numerical databases have been available to outside researchers and provided to them upon request since April 2007. Some minor, ordinary errors in transcription were detected, but they were not of variables that affected the study’s primary mortality analysis or causes of death. The review concluded that the data files used in the study accurately reflect the information collected on the original field surveys."

There is criticism of various kinds farther down in the article. There is no room in the lead to fairly summarize these criticisms. And it is unnecessary duplication.

See also WP:LEAD. It is not a notable criticism. And the criticism paragraph makes the lead 5 paragraphs long. WP:LEAD says the max should be 4 paragraphs.

From WP:LEAD: "Relative emphasis. In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources." --Timeshifter (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not add this text. It was added by Benwing and Skip Smith originally and was discussed by those editors in the two sections above (AAPOR and Burnham censured..). The "AAPOR" section was originally a note directed at Timeshifter, but Timeshifter removed his name. Benwing said in that discussion above "i see you're [Timeshifter] still actively defending your pov on this page and i imagine you're going to remove the tag i added to the lead, saying it's enough that it's already mentioned somewhere far down in the middle. please don't remove it--this is a significant new development...". Sure enough, Timeshifter has repeatedly tried to remove it using a series of shifting excuses, first just moving it to far down in the middle of the page and claiming to "clarify" it, then deleting it because it constitutes "duplicate material" even though everything in the intro is duplicated in more detail below, then deleted it by saying that additional (and unnecessary) links to blogs added by someone else aren't proper references, then deletes it again by saying it's inaccurate. On the last of these, Burnham was censured by both by definition. The AAPOR is a highly unusual condemnation from a major organization for not disclosing basic information necessary to evaluate the survey. JHU suspended Burnham from leading such survey work for five years, and did so publicly. Both very clearly fit the definition of censure. So Timeshifter obviously wants this out of the intro (and buried way down the page), Benwing, Skip Smith and I think it belongs in the intro. I think it is very unusual for things like this to happen with a survey and it is important information, unlike the variety of criticisms discussed later in the page. I'm not necessarily fixed on it having to be in the intro, but I think Benwing and Skip Smith should be able to weigh in before it's deleted because Timeshifter is "still actively defending his pov" and trying to promote this survey, and therefore wants this information buried way down the page and "clarified" by him.Stradov (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously a new editor. Please stop the personal attacks, political forum hyperbole, gamesmanship, and other petty stuff, and stick to editing Wikipedia. See WP:NPA and WP:TALK. The other editors are not defending the intro stuff. Don't get in the habit of trying to corral editors into some kind of team spin control. It doesn't work, and is almost always a waste of time. People are reasonable. There is no plot. Please stick to WP:NPOV and you will get a lot done. I don't have a problem with most of your edits. So don't feel the need to defend your mistakes. We all make mistakes. I make lots of mistakes. This is not one of them. You wrote: I'm not necessarily fixed on it having to be in the intro. So let's move on. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Factually dubious claims from MacKenzie

I've removed the following paragraph by a Debora MacKenzie article which imputes a position to the Bloomberg school about the AAPOR investigation that is at odds with Bloomberg's stated position:

"According to New Scientist's investigation... Burnham has sent his data and methods to other researchers, who found it sufficient. A spokesman for the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, where Burnham works, says the school advised him not to send his data to AAPOR, as the group has no authority to judge the research. The "correct forum", it says, is the scientific literature."

There is no record anywhere of a Bloomberg spokesman saying anything like what MacKenzie claims. In fact, the actual statement from a Bloomberg spokesman (Tim Parsons), which she appears to quote very briefly ("correct forum"), says something very different. It takes a "no comment" kind of line on the matter (see the full statement in the reference for Parsons' comments). If we are to believe MacKenzie, Bloomberg is, rather than taking no position, has taken the very strong position that the school itself advised Burnham to do that for which he was censured by AAPOR (in which case they would be equally worthy of censure as Burnham), and dismiss AAPOR's so-called "authority to judge". If these assertions from MacKenzie have any truth (which they appear not to have any), they would be a shocking development. As editors, isn't it our responsibility to use some judgment and discrimination in what to highlight, particularly where third parties are imputing positions or opinions to others? This paragraph from MacKenzie is, at best, factually dubious about Bloomberg's position. Until I see some evidence that Bloomberg really does say they encouraged Burnham's non-disclosures and non-cooperation with AAPOR's investigation, or have taken any derogatory position about AAPOR's "authority" or anything else on the matter, this dubious claim is one we as editors have every reason not to highlight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stradov (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stradov wrote: "I've removed the following paragraph by a Debora MacKenzie article"

This now is the second time you have removed notable information from a reliable third-party source (namely, New Scientist). [5][6] Mind you do not break the three-revert rule.

Stradov wrote: "There is no record anywhere of a Bloomberg spokesman saying anything like what MacKenzie claims."

The information you say is missing from the public domain may have been shared with New Scientist during a telephone interview. How they came by this information is not important, whatever the case.

Stradov wrote: "Until I see some evidence that Bloomberg really does say they encouraged Burnham's non-disclosures and non-cooperation with AAPOR's investigation, or have taken any derogatory position about AAPOR's "authority" or anything else on the matter, this dubious claim is one we as editors have every reason not to highlight."

That is not how Wikipedia works. Neither Bloomberg nor New Scientist need present you with a scrap of evidence. No original research. A piece is published in a reliable publication. Information is reproduced and correctly attributed to the aforementioned source. That is all that matters. Please familiarise yourself with Verifiability. You will find answers there. Therefore I fully intend to restore this material, perfectly in line with policy. Dynablaster (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I am not asking either Bloomberg or MacKenzie to provide me evidence. I am saying that the claim of MacKenzie about another party's position is factually dubious next to the statement actually from Bloomberg, which can itself be quoted. We as editors would be irresponsible to include such a thing when we have the party's actual statements on the matter or unless there is evidence that the third party-imputed position actually is their position. I first did not delete this and simply noted that the statements of Bloomberg itself do not say what MacKenzie imputes to them. You deleted that too. I guess my question for you is this, since there is tons of material from these and other sources we could be including, but don't, as in all cases of editing, why are you so insistent on having this factually dubious third party claim about the position of another party included? Reasonable editing would suggest that, of all the material we could include, something that is factually problematic like this would be low on the list. Is the point of editing to include every tenuous third party claims we can find, and which could confuse readers, or is it to produce a factual summary of the issues on the topic? Btw, maybe you should look up "Wikilawyering": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikilawyeringStradov (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page you wrote: "It's not our business to judge whether the information is truthful or not." But this is our business. As editors we do not and should not include all material out there. We pick and choose which material to extract from a wide range of sources that will best inform readers about the topic in question. Certainly one such consideration is whether something we might include is accurately representing the facts. In this case, one component of this judgment process will be whether or not, of all the material we could include, we should include a tenuous third party claim about the position of someone else, and which could misinform, rather than inform, the readers about the topic being discussed. So again the question is why are you so insistent on such a thing being included?Stradov (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Stradov wrote: "I am saying that the claim of MacKenzie about another party's position is factually dubious next to the statement actually from Bloomberg"

But we don't get to decide what is, or is not, factually dubious. No small point. New Scientist say they investigated the matter. According to their enquiry "A spokesman for the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, where Burnham works, says the school advised him not to send his data to AAPOR, as the group has no authority to judge the research." You can't wave a wand and make this information disappear because a previous public statement from Bloomberg made no mention of this particular detail. Nor does it matter how New Scientist obtained this information, by telephone, private email or letter.

User:Stradov wrote: "We as editors would be irresponsible to include such a thing when we have the party's actual statements on the matter"

But this argument builds on the same defective premise, which is that the New Scientist investigation is invalid and does not count because you personally suspect their findings not to be the truth. I myself don't see any contradiction. Not that it matters. If we are to seriously describe this controversy then we describe all sides of it.

User:Stradov wrote: '"I first did not delete this and simply noted that the statements of Bloomberg itself do not say what MacKenzie imputes to them. You deleted that too."

That is because you were POV pushing. After the New Scientist quote ("...the school advised [Burnham] not to send his data to AAPOR...") you introduced an informal, cautionary note ("However, the Bloomberg School has never made such a statement publicly." diff) This would appear to stem from a personal observation that the New Scientist report is "factually dubious", therefore readers need to be made aware!

User:Stradov wrote: "I guess my question for you is this, since there is tons of material from these and other sources we could be including, but don't, as in all cases of editing, why are you so insistent on having this factually dubious third party claim about the position of another party included?"

For no other reason than a) this particular claim is notable and b) it is printed in a reliable source. It's really not that difficult. Let us describe the controversy by attributing all notable points of view. Readers are then free to follow the links and draw their own conclusions. X said "___", Y wrote "___" etc. Dynablaster (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

But we don't get to decide what is, or is not, factually dubious. No small point.

We as editors get to decide what to include or not. Part of this is considering whether something is factual or incorrect about the topic and will inform readers or misinform them. So yes we do get to decide and we do all the time. It is true that something does not have to be deemed "true" to be included. But this does not mean editors are not allowed to consider this as part of the issue of whether something should be included or not.

New Scientist say they investigated the matter. According to their enquiry "A spokesman for the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, where Burnham works, says the school advised him not to send his data to AAPOR, as the group has no authority to judge the research." You can't wave a wand and make this information disappear because a previous public statement from Bloomberg made no mention of this particular detail.

I'm not trying to wave a wand or make something disappear. I am arguing that this is a poor editing choice to include out of all the material we could include because it is a factually dubious attribution of a position to a third party that that party has never stated and whose statements contradict it.

Nor does it matter how New Scientist obtained this information, by telephone, private email or letter.

You forget to add to your list of possibilities: ...by misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the Parsons statement that is briefly quoted, etc. You assume MacKenzie "obtained this information". I do not, as there is no reason to. She seems to be just badly distorting the public statement of Parsons that she briefly quotes. I could be wrong of course, but the range of possibilities here are not the ones you list. This is why insisting on including this, and then also insisting on deleting any mention of the fact that Bloomberg's own statements do not say this, is irresponsible editing.

But this argument builds on the same defective premise, which is that the New Scientist investigation is invalid and does not count because you personally suspect their findings not to be the truth. I myself don't see any contradiction. Not that it matters. If we are to seriously describe this controversy then we describe all sides of it.

I did not say this. I am not deleting the references to the NS article altogether. I am concerned with one particular claim about a third party's position which we as editors have every reason, and even a responsibility, not to choose to highlight above other material we could choose, for reasons already described. I am not questioning the inclusion of the NS article, nor claiming that including anything from it violates some policy. I am questioning your editing choice to insist upon inclusion of a factually dubious third party claim about the opinions or positions of someone else when these do not match the actual statements of that party. Alternatively, I'd be fine with just having it say that the actual statements of that party do not say this, but you object to that too.

That is because you were POV pushing. After the New Scientist quote ("...the school advised [Burnham] not to send his data to AAPOR...") you introduced an informal, cautionary note ("However, the Bloomberg School has never made such a statement publicly." diff) This would appear to stem from a personal observation that the New Scientist report is "factually dubious", therefore readers need to be made aware!

It stems from the fact that the Bloomberg School has never made such a statement publicly. Simple as that. The imputed position is a radically different position from the position the Bloomberg School has stated publicly. The idea that this is Bloomberg's position is nowhere to be found anywhere except where MacKenzie claims it is. And yes readers should be aware of this fact, but only if we as editors arbitrarily choose to include the problematic material in the first place, which we do not need to do. Better would be if we as editors would edit responsibly and not insist that factually dubious third party claims about what someone else's position is that do not match the public positions of that party are not selected and included above any number of other material we could include.

For no other reason than a) this particular claim is notable and b) it is printed in a reliable source. It's really not that difficult. Let us describe the controversy by attributing all notable points of view. Readers are then free to follow the links and draw their own conclusions. X said "___", Y wrote "___" etc.

This does not answer my question. I'd assume you agree there are thousands of words of material out there from many different sources which could fit this description. You do not insist on including all such words, nor does anyone else. You only insist on including these particular sentences from this particular article, despite that I've given a detailed argument about why I think this is a problematic editing choice. I've asked you to give an argument for why you think it is not and are so insistent on it being included, and you do not give any argument. You give boilerplate which could apply to almost anything. This is not how consensus building works in editing disagreements, and this is why I think you're not acting here in the spirit of responsible editing.

I'd ask what is notable about these particular sentences of this piece with MacKenzie attributing this position to a Bloomberg official? The only thing I could see that might make it notable is that it is a strong position to take and Bloomberg never takes this position itself anywhere. The only place such a position exists is in MacKenzie's description of what Bloomberg's position is. That might make this notable, and worth citing, but you object to pointing this out as "POV pushing". I will try again to edit this a different way and maybe approach consensus.Stradov (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have answered your question to the satisfaction of anyone with a clear understanding of core Wikipedia policies. The information you desperately want to disappear from this article is notable and published in a reliable source. New Scientist provide new information we have not heard before, that Gilbert Burnham may have been told by the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins not to concern himself with the AAPOR investigation, an association of which he is not a member, pending their own investigation. The sole reason you advance for wanting to keep this information out, is the fact you had not ever heard this said before, therefore it might be "factually dubious" and thus not worthy of inclusion. As I say, this kind of assumption is not acceptable to anyone with a basic understanding of WP:VER. Nor can you be allowed to preface this information by adding own personal caveat, with words like "However, the Bloomberg School has never made such a statement publicly" and "However, the Bloomberg School has not taken this position in its public statements on the matter". New Scientist is a reliable enough source. Dynablaster (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And obviously you must agree the information is notable because you said in an earlier reply: "If these assertions from MacKenzie have any truth [...] they would be a shocking development." Please understand that I am not assigning any value to the quote from New Scientist (be it true or false) other than to say it is a notable piece of information. It needs to be included in the article in a neutral fashion. The best way to achieve this, as I said above, is through X said "___", Y wrote "___", according to Z "___", etc. Dynablaster (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

So to recap:

1. The information is notable (Burnham may have been advised not to concern himself with the AAPOR investigation)

2. The information is printed in a reliable source (New Scientist)

3. The words are clearly attributed to the aforementioned source ("According to...")

It meets the criteria for inclusion, free from POV pushing. Dynablaster (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You should try to learn to debate disagreements in a way other than by wikilawyering over technicalities and personally attacking your interlocutor. The information you snidely say I "desperately want to disappear" was left in several of my edits. I was after all, attempting to try out different compromises to resolve an editing disagreement, unlike you. You also have a selective view of what constitutes "personal caveats" (facts you don't want to appear), and when these can not be "allowed" (by you). If you read down the page you'd find tons of these in almost every section and which seem to be allowed. You might also refrain from accusing people of POV pushing so quickly, particularly when your first edits here were to attempt to erase the word "investigation" from any mention wrt AAPOR, while filling the majority of the section with the "New Scientist investigation". Whether you realize it or not, this could easily be seen as indicative of someone wishing to push a POV, as could your approach to this disagreement. You may "win" sometimes with such tactics but it is not in the spirit of consensus building or reasonable editing.Stradov (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken on civility. The reason I changed the header "AAPOR investigation of the 2nd Lancet survey" is because it appeared more accurately to be an investigation of Dr. Gilbert Burnham's conduct. It just appeared wrong to me. But you'll notice I did not edit war over that issue when you disagreed. Dynablaster (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Parsons

Just to clear something up. You are using an ABC News piece (dated February 4) to cast doubt on a New Scientist piece (dated February 9). If you wish to discredit NS, then you will need to find a source that deals specifically with the new claims made by NS. You can't do this by inserting your own personal observation based on an article that preceded the one you want to attack. Dynablaster (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What you refer to as a "personal comment" is a statement of fact that the official statements of Bloomberg do not take the position imputed to them in the NS article. This wiki page would seem to contain tons of such "personal comments". It is a shame that facts appear to attack the NS article and therefore can not be allowed.Stradov (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources in this article

User anonomous wrote the following in an edit summary diff

Well he posted it on a blog, and Wikpedia guidelines allow blog posts if the person post them is an expert on the subject. Theres no requirement that it has to be picked up by a newspaper.)

This is flat out incorrect. WP:SPS spells it out:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Emphasis in the original. As you can see, blog material must have been picked up by a reliable source, it is absolutely a requirement. Bonewah (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, they mean if the subject himself, meaning Juan cole, has had his work published by a third party. Juan Cole has had plenty of books and articles published by third partys. Theres nothing that says this particular blog entry has to be published by a third party. annoynmous 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to show me Juan Cole's peer reviewed work on statistics, or war casualties, or cluster studies? Dont ignore the bolded in the relevant field portion of that rule, and dont ignore the part that says use caution. How about this, if this view is anything beyond the opinion of one guy, then find a different, reliable source that says the same thing. Bonewah (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay let's go over this again, Juan cole is an expert on Middle East history and Culture. In this particular instance he isn't giving an opinion on demography he's giving an opinion on how Iraqis bury there dead. That deals with Middle East customs. He support the Lancet report by raising the point that most Iraqis probably don't report a family member dead, they just bury them.

Second heres the relevant part from the wikipedia guidelines:

by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Whose work in the relevant field has been published by a third party, meaning his work on the specific topic, not his blog posts. His blogs are relevant for that exact reason because he is someone who is published by reliable sources on the topic. annoynmous 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Absurd, a history prof is not an expert in war casualties, nor of Iraqi's behavior during war. His opinion about what Iraqis do with their dead is just that, opinion. Bonewah (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and it's a relevant opinion that deserves to be in the article. He's an expert on how middle east customs and just because you personally find it absurd is not a reason to exclude him from the article. annoynmous 22:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Coles blog

First of all, Iraqi Muslims don't believe in embalming or open casket funerals days later. They believe that the body should be buried by sunset the day of death, in a plain wooden box. So there is no reason to expect them to take the body to the morgue. Although there are benefits to registering with the government for a death certificate, there are also disadvantages. Many families who have had someone killed believe that the government or the Americans were involved, and will have wanted to avoid drawing further attention to themselves by filling out state forms and giving their address.

Now that's him giving his expert opinion on how Iraqis bury there dead. You may not agree with it, but that is his opinion and it should be allowed to be heard in the article. annoynmous 20:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats all a stretch considering the other sources cited in the section in question are either the authors of the report or groups dedicated to counting war dead. Are we to believe that Juan Cole is such an expert he should quoted right along side the people who actually wrote the report that is the subject of this article?

How about the other Juan Cole name check?

On October 11, 2006 Middle East Professor Juan Cole noted:

"But last May [2006], the government authorities in Basra came out and admitted that security had collapsed in the city and that for the previous month, one person had been assassinated every hour. Now, that is 24 dead a day, just from political assassination. Apparently these persons were being killed in faction fighting among Shiite militias and Marsh Arab tribes. We never saw any of those 24 deaths a day reported in the Western press. And we never see any deaths from Basra reported in the wire services on a daily basis even now. Has security improved since May? No one seems even to be reporting on it, yes or no."[28]

Is this cultural commentary as well? Bonewah (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that in the article. If it is your free to take it out, but I haven't seen it. The Excerpt that's in the article deals directly with his opinion of how Iraqis bury there dead.

It's not like this entry hurts the article in some great way. I don't understand this great urge to get rid of it.annoynmous 20:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To end this dispute would you be willing to compromise and let the second Cole entry in if I agree to to the deletion of the first. annoynmous 20:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"fabrication and falsifications"

Take a look at the source. The 9 issues listed are not evidence of fabrication and falsification. They're things that the author of this study believes are necessary to improve its accuracy. When I tried to explain this in the article, a new editor edit warred to remove it. So we have a choice. Describe exactly what they mean by "evidence of fabrication and falsification" or we can remove the paragraph entirely. Seeing how trivial and obscure the sources given are (one primary and some random site I've never heard of), I'm of the opinion that it should be removed entirely. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. Our role is not to evaluate whether or not an article in the academic literature is true or false. Our role is to accurately summarize what reliable sources report. This paragraph accurately summarizes what is in the published paper. If you want to add more detail from the paper --- for example, the 9 specific criticisms --- that would be fine. If you can find some criticisms of the paper in reliable sources, then feel free to add those as well. But your initial claim (that there are NPOV issues) makes no sense. David.Kane (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)