Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War/Archive 4

Accuracy varies greatly?
Re the opening lead sentence: " the accuracy of the information available on different types of Iraq War casualties varies greatly". Is this what is meant? Is it the accuracy which varies greatly or the actual estimates? If it is the former, perhaps it would be better rephrased to say something like "the estimates have varied greatly, but the accuracy of some estimates is disputed". Clearly if estimates vary, then some must be more inaccurate than others, but I wonder whether that is what is conveyed by present text. Pincrete (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should be fixed. The estimates vary. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully done to people's satisfaction.Pincrete (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Reworking section on 2006 Lancet study
As was shown in the discussion about the different proposed versions of the lede, and in previous talk-page discussions about the 2006 Lancet studies, the study is considered one of the most rigorous on the subject. The article's long section on the 2006 Lancet study, however, focuses mostly on criticism of the study, relying heavily on the work of Michael Spagat. The following sentences from the section on the 2006 Lancet study are emblematic of the problems in the section:


 * "The Burnham et al. study has been described as the most controversial study in survey research on armed conflict,[169] and its findings have been widely disputed in the academic literature."
 * "A number of peer-reviewed studies criticized the Lancet study on the basis of its methodology and exaggerated casualty numbers."

The section on the 2006 Lancet study should reflect the entirety of the academic literature, in proportion to the prominence of the various views in the field. By looking at review articles and highly cited articles that reference the 2006 Lancet study, it was shown in previous talk-page sections that the 2006 Lancet study is widely regarded as being one of the most rigorous studies of Iraq War mortality. The article should reflect this. Instead, at the moment, it is dominated by criticism by Michael Spagat, which apparently has received relatively little traction in the academic field. I'll be working on this section, and welcome discussion here about how to make it more representative of the academic literature. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)