Talk:21 September 2013 Iraq attacks
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Skycycle in topic Reliable sources
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 21 September 2013 Iraq attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of 21 September 2013 Iraq attacks be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Iraq may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Reliable sources
editDo we have a better resource than antiwar.com [1] for the death count? I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree - Why exactly wouldn't you consider them a reliable source? Antiwar are dedicated to reporting terrorism and war-related news from all over the world, and in my 5+ year experience in doing this, their tolls are always closest to the real ones and they keep reporting for at least a day after major attacks, updating tolls as necessary. Not to mention that every attack is linked to a news article so you can easily create the tally yourself - BBC and Al-Jazeera might say 65 or 70, but if you look around websites such as the National Iraqi News Agency, or the cited MSN News, you will find them mentioning both the separate smaller bombing in Ur (Baghdad), as well as the assault in Baiji and various smaller attacks, so in the end the death toll will turn out to be the same - Antiwar is just diligent in collecting all this information. I see absolutely no reason to stop using them - on the contrary, they have been a great source of information and have enabled me to fill up holes in the articles about some of the major attacks in Iraq that would have otherwise remained there. Skycycle (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- As a side-note - Iraq Body Count's preliminary death toll is 109, higher than what Antiwar is reporting ([2]) - these usually are adjusted by at least 10% up when the details trickle in within a few weeks. Skycycle (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Antiwar.com is not an NPOV, RS. It is an advocacy site, not a neutral media source as their "About Us" page makes clear: "This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, 'greens,' and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism."[3] There is clearly a danger that their strong ideological views color their reporting. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK, agreed - but how does this affect them reporting on death tolls AND sourcing it to major news outlets? Skycycle (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Antiwar.com is not an NPOV, RS. It is an advocacy site, not a neutral media source as their "About Us" page makes clear: "This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, 'greens,' and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism."[3] There is clearly a danger that their strong ideological views color their reporting. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)