Talk:Body count

Tommy Franks quote in Iraq section

The inclusion of Gen. Tommy Franks' quote in reference to the Iraq war is misleading and strips the quote of all its context. Even if the quote was "widely reported" by op-ed and feature writers in context of the Iraq war, the quote itself was in reference to the death toll in a specific bombing campaign in Afghanistan that occurred before the Iraq war started (see. e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/world/nation-war-casualties-us-military-has-no-count-iraqi-dead-fighting.html; http://concept.journals.villanova.edu/article/download/264/227). The inclusion of this quote in a section dedicated to the Iraq war, and couched in the passive "was widely reported," seems (in my non-Wiki-savvy viewpoint) entirely inappropriate and contrary to encyclopedic rigor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.248.242 (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Body count. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160327213232/http://faculty.washington.edu:80/charles/pubs/VietnameseCasualtiesDuringAmerican.pdf to http://faculty.washington.edu/charles/pubs/VietnameseCasualtiesDuringAmerican.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Last edits

Mztourist, A bicyclette, you're both using rollback too much, both of you in the last series of edits have removed valid additions to the article alongside potentially questionable new data. I've locked this page for a week; take your own advice and discuss things here. Both of you are guilty of edit warring. Let's talk and improve the article, rather than rollback all over the place.

Note also that there are (at least) two specific issues here that need to be separately teased out. First, there's ample evidence that post-action reports from U.S. ground forces in combat in SVN inflated numbers of enemy killed and wounded. That is at a specific, limited, tactical scale, repeated over a large number of incidents. There may be less well attributed problems with VC/PAVN reports in the same way (one regrets not being able to speak more languages to seek more sources).
Second, there's the overall casualty count where estimates up to thirty years later try and total overall losses for each side. This includes the U.S. (and VC/PAVN) tactical battle estimates after the individual fights, but also includes large numbers of estimates for actions where the two sides didn't physically meet: from the casualties aboard the ships in the Tonkin Gulf incident, to all the bombing raid / artillery casualties, and problems with differing counting rules (when does a WIA become a DOW, later casualties from things like Agent Orange, etc.). My guess is that these two levels of estimating problems need to be dealt with separately, and the sections on overall Casualties of the Vietnam War need to be coordinated with it. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I trust that you will similarly lock Vietnam War where A bicyclette is also edit-warring the same issue. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You're both edit-warring, and you specifically Mztourist seem to repeatedly accuse, on pages I come across, a large number of other editors who disagree with you of large numbers of sometimes unsubstantiated wrong-doing. I'll take a look. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It has already been raised here: Talk:Vietnam War#Current edit war and User talk:A bicyclette#Vietnam war article. and rather than just blaming me I suggest that you take an impartial look at A bicyclette's edits on numerous Vietnam War related pages over the past few days. However as you have already shown your interest/views: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Declined) perhaps you should ask another disinterested Admin to do so instead Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And out of interest who are these "large number of other editors who disagree" with me? If you are referring to the various IPs in relation to South Korea in the Vietnam War, if you do a geolocate you will see that they are all located in or around Ontario, Canada and A bicyclette has acknowledged here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam that "172.xx IPs, which are my edits" and so these "large number of other editors who disagree" are in fact just one editor using IPs who has now set up a User page.Mztourist (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

172.x is mine, the other IP is definitely not mine. I made an account after anonymously editing but didn't really get interested in this topic until some time ago. I don't get why you literally launched three different admin complaints against me if you disagree with me. You do seem like a controlling person, well-bent on engaging in some kind of censorship/distortion to fit your narratives. Not only that, you literally went out of your way to delete articles, petition them, get them removed because they are from a Vietnamese source which you pathetically claim is GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA at the same time you literally accept the most obscure articles from obscure military websites, which you don't believe is propaganda. Its quite amazing really when I don't care to fit either narrative. A bicyclette (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam is rated as having among the lowest press freedom in the world and so all Vietnamese media sources (all of which are Govt controlled) are WP:BIASED, if not WP:PROPAGANDA in relation to the Vietnam War. All the articles that I have proposed for deletion were reviewed by other editors who concurred with my view that there were insufficient WP:RS to justify their retention. Several of them were outright hoaxes and I would point out that these were published in Nhan Dan and other Vietnamese media. What are the "most obscure articles from obscure military websites" examples please, not generalisations. I believe that it is in fact you who is finding obscure references for tenuous arguments to support your POV. You assert repeatedly that we should accept the testimony of Vietnamese usually many years after the purported events and knowing that reliable sources like AP can't speak to them without months of prior notice and having Vietnamese Govt minders present and yet you believe we should accept that as WP:RS, well I don't agree and I will continue to revert your changes that are unreffed or lack WP:RS. In relation to the specific question of VC/PAVN death toll, you have stated repeatedly that the AP mistranslates the Vietnamese Govt announcement and despite my repeated requests you have provided nothing to back this up, all you have done is repeatedly referred to a Vietnamese language document of unclear provenance which you claim supports everything you say. Meanwhile I have provided 2 other WP:RS that support the 1.1m figure.Mztourist (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Press-freedom, in relation to control of public media and dissent, is objectively different from reported facts and statements, made from internal records. DO you honestly think the fucking US Military, with the best press-freedom, engages in objectivity? This is a joke. Not even this, you deliberately DO NOT BELIEVE Vietnamese witness testimonies either. You should honestly understand press freedom is quite different than objectivity in reporting, the wave of fake news in the Western world is a testement to this. Instead of looking at it objectively, you are deliberately trying to re-write things for some reason, and distorting contrasting narratives instead of embracing either, and go through the weirdest lengths like reporting me for unfounded accusations you pathetic little man with too much time on your hands. A bicyclette (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't you get it? There is no press freedom in Vietnam and so the facts are whatever the Government says and any official statements aren't open to questioning. So whatever the Govt says or what is reported in Vietnam can't be relied on. No I don't believe Vietnamese witness testimonies because they are controlled by the Govt (as shown by the AP story regarding massacre investigations) and Vietnam remains a 1 party state where people who don't follow the Government line can be locked up. There is no objectivity to Vietnamese reporting, because there is no press freedom, why do you find that so difficult to understand? WP is supposed to be based on WP:RS and Vietnamese sources are not WP:RS but you keep trying to insert them and hurl numerous false accusations and insults at me when I hold your edits to the WP standards and policies. Mztourist (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I've already stated the first source, is based on the second document which is the one released by the PAVN itself. They literally took it from that, and the AP article is literally 1 paragraph, not a thorough look. You just have no grasp of logic when you accept figures based on a document, but not the figure stated on the document itself. There is a clear difference between press-freedom, which largely just pertains to dissent opposing the government, and factual distortions. Vietnamese news sources rarely tap into much of the media outside of direct issues that directly affect the current government e.g. censorship of environmental issues. Because there's no freedom to open up independent newspapers, does not mean that everything that is said is a straight up lie. This is just gross distortion. Requesting Buckshot06 for input in this matter. A bicyclette (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Body Count Sourcing

The figure of 849,018 according to a nationwide survey of compensation claims by veterans and their families for the periods between 1955-1975 is directly sourced from Hanoi's ministry, and should reflect the more accurate number than an AP article written in 1995, citing it. The AP article uses a rounded figure, of the upper 1.1 million which is used to assess all casualties across 1949 to 1990,and ought to be considered a secondary source, NOT a primary source. You can run this across a translator, but these numbers are broke down into the "resistance war against France - 191,605 which is accepted on First Indochina War page, and the 105,627 which is the Third Indochina War phase.
- Theo số liệu thống kê, toàn quốc có: 1.146.250 liệt sĩ, trong đó:
+ Liệt sĩ hy sinh trong kháng chiến chống Pháp: 191.605 liệt sĩ.
+ Liệt sĩ hy sinh trong kháng chiến chống Mỹ: 849.018 liệt sĩ.
+ Liệt sĩ hy sinh trong chiến trang bảo vệ Tổ quốc: 105.627 liệt sĩ.

Directly citing Mark Woodruff who wrote Unheralded Victory, should DEFINETLY BE considered POV since he has a pretty clear argument he makes, that the US won the war and is part of the controversial "revisionist branch". I don't see why it ought to be kept, and yet my part which is said directly by Chuck hagel, NOT an author or historian but a secretary of defense validating the gross-inflation did occur ought to be removed. Buckshot06 Your points on this? A bicyclette (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that "the AP article uses a rounded figure, of the upper 1.1 million which is used to assess all casualties across 1949 to 1990"? You have repeatedly said that the AP is a mistranslation without providing any proof of this. WP relies on secondary sources, not primary sources, to quote from WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." AP is WP:RS, I do not believe that your Vietnamese language document meets any of those criteria. In addition I have provided 2 other WP:RS that support the 1.1m figure and I'm sure I can find more without much effort. In relation to Woodruff, yes he has a particular interpretation of events, but his work is sourced and referenced and published by a reputable publisher and so subject to editorial control and so there is no reason to questions its reliability. If you have a problem with him take it to WP:RSN. I am only using Woodruff in a very narrow sense in that he points out that the actual 1.1m PAVN/VC death toll exceeded US body count/estimates (by at least 15.6% if you do the maths). Mztourist (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

We have the primary document, that AP used, which has a clear unrounded figure with clear description of methodologies, sources and so-on. This is a more reliable figure for usage than a 1 paragraph AP article. Not even forgetting, the US body count figures are post-assessments which round down the numbers from battlefield operation reports internally discounting the public inflation that already happens. Further the DoD statements are from 1965 to 1974, not 1955 to 1975 including the final campaign WHICH IS what the document states and should be considerable generally unreliable given the vast majority of the tens of thousands of "engagements" have immense difficulty "guessing" body counts given its prone to inflation. It looks like you are engaging in selective data to try to establish an argument, which is not needed, meanwhile I'm trying to state the facts as they are. This is shoddy scholarship on your part. A bicyclette (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't provided any proof that supports your assertions regarding the AP report. Your Vietnamese language document is not the primary document that the AP report was based on. You have failed to provide any detail of the provenance of the Vietnamese document and it does not satisfy WP:RS requirements. I have provided other WP:RS that support the 1.1m figure, you still haven't. The "shoddy scholarship" is all yours.Mztourist (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The AP Report doesn't even state which document exactly, it just says "Vietnamese News Agency" without saying which as there are several. The report would refer to the actual document published in 1995, which Hanoi did create and is the result of the official study they conducted, by the Ministry of Defense/PAVN Veterans Affairs Department. The tactic you are using, is to just move the goal post and tell me to assert it, without yourself doing any of it aside from obscure secondary sources. This is not only shoddy, its fundamentally dishonest. Then you go ahead and claim because its a government document, about a government document, but that it disagrees with you it must be propaganda. There is simply no way to reason with someone as thick as this. Requesting Buckshot06 to mediate this. A bicyclette (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who said that the AP story mistranslated the Vietnamese Govt statement or misinterpreted it and now you finally acknowledge that your Vietnamese language document wasn't what the 1995 AP story was referring to. This should have been obvious from the outset and your inability to follow basic facts and logic is alarming. I am not moving any goalposts, just calling you out on your BS and holding you to the standards expected on Wikipedia. I am not sure what "obscure secondary sources" you are referring to, Sorley and Ward/Burns are both WP:RS and you added a reference to the Ward/Burns book yourself here: [1] today so you are even contradicting yourself. You haven't established the provenence of your Vietnamese language document and I have raised issues as to its reliability, yet you want Wikipedia to accept that as the truth and ignore all other WP:RS including Sorley and Ward/Burns. Mztourist (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's be clear, this is the only document that was released, and which is available. THIS document you dismissed as BS government propaganda. Its logical its the only damn document that they would refer to, not imaginary document reports from a 1 paragraph news article. This figure, somehow you don't accept despite not being able to read it since you are trying to argue body counts are underestimated, not over estimated to try to validate the ludicrous claims made that US reports are the only factual truths. A bicyclette (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

When was your Vietnamese language document issued? The AP story came out in 1995 based on a Vietnamese Govt statement at that time. So are you confirming that the Vietnamese document was issued in April 1995? Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You may both have valid points, but you're discussing it on the wrong page. This is total 20-30 years casualties you are discussing, not counting bodies after a battle. Please continue your discussion at Talk:Vietnam War casualties, after engaging with all the sources presented upon that page. Arguments about a single AP story may be alleviated by other data.

Discussions here, in regard to the Vietnam War, need to focus on details and/or validity of U.S., RVN, or PAVN body counts - literally trying to count corpses/body parts after battles, or associated post-tactical-battle casualty counts. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I should say however, that Vietnamese total-war-casualty counts, twenty years later, have just as much validity as the U.S. apx 58,000, and Vietnamese-origin sources must be accepted into arguments and discussed alongside English sources. It's very unlikely that we will get exact matches in figures from both sides. It's a war; there was too much uncertainty and it makes for difficult record keeping!! Of course, if there are specific reasons why a particular count or estimate might have problems, that should be discussed too. But ruling out completely Vietnamese sources is simply not OK, and goes against our rules. Any editors who do so without engaging or presenting specific reasons why any count has difficulties lay themselves open to administrator action. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Buckshot06 surely even you can see that A bicyclette is being fast and loose with facts. The AP story came out in April 1995. A bicyclette claims that the AP story is based on a mistranslation of his Vietnamese Govt document for which he has failed to provide any provenance or even a date. If it came out after April 1995 then clearly the AP story isn't based on it. Similarly he dismissed Giap's acknowledgement of 330,000 missing without providing any proof or justification. He dismisses other WP:RS out of hand as "obscure secondary sources" even though he used Ward/Burns himself and Sorley is already quoted in detail on the body count page and yet you berate me for my skepticism of a Vietnamese document of doubtful provenance and threaten Admin action.Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

WHATEVER THE RIGHTS OR WRONGS, YOU'RE BOTH DEALING WITH LARGE-SCALE, WHOLE-WAR CASUALTY COUNTS, NOT THE "BODY COUNT". TAKE IT TO Talk:Vietnam War casualties, READ THE SOURCES THERE, AND CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION THERE (Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates). Buckshot06 (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My thought for changes to the other page would be to quote both, explain the way the estimates were made up, and leave the reader to read both, not try to delete one or the other. There are similar not-matching-estimates at most of the other military casualty parts of this site, and reputable historical writing. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Author Mark Woodruff noted that when the Vietnamese Government finally revealed its actual losses in April 1995 as being 1.1 million dead, US body count figures had actually underestimated communist losses.[12]" This should be considered a POV source, Mark Woodruff is neither an academic and his book is literally about describing the war as a "US Victory"

"In 1946, Ho Chi Minh said, in reference to the French, "You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."[3] Some analysis of war casualties indicated that the US and its allies inflicted roughly a three-to-two ratio of communist combat deaths against allied deaths.[4] Eventually, the US signed the Paris Peace Accords and pulled out." This is irrelevant, and largely POV statements.

"When Vietnam revealed its losses of 1.1 million dead in April 1995, the Associated Press stated that "During the war, North Vietnam played down its losses to boost morale at home and discourage South Vietnam and the United States." This is not verifiable, and is based on the previous (comparison) of 666,000 that Western scholars Lewy et al. stated, but that part has been left out by Mztourist . On top of the actual figure that I posted, this is not supportable.A bicyclette (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Unbelievable...

As soon as User:Buckshot06's page block expires User:A bicyclette is in there editing the page to "Removed bad sources (AP Articles), removed NPOV narratives." Inserting his "Vietnamese Government" document despite this being under discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties, deleting the 1995 AP story with no reasons given other than his POV that it is an incorrect translation of his "Vietnamese Government" document despite this apparently being issued 20 years later, deleting Mark Woodruff despite being told he has to take it to WP:RSN here: User talk:A bicyclette#If you've got a problem with Woodruff, take it to WP:RSN. Mztourist (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The AP Source is already described as generally unreliable as a figure. A bicyclette (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Really by who? Where have you raised that story at WP:RSN? Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary definition

This article is about a piece of slang, is used as a WP:COATRACK, and is full of WP:OR [[2]]. EEng 12:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Was just going to say the same thing. Wikidictionary is that way, this is an encyclopaedia. It's a common term, I think people know what it means, we shouldn't have an article on this. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert McNamara

Discuss how he introduced this as a measure/term in the DOD, during the Vietnam War, and the consequences. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC).

Body count

What’s your body count 2.28.80.44 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Killing

Killing people for no reason 216.49.31.72 (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)