Editing Iraq Body Count project (section)

===Undercounting===

The IBC acknowledges on its website that its count is bound to be low due to limitations in reporting stating; "many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war." IBC's critics claim, though, that the IBC does not do enough to indicate what they believe is the full extent of the undercounting.<ref name="soldz"/><ref name=dahrjamail/> IBC has directly disputed these claims in a lengthy document on its website.<ref name=ibcdefended/>

One criticism of IBC's method, from MIT's [[John Tirman]], a principal research scientist, is that the "surveillance instrument" – the news media – is changing all the time: media organizations add or (more likely) subtract reporters from the field, which was happening in Iraq; reporters were largely confined to Baghdad during the worst violence; and reporters tended to write about spectacular events, like car bombs, when much of the violence was in the form of revenge killings throughout Iraq. "As a result, this technique of totaling up the dead is incapable of accounting for the deaths that were not being recorded, whether by the English-language news media or the chaotic health care system."  IBC itself radically changed its method in the middle of the war, switching from two references to one reference in the news media.<ref>Tirman, op. cit.: 333.</ref>

The [[Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties|October 2006 ''Lancet'' study]] states: "Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods."<ref name=lancet2006>[[Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties|2006 Lancet study]]. {{cite web|url=http://brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf |title=Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150907130701/http://brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf |archive-date= 7 September 2015 }}&nbsp;{{small|(242&nbsp;KB)}}. By Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, and Les Roberts. ''[[The Lancet]],'' 11 October 2006</ref><ref name="supplement">{{cite web |title=The Human Cost of the War in Iraq: A Mortality Study, 2002-2006 |url=http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf}}&nbsp;{{small|(603&nbsp;KB)}}. By Gilbert Burnham, Shannon Doocy, Elizabeth Dzeng, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts. A supplement to the October 2006 Lancet study. It is also found here: {{cite web |title=Archived copy |url=http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/Human_Cost_of_WarFORMATTED.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515142928/http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/Human_Cost_of_WarFORMATTED.pdf |archive-date=15 May 2016 |access-date=9 May 2012}} [http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf]</ref>

In an April 2006 article the IBC had described an example comparing itself to the 2004 United Nations Development Programme Iraq Living Conditions Survey (ILCS).<ref>Iraq Body Count. April 2006. [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.6.php "Legitimate comparisons between studies and the strength of ILCS"].</ref><ref>Iraq Body Count, April 2006 [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/3.6.1.php "IBC Compared to ILCS"]</ref> ''The Lancet'' report uses the population estimates drawn from the ILCS study, while not mentioning its estimate of war-related deaths. IBC contends that ILCS is a more reliable indicator of violent deaths than the ''Lancet'' study, and suggests a much lower number than the ''Lancet'' study.

However, a supplement to the ''Lancet'' study published separately by its authors, as well as subsequent interviews with one of Lancet's authors have disputed the methodology and results of the ILCS study. On the other hand, Jon Pedersen, author of the ILCS study, has disputed the methodology and results of the Lancet study. For more info on this controversy see the sections titled "Criticisms" and "UNDP ILCS study compared to Lancet study" in [[Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties]].

The 2006 Lancet study<ref name=lancet2006/> also states: "In several outbreaks, disease and death recorded by facility-based methods underestimated events by a factor of ten or more when compared with population-based estimates. Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence."

''The Lancet'' reference used is to Patrick Ball, Paul Kobrak, and Herbert F. Spirer and their 1999 book, ''State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A Quantitative Reflection''.<ref>[http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ciidh/qr/english/qrtitle.html ''State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A Quantitative Reflection''.]. 1999 book by Patrick Ball, Paul Kobrak, and Herbert F. Spirer.</ref> From the introduction: "The CIIDH database consists of cases culled from direct testimonies and documentary and press sources."

Chapter 10<ref name=chapter10>[http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ciidh/qr/english/chap10.html "Chapter 10: Naming the Victims"] 1999 book by Patrick Ball, Paul Kobrak, and Herbert F. Spirer.</ref> elaborates, saying that "In the CIIDH project, participating popular organizations collected many of the testimonies long after the time of the killings, when people were less clear about details, especially the identities of all the victims." And says, "Typically, during the collection of testimonies, a surviving witness might provide the names of one or two victims, perhaps close relatives, while estimating the number of other neighbors in the community without giving their names."

They report in chapter 7:<ref>[http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ciidh/qr/english/chap7.html "Chapter 7: Reporting the Violence"]. 1999 book by Patrick Ball, Paul Kobrak, and Herbert F. Spirer.</ref>

<blockquote>Figure 7.1 shows that in the CIIDH database, most of the information for human rights violations prior to 1977 comes from press sources. ... Approximately 10,890 cases were coded from the newspapers. Sixty-three percent of the press cases were taken from Prensa Libre, 10 percent from El Gráfico, 8 percent from La Hora and El Impacto respectively, and 6 percent from El Imparcial. The remaining 5 percent is made up by eight other newspapers.</blockquote>

But also in chapter 7 they reported that in later, more violent years:

<blockquote>When the level of violence increased dramatically in the late 1970s and early 1980s, numbers of reported violations in the press stayed very low. In 1981, one of the worst years of state violence, the numbers fall towards zero. The press reported almost none of the rural violence.</blockquote>

There is a list<ref>[http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ciidh/qr/english/figures.html "List of figures"]. From 1999 book. By Patrick Ball, Paul Kobrak, and Herbert F. Spirer.</ref> of figures, tables, and charts in the book that can be used to calculate what percentage of their cases of killings by state forces were reported by 13 Guatemalan newspapers for each year when compared to the testimonies of witnesses (as previously described from chapter 10<ref name=chapter10/>).

In a 7 November 2004 press release<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/archive.php|title=Reference section :: Iraq Body Count|work=IraqBodyCount.net|access-date=3 February 2017}}</ref> concerning the October 2004 ''Lancet'' study<ref name="lancet2004">{{cite web |url= http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf |title= Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey |url-status= dead |archive-url= http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20051201092157/http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf |archive-date= 1 December 2005 }}&nbsp;{{small|(263&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]])}}. By Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, and Gilbert Burnham. ''[[The Lancet]]'', 29 October 2004. (hosted by zmag.org).</ref> the IBC states: "We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording".

One of the sources used by the media is morgues. Only the central Baghdad area morgue has released figures consistently. While that is the largest morgue in Iraq and in what is often claimed to be the most consistently violent area, the absence of comprehensive morgue figures elsewhere leads to undercounting. IBC makes it clear that, due to these issues, its count will almost certainly be below the full toll in its 'Quick FAQ' on its homepage.

Quote from an IBC note:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iraqbodycount.net/details/x350_note.php|title=Iraq Body Count|work=IraqBodyCount.net|access-date=3 February 2017}}</ref> "The Iraq Body Count (IBC) estimate for x350, like that for x334, was made possible by examination of the detailed data supplied to the Associated Press (AP) by the morgues surveyed in AP's 23 May 2004 survey of Iraqi morgues."

That 23 May 2004 [[Associated Press]] article<ref name = "5,500 Iraqis">[http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=443126&Date=5/24/2004 "5,500 Iraqis Killed, Morgue Records Show"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716233611/http://www.unitedjerusalem.org/index2.asp?id=443126&Date=5%2F24%2F2004 |date=16 July 2011 }}. By Daniel Cooney. [[Associated Press]]. 23 May 2004. Article is [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/24/content_333168.htm here] also.</ref> points out the lack of morgue data from multiple areas of Iraq. Also, it states: "The [Baghdad] figure does not include most people killed in big terrorist bombings, Hassan said. The cause of death in such cases is obvious so bodies are usually not taken to the morgue, but given directly to victims' families. Also, the bodies of killed fighters from groups like the al-Mahdi Army are rarely taken to morgues."