--- Alphax <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well sure, but its just not appropriate to make that claim in any way other than in an attributed cite. Thats my point. The problem arises in using the term "sovereign" in the general overview without such qualification, deferring perhaps to latter qualification, etc. I should say that the article in dispute is [[ Iraq_War ]], and the reason I mentioned "suzerainty" is because that term seems to be more appropriate to the situation. Someone was kind enough to explain the ABC's of this to Reddi on the talk, though he didnt respond: "The Iraqi government has no place in the chain of command for the troops in their soil. If coalition troops were the guests of sovereign Iraq, the Iraqi government could request that they abide by any particular rules or laws else revoke the invitation to the troops. What we've seen and heard so far all indicates that this is not the case in Iraq, that coalition troops are above Iraqi law. And if that's the case, Iraq is not sovereign." - User:Bugg42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War#Meaning_of_sovereignty.2C_revisi… Pretty clear IMHO, and Ive said so before. I hope Reddi responds to this, though I will agree that Reddi's edits have been a bit improved. Sincerely doing my best to make the internet not suck, Stevertigo __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote: I largely agree, but in the context of certain disagreements, a overall decision needs to be made which influences succeeding decisions regarding specifics. Just pointing to WP:CITE winds up being non-definitive (a copout) in the case of 800 pound gorrillas (the US government) , because theres a tendency to give such gorrillas a wide path. As for 'its not our place,' I can point to specific cases where the only solution was to virtually invent a new term. For example, I came up with the term "Iraq_disarmament_crisis" to resolve a long running naming dispute, though I dont think anyone uses that term at all, and the term is effectively a neologism. So in the context of finding a resolution to a dispute, the creative solution can not only solve the problem, but can stand the test of time --2.5 years now. That article can probably now be renamed to [[Pre-Iraq_War_fraud]] though. SV __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

Dammit Fred, I did do just that. Cant find it on either the rejected or closed cases though. Have to dig up a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio… [Sigh] Stevertigo, Esq. --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com