steve v 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.
That's all well and good, but I don't think we, as Wikipedians, are here
to decide whether Iraq is "sovereign" or not. We should report what
prominent sources say on the matter. The U.S. government apparently
thinks Iraq is sovereign, so that view should be attributed to them. Do
major sources (other than Wikipedians on Talk:Iraq_War) argue that Iraq
is a suzerainty? If so, they should be attributed as saying so. What
does the U.N. have to say about it? The Arab League? etc. Those are
the sorts of things I want to know when I read Wikipedia, not a novel,
independent analysis.
-Mark