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_revisit...
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