Message: 8 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:53:19 -0800 (PST) From: Zoe zoecomnena@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #236 - 14 msgs To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
The UN inspectors were closely followed by Iraqi handlers. The American trooops have none, and also have the cooperation of the locals, which the inspectors did not, because the locals were afraid of Hussein's backlash.
Zoe
Hi Zoe,
I have no intention to discuss the validity of the claims of anybody. This is not the goal of wikipedia. We must exclude from articles any judgement of value for any party involved. Just report what each party thinks and does, and why it thinks and does that way.
That's why I consider Ed initial question as perfectly reasonable, and I believe the "probably not" would not be a good idea to put in an article, as it involves a value judgement, and a legal position that is considered differently by each country.
It is very difficult to report what a party thinks and does, and why, when you don't understand its language. I think there is here a very difficult issue for those who are used to "double check" opinions and facts reported in articles by just googling them. Because, this is typically a "checking" method which can't be really valid here, as facts and opinions will maybe not be checkable in english.
It might require an extensive use of "alleged" and of "not confirmed" for a while, rather than rejection for the reason that it can not be double-checked in english on google.
Yours
Athypique
___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com