--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
That's all well and good, but I don't think we, as Wikipedians, are here to decide whether Iraq is "sovereign" or not.
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
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com