Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign nation" (see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which revolves around this notion.
While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government and all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big caustic problem for those of us who hold a more principled view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets his POV work its way into the article in various ways. (I can talk about them if you like). In short, stating that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV, though Reddi claims otherwise.
The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because "Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue until I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his edits, and start unblocking myself.
What to do? SV
__________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
steve v wrote:
Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign nation" (see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which revolves around this notion.
While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government and all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big caustic problem for those of us who hold a more principled view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets his POV work its way into the article in various ways. (I can talk about them if you like). In short, stating that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV, though Reddi claims otherwise.
The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because "Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue until I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his edits, and start unblocking myself.
What to do?
Change "Iraq is a sovereign nation[1]" (where [1] is a US Govt. source) to "The US Govt. describes Iraq as a sovereign nation[1]" ? Isn't that NPOV and a /better/ use of WP:CITE?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
--- Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Change "Iraq is a sovereign nation[1]" (where [1] is a US Govt. source) to "The US Govt. describes Iraq as a sovereign nation[1]" ? Isn't that NPOV and a /better/ use of WP:CITE?
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.
Sincerely doing my best to make the internet not suck, Stevertigo
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
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
--- 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
Bring an arbitration BEFORE you start the edit warring.
Fred
On Nov 3, 2005, at 5:28 PM, steve v wrote:
Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign nation" (see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which revolves around this notion.
While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government and all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big caustic problem for those of us who hold a more principled view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets his POV work its way into the article in various ways. (I can talk about them if you like). In short, stating that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV, though Reddi claims otherwise.
The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because "Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue until I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his edits, and start unblocking myself.
What to do? SV
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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_arbitration...
[Sigh] Stevertigo, Esq.
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Bring an arbitration BEFORE you start the edit warring.
Fred
On Nov 3, 2005, at 5:28 PM, steve v wrote:
Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign
nation"
(see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which revolves around this notion.
While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government
and
all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big
caustic
problem for those of us who hold a more principled view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets
his
POV work its way into the article in various ways.
(I
can talk about them if you like). In short,
stating
that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV,
though
Reddi claims otherwise.
The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because "Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue
until
I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his edits, and start unblocking myself.
What to do? SV
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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
I guess dispute resolution has to specifically address the issue of using unsourced material, rather than being phrased in terms of a content (or editing) dispute. If you make another request, please specifically cite edits he is making which are inadequately sourced; show that he is unresponsive to arguments that the material is unsourced and continues to insert unsourced material. If that is the case.
Fred
On Nov 4, 2005, at 12:18 AM, steve v wrote:
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_arbitration&diff=26673664&oldid=26673642
[Sigh] Stevertigo, Esq.
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Bring an arbitration BEFORE you start the edit warring.
Fred
On Nov 3, 2005, at 5:28 PM, steve v wrote:
Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign
nation"
(see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which revolves around this notion.
While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government
and
all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big
caustic
problem for those of us who hold a more principled view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets
his
POV work its way into the article in various ways.
(I
can talk about them if you like). In short,
stating
that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV,
though
Reddi claims otherwise.
The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because "Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue
until
I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his edits, and start unblocking myself.
What to do? SV
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l