[WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1 #237 - 10 msgs

[A thypique]

Message: 8  Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:53:19 -0800
(PST)
From: Zoe <zoecomnena at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l digest, Vol 1
#236 - 14 msgs
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Reply-To: wikien-l at 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