I have no idea why are you bringing up Hrant Dink case.
On wikipedia when we mean independent review we refer to uninvolved editors
or in other words people without a conflict of interest.
You are the one seemingly claiming the article is w/o problems. If that is
the case why is this article not featured?
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Independant from what? It's certainly true I have
a
scholarly/academic bias, but this is why we use "reliable sources".
"Alleged threats of the Turkish government"? I've no idea what this
refers to. Something like what
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink this guy went through? If
you're interested in the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of
Armenia, there's already an article on it - I suppose that the
genocide spawned this is probably worth mentioning, but the article's
not topshape (a common problem in articles plagued by POV warriors).
Of course, ASALA is linked to in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Armenian_Genocide_timeline which may
well be a more appropriate place to discuss it. Not surprisingly
what's probably the second most studied genocide in history has a lot
of daughter articles.
We're not talking about passing judgement on history. We're talking
about accurately reporting the facts as they're currently understood
by the experts on the subject. The holocaust gets mentioned because
it's the closest historical parallel - a state organised genocide with
near universal recognition as such.
Unless by "independant review" you mean "review by people who're
uninformed on the subject" independant review will come to the same
conclusion. The number of people pushing the fringe position is
small, and the literature on the subject is unambigious.
In any event, although it's clear that White Cat's opinion is already
chisel'd in stone, I'd urge any spectators to review the source
material before forming any conclusions.
Cheers
WilyD