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@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