On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Err, I'm biased towards "scholarly treatments" over "official treatments", but uniformly everyone, not particularly with respect to the Armenian Genocide. This probably comes with doing hard science for a career. Beyond that, everything I know about it I learnt while researching sources to supply citations to the article. I have no connection to the Armenian Genocide that I'm aware of, so I don't have any conflict of interest. Seperate issues.
Cheers WilyD
Then why wont you support an independent review without declaring a conclusion?
- White Cat
Anyone and everyone is welcome to review this article for any issue, just as any other article on Wikipedia. I approached the article this way, knowing very little, then doing a bunch of research to get up to speed (almost all the work I've done on it is sourcing). You could accurately say I gave it an independant review and found that the conclusion had already been reached by those who study the subject and have access to all the necessary primary materials. That there was a consensus among historians what'd happened. That there was a consensus among legal scholars what it means under the applicable international treaties.
But it's plainly obvious that any even remotely unbiased observer will come to the conclusion that whatever problems the article has, presenting a fringe minority position as such isn't one of them. Sometimes when you're informed and honest, certain conclusions are unavoidable.
Cheers WilyD
Sometimes informed, honest people