On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Wily D
<wilydoppelganger(a)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