Talk:Stanford J. Shaw

message: this article is almost entirely based upon three online articles. two are cited (the CNES and the Arkun articles), but the third is his biography on the Bilkent Univ website: http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~shaw/profile.html
i believe this article needs some serious revisions, or else it is a copywright violation.
dgl 09:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is  here. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename of Category

message: Quoting the notice of his memorial service, Bilkent [University] News Interactive 2006-12-28 
: "At the end of all of the speeches, participants gathered to express their condolences to his wife Prof. Ayşe Ezel Kural-Shaw, his daughter Dr. Wendy Meryem Kural-Shaw-Arslan and his son-in-law Dr. Savaş Arslan." 
This suggests identity of Ezel Kural Shaw, aka E. K. Shaw, and Ayşe Ezel Kural-Shaw.
* 
* Works by or about Ezel Kural Shaw in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
* Ayşe Ezel Kural-Shaw at LC Authorities  and WorldCat 
--P64 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family 

message: I am asking a hard question for some of the people here, but so what? This is a biography page of the man, who is a respected historian (perhaps that's what's at stake here). This is not a hate blog for the man based on the very vocal and organized Armenian opinion of him, which by the way is not relevant to anyone else.
Also the source for 'pro Turkish bias' is Marc Baer, and what is the basis for this view? Marc Baer believes it. OK. It's a fact.
In some corners of the internet, a Turkish-topic must cite only anti-Turkish people. Let's talk about the content then, if we do so, we'd delete this and restore my edit since the entire content in this page is 'Shaw is bad'(source: Baer or someone else). 'Shaw is pro Turkish (and therefore bad' -- (source:Baer). Shaw thinks what the Turkish government also thinks, and this fact alone is enough to disqualify him (sourcE: Baer, Hovhanssian). 
Why is this relevant and how is it not undue-weight on the views of a number of academics (Baer and friends) who have a vendetta against Shaw.
Is it relevant that "Shaw's works have been criticized for their lack of factual accuracy as well as denial of the Armenian genocide, and other pro-Turkish bias.[1][2]"? 
Criticized by whom, pro Armenian authors. It's the ultimate non-statement. "People have said you're a bad person" -- source: people, including me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungitow (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro Turkish bias" 

message: *Note While WP:BRD is a much used and cited guideline, WP:ONUS is policy, and is explicit that . All may rest assured that material that has been removed at least once qualifies as disputed.  SN54129 11:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful. So, if I want to remove sourced material that is inconvenient to me, all I have to do is delete it once, reason not needed? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that some of the criticisms are genuine but representing them excessively while virtually omitting to positive reviews causes bias. The lead strikes me particularly—the criticisms here seem undue as they are not balanced with positive receptions. Therefore, I am temporarily removing them until the content is balanced.--176.219.153.24 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you shouldn't be evading your block. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been blocked. You surely must be confusing me with someone else. 176.219.155.220 (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

text: You are not the judge of that. You need consensus first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Not a single valid reason was shown for WP:DUE sourced content removal. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already shared my reasoning on why it is not DUE and it is *you* who need consensus to add the disputed material. WP:ONUS is clear on that, just like SN54129 pointed out.--176.219.215.34 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat:  --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

text:  blocked account, who surprisingly removed same content like you just 2 days ago, was blocked for the same reason you're edit-warring over now, disruption and genocide denialism. And SN54129 noticed the block just after that comment . Btw  WP:ONUS doesn't change anything here, the information was in the article for a very long time it's not like it was just added to "need consensus". You're the one who needs to achieve consensus, especially when you're removing DUE sourced content considering Shaw's views and the criticism he received, Stanford_J._Shaw#Criticism. You're just disrupting and removing it with no consensus, while trying to abuse guidelines in the process without even understanding them. I have nothing else to say to you unless you demonstrate a valid reason as to why exactly you're removing a long-standing well sourced content, instead of playing a wiki-lawyer here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been discussions on this, see previous sections. WP:DETCON says,  No valid, policy-based reasons for deleting the material were given, only for keeping it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hob Gadling thank you for pointing this out. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion