Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 13

message: Someone should mention this movie in the Art section: Ravished Armenia.--Eupator 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The promtional poster of this film is highly denigrating and racist, it has no business here lutherian 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter what your opinion of it is, it's still history and should remain intact. Please stop reverting this article and writing sarcastic remarks in reference to other users. -- Clevelander 12:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ravished Armenia 

message: You have disregarded the warning which reflects on your bad faith lutherian 12:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not break any rule. If the IP is yours u are in biggggggggggg trouble... --Hectorian 12:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  gosh im sooooo scared that I need to take a dump this instant, is that ok with u? lutherian 12:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hectorian  WP:3RR violation 

message: Don't you think it's time?--Eupator 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lutherian RFC 

message: Once again this controversial topic is hijacked by a band of hard core armenians and their sympathizers. The usual suspects: Eupator, Hectorian, Clevelander, marshalbargmayan and angus amongst others.
Their complete lack of scruples and their highly biased and propagandistic approach to this topic is resulting in a very misleading view of events, way below wiki standards. Any information that contradicts the genocide thesis, irrespective of its validity is rapidly eliminated and kept out of the topic through edit warring maintained by a 24 hour monitoring by the core group and their stooges. So congratulations to you for making this arguably one of the poorest (in terms of quality of content) topics in wikiland. lutherian 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has ever crossed your mind the idea of u trying to hijack this article, but other users not letting u to? --Hectorian 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you understand the definition of hijacking? In any case the evidence is on the pages and I have nothing else to add! lutherian 16:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, right... --Hectorian 16:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijacked Topic 

message: First Due to the Nopov policiy this section cannot be named as Denial.Second there are some 20 western (as if they are more reliable) academics who oppose genocide claims. Inorder to make that article like a real article rather than a list we previously left only several prominent names and described them as prominent or distinguished. if these words go then 15 more names come back.neurobio 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If the vast majority of academics call it denial, then it should be presented as such (as a majority view) —Khoikhoi 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: in the academic community no word such as Denial is used except for "genocide scolars". 
I will not discuss weather the genocide is universal or not. let me put it simple.
is ASALA terorist? is Al kaida terorist. Is ETA terorist. Yes. But they are not named as Terorist organisations as a resuly of NoPov policy. As simple as that! I see not much has changed here. No discussion an many reverts...neurobio 21:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not because of NPOV, but because of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism... —Khoikhoi 21:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hardly. It's more of a style guidline for making Wikipeida encyclopedic. —Khoikhoi 21:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Come on khoikhoi I know its difficult for you but at least try to be honest, your arguments are hollow lutherian 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: well we dont think the same here then. the section was named as opposition for a year. it was logical and true since the opposing party was also academics and historians. now what happened that it has become denial. Somebody found an archive document in tha Ottoman archives which says kill all armenians or what?neurobio 21:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah its ironic how the same clowns that hijacked this topic and ganged up in a coordinated way with revert wars now ask that it be stopped right after they added their trash. Its also funny how the topic tends to get blocked right after the genocide gang have added their propaganda material. lutherian 15:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition 

message: I'd like to suggest the following change:
On 12th April 2006, some members of the French parliament submitted a bill to create a law that would punish any person denying the existence of the Armenian genocide with up to 5 years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 Euros. The proposition was set to be debated on 18th May 2006, but was shelved indefinitely.  French Foreign Minister Filippe Douste-Blazy said that adoption of the draft bill 'would be considered as an unfriendly gesture by a vast majority of the Turkish people', leading to 'serious political consequences' weakening France's position in Turkey and the entire region.
Zenow 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition to # 8 The position of the international community 

message: I can only stress this enough: it's not only Armenians that say there was a genocide. Most historians support the genocide thesis. I would like to point the anon to WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If most historians and academics hold a certain view, it should be presented in the article as such. Historians that oppose the genocide thesis are a minority. —Khoikhoi 09:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, Neuro has a very valid point here, but, for the sake of preserving this blunder, its being ignored! FYI, the president of the Swiss confederation, after returning from a recent trip to Turkey has suggested that the anti racist laws need to be revised because they stifle honest debate (he was referring to the so called armenian genocide). The same arguement was recently put forward by prominent French historians who were arguing that politicians have no competence to decide on matters regarding history. They argued that by "legally" silencing the opposition to the genocide thesis, no proper research on the matter can be conducted. Ofcourse, non of this is mentioned in this highly biased propaganda site.  lutherian 17:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it's unsourced.--Tekleni 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unsourced? Its news ma boy, google it if u want cuz I cant bother lutherian 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  well, if you insist: Blocher's comments
Anyways, to get back on topic: historians != some verdict. As Justin McCarthy says, let the historians decide. The answer is that most of them already have. —Khoikhoi 06:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: The latest poll shows that Pvda leads CDA by 1 percentage point. But Netherlands' Turkish minority is 365,000 people (total population of netherlands is 16.3 million), out of which 235,000 is eligible to vote. A large section of that has said they will boycott the election. This is bad thing for Pvda because Turks traditionally vote heavily for them and they need the votes in such a tight election. Turks are maybe pvda's most loyal votebase. This will swing the election in favor of CDA and could mean a different government than without the genocide thing.
Albayrak says that she didnt say anything that admitted that the events were genocide. She told a paper today that "I'm not a politician that will trample my identity. I've always defended the same views everywhere with regard to the 'genocide' (allegations) ".  It remains to be seen what happens now with Albayrak, who is just 38 years old, a 'rising star' politician who will almost certainly get a ministerial post in a Pvda government. Will such a prominent member who is number 2 on the party hierachy be dropped because of this? 
There are also people who say that this genocide thing was brought up by the parties with intent to exclude Turks out of political process but without explicitly saying so. A proxy dressed up to be used to marginalise and humiliate a minority.
:Thanks for the edit, that had to be clarified, I personally find it stupid to force someone to hold a view, but party line positions have existed for a long time, here in Canada it even took exagerated proportions on many issues so it would be quite a jump to right away suppose some ill intention such as exclusion. Fad (ix) 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some minor edits to that section. It's not certain that (a large part of) the Turkish community here will boycott the elections. It's a possibility, and some are definitely considering a boycott, but it would be an exaggeration to say that the entire community has decided to boycott the elections. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide controversy to possibly swing dutch election 

message: Why was he deleted? —Khoikhoi 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is no reason to include the name of a scholar who isen't even remotely notable in his field or hasn't ever produced anything (record-wise personal research that is) considerable of value in the field. It would also be interesting to note that beside his apparent family name, there is nothing excluding him from Ankara's circle as a faculty member of Bilken University political science departement pretended middle eastern specialist (how else could he get published in the so credible Middle Eastern studies (ironic of course)), who Walker in the critic of his book expose his total ignorance of the Armenians, their culture, their language and what we've got here? Ankara sateliting in Australia, quoting Turkish diplomats, not even reaching 10 footnotes and shooting 'Armenian claims', 'Armenian propaganda.' Amazing the quality of the scholars neurobio could come up with. And lets quote an example from one of Walkers review of one of his books: Salt claims that the real number was 265. But Salt's source reference for this figure (no. 32, on p.168) is a disconcertingly vague 'passim', from a printed volume several hundred pages long. This seems to indicate that Salt has not himself seen the actual reference, but only heard about it, maybe through his university, situated in Turkey, where truthful facts about Armenian history are still virtually state secrets. The correct page-reference is '182'. On inspection, the source turns out to relate not to a trustworthy estimate for those killed in the region in 1894, but to the number of slain individuals whose names appeared in the course of the 1895 enquiry into the events. The tchekudge and kelpeten holder on the street crossing mine has written a work on subparticules that got published in some new age pseudophysic 'journal', he supposedly got a PhD when he was in the Philipines, I shall maybe include him on the opponments in articles relating to subatomic particules tsk, tsk... Fad (ix) 02:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nothing in the above post is anything new, perhaps maybe for some googlers who have just learned recently the existance of him, and take this as a pretended maintaining of your intellectual integrity that I will not cite names. To my 'pleasure' I assume you're the one adding original research on the special organization section, that's also great, I'll hope you won't feel hurt once I footnote that section with a dozen of sources (with over half, Turkish). Fad (ix) 22:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremy Salt 

message: When did Germany recognize the events as genocide? I have the original June 15, 2005 Bundestag Resolution here (from armenian-genocide.org), and it says "The German Bundestag honors and commemorates the victims of violence, murder and expulsion among the Armenian people before and during the First World War" , it doesn't say that Bundestag recognizes the events as 'genocide', anyone following these events know that it is this designation that is important, Bundestag intentionally left this out.. I am taking out Germany's name and removing the map, please put one up without germany highlighted.. regards.. Baristarim 06:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead we should quote the resolution (what I pasted above) and say that the resolution didn't use the word genocide, that would be more factually correct.. Baristarim 08:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a new edit about the German resolution.. I just think it is more factually correct considering the importance of formal recognition of the genocidal character.. anyways.. Baristarim 08:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have expanded the statement a bit, asd the resolution does mention the word "genocide" but does not explicitly endorse it. Kusma (討論) 08:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the current state is good and correct.. No problems with that.. Baristarim 09:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I don't think your edit acuratly depict the situation. See bolded . The resolution claims the annihilation of the Armenians, the massacres were all organized by the government. It deptict the event from the official majority view, this depiction(organized destruction) can not be just limited as saying that it does not endorse it, it also compare the dark memory of the Turks with the one of Germany in regards to the Holocaust. Since this entry is not limited to the term genocide, but has more to do with the actual killings and massacres, I don't see how the German position could be limited to one word, when that resolution use the 'annihilation of the Armenian people in Anatolia which was organized by the government.' It even includes the murders from the special organization, how can you not endore genocide when you believe that a people was annihilated from the order of a government? That's the restrictive uses of the term genocide, much more restrictive than the one from the UN convention. Fad (ix) 16:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the question is the definition of "governments who acknowledge the Armenian Genocide". I agree that the convention says that Germany acknowledges the Armenian Genocide, but if we want to split hairs we can't prove that Germany officially calls the Armenian Genocide a "genocide". Please try to reformulate as you see fit. Kusma (討論) 16:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: The map of the locations of the concentraition camps is too small.  It must either be enlarged or it should be removed because it is unreadable.--24.15.9.228 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can click on the map to get a larger version. Kusma (討論) 16:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''MAP TOO SMALL''' 

message: "The single event that started the chain is most likely the Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. At the end of the war the Russians took control over a large swath of territory inhabited by Armenia but ceded much of it after the Treaty of Berlin was signed. The Russians claimed they were the supporters of Christians within the Ottoman Empire and were militarily superior to the Ottomans. The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from it.
Armenian bands of raiders started a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Turkish villages. Their aim was to drive the Turkish villagers out of Armenian areas and establish Armenian strongholds throughout the region. This led to an ethnic conflict that left thousands dead on both sides."
I know of no true scholars of this period in history who ascribe that the origins of the Armenian Genocide have come about soley or primarily due to any Armenian aspirations for independence. The second paragraph runs particularly contrary to accepted historical analysis and is entirely unsupportable. I do agree - and have stated before - that this article is in need of a more clear presentation of the rational for the Armenian Genocide and its interconnectivity to events relating to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of Turkick identity and nationalism where non-Muslim/non-Turks came to be regarded as less then citizens - as potential competitors - who certain elements within the new "Young Turk" movement determined must be eliminated to ensure their hold on the remains of the Empire and to ensure Turkish dominance of (first the Empire as a whole - but upon loss of WWI only in regards to Anatolia proper). The two paragraphs which I removed from the article are not sufficiently accurate or factual - and in fact are misleading - particularly the second paragraph which has been recently added. --THOTH 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no, what you do in fact agree to is that this topic requires further censorship and propaganda, and, unfortunately because its being held hostage by a band of armenians and their sympathizers who have ganged up together to coordinate an effective revert war in order to perpetuate what is in fact nothing more than a hate campaign lutherian 05:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hate campaign" lol Any other colorful words you'd like to throw around? Poor turks, always the victims of international conspiracies.--Eupator 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  poor armenians They cant dare to go to a international court because they know all their documents are crap instead they cry all around for the last 100 years. Go to a court if it is proven if not stop polluting the web with your primitive hate... neurobio 19:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: oh THOTH so outright censorship of the article section is not enough, now you are suggesting censorship of the discussions page? That very constructive indeed lutherian 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: yeah, lets not forget the waffen SS Armenian legion of WW2 that some members here have also been very busy suppressing lutherian 07:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And welcome to Godwin's Law... Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  watch your language and remain civil, you are not in a farmhouse lutherian 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL, and how were they thanked by the allies and fellow christians for their grand deeds? Last time I checked, Armenia was barely out of the middle ages, LOL! As for Turkey, they provided the persecuted with refuge (yet again) from the barbaric orgy of your fellow christians, many of whom are now members of the "supreme" european union. lutherian 20:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the fact that most of them were awarded medals and elevated in rank (Baghramyan, after all was a General who promoted to Marshal to be commander of the Caucasian Front Theater after the war) and their deeds were well known in the world. That's much more than what your beloved Turkey was able to state as its accomplishments, notwithstanding the cozy "Friendship Treaty" it signed with Nazi Germany in 1940.--MarshallBagramyan 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  oh sure, and as usual u are an authority on the matter and lets not forget my secret bank account through which I get Turkish government transfers in reward for spending my time arguing with the likes of you! Your remarks suggests to me that you know absolutely nothing about history and this period in particular. So what if those fools got medals? If the sacrifices were so great and all they got in return was a stupid medal, I would be very concerned! lutherian 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and let's not forget that 1942-1944 tax on all non-Muslims in Turkey, with particular pressure being put on the Greeks, Armenians, and especially Jews... -- Clevelander 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow man, what a huge burden compared to the deporatations and wholesale slaughters in France, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and many other European countries where they were more than willing and eager to participate in the murder innocent souls. Even in neutral Switzerland things were far from being kosher, but ofcourse, in your mind we can pardon them because they are christian and it was just a moment of folly and nothing else. What a joke!  lutherian 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following unsupported and not historically generally accepted statements have been removed 

message: Dear editors, please discuss the proposed moves (change of titles) of the related articles of Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide. The propositions are Armenian Genocide recognition and Armenian Genocide denial accordingly. they are discussed on the talk-pages of those articles talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Aregakn (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason why it was called "Denial of the Armenian Genocide is that the relation between the three words is clearer. Saying Armenian Genocide denial could also mean "Genocide denial by Armenians" which of course does not make sense. Same thing for the recognition article. --Davo88 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but I think here comes the help of the term "Genocide" to be with capital letter, which makes it a name of the very genocide it is about. I was also looking into the article of Holocaust denial just to see an example. Aregakn (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move propositions of related articles 

message: I suggest the topic mentioned in the heading be added to the  Armenian Genocide page 
or it can be added to "Relief" section of the general page because most of those relief organizations was the aftermath of tireless works of numerous prominant high level
individuals. There is overwhelming amount of information in several books that 
I recently absorbed. I will post some resources real soon. Meanwhile, please 
inform me if it is a good idea. Upon acceptance, please add more
information if possible. 
--ArmenianPhD (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good idea to make the article even bigger and less readable. The article is about the genocide and not the work of different organisations. It can maximum be linked to the Genocide article. Aregakn (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

text: During the Genocide?? I hadn't paid attention to this part... But still I think the maximum is a sumarry we can include. Don't know... Aregakn (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Great. then let us all see the content you want to present and start working on the paragraph. Aregakn (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Lobbying in  US during the Genocide 

message: Guys... what do you think of this subtitle and new addition? I added some context to it as it didn't seem separately connected to the Genocide article. Now it is. But I still don't see where it fits. Surely not under the title of reparations. Any suggestions? Aregakn (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does. It certainly is a recent development related to the recognition by Sweden and the affirmation of the House Committee. Does anybody see it in this article though or we should change it? More commenting would contribute to the consensus, guys! Aregakn (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it better fits in the Recognition article, or even the article about Turkish-Armenian relations. --Davo88 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Before my last edit to it, I was thinking of the relationships article. After my edit, I think it relates to both. He? Aregakn (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: That is an important fact, but a ridiculous one. It is just the threat of PM Erdoğan, which will not happen. Besides his threat was to expel the ones who doesn't have Turkey citizenship which is legal. He cannot expel all Armenians and he did not mean that. So if you will really add this make sure that you higlightmention these too.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lonewolf, if there are only several thousands of illegals in turkey it's not reason to tell that they are hostages. This is the pure attitude of the Turkish government and it didn't happen the first time; Tansu Chiler and the previous president also maid such announcements and even in a worse manner. I hope you will justify when Germany threatens to expel all Turkish illegal migrants when I'll tell, it's wrong. Aregakn (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey to expel Armenians 

message: The Administrators may consider adding to the bibliography the legal opinion of American lawyer and historian Prof. Alfred de Zayas, which tackles most of the issues raised in this article.  A. de Zayas "The Genocide Against the Armenians", with an introduction by the International Commission of Jurists (Geneva). Haigazian University Press, Beirut, Lebanon, February 2010.  
ISBN 13:078-9953-475-15-8.  De Zayas argues that the 1948 Genocide Convention did not create the rights of the Armenians but strengthened them. Already the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 recognized the penal responsibility of the Ottoman leaders (article 230) and the obligation to provide reparation and restitution (article 144). The Genocide convention of 1948 has been applied retroactively to the Holocaust, which occurred 1941-45.  There is no reason why it should not be applied retroactively to the Armenian genocide.  Indeed, Raphael Lemkin had the Armenian genocide very much in mind in his drafts and memoranda leading to the drafting and adoption of the Genocide Convention.  Crimes against humanity are not subject to statutes of limitation and claims for restitution based on genocide or crimes against humanity do not prescribe.217.168.42.242 (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred de Zayas Legal Opinion 

message: Why is "Genocide" in capital letters? There is nothing to affirm this as a proper noun by itself (unless of course there is an Armenian word for it like the Porajmos) Can we have the main page directed to "Armenian genocide"? (nothings been removed, so i dont see the controversyLihaas (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a term, a name of the event like Berlin Blockade, Leningrad Blockade, Cuban Missile Crisis, United States Air Force etc. The move is wrong. Aregakn (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  page move 

message: Can anybody see how the recen edit refers to the cultural losses? Because I only 1 sentense partially refering to the cultural losses "churches...monasteries, and graveyards became Turkish state property". This can be kept but I don't see the rest being relevant in this big article. Any comments? Aregakn (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural losses 

message: The article currently says:
Just a day before, on 9 October 2009 in London, Geoffrey Robertson QC, eminent jurist, barrister and judge, published a detailed legal opinion, entitled "Was there an Armenian Genocide?" which comprehensively and methodically demolished the British Government's reasons for not formally recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
I am adding a  to this sentence because:
*The British government's position is not stated in the article.
*Who says that Geoffrey Robertson legal opinion "comprehensively and methodically demolished the British Government's reasons for not formally recognizing the Armenian Genocide"? If it is not the opinion of a wikipedia editor then the expert who has read the Geoffrey Robertson legal opinion and made such an assessment of the opinion should be cited.
If not such assessment can found then the sentence needs to be reformatted along the line that: The British Government's position is "xyz". In 2009 in a 39 page legal opinion Geoffrey Robertson analysed the Government's position and he "consider[s] that parliament has been routinely misinformed by ministers who have recited FCO briefs without questioning the accuracy. HMG's real and only policy has been to evade truthful answers to questions about the Armenian genocide, because the truth would discomfort the Turkish government."
Also there should be no mention of Robertson's qualifications -- they can be found by following a link to his biography article --  because he is also a controversial figure, and this is not the place to discuss that, so by leaving his qualifications out of this article, there is no need to mention that he is controversial to balance the POV on his implied position in the British establishment that "eminent jurist, barrister and judge," implies. -- PBS (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the article. PBS, I have one remark regarding your comment, that Robertson's qualifications should not be mentioned. A short mention is not only appropriate but also required, because it's one thing to mention a PhD scholar in A university and quite another to mention Robertson's reputation. The readers must be allowed to differ the authors', that express their point on the subject, qualifications (in short) from the article they read and not be requested to click the link to read. We all knows, that more than 90% of the readers won't click the link. Aregakn (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If his qualification is mentioned then to balance the POV implied by that then it also needs to be mentioned that he is a controversial figure. It is much better just to provide the link to his article and let anyone who wishes to make up their own mind on his use as a source.-- PBS (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the sources of the figure being controversial and we shall see the due/undue. Aregakn (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one but there are more if you look around. Any practising lawyer who suggests that the British Governments is wrong on this issue is likely to be considered controversial, add to that his suggestion that the Pope should be tried by the ICC. and that the regicides of Charles I were right, etc etc is likely to be considered controversial. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geoffrey Robertson