Talk:Perinçek v. Switzerland

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Perinçek v. Switzerland article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judgment[edit]

The second sentence in the Judgment section states: 'The Court also declared it is not possible to legally characterise the 1915 events as genocide.' There is no such statement in any of the quotations from the judgment. Unless such a statement is found in the judgment and directly quoted, that sentence needs to be removed. Diranakir (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you. c1cada (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Paragraphs 115-117[edit]

Why are these given such a due weight to be rather fully noted in this WP article? I'd encourage a discussion/explanation or a change. 78.55.124.180 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were quoted without commentary by an IP who I assume was anxious to defend the Court's decision. I added the comment that these were the remarks the Court made about the domestic courts' justification. They strike me as a rather long quote from the judgment (are these judgments pubic domain?) and indeed open to the charge of WP:UNDUE. I haven't read through the case myself yet, so can't really provide commentary. But you're welcome (and encouraged) to supply some. c1cada (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I'm sure you're quite right and I've deleted the material for the most part. My understanding is that Wikipedia is a depository of commentary on reliable secondary sources, so it can't be right to quote chunks of primary source in this way. As you imply, the very selection of what material to quote amounts to an editorial judgment. c1cada (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. Thank you for acting. The fact is that the case itself is about freedom of speech defender (if he may be called so) against a state law against discrimination. The articles 115-117 are the least important in such understanding and were not providing valuable information about the case itself. Although one small part of the on-going appeal against the decision is about that but maybe after having the results of the appeal we can ad to the article what is due. Thanks again. 78.55.130.140 (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm actually having an issue with providing a URL for the ECHR Press Release about the judgment, because it's apparently been blacklisted by Wikipedia! As you say, the salient issue here is freedom of expression. I'm not really happy with the excerpt from the Press Release that is quoted, since it doesn't seem to be to representative. On the other hand I don't want to quote more than has been already. I'll have a look this evening as to how that can be improved. Meanwhile I agree that further editing here can probably best wait the result of the appeal. c1cada (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded a little on the judgment (I managed to fix the issue with blacklisting - apparently it's the Google search I was using that Wikipedia objects to). I left the quote because I couldn't be bothered to paraphrase it, but will do if editors think it better. Eventually I shall anyway. Let me know if there's anything else you feel should be stressed. Of course there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't edit directly for yourself, and I encourage you to have a go. Thank you for your input. Valuable. c1cada (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Negative reaction partially reverted due to BLP[edit]

I boldly deleted the quote from Harut Sassounian stating Perinçek was serving a life sentence, because of BLP issues. Perinçek was released because of a mistrial. He will be retried, and as it is he is neither found guilty nor serving a life sentence.[[1]](edit: the link is in Turkish, sorry about that) The other negative reaction was just some name calling at its best. Though I don't know what encyclopedic value that comment gives to the article, I did not delete it, though if anyone does, I would not object. Darwinian Ape^talk 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the whole thing. I've restored the bits not about his life sentence. Why is mentioning his life sentence a BLP issue? 31.51.20.183 (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting someone saying he is serving a life sentence when he is not is an obvious BLP violation, is it not? Darwinian Ape^talk 10:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the opinion of an loudmouth self publicist like Sassounian doing in the article? Same for the genocide-denialist Turkish lobby group in Australia which I have just deleted. A reaction in a reactions section should be from the involved parties, or from experts on the issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure he's a lawer[edit]

The verdict says "He is a doctor of laws and chairman of the Turkish Workers’ Party." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.121.116.7 (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]