" 

 :::""Farfetched opinion"" is an opinion itself. Additionally, when you say ""your opinion"", I take it that you mean personal opinion. No, neither you nor I can share our personal opinions: that's original research. Now, if an expert or notable individual makes such a statement, it depends on the article's topic, and the individual's area of expertise. For example, you wouldn't quote a mathematician on history; however, there are instances where the expert can have a cross-field value. Additionally, assessments made by notable people may be relevant. If Winston Churchill asserted that Hispanics are a ""bad, ugly, stupid and inferior people"", then it is certainly worth noting. 

 :::It should be noted that your example is a little over-dramatic, and is more of a straw-man than anything. Let's use one that's extreme, but not over-the-top. For example, let's say a historian asserted that Charlemagne never existed; that he was a fabrication. That's a pretty strong claim to make. Even so, assuming that the individual is a professional historian, is not self-published (and/or) has gained a notoriety for his views and contributions, then it would be worth noting in a small section or paragraph (per WP:UNDUE).  

 :::We can not include or exclude assertions based merely on qualitative judgments.  

 :I'm unsure what your business about ""judgments"" is. Verifiable facts are by-and-large determined by ""judgment"". I'm not sure if you intended to use a different word here, because it doesn't quite convey the meaning you'd like it to, I believe. 

 :Additionally... what exactly is your concern with the article? Discussion page? Um, if there are alternate views in existence, you should add in information on a view you think is neglected. That's the basis of an encyclopedia: conveying information. I'm not sure why you think that the presence of this information will complicate the article later. It won't. 

 :I happen to think you're a little confused. See, we're not here to convince individuals of a particular viewpoint. We don't ""stack evidence"", or go out of our way to provide ""lengthy examples"". The quote is self-explanatory: ""Such Turkish staples as kebabs, stuffed vine leaves and stuffed vegetables were Byzantine staples. Börek, halva and baklava are well-attested in Byzantine and classical texts."" We do not need to strip down and assess the source to determine whether or not an assertion is acceptable. These scholars have determined something based on the evidence which they have uncovered, and whether or not you enjoy the conclusion, it is presentable here. The previous quotation should require just as much ""justification"" or ""evidence"" for its claims, but oddly enough you aren't complaining about that one. I don't understand what you're asking for beyond this. 

 :Once again, your own ""judgment"" and original research is not welcome on Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter what your opinion of the researchers' conclusions may be. Keep this in mind, and note what I tried to explain in my last comment. 

 :Are you trying to insult me? I know what censorship is, and I deal with it commonly while editing. Let's take a simple scenario. Random guy browses through Wikipedia, reading about his religion. He reads an unflattering assessment of his religion's history by a certain scholar, and deletes the paragraph in question, citing his reasoning based on a personal judgment of the theory. Everyday, this cite entertains nationalists and religious fanatics who vandalize, censor and push their own POV on articles which contain unflattering information. This article has received nationalist vandalism and OR-POV-pushing before, as does the Falafel article. 

 :Based on the above, it shouldn't be hard to grasp how the elimination of information which would be unflattering to ""Turkish pride"" could be considered censorship. As is clear, you have a serious problem with the ""baking and vinticulture"" issue, whether it is true or not. The fact of the matter is that the information presented there is a scholarly assessment, and is sufficiently cited. You may disagree with the conclusions, but as I've already explained in my last comment, yours or my own dismissal of an assertion as ""ridiculous"" or ""a falsehood"" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the item should be included in the article. "