Talk:Thomas de Waal

Criticism

What is the point of adding criticism of strongly biased sources such as Deniev, Manasyan, etc? I mean, accusation of de Waal being a “western spy” are ridiculous, and Armenian reviewers are not happy that de Waal criticizes atrocities committed by Armenian militants in Karabakh and Armenia. Criticism should be from sources that have no bias with regard to de Waal. Grandmaster 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha, why do you restore to the article criticism from partisan sources? If there's a criticism coming from neutral sources, it would be OK to add them, but sources with clear agenda are no good. Grandmaster (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

these opinions dont contain any harrasments, so we need to have the common picture about the author. Also we have too much partisan opinion on Caroline Cox calling her an "Armenian nationalist", these ones are surely more correct. And what means partisan: why for example a Checheni or Armenian expert is surely partisan? They are not the personal enemies of de Waal, if he is really neutral, he even must be welcomed by all the sides. Andranikpasha (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources that you quote are clearly partisan, with an obvious agenda. Cox is different, the quote included comes from her supporter, not enemy. Grandmaster (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If even Pallone is her supporter (according to you), the word of nationalist is surely a personal attack (and you're using it as a such one against a LP). And no any personal attacks against de Waal, only his book criticism, which should remained. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not an attack, Cox was pleased to hear that, otherwise she would have objected. It was a compliment. And here you are trying present criticism from partisan sources as something valid. If you really want to add criticism to this article, try finding neutral sources. Grandmaster (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets to not explain what feel other persons. Anyone who likes the word of nationalist can use it while describing himself not other persons. Andranikpasha (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One need not be a "Western spy" to be linked to and have interests linked to Western states and to have that be reflected in their narrative. Let us be very clear on this, neither the US nor the UK are neutral in the Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute. Through Turkey, both are clearly Azerbaijani allies and their citizens, institutions, and even scholarship outfits like the Carnagie Endowment will generally speaking reflect that bias. Mr. De Waal is British and he works for a para-statal American institution -- he is biased, case closed. Being open to the fact that De Waal is not seen as a neutral actor by at least one of the sides is a must for the sake of avoiding setting him up as the arbiter of truth in this dispute. "Neutrality" has many faces, and the lack of it in De Waal's case is telling in the sense that even in his most recent discussion on the events, he does not even mention the violence Armenians were subjected to in Sumgait and other cities by their proper names -- massacres and pogroms -- while using massacre for Kholjay alone. The best thing that Mr. De Waal did for Armenians is that he woke them to the fact that the West is partisan and it is hostile, and for that we owe him a huge debt of thanks.

Agos piece

Agos published critical response of a group of academics and human rights lawyers after the publication of an article by Thomas de Waal on 30 April 2021 entitled “What Next After the US Recognition of the Armenian Genocide?”, should be useful for expanding the article.

http://www.agos.com.tr/en/article/25781/carnegie-europe-and-thomas-de-waal-under-critique

--Armatura (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, unequivocally, if this were an article on the Armenian Genocide or even the article by de Waal but this is a BLP and we have very specific guidelines we have to follow. If anything is included then we must be very careful about the way it is presented and I would suggest any changes be brought up in this talk page before alterations are made so that the community can gain consensus for its inclusion. This does not dispute or lend credence to the claims made. When it comes to a BLP, there should be no distortions but not all facts need be included either, especially those that violate BLP policies. --ARoseWolf 14:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course we are not here to "expose" a living person, but if there is a notable academic criticism of a living person we are not here to censor it from Wikipedia either. --Armatura (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If that open letter is legitimate it may be worth consideration. I've previously come across several of the academics who the newspaper claims have signed it, particularly Henry Theriault and Bedross Der Matossian, at least some of them seem to be subject matter experts. The problem is that I'm unfamiliar with the newspaper (so don't know it's reputation/quality) and the letter doesn't appear anywhere else, so it can't be verified. It reminds me of a similar open letter which was discussed on the 2020 NK war article, which was supposedly published by a bunch of genocide scholars but appeared on a website known for publishing hoaxes and was eventually impossible to verify. Jr8825 • Talk 17:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not an odd website, though, it is a bilingual newspaper published weekly in Turkey, with circulation of 5000/week. It's very well known in Turkey due to it wide media coverage of its chief editor - Hrant Dink's assassination and subsequent investigations that followed. Note sure whether open letters have to be published in more than one magazine - the magazine may secure the exclusive rights to publish it. But agree that if other sources mention the open letter / it's publication in Agos it will give an oomph to its notability --Armatura (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The open letter was discussed here, Buidhe. Agos is an Armenian controlled and biased newspaper funded and controlled to present an Armenian point of view. They hold complete data rights to the letter and it has not been discussed in independent secondary sources. Agos is not independent and has close ties to the issue. The piece has no place in a BLP unless it has been discussed. It is not a matter of whether consensus has agreed to exclude. Consensus never agreed to include it in the first place. If the letter was being used to discuss an article specifically about Armenian Genocide then I would say it could be allowed. You have presented biased information not found in an independent source that is completely controlled by that non-independent source to present a negative contentious position in Wikivoice about the subject of a BLP. That is explicitly a violation of WP:BLP. The letter must be discussed and verified in an independent reliable secondary source in order to be considered for inclusion. --ARoseWolf 13:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Rough consensus from this discussion was that, if the letter was discussed in an independent reliable source then it would present a case for inclusion. That never happened. In fact all that was done is it was reintroduced again in the same like manner by a different editor. --ARoseWolf 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why perceived bias is an issue here since the open letter is only being cited for signatories opinion. As you may know, claiming a source is biased does not really affect judgment on its reliability. I would say that consensus is going the other way since an additional 3 editors have supported inclusion (t · c) buidhe 14:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't perceived bias. They state their position. They present an Armenian POV. That is bias by its definition. The letter is solely controlled by the newspaper. There is no way to confirm or deny it even exists other than what this one source says and that source is non-independent. --ARoseWolf 14:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have asked the other editor and I will afford you the same opportunity. Present an independent source that confirms the letters existence for verification. The newspaper was created and I quote "Agos was founded in 1996 by Hrant Dink and a group of his friends, in order to report the problems of the Armenians of Turkey to the public." That is a biased POV right there. It's not evil or wrong but it can't be used to present an independent secondary position on contentious information in a BLP, especially one with which might hold and oppositional viewpoint. --ARoseWolf 14:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC) --edited 14:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I can open up an RfC if you would like. Then we can end this dispute allowing a broader section of the community to form a consensus. My main issue is preservation and protection of a BLP in accordance with WP:BLP guidelines. I really don't care what de Waal said or what anyone else says about him. As to the subject, I am completely dispassionate but I will argue for strict adherence to the spirit of WP:BLP because if we negate it in one case then it opens it up in other cases. --ARoseWolf 14:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)--14:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "independent"? Are you suggesting Agos isn't independent of de Waal? Or is this open letter so surprising or extraordinary that two reliable sources are necessary to confirm its existence? (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am saying that Agos has a stake in this therefore they are not independent of the claim made. This open letter is criticism of de Waal, not just his book but is presented as criticism of the subject of this BLP directly. The letter is solely controlled by Agos, which admittedly has an Armenian POV and actively pursues pushing that POV. It has not been published or presented in any Non-Armenian sources. Using anything Agos presents, especially surrounding Armenian topics to criticize the position of a subject of a BLP is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Yes, a thousand times yes, it must be discussed in a source not connected to the issue being presented. The extraordinary part of this is the fact that the letter is being solely controlled by this newspaper and it's authenticity hasn't been corroborated by any other source. You would think the UN or some media source from the US, Europe, anywhere picked up on this and published it. No, it's only a newspaper created for the sole purpose of presenting an Armenian POV using an "open letter" not verified by anyone else other than them and only published by the very ones that have sole custody and control of that letter to present a negative contentious position on a BLP and we are expected to accept this and present this in Wikivoice. That's what is extraordinary. This would be like Truth Social creating a newspaper stating their sole purpose is pushing a conservative point of view and then them taking something said by "Insert a Democrat here" and publishing an open letter (only they control access to) criticism against said person and we add said criticism to the BLP article on them in Wikivoice. Such contentious information would never get added solely because of one source, in my example Truth Social. It would need to be published and discussed in an independent source so we could verify what was being claimed. --ARoseWolf 15:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I have shortened reference to the AGOS letter. People can still find it but in order to include it in more detail, you would first have to thoroughly NPOV present the view of de Waal on the issue, and then you could potentially include some of the criticism for context. As it stood, the letter stood alone, and absolutely did not conform to BLP standards. Hundnase (talk) Hundnase (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

clarified

I have shortened the quotes all around--we do not usually include full quotations from reviewers. I clarified the affiliations, which should indicate the degree of trust to be placed in them. I would like some evidence that the Russian reviewer is an "expert". I saw no need to use adjectives, just national identities, and the readers can judge for themselves.DGG (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

He is not a "military expert". He is a journalist representing current authorities of Chechnya. The claims that he makes are outrageous. He calls de Waal a "western spy", accuses him of taking bribes, etc, without any proof. I don't mind criticism, but it should come from unbiased sources. In this case all the criticism comes from partisan sources, just like reviews in serious publications predicted. Grandmaster (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No Grandmaster, pls to not represent your oun POV as a fact. De Waal is recognized as possible pro-Muslim payed and what the Russian and Armenian sources are mark, that this journalist receives money to support armed radicals. What means partisan in this case? You personally believe he is neutral, for a really neutral person cant be any partisan sides. And about the proof: as this is a BLP, Idont want to translate and use here the proof on his activities: you know Russian so can read the article by Deniev: he marks who pays to de Waal and his institute. He marks even the names included that of Zakaev. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, the article by Deniyev is simply ridiculous. It cannot be taken seriously. His accusations of de Waal being a western spy (?) and receiving money to testify at the British court are motivated by nothing but a strong bias. Clearly, it is a partisan source representing the current leadership of Chechnya. Same with the Armenian sources. If you can find a criticism from sources with no interest in attacking de Waal for his critical reporting, they could be worth of inclusion, but inclusion of partisan and libelous sources is against the BLP rules. Grandmaster (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the critics themselves are not notable to cite their opinions. Grandmaster (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't just brash the critics aside because of their ethnicity. I believe there was a principle in AA2 addressing just that. VartanM (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This not about ethnicity, it is about notability and outright absurdity of some of the "critics", like that guy claiming that de Waal is a "western spy". How can you place such sources on the same level as Time magazine, etc? I don't see any motivation for such criticism other than an attempt to get back at this author for his critical reviews, because I see no reliable third party sources agreeing with those critics. Grandmaster (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Grandmaster: according to you de Waal is a neutral journalist, so what means "third party sources"? why for example a Chechenian expert is not a third party? and sorry, where you see the "western spy" words in this article? There are a lot of people believing he's a spy, but this is a BLP so noone added it here here. anyways after the pov-pushing that another LP is an "Armenian nationalist", you're asking here... sorry but for what? for an unexisted "western spy"? Andranikpasha (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A quote from this Deniev:

Как сообщалось, предложение о сотрудничестве де Ваал принял, став таким образом не только агентом Запада, но и агентом чеченских боевиков.

As it was reported (by whom?), de Waal accepted the cooperation offer, thus becoming not only the agent of the West, but also the agent of Chechen militants.

Agent of the West? Is this a serious source? And who are those "a lot of people believing he's a spy", can you name anyone other than this guy? This is nothing but yellow press. Grandmaster (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vrtanesian is an expert of Ararat Research center. And I readded a quote by Manasyan, as he is a notable Armenian specialist.Andranikpasha (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

Andranikpasha added the following text to the section about criticism:

In cooperation with Azerbaijani author Tabib Huseynov and Georgian author Julia Kharashvili de Waal made a report for the European Parliament called "The Situation of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia" (2007), where they mark, that "unlike for example Cyprus, the situation on the ground is not sustainable in the long term as Armenian forces occupy what amounts to 13.6 per cent of the territory of Azerbaijan (if you include Karabakh itself)"[15].

First, how is this a criticism? Second, what the information about the views expressed in this publication has to do with biography of de Waal? Why is this notable for inclusion in this article? --Grandmaster 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is too much notable to show in what kind researches he engaged. Among with an Azeri author he reports about Karabakh issue and makes some biased conclusions. It is his work, what's wrong? Andranikpasha (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what Grandmaster is asking is why stating information directly person's work would be located in "criticism". For example, do you have any reliable source beyond your own opinion that the conclusions are biased? How would a reader understand why the information is placed where it is? Given your history of bias and repeated problems with this same article, I'm going to remove the text. If you can demonstrate sources which back up your assertions or a consensus to include the information, feel free to put it back. Shell ^babelfish 20:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like not only me but also you are very biased here! For me a cooperation with an Azeri author on an Armenian-Azeri conflict related issue is something that obviously shows that the person is not neutral. Andranikpasha (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

General Question about undue weight

Is there a reason that so much weight is being given to a single book in this gentleman's article? Unless this is the only thing the subject has ever done, at which time I'd have to question their merit for an article, it shouldn't span more than half of the article. It looks like there are some strong feelings about this book, but I can't see any reason it shouldn't be condensed to a few sentences. Shell ^babelfish 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The book about Nagorno-Karabakh is this author's most notable publication. It received positive reviews from respected international experts, but they predicted that the book was likely to "infuriate blind partisans", which turned out to be true. I think that's why the reviews about his book received so much space. Maybe it makes sense to create an article about the book and move all the reviews there. Grandmaster 05:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the subject is notable for more than this publication (which is not apparent by the current article) it may be best to move this article to the book title and rework to cover the book. Shell ^babelfish 07:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he is notable for more than just one book. The controversy with Russian visa is an example. Plus, he is a head of Caucasus bureau of IWPR. Grandmaster 12:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is completely untrue. Shell, only one party accused De Waal of being biased and that i:s the Armenian side. The republic of Nagorno-Karabakh officially criticises him and this is not the first time. Grandmaster claims that De Waal received very good reviews, what he doesn't tell is that those reviews are very biased and the reviewers have a conflict of interest in reviewing his work.

One example is Paul Quinn-Judge, Paul Quinn-Judge is the Central Asia project director of the International Crisis Group, for which Tabib Huseynov works for, and the organization is in partnership with De Waal's Institute of War and Peace. Another is the Journal Parameters, this journal is very biased, it's the journal of the U.S. Army War College, US State department fund De Waal's Institute for War an Peace and several of their partners like The International Republican Institute, which again Tabib Huseynov is a member of, and which is an instrument of the US foreign policy, as seen here. This institute also funds De Waal's War and Peace.

The document which was co-authored by Tabib Huseynov was an up to date official reporting of the situation of the refugees which was presented to the European Parliament, it was one of the most notable events concerning De Waal. Antranik’s only mistake was to include this in the critic section and not elsewhere. Your that that claim that it was original research indicate that you did not read what you removed as the info is accurate it was just written in the wrong section.

Shell, Grandmaster’s wiki-friend, Tabib Huseynov has an account on Wikipedia, and Grandmaster has been pushing for De Waal’s book on several articles for quite some time now. Many claims Grandmaster has pushed, their only source was De Waal. I will not question Grandmaster’s attempt to censor the information about Tabib Huseynov, but for sure this information has a place in the article as being one of the most notable.

More so, De Waal's Institute of War and Peace reporting is a very questionable organization, which is funded by several governments and which has been often used for propaganda purposes. Professor Edward S. Herman who is an expert media analyst called the institute as being highly-compromised. One other example, is their publications about the Khachkar destruction, while they confirmed there is nothing remaining of the Khachkars, they denied and claimed there was no military base there on the frontier with Iran. The implication of such a denial is clear.

Any independent review of someone who specialises in the history section of De Waal’s book would have revealed the real problems with it. For instance De Waal calls the Armenian genocide as an alleged event and goes as far as comparing it with a modern created claim of a genocide of 2.5 million Azeri by Armenians made by ultranationalist Azeri intellectuals (which Tabib Huseynov who coauthored that work with De Waal happens to be in this restrictive circle who accuse Armenians of genocide). The very large majority of the reviews of De Waal’s book were made by interest groups. - Fedayee (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it would be good if you assumed a little bit of good faith towards other editors of Wikipedia. I never met Tabib in real life, and accusations of "pushing information", "censoring", etc are nothing but bad faith. Second, if his book is not well received internationally, then please quote at least one negative review by an independent source that has no connections with Armenia. And I don't see how Foreign Affairs magazine or The New York Review of Books have a conflict of interest here. This journalist is criticized in Armenia for his critical reporting, and even is threatened in the recent declaration of the Armenian separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh. However the critics are all partisan sources, with an obvious interest in the issue of NK. As for the work he co-wrote with Tabib, is there any criticism of that particular work coming from a reliable source? If not, then why should we include anyone's personal opinions about the works of this author? It is against the rules. Grandmaster 04:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster, do not take it personally, but we have learned the hard way not to assume the slightest goodwill. Sorry, this is reality, deal with it; everything you say and write will be viewed in the worst possible light; you know, just as you treat Armenian writers here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.107 (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I added a link to de Waal's report mentioned in criticism section: [1] Also I added a full context of the line that was included in the text. It looks like this:

On the whole, Thomas de Waal, justifying his surname, under the cover of an expert-peacemaker practically calls Azerbaijan to unleash a new big war in the South Caucasus. Meanwhile, it seems to him that he and his like will not be responsible for anything. But he is mistaken… [2]

This is practically a death threat. I omitted the part about "justifying his surname", as it might be considered slanderous, but the use of such primitive insults shows what kind of people wrote that critical declaration. --Grandmaster 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read the above reply of mine, you will see that I called him wiki-friend of yours and added nothing more even though I could have. Second, you did push him as the sole source in several articles, those are neither bad faith assumptions nor attacks, several users criticised you for using De Waal as the sole source on several articles.

Now concerning your reply about reviews, it does not make sense, because his work which is supposed to cover the current conflict actually covered a lot of historic information. Those who reviewed his work have no history qualifications. I gave a few examples above about the conflict of interest with those reviews and you did not address those. Those reviews are centered on the construction of the Karabakh conflict, and the reviewers never raised the validity of the historic coverage, and were in no position to say anything about De Waal’s description of events of the current conflict, a conflict which no one knew about and even admitted by the reviewers that it is little known. One other example is your reference to the Foreign Affairs magazine, the reviewer is Robert Legvold who specialises in foreign policy, on Russia and ex-Soviet republics policies. He has no qualification to judge the validity of the historic coverage in the work.

From all the reviews you provided, only one comes from an apolitical source, which hardly is enough. Also, it appears that you still reply without consideration of what I write. Have I not written that the presentation of the information regarding Tabib was not a critic, what I wrote is that that information is notable enough to be included in the article. It's not like official reports submitted to the European parliament are written and submitted each day about the situation. It's worthy of an inclusion somewhere in the article, more justified than some reviews.

You claim that the journalist is criticised in Armenia for his critical reporting, no that's not the only issue. In fact, Azerbaijan is recognized as being far behind Armenia in terms of journalistic freedom. And you will see not a single of those fascist sources explicitly calling Armenians animals to ever criticise De Waal, when most Armenian historians outside of Armenia, and the most moderate among them, have a bitter taste when they hear about De Waal. In fact, not once did De Waal ever criticise openly the dictatorial regime in Azerbaijan and this entire Aliev father and son legacy. He reports about the magnificent army Azerbaijan and its expected growth and his comparison about the republic of Cyprus does not even need a criticism for those who know situations to know his double standards. For example, he'll brush away the fact that North and South Cyprus are modern creations created by the Turkish government who has occupied a third of Cyprus and formed a Turkish republic from a heterogeneous region by forcing the evacuation of more than half of the Island. The Turkish army to this day still occupies that third; there was even an embargo which was redrawn in the name of NATO friendship. While in the case of NK, it was not any army which created the Armenian majority in it, that's what De Waal calls unsustainable unlike Cyprus. And I'm not even going to discuss his apparent and obvious bias about Chechnya and the same multiple double standards maintained by those government agencies which fund his Institute. - Fedayee (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, all well and good, you have differing opinions on the subjects bias and credibility and everyone is frustrated. Now that we've got that straight, how about we all start pulling out good references for those points of view? We can talk until we're blue in the face about what looks like bias or what we believe is one sided reporting, but absent a source that reports those facts/opinions, we can't include it in the article. It sounds like there may be three viewpoints here that need to be considered, the Azerbaijan response, the Armenian response and other international/expert response. However, this sort of detail would likely be more appropriate in an article on the book itself. Shell ^babelfish 07:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, people may have different opinions about this particular author, but personal opinions have no place in wiki articles. Armenian criticism is presented in the article. I see no criticism from any third party to include. Grandmaster 12:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no Armenian, Azerbaijan versions... Azerbaijanis agree with this man. How could they not, he sustains most of the revisionist positions such as presenting the Armenian Genocide as a claim and even working with a nationalist like Tabib Huseynov who is preparing that paper which you removed from here. It's in fact convenient for Grandmaster to remove that section under the pretext that it was not criticism. But check Grandmaster's double standards here and the second paragraph he added and tell me if this was criticism of the author or using what the author has said or packing the scholars statements to be criticism against the Armenians themselves. - Fedayee (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

First, Tabib is not a nationalist. Second, I've never seen any positive reviews of the book in Azerbaijan. Third, if de Waal is so bad, why no one outside of Armenia sees it? And finally, with regard to the article about professor James R. Russell of Harvard University, I removed a BLP violation there, in the form of rude criticism coming from extreme nationalist historians like Aivazian, who is being criticized for his revisionist historical concepts by international experts: [3] Despite Aivazian et al not being serious scholars, the criticism section was restored to the article: [4] So I added Russell's response to that, because we need to present the positions of both sides, not just one. Russell does not criticize Armenians, as Fedayee asserts, he criticizes mainstream Armenology in the Armenian Republic. It is not the same as criticizing Armenians, especially considering that Russell is a prominent Armenologist himself, and believes that most Armenians agree with him. But let's not divert the discussion from the topic of this article. If you have any valid criticism of de Waal, you can include it. Your personal opinion about this author is of no interest, as it cannot be included in the article. Please site your sources, and no original research. Grandmaster 05:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't know about that, Russell has said, '“And what are Armenians doing to help Jewish causes?” Russell countered. “How is it that nobody faults Armenia for being friendly with Syria and Iran?'. [5] That's a rather ignorant remark. Perhaps one should ask why Turkey is friendly with Israel as well as Iran, Syria, Iraq, Hamas, the USA, etc. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me see, Tabib claims that Khojali is a genocide which is a position sustained by nationalists. Claims the Armenian Genocide to be a lie fabricated by Armenians... his site actually contains materials written by known racists not to mention his history of association with the hardcores of ATAA one other. Tabib Huseynov with Adil Baguirov and several others nationalists are those who launched the campaign to Britannica etc. requesting nationalist materials to be incorporated. etc., etc. and etc. As for your comment, your allegation is again full of twisting, I referred (I was quite clear) to the second paragraph, which qualifies as much as a criticism as the relevant material regarding De Waal and Tabib co-authoring which you wanted removed.

He never received any positive reviews from there? Should I quote from reviews from leading figures of the Azerbaijani lobby? I will. De Waal's work never received any reviews coming from historians specializing in Caucasian history, in fact I already referred to a media specialist which referred to his institute to be compromised. Most of the reviews are from biased sources as I have documented above. I recall you also defending Cornell's credibility in spite of the fact that his department was caught receiving funds from petroleum companies, that he is present to all those lectures prepared by the Azerbaijani lobby with Adil Baguirov and even works in the profit of Azerbaijan's foreign relations. Just recently for example he appeased in Azerbaijan with his input about the opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey, and his nice following reply: Armenian diaspora's radical groups will not surrender this claim even after Turkey-Armenia border is opened,... with an implicit suggestion of it being kept closed for the pleasure of Azerbaijan.

Now again, tell me why an official report of the refugee crisis prepared by De Waal should not be included in this article? - Fedayee (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of WP:OR. Your personal criticism of de Waal has no place here. If criticism comes from a reliable source, it can be included. Simple as that. You've been here for a long time, you should know the rules by now. Grandmaster 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So, it's OR that the report existed? You make no sense, all you are doing is throwing irrelevant policies. - Fedayee (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have such an urgent desire to mention this particular report, you can create a bibliography section and list there all the publications by this author. Of course, any personal comments or interpretations are against the rules. Grandmaster 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue whether De Waal is "REALLY" biased is not relevant at all. It is sufficient that he is seen as biased by one of the two sides of the dispute. And the Armenian criticism of De Waal belongs in the piece and it ought to be labeled as such. If Azeri authors feel that he is pro-Armenian, they ought to have an Azeri critism section as well. And as a last remark, why does De Waal lack Armenian collaborators if he were so unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.107 (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Article needs to be updated

The information on his employement was outdated and certain nuances of his contributions were lacking. I added them. I will need to add couple more on his "critism" part. --Aynabend (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the word "Genocide"

Bringing this to the talk page for discussion, since at least 2 IPs plus me have been editing the same content. I assume all involved editors are acting in good faith, so I'm just trying to help out.

There's currently a part in the Criticism section about de Waal's lack of the use of the term "Genocide" when talking about the Armenian Genocide. I could not find a reliable source that mentioned this is a major criticism of his work. I dug for an hour or two, but there are honestly so many sources about him (so it's possible I missed them) - if a reliable source can be found, feel free to add it here on the talk page. Until then, I'm removing the section, since it is not well-sourced enough and seems to be a WP:BLP violation. And I recommend we all follow the WP:BRD (bold-revert-discuss) cycle. If the editor adding this info needs help with citing or determining if a source is considered "reliable" by Wikipedia standards, I recommend adding it here first to let other editors try to help.

For some clarification - At the moment, mostly self-published sources are being cited (Medium + an article written by a community "Contributor"), which are, in this case, unreliable by Wiki standards. Plus, there is some original research I am removing. I'm also going to give a friendly reminder that if a source is added to the end of a sentence, it needs to verify all of the info in that sentence (at the moment, the sources seem to be a secondary thought, with the sources being added after the writing -- it should really be the other way around, with reliable, high-quality sources coming first). Once again, I'm sure the edits were meant well, but they don't meet Wikipedia policies. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I left talk page messages alerting all of the involved editors of this discussion. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes Thank you for letting me know, the wording is very subjective and is written like an attack piece without good sources and any reliable mentions of criticism, i stopped editing as the other user kept abusing the reversions, I'm going offline now but will continue this tomorrow morning with proper sources and correct wording as Thomas De Waal is prime source for N/K conflict and his criticism section being longer than his actual contribution to the conflict is disservice. the person is cited by all major news sources and by all sides including Armenian so we should strive to keep it neutral and fair. Agulani (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 19:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I went over your comments and i do believe that the removal is rightfully so, as no where in the source i found direct proof of criticism unless there is a proper balanced source which criticizes Thomas for denial to refer to events as "Genocide" it should not be kept. sources such as Asbrez are not neutral and to be honest are racist and highly subjective at times proposing to "make Baku a nuclear wasteland" is not a scholarly website and it comes from one of their main editorials. Medium.com is not a reliable source it even states in their main website that they are platform for voices and OPINIONS, reference to Jstor is just reference to the book. All in all unless a proper and neutral source provides a reliable study of Thomas De Waal and criticizes him it should not be included as it does not match Wikipedia standards of proper and unbiased sources. Agulani (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC) 12:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Agulani: I agree. Thank you for looking it over and checking out the sources! Unless someone can find reliable sources and write a new section, it should stay removed. But since we both couldn't find any, I'm going to assume it's unlikely they're out there in a large enough amount that it would be WP:DUE weight to add these criticisms. - Whisperjanes (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced paragraph (see here) - this paragraph seems to have various concerns being brought up about it, so I thought I'd mention that I removed it here. I saw an IP reference an Armenian source in another edit - so if someone is able to read Armenian, and there are reliable Armenian sources addressing de Waal's use of the term "Genocide" in this context, then maybe something can be written in the article to reflect those sources. - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Pro-Azerbaijan bias criticism

A 56 page text written by Dr. Christian Kolter goes into great detail revealing that de Waal has been subtly promoting perspectives and interpretations that favor Azerbaijan, while promoting himself as neutral and objective.

Dr. Kolter wrote a dissertation on post-Soviet territorial conflicts (Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Artsakh). From 2006 to 2015, Kolter was a research assistant at the Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography in Leipzig, where he researched post-Soviet urban development, geopolitics, energy policy, and the demography. It should go without saying that he is more than qualified to speak on this matter.

Kolter points out that even in the beginning of de Waal's book, he claims: "There is a misconception that the Azerbaijani population of Armenia did not suffer in the dispute". de Waal never gives any evidence for this, and effectively admits to his subtle bias for Azerbaijan. Among the distortions that de Waal makes to the benefit of Azerbaijan are the demographic history of Artsakh, the history of anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, discussing events of the war out of order (the Khojaly massacre before the Stepanakert bombardment), quoting Serzh Sargsyan out of context, among many other things. Kolter also reveals that de Waal receives funding from financial donors and organizations that have economic interests in Azerbaijan. de Waal has even acknowledged the text and had no rebuttal.

The criticism section could use a great deal of expansion, and this is a good source use for that. In its current state, the criticism section is so minimalist and vague that it avoids revealing any actual criticisms of de Waal. What is meant by "the point of view which is steered by the propaganda" is not revealed. Neither is the fact that de Waal misquoted Serzh Sargsyan's statement about Azeri soldiers using civilians as shields to appear being about the massacre when he was actually talking about Azeri soldiers using their own civilians as shields.

Are there any reasonable objections to Kolter's text being cited for de Waal promoting a pro-Azerbaijan perspective? --Steverci (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Kolter is not a well known expert on the subject. He is a very obscure person, while de Waal is a top internationally renowned and acclaimed expert on Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute. Kolter's criticism is quite partisan, and cannot be used in a BLP article. Kolter received funding from the Armenian side. He spent a year in Stepanakert, and his assignment was funded by European Friends of Armenia (EuFoA): [6] And this is de Waal's own comment on this person: [7] Grandmaster 09:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

For a review to be taken seriously it needs to be published in an academic journal and not by "Deutsch-Armenische Gesellschaft", which openly declares "the keeping of the interests of Armenians living in Germany" as one of its missions; and preferably by an established scholar (which is why it is called a peer review) and not someone without a clear affiliation and cited almost exclusively by Armenian websites. Parishan (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. de Waal is often cited for interviews and tweets, and he never wrote anything academic in his life. There's no problem citing a of his book review. The President of the Armenian Academy of Political Research criticizing de Waal proves there's a significant due weight for criticism of de Waal from the Armenian side. And the Azeri side always insisting on de Waal's credibility only further confirms his bias. De Waal is funded by International Crisis Group, which is based in Turkey and has been accused of being anti-Armenian. So Kolter doing research in Stepanakert doesn't de-legitimize him in any way. --Steverci (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a single one of these claims is true. See Talk:Shusha#Header. Parishan (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The primary references de Waal uses throughout his Black Garden book are his own personal recollections of random civilians he interviewed. And given that he distorted Serzh Sargsyan's interview, who knows how selective his interviews with non-public figures were. When he tries to write about historical background, he makes several falsifications and distortions, as Kolter pointed out. He's just a journalist, not an expert. Although apparently he prefers the term "senior fellow". If there's a great amount of due weight Armenian criticism of de Waal, than that's because de Waal himself is highly partisan. De Waal confesses that Black Garden is a pro-Azerbaijani book and avoided calling the Armenian Genocide a genocide until the 2012 reprint. --Steverci (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

All of the above is just your personal opinion. There's no criticism of de Waal's work from any reliable third party source. All the criticism comes from highly partisan sources, and cannot be taken seriously. This is a WP:BLP article, and rules on BLP sourcing are very strict. Grandmaster 16:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Because de Waal has done a good job of presenting himself as objective, and people with no prior knowledge of Armenia or Azerbaijan will not recognize the many falsehoods, distortions, and subtle bias that is prevelant in everything de Waal writes. So naturally criticism would be partisan, and there is a great due weight of criticism of de Waal from Armenian sources, which is of itself not a reason to reject them. --Steverci (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No dog in this hunt but purely looking at Wikipedia policy on BLP's this material should not be included. It isn't a matter of the fact de Waal is above reproach, its the fact that, on the surface, this looks like a politically motivated hit piece funded by the opposition side of the argument. Even if de Waal said what is described, without de Waal himself clarifying whether the claims are factual or not, we may never know his true intent. I don't see enough in what he said to come to the conclusions that Kolter did. The absence of a rebuttal does not mean guilt. It could simply be that de Waal knows his voice represents an oppositional position to that of Kolter and discussing it further is pointless. Either way, had the review been published in a reliable and independent media source then it might could have been taken more serious. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

De Waal has acknowledged Kolter's thesis on at least two occasions, to my knowledge. It seemed to cause him a great deal of panic. On his Twitter, he just called it a hit piece and avoided actually commenting on anything in it, and then was assured by several Turkish and Azeri accounts that of course he is impartial and honest. The second time was this interview. The interviewer is extremely unprofessional and biased, going on for over two minutes on how anyone who criticizes de Waal is a nationalist living in another reality and calling the thesis "crap" without having rebuttal for it before de Waal actually speaks. Once again de Waal couldn't refute anything in the thesis, and just treated it like a personal attack on himself. He is also apparently "sad" that someone spent six months writing the thesis when they could've made a "real" contribution, yet de Waal has contributed nothing of value in over 20 years. De Waal accuses Kolter of being pro-Armenian and thus his opinion doesn't matter, which is extremely ironic and hypocritical when Kolter is exposing that de Waal has been promoting a pro-Azeri narrative while presenting it as neutral to people who wouldn't know any better. --Steverci (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We are dealing with a biography on a living person. Wikipedia is very stringent on the criterium and content that can be included. If you can find multiple verifiable secondary reliable sources that will corroborate all that you are asserting here then please provide the sources for review, otherwise, Wikipedia does not consider Twitter to be reliable nor does it consider Kolter's thesis written in a media source that is very clearly biased for one side to be reliable or independent. --ARoseWolf 18:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, My apologies, that wasn't you. Kevo327, Using an OP-ED piece written in a publication that actually says "For almost a century, Asbarez, not only has been providing news and information, but mobilizing communities to work with the ANCA and counter Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide." doesn't sound like an independent source to me. Even the articles comments point out fallacies within the article and backs them up with factual evidence that contradicts what is written in the article. Find other sources please. --ARoseWolf 18:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ararat Center

"Karen Vrtanesyan, an Armenian expert for the Ararat Center for Strategic Research" is a highly partisan source and is not notable enough for being cited in the article. The Ararat Center is founded by Armen Ayvazyan, who is known for promoting weird conspiracy theories about Western scholarship (including the Armenian diaspora scholars) engaging in a deliberate falsification of Armenian history in order to advance geopolitical interests of the Western powers. His views are subject to big controversy even in Armenia. Russian wikipedia article about him has more info on this: [8] And Vrtanesyan runs a blog razm.info, and is not a reliable source for a BLP article. It is not a reliably published and peer reviewed source, and certainly cannot be used in a BLP article. Grandmaster 08:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

What you're essentially saying is Armenian sources shouldn't be allowed. This is not the same thing as sources for something objective, such as if Turkish forces were in Artsakh. Of course sources accusing de Waal of having an anti-Armenian bias are going to primarily come from Armenian sources.

And there is nothing conspiratory about it, the Turkish government openly pays for fake historians like McCarthy and Shaw to work for these universities and promote Armenian Genocide denial. These universities are not immune from criticism. Ayvazyan is a highly respected historian who has received numerous international honors. Razm is neither a blog, unreliable, or being cited. --Steverci (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, what we are saying is those sources have to pass the criteria laid out by Wikipedia in order to be considered reliable enough to be included for the purposes you want them included for. Regardless of what you may want to believe, this is a BLP and controversial statements within a BLP must come from reliable secondary sources not closely related to the controversy. Armenian controlled/funded media agencies and known Armenian activists/historians/officials and their statements must be scrutinized and may not be included unless they are within what encyclopedia considers a reliable source, not you and not me, the encyclopedia. If you believe that any sources should be considered reliable then please start a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --ARoseWolf 12:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Steverci, Ayvazyan attacks even ethnic Armenian scholars and accuses them of conspiracy against Armenia. Even in Armenia he is a very controversial person, and failed to defend a dissertation on history. How is he a respected historian? Check the article about him in Russian Wikipedia. His organization cannot be considered a reliable source. I totally agree with ARoseWolf, these sources fail to satisfy criteria on reliability, in particular for BLP articles. Grandmaster 14:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ayvazyan is a Senior Researcher in the Matenadaran, holds doctoral degrees in history and political science (de Waal has a degree in Russian literature), is a former assistant to the President of Armenia, adviser to the Foreign Minister of Armenia, and Acting Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe at Vienna, worked in affiliation with the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, a Visiting Senior Fulbright Scholar with the Center for Russian and East European Studies at Stanford University, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Political Science at the American University of Armenia, a Fellow at the American University of Armenia's Center for Policy Analysis, Guest Lecturer at the Yerevan State University, and Professor of Political Science of the Armenian State Academy of Governance. You need to give proof that he is "controversial" or "attacks" anyone in Armenia. --Steverci (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, what makes Tatul Hakobyan a notable opinion? Again, his criticism was not published in a peer reviewed expert publication. Just another partisan source. Grandmaster 08:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem I have with what I read is that the Ararat Center is an Armenian thinktank, not a neutral observer by any stretch. I read their entire report and no where do they even claim neutrality. They even stated their agenda if you are willing to read what is written. Because they start from a premise of non-neutrality then their report is skewed, rightfully so, to one point of view. It is not a matter of one side being conspiratory versus the other. It is a matter that Wikipedia has standards and one of those is that sources MUST BE, at least on the surface, independent of the subject and subject matter pertained within. As the Ararat Center specifically stated their goals are opposite what Mr. De Waal stated then one would expect them to criticize his findings/statements. That does not mean it should be included in a BLP on Mr. De Waal. I am not sure about the new portion added by the IP contained in Hyperallergic. I need to review their editorial process. It appears their editors are, at the very least, reviewing the articles after they are published as this one specifically edits portions they found to be incorrect. That is promising. I am leaving the article as is for now while I review Hyperallergic's editorial process. It may be that the portion from the Ararat Center report should be removed while the Hyperallergic reference may remain. --ARoseWolf 16:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hyperallergic is not a peer reviewed source, and the author is not an authority in the field of political sciences. Nevdon Jamgochian is an Armenian-American artist, but artists are not experts on political scientists, he has no qualification in the relevant field. The article is pretty much an attack on every western persona who cooperated with Azerbaijan, whose leader the author calls a "dictator". It is not just de Waal, they also attack people like world famous architect Zaha Hadid for her design of a cultural center in Baku, and many others. Hyperallergic claims to be "a forum for serious, playful, and radical thinking about art in the world today". But it is an extremely partisan source, run by two ethnic Armenians, Veken Gueyikian and Hrag Vartanian. Obviously, in light of the recent war in Nagorno-Karabakh their Azerbaijan bashing agenda is no surprise. It is clear from lines like "Seven months before Azerbaijan started the brutal, war-crime-filled invasion of neighboring Artsakh", as if Azerbaijan can invade its own territory. Such absurd partisan language speaks for itself. They believe that no one should have any dealings with Azerbaijan, because they don't like their leader. Sources like that cannot be considered neutral or reliable. Grandmaster 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The IP makes the claim, in their revert and add, that the Reviews section contains opinions. This is factual. That is the nature of the review process. They are also in traditional book review magazines and journals. The sources of the reviews are not linked to the conflict and therefore their opinion is considered neutral. If the IP cares to bring forward proof that the sources in the Review section are, in fact, non-neutral then I would say those sources need to be removed as well. --ARoseWolf 17:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that you're just trying to remove any criticism of de Waal. De Waal is a very controversial figure, especially among Armenian circles. The article should reflect that. He has been criticized a great amount of due weight, and that is notable enough to include on Wikipedia. Vrtanesyan has been quoted by Eurasianet[9] and Russia Business Today[10]. Thus he is obviously considered an expert outside of Armenia.

By the same standards, what makes most of the people praising de Waal reliable?

The Foreign Affairs review is written by Robert Legvold, who is also funded by Carnegie.

Richard Allen Greene is the RFE/RL's correspondent in Baku, a "sampled expert opinion in Azerbaijan about the conflict"[11]

Paul Quinn-Judge, an advisor on Ukraine and Russia for the International Crisis Group, a thinktank with an office in Istanbul that has been accused of being anti-Armenian. He has no qualifications to write about Artsakh and wouldn't be able to spot a "blind nationalist". A quick background check reveals he writes a lot of anti-Russian articles. NATO/EU funded anti-Russian "fellows" are often paid to be anti-Armenian too because their patrons ignorantly believe Russia is pro-Armenia. A little further digging revealed Quinn-Judge has been writing anti-Armenian articles since 1988, calling Armenian protestors "nationalist extremists". One of his top search results is an old article he wrote on the "Justice for Khojaly" propaganda site.

The critics are more qualified and reliable than those giving praise, which all seem to be de Waal's colleagues funded by the same benefactors. --Steverci (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Occasional reference does not make Vrtanesyan notable. His criticism of de Waal is published by Ararat Center, not a reliable publication. As for others, there's nothing wrong with working for Carnegie, or RFL. And no one has ever criticized Paul Quinn-Judge for not being impartial on Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Your personal opinion is not sufficient. Article on Justice for Khojaly site is actually from Boston Globe. Grandmaster 23:29, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is largely irrelevant now because both sections were moved and it's no longer a BLP issue, but the writer and reviewer both having the same employer is indeed a very big issue. All of the positive reviews are very identical with slightly different prose; they were probably given a summary of what to say. --Steverci (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Armenian genocide edit

‎Jr8825, Even as Steverci pointed out in what they included (was reverted), de Waal never officially called it a genocide so there should be no section on his BLP that would have that included in the title, much less the fact that there are no reliable and secondary sources that criticize de Waal or mention that he initially called it a genocide but later changed his mind. It would be hard for reliable secondary sources to criticize him for something he never officially said. This is another example of not only WP:OR but also WP:POVPUSH --ARoseWolf 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"de Waal never officially called it a genocide so there should be no section on his BLP that would have that included in the title" if you read his book on the subject you would realise that the premise is untrue. Further the section heading should not reflect the subject opinion but reliable sources. Otherwise the Donald Trump article would need a section on why Trump won the 2020 election. (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Then present that evidence here including page numbers in his book where he specifically called it genocide. Trump actually said he "won:" the election. He takes every opportunity to let anyone know he "won" it. The two are not mutually the same. You would think if this were the case then de Waal calling this genocide would be easy to point out in his book and found in independent reliable sources. provide them and it can't be disputed. --ARoseWolf 14:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC) --14:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you need a page number when the book's title is literally "Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide". What are you even arguing here? (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Titles of books are not necessarily the words of the author. Any author with a published book would know that. In this case, even if de Waal did sign off on the title, it does not necessarily mean that he, himself, referred to anything as a genocide. So, yes, present evidence in de Waal's words the he called this genocide and you will have a point. That's the argument being made. if it's so simple and easy to find then it shouldn't be hard to present it. The onus is on the ones arguing for a change from the stable version of the article. All I'm saying is to present the evidence. --ARoseWolf 15:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: de Waal does frequently refer to the Armenian Genocide. If I recall correctly, part of the controversy is that he previously adopted a relatively narrow definition of the genocide, particularly in his 2003 book Black Garden (he referred to it in several places in shorthand as the "1915 Genocide"). He appears to have since modified his language/stance: see, for example, articles he wrote in 2021 and 2015 where he is unambiguous about the scale of events and uses the timeframe 1914–1921/22. He has also made arguments about the semantics of "genocide" (a perennially controversial topic in all contexts) which appear to strike a nerve with many Armenians. Nonetheless, it's clear he does not deny the genocide, as he says the following in the linked 2021 article: "Over the last fifty years, the word genocide has gradually become normalized as a term to describe the gravity of the “Meds Yeghern,” or “Great Catastrophe,” as it is known in Armenian. Not using the word has come to be felt as a denial of trauma by the descendants of those who lost their lives. The Turkish authorities have tenaciously resisted the description, despite historical evidence to the contrary" and also "the Armenian Genocide was the most terrible crime in the sense that the Armenians, and also the Assyrians, were not only killed but also had their culture destroyed". Reliably sourced criticism of de Waal (including from Armenian academics) is appropriate, but criticism shouldn't be based on editors' own opinions or interpretations of him. I hope this helps clarify things, Jr8825 • Talk 17:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Jr8825, I am all for reliably sourced information being included but that information should come from independent coverage of de Waal. In other words, if a source is biased in favor of Armenian topics then that source can not be reasonably independent. Of course they are going to criticize anyone that has a differing opinion from their perspective. I'm not arguing the merits of calling the action of the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people genocide or not. I'm not even arguing for or against de Waal's position on the genocide. Or even his interpretation. he could change his mind a thousand times. It wouldn't change my stance. Personally, as a descendent of people that I would definitely say faced genocide and holocaust, I empathize with the Armenian people. But just as you said, my personal views do not and can not enter the equation when it comes to a BLP. We have policy that dictates that. If the criticism is picked up by an independent reliable source then it should be included most definitely. Armenian controlled media outlets or those with specific agenda's should not be considered independent even if they are deemed normally reliable. Equally, any news media funded or supported by Mr. de Waal would face the same scrutiny if it was highly praising Mr. de Waal's position. We aren't here to puff him up or tear him down, only report, dispassionately, what independent reliable sources say about Mr. de Waal. --ARoseWolf 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand "independent". Independent means that the source does not have a close connection with de Waal; i.e. it isn't created by him, his parents, his publisher, etc. Independent doesn't mean unbiased. Sources are usually required to be independent, with some exceptions, but there is no requirement to be unbiased. Some Wikipedians would argue there is no such thing as an unbiased source. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Then why are we deprecating political sources? I would encourage you to look at WP:RSP and see that we have deprecated many sources for this such issue. They can not be trusted to present a NPOV when it comes to specific cases. I would argue that Agos can not present a NPOV when it comes to any topic when it contradicts it's stated purpose and editorial views. It just so happens that Mr. de Waal has fallen inside that category. Therefore the use of that specific source violates WP:BLP. You will not find where any of the reliable sources we use physically state they have an agenda. We may assume that they do. We may even argue that they do. But if a source stated what Agos states on its website we wouldnt be using that source for anything but uncontroversial edits. It's not even about the letter or the negative connotations it has against Mr. de Waal's position. It is completely about the source, which has a clear agenda, and our use of this very targeted source in a BLP to attack the subject or their alleged position on anything. --ARoseWolf 14:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources are deprecated for lack of reliability (publishing false information, whether in service of a particular bias or not). You will not find where any of the reliable sources we use physically state they have an agenda. not true. for example propublica is considered a reliable source and they state their agenda is "To expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions, using the moral force of investigative journalism to spur reform through the sustained spotlighting of wrongdoing." If you check social media for many academics cited on Wikipedia, you can find that they often have strong opinions on certain subjects, but that does not undermine the reliability of their work. (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And how many of those sources are used specifically to add critical, tendentious and controversial information to a BLP? --ARoseWolf 14:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies & guidelines and no willingness to correct them when provided with the accurate information. Not sure this conversation can go anywhere. (t · c) buidhe 15:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I will not edit war or force further discussion but I will seek additional community consensus on this subject. Btw, WP:BLP requires multiple third-party sources when making allegations and using contentious language in a BLP. Placing it in a quotation doesn't alter guidelines. It also states that the opinion of small minorities should not be included at all. This is not the case on subjects outside BLP's. I will not resort to mischaracterizations of my fellow editors to prove a point and I resent the use of such mischaracterizations as if to assume bad faith on the part of another editor as has been done above directed at me. At that point the discussion moves into WP:CIVIL concerns and nothing good can come from that. --ARoseWolf 15:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A Far More Fundamental Question

Why should a elite British quasi-official be the go-to source on matters pertaining to Armenians? The UK has a separate alliance with Turkey dating to the 1920s, it remains in effect. The UK vetoed UN intervention and peacekeepers in the ANKR in 2020. De Waal is British. Do you trust US policy pseudo-scholarship on Palestine? Why should De Waal be an expert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.43.236.3 (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)