I am wondering, what is the notability of De Waal, to include him in a dozen (?) articles as the sole source for a claim. Has he written anything other than that work, in journals, or other peer reviewed publications about those specific years of history? So I concur with Vartan, and any neutral user can't do otherwise when De Waal has been used more than his notability would allow as sole source in countless articles. As he is a sole source, he can therefore be considered as having fringe position and removed unless Grandmaster or Atabek have any other works substantiating the personal opinions of De Waal who supports fringe positions in various issues including Shushi or the Armenian Genocide. The fact that he presents the Armenian Genocide as an Armenian position and compares it to a fabrication of the 60s of an alleged 2.5 million Azeri exterminated by Armenians alone would be enough to dismiss his position for that particular period of history. I'm afraid this time around, the adding of De Waal has reached the limit. This is not De Waal encyclopaedia to have his position on everything, especially when he is the sole source for the position he represents. -