Talk:Thomas de Waal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  The open letter was discussed here, . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  The open letter was discussed here, . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Agos piece 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article needs to be updated 

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism of the word "Genocide" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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):  And this is de Waal's own comment on this person:  Grandmaster 09:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  , My apologies, that wasn't you. , Using an OP-ED piece written in a publication that actually says  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)
thread_title:  Pro-Azerbaijan bias criticism 

message: , 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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:  and also . 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)
replies: text:  , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Sources are deprecated for lack of reliability (publishing false information, whether in service of a particular bias or not).  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Armenian genocide edit 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Far More Fundamental Question