Talk:Thomas de Waal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)