User talk:47.232.162.255

Welcome & some advice
I notice you seem to be relatively new here, so welcome! I started a discussion at the bottom of the Thomas de Waal talk page that you might be interested in.

I also would like to give you some advice on editing Wikipedia, if you are open to it. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. These subjects can sometimes be difficult to edit in, especially for new users who are still learning about Wikipedia policies. I wanted to point this out in a friendly way, because it is important that information on Wikipedia (especially edits about living people) comes from what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources". You may want to read the Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources here: WP:RELIABLE. For example, I see that at least one of your edits referenced a Medium article and an article written by a Community "Contributor", which are usually considered "unreliable" since Medium is self-published and the second article likely is as well. The source written by de Waal himself also seems to be cited to support original analysis, or "original research", which is also not allowed on Wikipedia.Those edits have been reverted for now, but if you can find published, reliable sources that support what you have written, you can re-write the section while citing those new sources. I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to reply to the discussion I started on the Thomas de Waal talk page. Or, you can ask for help at the Teahouse. Cheers! - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

An academic with a PhD is considered a reliable source and not a community contributor. The medium article has links to English translations of the criticism, instead of dismissing it as an unreliable source you should at least read it first. Thomas De Waal's comments are verifiable and are facts, especially his comments about the Armenian Genocide. An Armenian article source criticizing him for his trivialization of the word genocide is reliable and is being dismissed by you as unreliable. Clearly you are not the best judge of what is reliable.
 * Dear User please stop engaging in edit wars and refer to talk page Asbarez is not a reliable source Agulani (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Asbarez is an outlet. The New York times is also an out. The New York has also reported outrageous things but it is accepted on wikipedia. I don't know where you want me to find an Armenian outlet criticizing De Waal if you refuse to accept one as a source. But then again, you are from Azerbaijan so what can I say.
 * 47.232.162.255 - Thanks for replying, I appreciate it. Could you please join in at the discussion on the article's talk page? It can be found here: Talk:Thomas de Waal. I think it's better to have discussions where multiple people can easily chime in, so I'd like to move this discussion over there. Also, you might be interested in reading about the bold-revert-discuss cycle - I find it helpful in content disputes between editors. Basically, it means if someone boldly edits an article and that edit is reverted, it should be discussed before restoring that edit. Discussing on the talk page would probably help address some of the recent concerns and reverts on the de Waal article. Also, to be more clear, the community contributor I mentioned was from this source. I'm not sure which "academic with a PhD" source you're referring to, but if you think it is a reliable source, then could you please link it on the talk page? I'll look for your replies there. Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)