This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Thomas Goltz is within the scope of WikiProject Artsakh, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Artsakh and Artsakhians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles
Hi @KhndzorUtogh. You recently made an edit. I removed it because it was Wikipedia:OR. But at the same time I was failed to verify it. You added Goltz has referred to Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku pogroms, in which Armenian civilians were massacred by Azerbaijanis, as "so-called pogroms" sentence with citing Goltz 1998, p. xv. I assume you referred his "Azerbaijan diary" book. There's no such information on page 15. On that page the book talks about completely different things. Secondly you added Goltz endorsed an Azerbaijani conspiracy theory that the Sumgait pogrom was "a KGB plot hatched by agent provocateurs to ratchet up the intercommunal violence". citing Goltz 1998, chpt. 4. Could you tell which page exactly? Because that chapter has 15 pages. Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the edit contains original research. Page "xv" isn't page 15, it is from the preface, before page 1. The conspiracy part is on page 83 of the 1998 edition.
Goltz has referred to Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku pogroms, in which Armenian civilians were massacred by Azerbaijanis, as "so-called pogroms". Goltz endorsed an Azerbaijani conspiracy theory that the Sumgait pogrom was "a KGB plot hatched by agent provocateurs to ratchet up the intercommunal violence"
You don't rely on secondary or tertiary source, but doing OR with a primary source. The book actually says: "The circumstances surrounding the Sumgait pogrom remain shrouded in wild conspiracy claims. While Armenians say that it was just a taste of things to come, Azeris say it was a KGB plot hatched by agent provocateurs to ratchet up the intercommunal violence". I wonder how did you came to the conclusion with this that Goltz endorsed the theory. Vice-versa, he literally named this claim a conspiracy theory by himself.
Thomas de Waal, who was a friend of Goltz and praised Azerbaijan Diary for being informational on Azerbaijani society, admitted Goltz had a pro-Azerbaijan bias and that his book "doesn’t actually tell you that much about the war in Karabagh".
1. "Thomas de Waal, who was a friend of Goltz and praised Azerbaijan Diary" And? It's not encyclopedic.
2. The source actually tells: "However, and I think he would admit this too, he saw the war from the other side which inevitably colours what he writes." and you paraphrase it as "admitted Goltz had a pro-Azerbaijan bias". How come they are equal sentences? This is WP:POV
3. "that his book "doesn’t actually tell you that much about the war in Karabagh" again. It's not encyclopedic. The book doesn't even aim to be about the war, but the country. The sentence is pointless to be here.
After Goltz's death, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev sent a condolences message to his family and described Goltz as "a great friend of Azerbaijan".
Goltz is promoting debunked conspiracy theories only believed by Turkic ultranationalists to be plausible. Still, I replaced "endorsed" with "advocated" as that seems to be more accurate. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked very clear 3 WP:BOLD questions and you didn't care to give a response for 12 days meanwhile having ton's of edits on other articles. You just gave an unconstructive and vague answer right after reverting my edit. You're clearly doing edit warring. And this is not the only article you do it. My questions are still remaining. I explained very clearly why this article shouldn't contain that content. And I expect the same thing from you. Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
