Jump to content

Talk:Kyaram Sloyan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Qyaram Sloyan)

False information about beheading

[edit]

The information about beheading is false according to Azerbaijani officials[1]. But in the article it is claimed as a fact. NPV should be here. --Interfase (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPV is there with a large quotation from the Azeri Ministry. no neutral reliable source denies this information. so it is a fact per neutral sources. Azerbaijan is the accused side, off course Aliev's clane will deny it. OptimusView (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was the fact it should be confirmed by international observers who took part during transfering all bodies. But there is nothing. Only reports of not very reliable sources based on false photos from social networks. --Interfase (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you continue this behavior you will be reported for WP:Disrupt once again. OptimusView (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually such behavior should be reported for WP:Disrupt. --Interfase (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The beheading story is reported in many reliable and non-Armenian sources, and the denial by Azerbaijan of it having happened is mentioned in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the fact of his beheading was not proved, and there is just reports based on disputed photos from social networks and Armenian claims we should write "reportedly beheaded" instead of "beheaded" per NPV. --Interfase (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the overwhelming weight of sources say he was beheaded, including the reports of him being reinterred so as to be buried with his head, then it is undue weight to give equal status to reports denying it happened if those reports emanate from the perpetrators who have a vested interest in denying it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not agree with such argument. Because all this reports were done without suitable investigation and were based on initial Armenian claims which themselves were based on the photos from social networks (source in unknown and potential falsificated, the uniforms are for summer season). --Interfase (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an argument, it is a policy. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." [2] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And according to that policy we shouldn't give due weight to point of view about his beheading, because there is no any reliable source that confirmed that fact. As was mentioned above, reports of media based on Armenian claims and from social networks are not so. --Interfase (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Due weight is based on the sources that says it happened. As does common sense, since an Azerbaijani soldier has done in the past and been praised and awarded for doing it, and it fits with the race-hate that has been cultivated in Azerbaijan. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If not very serious media sources say "it was happened" it doesn't mean that it was happened. There is no any reliable source on this case. As I said all media that say so use as a source of information photos from social networks with disputed story. Neither any popular madia (like BBC or CNN) mentioned that, nor any serious organisation condemns Azerbaijan (member of UN by the way). There was no even any confirmation or serious investigation on that. Just fake information promoted through not serious media. It means that we cannot bring this information as a fact for readers. It is against the principles of Wikipedia and strictly violation of WP:NPV as well. --Interfase (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of serious media sources have reported on the story, and none of them have questioned its genuineness. Just because a media source choses not to cover a story does not mean that the story did not happen. Yes, there is a lack if investigative detail so far, understandable since it is a war zone, and also a lack of comment from ngos, but that is typical from those who have a culture of avoiding issuing specific blames since that means they might have to hold the ones blamed to account. The lack of seriousness is all from Azerbaijani media. "They don't look like ethnic Azeris" - is that the best they could come up with! No denial that the uniforms depicted were Azeri army uniforms though. Are we really to believe the Azerbaijan army has been selling its overstock summer uniforms to Syrians? What is your explanation? Sloyan is not really dead at all, and those fiendish Armenians saw some IS types in Syria photographed doing their usual decapitating thing, and noticed that for some reason they were clothed in second-hand Azeri uniforms, and decided "lets find one of our soldiers whose face looks like that head and pretend the Azeris did it". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Azerbaijani side said that the uniform even doesn't look like Azeri uniform. Espessialy it is summer type uniform. If yo really familirized with April battle zone reports you will see that Azeri uniform is another. So, there is no any lack of seriousness from Azerbaijani media. There is lack of seriousness from Armenian side and from media that make reports based on information from social networks and Armenian propagandist reports ("NKR president"'s spokesman David Babayan claimed that his head was returned on 10 April[3], another source says that it was returned on 9 April[4]). Looks like very dubious story, doesn't it? As you said lack if investigative details make this story more dubious. Untill we don't have any serious reports on this situation all information about Sloyan's so called "beheading" should be accompanied with sord "reportedly". --Interfase (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the lack of investigative details make this story more dubious. I said there has been a lack of formal investigation to date. The story is entirely credible. One of the soldiers depicted is shown giving a Grey Wolves salute, in some sources that soldier has now been identified by name, and the background scenery has snow-capped mountains (hardly typical of Syria). Since the claim is that he was able to be identified because he was later killed and was included in the exchange of bodies organized by the Red Cross, there will be third party photos of this individual prepared in advance of the exchange. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any reliable source claiming that Azeri soldier, who was killed aftermath, posed with some head or smt. Seems like another dubious propagandist information from Armenian side. Untill there is no any confirmation by serious investigation (by reliable experts e.g.) or covering in serious media (accusitions of UN member's army in beheading and war crime is very serious to be covered just on Armenain sources or EzidiPress) this story is very dubious and its presentation in Wikipedia in such manner (as it is presented for now) turns our project to Yellow journalism. --Interfase (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "Azerbaijan has denied this incident happened" into the lede, and have removed the pov tag. Your assertion that it is "Just Armenian sources" is wrong - there have been numerous serious sources reporting on the incident, and sources cited in the article include Armenian, Azerbaijani, British, French, Russian, Kurdish, etc.; but only Azerbaijani sources have stated that the story is false. The content and wording of the lede as it is now seems to me to be a correct summary of the article's content, and proportionate to the sources available and their pov. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you added "Azerbaijan has denied this incident happened" into the lede, it doesn't mean that there is still no any POV. As I said before, the information about beheading was not confirmed by serious investigation and reliable sources. Current sources are not reliable, but just Yellow journalism. I returned the tag back as there is no consensus yet on this discussion. If you still believe that everything is OK, go to WP:DR. Because I still think, that we cannot present such information as a fact, but with the word "reportedly". --Interfase (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Regnum and other RS's are not Yellow journalism. no WP:Gaming please. if you disagree ask for an admin's comment. OptimusView (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is all Yellow journalism, because presents the dubious fact accusing UN member in beheading. It is very serious accusition and needs confirmation by serious source. Not just mentioning in media that took this information from dubious sources (or you think that reporters of "Sunday Times" or "Le Monde" saw beheading themselves?). Also don't remove POV tag as there is no any consensus yet on info presentation. --Interfase (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you're sure the presented sources are yellow journalism, ask for a comment. the article is neutral enough with unrealistic Azeri denial and accusations (see the next chapter) presented on it. OptimusView (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the article is neutral enough go to WP:DR and don't remove tag without a consensus. --Interfase (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Azerbaijani uniform

[edit]

OptimusView, why do you think that the arguments of Azerbaijani sources that the uniforms on photos did not look like Azerbaijani millitary uniform and Azerbaijani army during the clashes worn uniform of winter type, but on the photos it is seen summer type is weight. It is one of the most relevant arguments that proves the photos were fake. --Interfase (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a consensus we can add this "After news reports about the images being circulated, Azerbaijani sources claimed the images were false, that the soldiers depicted did not look like ethnic Azerbaijanis and that the uniforms on photos did not look like Azerbaijani millitary uniform". other claims like "Azerbaijani army during the clashes worn uniform of winter type" (fact?), and "that the photos were probably taken during fighting in Syria", is not a fact but a nonsense. NKR has no borders with Syria, nor has flights to there. so it is not an argument but a WP:Fringe theory and an undue weight. And if you're continuing npoving the article, then please delete the POV tag. If you disagree then please discuss all the NPOV issues here to be added after the tag's removal by you. OptimusView (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Azerbaijani army during the clashes worn uniform of winter type" (fact?) - yes fact. See how really Azerbaijani uniform during clashes looks like[5].
Which look exactly like the uniforms shown here [6]. Their weight looks to be exactly the same (regarding the summer vs winter uniform point). 13:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)
"NKR has no borders with Syria, nor has flights to there" - no need to show fake images probably shared via Internet from Syria. --Interfase (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didn't read the sources. there are not only images, but videos too (like this one [7], shared by foreign media). The people are looking like Azeris, speaking Azerbaijani, and many independent reliable sources agree with that. so the accusations of Azeri side are a WP:Fringe theory. OptimusView (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, EzidiPress is not reliable and independent sourse. Secondly, there is no any proof that people "are looking like Azeris" (off-screen speech also may be falsificated). Thirdly, there is no any millitary person on the video, only civilians (they fought as well?). So, why should we belive these dubious photos and videos shared by not reliable media? --Interfase (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you dislike EzidiPress, it doesn't authomatically became not reliable. Everything in this life may be falsified (or denied). But we need serious claims and proof from RS to prove your thoughts and POV. Until we have serious proof and RS, making photos in Syria, Mars or elsewhere sounds not serious. OptimusView (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like reports of Azerbaijani side that the photos were falsificated it doesn't authomatically became "Fringe theory". Until we have serious proof and RS (EzidiPress etc. is not so), version about making photos in Syria and arguments about uniform should be in article, according WP:NPV. --Interfase (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue information about Safarov

[edit]

It should be noted that Azerbaijani President didn't proclaim Ramil Safarov a hero as I did here. It it was so there should be the text of order in some official source or at least president's website (like this one about ordering Mubariz Ibrahimov). So, the information should be returned to show that Kocharyan's words is untrue about "proclaimed hero by the Azerbaijani President". --Interfase (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Hero" there doesn't mean the award "National Hero of Azerbaijan" that is presented by president. Nothing about that in the article. It is just relation of the people who greeted him. Nothing more. --Interfase (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"proclaimed hero", not "awarded a National Hero of Azerbaijan title". it is not the same. The European Parliament in it's 12/09/2012 resolution confirms that EP "Deplores the hero's welcome accorded to Mr Safarov in Azerbaijan and the decision to promote him to the rank of major and pay him eight years’ back salary upon his arrival" [9], CoE Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland has declared that "Honouring a convicted murderer and transforming him into a hero is unacceptable" and that "a convicted murderer is welcomed as a hero". "We were appalled by the glorification that we heard in some quarters of somebody who was convicted of murder," Philip Gordon, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs [10]. NATO warned against ‘glorification’ of Azerbaijan killer [11]. Nikolay Bordyuzha also called it a "heroization" [12]. etc. The same is in international media: "EU countries have criticised "strategic partner" Azerbaijan for making a national hero out of an axe-murderer." [13] OptimusView (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still nothing about awarding with the name of "National hero of Azerbaijan". President of Azerbaijan never called him a hero. No any sources says that. As I said the "heroization" is related to the effect in society, it was not officialy. --Interfase (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kocharyan says "proclaimed hero", not "awarded a National Hero of Azerbaijan title" nor "called a hero". the same do the other sources. if you believe in a family dictatorship like Azerbaijan the society not the Aliev is responsible for "hero's welcome accorded to Mr Safarov in Azerbaijan and the decision to promote him to the rank of major and pay him eight years’ back salary upon his arrival", that's your personal opinion. OptimusView (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kocharyan says "proclaimed hero by the Azerbaijani President". So, where and when Azerbaijani President proclaimed him as a hero? Aliyev just pardoned him. Decision to promote him to the rank of major and pay him eight years’ back salary is not the same as "heroisation". It is decision of Ministry of Defence and is not directly related to president. --Interfase (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "The President of the Republic of Azerbaijan forms the Cabinet of ministers for the purpose of organization the realization of the executive authorities. A cabinet of ministers is a superior body of the Executive power of the President, it submits to the President and accountable before him." [14] Again, these edits ([15][16]) as well as your OR here are disruptive and in complete violation of your topic ban. That's all. OptimusView (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you see that Cabinet of ministers "proclaimed Safarov as a hero"? First edit has nothing with topic ban. It is the trivial information showing that Kocharyan's words are untrue. --Interfase (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the Department Chief of Aliyev's Presidential Administration officially declares that "heroes as Mubariz Ibrahimov and Ramil Safarov with their bravery brought the second breath to the Azerbaijani society and people" [17]. You're denying the obvious. OptimusView (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Patriotic speech of the department's chief (he is not even president's representative by the way) at the forum, where he called Safarov a "hero", doesn't mean "National hero of Azerbaijan" and doesn't reflect official position of president and state. Also, Kocharyan says "by the Azerbaijani President", not by "Chief of the Political Analysis and Information Department of the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan". Show the source where president calls him a hero, or return text back into the article. --Interfase (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "proclaimed hero" content is contained in a quote. Quotes cannot be changed if they are to remain as quotes, regardless of whether a claim made in the quote is fully accurate or not. And quotes do not have to contain fully accurate content to be used. If something other than the exact quotation is to be used, alternative wording that conveys the meaning of the quote will have to be found. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As we can see, Kocharyan's words in his quote (about "proclaimed hero" content) are untrue. If some reader doesn't know about the truth (that there was no any order about hero proclamation by president) he may think that it is true. That is why the trivial information that Azerbaijani president actually didn;t proclaimed Safarov a hero should be in the article if we quote Kocharyan. --Interfase (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the info above shows he was proclaimed a hero by Azerbaijan and its president. Kochatyan made an official announcement, if Azeri government officially denies Kocharyan's words, then let's include it. if no, your personal OR is not allowed here. You're not an Azeri official to answer and (mis)interprete Armenian Deputy Minister's claims. OptimusView (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Azerbaijani government shouldn't officialy deny words of each Armenian official. But it doesn't mean that we should present them withot trivial info that these words are untrue. --Interfase (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"we should present them withot trivial info": your original research is not needed here. if his statement is untrue, we need RS's saying that. as I presented above many international bodies and RS's represent the same view that safarov is heroized by Azerbaijan. OptimusView (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By people maybe, but not officialy bu president. This is entirely untrue, that should be noted showing that Kocharyan is wrong. --Interfase (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any dispute that Safarov, a convicted murderer, was treated like a "hero" by the Azerbaijani state on his return to Azerbaijan? Is there any dispute that Safarov murdered his victim by decapitation? Is there any dispute that sources have mentioned the Sararov case in relation to the Sloyan mutilation because they are alleging that positive treatment of Sararov by Azerbaijan and the praising of his crime encouraged the act of mutilating Sloyan's body. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this article

[edit]

Human tragedy is regretful, but seriously why is this article on Wikipedia? it does not serve any purpose except to promote one sides recount of the story!? Then should all beheading have separate articles? 80.76.168.114 (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kyaram Sloyan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyaram_Sloyan&oldid=1204714179"