Talk:Ilham Aliyev/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Accusation of Corruption

Dear Divot, you reverted several edits I made on this page. I would like to discuss several points/rules I adhered while making my edits and hope our discussion will contribute to objectivity of article and winning of Wikipedia principles and laws. First point is on the subject of sub-paragraph which changed the allegations of corruption to accusations of corruption. I guess here native English speaking admins or higher status community could intervene. We should draw a line between the term “accusation” and the word “allegation.” Accusation is the formal charge that is made in court where a person is guilty of an offence that is punishable (Black's Law Dictionary). It’s a legal term and mostly used in legal proceedings. There is no any judgment of a domestic or international court, which deals with the allegations of corruption against Ilham Aliyev. For this reason, the term “accusation” has no relevance in this context and should be replaced with the word “allegation.” Source materials also indicate that these info and materials are allegations. Kingedik (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kingedik

"allegation" means accusation without facts. But we have a lot of facts about Aliyev's corruption, f.e. from Panamagate papers, his young son bought a lot of villas in Dubay, etc.

According OCCRP "Aliyev was chosen because of new revelations this year about how his family had taken large shares in lucrative industries including the telecom, minerals and construction industries often through government related deals"

Investigation of Swedish television showed that offshore companies controlled by Aliyevs received from “TeliaSonera”, the Swedish telecommunications company, a factual bribe in the form of shares of “Azercell” cellular operator in the amount of 600-700 million dollars (due to the estimate of 2005), which was purchased for only 6.5 million dollars

This is not "allegation", but just "accusation". Divot (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Divot,

I provide you with links to several dictionaries about the meaning of “allegation”. Please note that none of them gives the definition you provide. Here is the links to several of them http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/allegation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegation https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/allegation I can make the list longer if you wish.

The sources you cite also note such information as allegations. That is why in paragraph 19 of European Parliament Resolution of 10 September 2015 which is also noted in subparagraph and cited as source for this subparagraph defines these “facts” as allegations. Here is the link and excerpt from Resolution. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P8-TA-2015-0316+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN (Calls on the EU authorities to conduct a thorough investigation into the corruption allegations.)

I have other points to discuss on your reversals but firstly would like you to agree on this point or Admins to make final decision. Kingedik (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court, so, we dont need "a statement, made with giving proof", we just need Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS). If Swedish television said "factual bribe" we must understand this as "it is factual bribe according Swedish television". Do they have giving proof, or not, thats not a Wikipedia's problem.

If OCCRP said "his family had taken large shares in lucrative industries", that means the same. They say that is a fact, not a speculation.

If Aliyev or Goverment of Azerbaijan think it is just "allegation - a statement, made without giving proof", they can go to court. After that we can say "The Hague court considered these allegations as slander". Divot (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Divot,

thank you for prompt responce

Again you delve into specific points, I don’t discuss the essence of these allegations whether it’s called fact, allegations or result of some investigations, my point is that having “allegation” instead of “accusation” as heading for this kind of information is correct approach and wording.

The Wikipedia is not court, true, I do not argue this fact, but Wikipedia complies with the requirements of English language or any other respective language depending on article. I do not discuss that any NGO or company have proof for its allegations, but I am saying that the English language differentiate between the term “accusation,” and the word “allegation.” You are also right that, this is not Wikipedia’s problem. But it does become Wikipedia’s problem when you present an allegation as a fact. In your own words again: Wikipedia is not a court. All the sources provided by you, call this as “allegations of corruption” so you in a way contradict yourself. None of the sources provided in the article uses the word accusation.

Your own points along with those I indicated above once more affirm that, a Wikipedia article, should refrain from using subjective and biased wording, especially when it comes to a heading.

So, let us generalize information from these sources as “allegations” instead of deciding, whether these are facts or they just constitute slander. And move on to discuss your other reverts which are also need thorough discussions. Kingedik (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"But it does become Wikipedia’s problem when you present an allegation as a fact" - No, no. For Wikipedia the fact is "OCCRP said 'his family had taken large shares in lucrative industries'" (WP:NPOV - All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views). "Significant view", not "factы established by court".

And, according WP:NPOV, we says - "In 2012, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) called Ilham Aliyev the corruptor of the year".

We don't say "Aliyev is a corrupt and criminal", we just say "Due to the journalistic investigation, it was also revealed that Ilham Aliyev and his family, together with other people from his closest circle, secretly own a very large number of companies".

Divot (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. "None of the sources provided in the article uses the word accusation." really? Let's check it

First link OCCRP "What is clear is that the Aliyev family has been systematically grabbing shares of the most profitable businesses in the country. This year, investigative reports by OCCRP and Radio Free Europe revealed for the first time well-documented evidence that his family has secret ownership stakes in the country’s largest businesses including bank, construction companies, gold mines and phone companies."

Third link "But the Dubai purchases, which have not been reported before, could provide a rare concrete example of just how much money the country's governing elite has amassed and of the ways in which at least part of this wealth has been stashed overseas."

etc. Divot (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Divot,

You are again don’t take my points, change the course of discussions or deliberately repeat the same again. All examples you provide are in the text of the section and we don’t discuss them or ask for them to be noted differently. We discuss the heading which should be in line with the text of the section. This discussion stems either from your English language fluency or your biased attitude. Therefore I think it would be more efficient if someone else either admins or higher status users express their position on the point. So that we don’t spend much time on this and move to other paragraph which as I noted I’m going to debate. Therefore I simply propose to change the word accusation into allegation in the heading of sub section. If you don’t compromise on this then I propose to request a Third Opinion (Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or Open a Request for mediation) in line with Wikipedia rules. Kingedik (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We talk, can we say "accusation of corruption" about Aliyev. And your opinion is "reliable sources says allegation, not accusation"

But we have a lot of first-class media, which says "accusation". F.e.

Guardian: "Leaked data shows that the Azerbaijani leadership, accused of serial human rights abuses, systemic corruption and rigging elections, made more than 16,000 covert payments from 2012 to 2014."

Huffington Post "[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/azerbaijan-house-of-cards_us_58adaf2ce4b0d0a6ef46bdfe The literal power couple sits atop a regime widely accused of corruption["

NRP "He's also accused of corruption"

Human Rights House "It is particularly cynical that the authorities are targeting independent media on charges of tax evasion, when many within government are themselves accused of corruption"

I don't understand why we cannot use "accused" term, when reliable sources use it. Divot (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. If you want, we can call Yaroslav Blanter [1]. He is an administrator and an experienced mediator. Divot (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Divot,

Quote from you: We talk, can we say "accusation of corruption" about Aliyev. And your opinion is "reliable sources says allegation, not accusation" I’m saying that in English it’s correct to use allegations rather than accusations in this case. It is as simple as that.

Quote from you: P.S. If you want, we can call Yaroslav Blanter [4]. He is an administrator and an experienced mediator. Divot (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I want someone with better language skills to intervene but don’t want it to be the person you recommend as not sure about your impartiality considering your approach. We can apply for third opinion but in any case it would be more efficient if you come to compromise ourselves.Kingedik (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"We can apply for third opinion" - Ok. Divot (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW. You recommended me a Cambridge dictionary [dictionary.cambridge.org]. Let's check it. Accusation: "to say that someone has done something morally wrong, illegal, or unkind". Of course, all that reliable sources said "Aliyev do something illegal". Divot (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I've read through the discussion here and have become familiar with the reason for the third opinion request. I have not participated in editing the article, the discussion here, or have connection to either editor. The difference between "alleged" and "accused" for the layperson is marginal. According to WP:Technical, articles should be written with the general reader with an average reading capability in mind. To that end, I offer a word perhaps both editors, Divot and Kingedik, could agree on as a suitable replacement. I suggest "Assertion" be used as a compromise. The definition of the word by Dictionary.com is, "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason." Assertion is not legal jargon and is unlikely to be seen as a finding or verdict of a court of law. Assertion is also read by the average reader as an argument of one side of a debate. Such as case between the two editors involved, each asserting their opinion on word usage in the article prior to the request for a third opinion. Please let me know if I can provide any further help! Operator873CONNECT 23:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Divot (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Operator873 Thank you!

  Dear Divot, if you find such approach acceptable then we can change the heading accordingly. Kingedik (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ilham-aliyev-3 0.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

Dear Wikipedia,

Why Ilham Aliyev's page does not mention that he is the son of Heydar Aliyev, and that Ilham has just inherited (the president or) the khan of Azerbaijan position directly from his daddy in 2003? Is it a secret that he is the son of his daddy? This cannot be a secret. Wikipedia cannot be a pocket resource for Aliyev. Did you ever ask Azeri people are they happy in their own country under the rule of Ilham the khan? 35.142.9.162 (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done - his parents, Heydar Aliyev and Zarifa Aliyeva, are already listed in the infobox, as is the fact that he was preceded as president by Heydar Aliyev. Asking Azeri people whether they are happy is outside the scope of Wikipedia's activities. --IamNotU (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

To answer the IP's question: It's because nobody got around to doing those edits. On a semi-protected page, if you want someone to do an edit for you, you need to include in your request "a clear and specific description of the requested change". You can complain if you like, but making a proposal is generally more useful.

It happens that I came across this page by accident, and I agree that the infobox didn't give any sources for the parents' identities, and the dynastic info wasn't well placed at the places where a reader might expect to find it. Anyway, I've tried to improve this. Boud (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article has significant content issues, with much of the text not following the WP:NPOV core principle of Wikipedia. The "Baku Process" organization, which is affiliated with the Azerbaijani government, as well as many other Azerbaijani sources either directly affilated with the government or positive of it, serve as the sources of much of the material related to the policies and positions of Ilham Aliyev. These should be replaced or at least enhanced by additional neutral sources, and the text should be rewritten using a more neutral language. In its current state, much of the text is written in a very positive and praising manner regarding Aliyev and his record. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The {{NPOV}} tag is not meant to be a flyby tag - it is only meant to attract diverse editors (it used to be only intended for active NPOV disputes; right now, there is no dispute). There has been no discussion for over a month. See point 3 of "when to remove" at {{NPOV}}: 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

I tend to agree that the top part of the article reads very much like it was written by an Azeri government media agency, and criticisms of Aliyev Junior as the second in an authoritarian dynasty are mostly relegated to the bottom part of the article.

As a first step, I would propose making the WP:LEAD better summarise the main content of the article, including the few sourced POVs currently in the article that criticise Aliyev's rule as a dictatorship.

A second step would be to add key points from some of the sources in human rights in Azerbaijan, for example, and update the lead together with improvements in the NPOVing within the sections. Boud (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntonSamuel: I did a bit of this. It's hard to see how to summarise the foreign and domestic policy sections - "he met lots of world leaders, signed many agreements, and implemented many policies domestically" would be accurate but vague and pointless. A good independent source to say which of his foreign or domestic policies are most well-known or notable as attributed to his management would be needed - first for the summary parts of the sections, and then for the lead. There's the usual problem of articles about national leaders - what is attributable to X as a person and what is merely an event of X's time in power that happens despite his/her actions rather than because of him/her? Boud (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if editors of this page will receive offers of caviar? Boud (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: shift NPOV tag to sections

@AntonSamuel: or any others interested: Are there any objections to removing the NPOV tag from the top of the article and instead putting {{POV section}} tags in the sections that still look like they were written by an official Azeri media agency? This is a big article, and being more specific would help in getting work in the places where it's most needed. Boud (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Boud: Hi! Thank you for your contribution in improving the article's neutrality and overall quality. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to place POV tags in the problematic sections instead of in the top of the article. AntonSamuel (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done @AntonSamuel: I put undue weight for the awards section. Boud (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

New infobox image

We should change the infobox image to this. It was still taken pretty recently, in August 2020. It’s also much clearer, and does not have blur to it like the current image. It‘s a better crop that doesn’t partially crop his arms, it has the Azerbaijani flag in the background, and in general, it’s a more photographically superior image. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

My proposal

Current image

File:Ilham_Aliyev_July_2020.png looks a bit more natural than File:Ilham Aliyev was interviewed by Euronews TV (cropped) (cropped).jpg, so I would probably say go for it! Neither photo really satisfies his "I'm friendly with the West" caviar diplomacy public relations image - in my subjective opinion. Compare with File:Bashar al-Assad (2018-05-17) 03.jpg on Assad's Wikipedia entry: who would ever believe that such a friendly face would order you raped, your fingernails pulled out and your testicles electroshocked and release Islamic terrorists from prison to stoke a bloody civil war? Of course, we have to follow Wikipedia policy - living terrorist leaders have the same Wikipedia photo policy rights as others, just as they have the right to defence lawyers when tried in court for their human rights violations. Boud (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There hasn’t been a response on here for a while, so I’ll take it that the consensus is yes, and change the image. The Image Editor (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Over-sourced and over-detailed

This wikipedia page has a lot of unnecessary content with a lot of sources for every sentence. I suggest that all paragraphes from international relations till the end get a bit "thined" by removing unnecessary facts and sources because documenting every sentence said by Aliyev with +2 sources is unnecessary. Kevo327 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Did my best to remove WP:PUFFERY and WP:POV content and excessive citations. But the article still needs work. Kevo327 (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020

Hello Wikipedians I began to notice that the article on Ilham Aliyev is frequently vandalized or there is frequent disruptive editing therefore I request temporary or indefinite semi-protection for the article. Carthago814(talk) 19:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

You're supposed to request protections on WP:RFP, not here. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out CuriousGolden. User:Carthago814 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Domestic policy

Much off the domestic policies section is Aliyev signing paperwork (generally accepted as a mundane and unimportant task) about policies and projects that the government work on. The article almost presents him as a one man state. Does anyone have any suggestions on how this could be improved into a more accepted format? Kevo327 (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: work subsection by subsection. For a given subsection, see if you can find third-party reasonably reliable sources that say something about the part of domestic policy/actions. Use that source, and see if you can 'rescue' one or two of the AZ government sources as a complement to give more detail. Third-party sources will have a better overview, but will tend not to have as much detail. NPOVing would probably require finding Azerbaijani dissident news sources, reports of protests, and so on. AZ doesn't seem to be a full dictatorship, so some variety of sources is probably available online.

Since a lot of material would most likely be removed, maybe do a few subsections at a time, and leave them for a few days in case someone objects, so that a proper discussion can start and focus on a small amount of content. If someone objects, then there can be a proper explanation of what Wikipedia is and isn't in relation to that specific content. Once the edits seem to be stable and misunderstandings sorted out, continue to the other sections. Boud (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed it says nothing about the content and significance of the signed legislation. It reads to me like peacockery, since signing a document is easy and seems like doing something about an issue, but what is relevant is what actually comes out of the paperwork. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)