Talk:Heydar Aliyev

Comment

I noticed that this page is repeating a number of details that the Sobaka dossier says were manufactured by Aliyev, and aren't true.

Specifically, the claims that are disputed are: Birthplace: Sobaka says he was born in Armenia. Birth year: Sobaka says he tried to shave three years off his age. College education: Our page says he took a degree in history at Azerbaijan State University in Baku. The Sobaka dossier notes this claim and says that he was actually attending the Ministry of State Security Academy, and that Putin dug out the truth about this in 2001.

I consider Sobaka fairly reliable, but I can't find anything else on the web to confirm these claims. Can someone tell me their sources for the original information? If it was taken from Heydar's old official website, then it would seem that we're just echoing his attempts to rewrite his own past. Isomorphic 05:27, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Update: I did find this page, which mentions Aliyev and says he was born in Armenia. It's on the website of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. Isomorphic 05:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reputation

Something might be made of Aliyev's almost hero-like reputation within Azerbaijan today, at least officially. As well as being regarded by many as a crook, he is also the man who "brought Azerbaijan to the West", and is pictured all over the country in banners, in calendars on school walls. Small shrines dedicated to Heydar Aliyev can be found in most public buildings. That is, many Azeris would call this article unfairly biased, and would be quite offended at its content. I might add some if I have time about this subject, but wondered what other editors think. It would be nice to give a less completely negative image of a man seen as the father of Azerbaijan by many Azeris. --Jacobolus 09:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My impression is that he has a glowing reputation in Azerbaijan partly because he manufactured himself a glowing reputation. History suggests that this is not hard to do when you personally control a country's government. Aliyev may not have reached the level of a Kim Jong Il or a Saparmurad Niyazov, but "small shrines to him can be found in most public buildings" sounds like classic cult-of-personality style leadership.

That said, I agree that the current article focuses a bit much on the negative. More on the positive aspects of his rule would be welcomed. When discussing leaders like Aliyev, I also think it's important that a leader should be judged in comparison with other third-world leaders, not by developed Western standards. Isomorphic 20:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I do not see how this article is offending, despite feeble attempts at cult of personality there remains in Azerbaijan a strong apathy about Aliev and his ruling elite. There is no outright condemnation from the majoiry (there is a minority of vocal opposition) but to say that he achieved a cult-like status is ridiculous. Most just accept him as a necessary nuisance. Abdulnr 22:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

I thought Wikipedia convention was to use the name most commonly seen in English. Introducing a foreign letter isn't appropriate unless that letter is also used when writing the name in an English-language context. Isomorphic 05:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The article title should be written in English, I think, otherwise people who don’t speak Azeri would not know how to spell it correctly. Grandmaster 05:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

About this subject, you can read Talk:İlham Əliyev. Švitrigaila 11:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Heydər Əliyev died in Cleveland?

I never knew that, actually. Then again, the Cleveland Clinic is known for its superior medical services, so why am I not surprised... -- Clevelander 02:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious views

"Əliyev thus became the first Muslim full member of the Politburo." I really doubt the factual basis for this sentence. As there is also no lack of former high members of the Communist Party who turned out to be devote Orthodox Christians later, the claim to be "first" this or that needs factual evidence about one's beliefs from the time before the fall of USSR to be taken seriously. Then again, everything is possible. Claims that have high propagandistic value are not necessarily untrue, they just need hard evidence before being spread. --Oop 22:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but this awkward sentence has a sense. It means Əliyev was the first member from a "nationality" of traditionnaly Muslim people. And I wonder if it's really the truth. There was Mikhail Frunze from Kyrgystan before him, but Frunze was not a true Kyrgyz, he was of Romanian descent. Can someone find other examples? Švitrigaila 23:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He indeed was the first an only ethnic Muslim to be the member of Politburo. Frunze was not Kyrgyz, and there were no other Muslims in Politburo. Grandmaster 04:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying that someone is "ethnic Muslim" is totally ridicilous. As far as I know, Əliyev was leader of some atheist organization in the CCCP. Later he "found" religion to be a unifying power for Azeris but that shouldn't have anything to do with hos Politbyro time.. I think this should be simply removed.

Karabag War

It is simply propaganda to accuse Əliyev of Mountain-Karabag-war. Especially this chapter must be removed totally:

"He also tried but failed to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis, attempting a military solution in December 1993 that eventually resulted in 16% of Azerbaijani territories under occupation of Armenia and an estimated 30,000 deaths and the displacement of a further 750,000 Azeris. The issue remains unresolved, with Armenian rule continuing in Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan still hosting several hundred thousand refugees."

Although it is true that Azeris tried to counterattack Armenian advances but still blaming Əliyev for whole war and 30 000 deaths is ridiculous. From text you could also think that 30 000 Azeris died because of this attack and 750 000 had to leave their homes. 750 000 is maybe right during the whole war, but 30 000 dead were a result of whole war, not this attack. This 30 000 includes both Armenians and Azeris.

There should also be a note that he became president mainly because of the unstability caused by losing of war.

Edit:typos

Olli J.

Agree, the claim is ridiculous. He tried to stop Armenian advances into Azerbaijan's territory, but since the country was in the state of civil war, did not much succeed in that. Only Horadiz was regained. The paragraph above should definately be revised, 30 000 deaths and 750 000 were the result of years of war. Grandmaster 07:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional info

I have created a subpage of mine regarding Heydar Aliyev and have added missing brief info about Aliyev's career in the KGB and his ties with the Azeri mafia which I am proposing we add to the article. I also included a section, "Honors", including the numerous awards and decorations Aliyev has won in his life. Here is the link. Any comments? - Fedayee 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Rating

There is good basic information here, but detail is lacking, especially his youth and early career. Also, lack of citations hurts this article. ludahai 魯大海 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

POV and OR

I added POV and OR tags to section titled KGB and leader of Azerbaijan SSR. Calling someone connected to mafia, just because he was a head of Azerbaijani KGB and Azerbaijan SSR, based on the book by Edmond Azadian, an Armenian author, falls short of any neutrality. The section seems to be only referencing 3 sources repetitively, clearly aimed at character assassination rather than describing the career of the person from a neutral point of view. Other original research sentences, repetitively claim that he was connected to some "mafia". Please, discuss the material in detail, prior to edits in an encyclopedic manner. Thanks. Atabek 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And further proof that Edmond Azadian is a POV writer: [1], who has no knowledge of the issue, claiming "Indeed the occupation of Armenian village of Kerky on the Nakhchivan border introduces a new dimension in the conflict". The village of Karki (Azerbaijan) was actually an Azerbaijani-populated exclave of Nakhchivan, which is currently under control of Armenian forces since 1992. Atabek 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Azadian cannot be considered a reliable source. All the references to it should be removed. And indeed, this section reminds yellow press rather than encyclopedic article. Needs to be fixed. Grandmaster 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem with the other two sources that you are labelling the section "yellow press"? Are we to assume that if Azadian is removed as a source, you both will be happy with the section and its sources?- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Azadian source is not referencing anything by itself, it only reinforces what two other source already confirm. I believe there is an arbcom remedy somewhere saying that you can't discriminate against Armenian sources. VartanM 23:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article claims:

Aliyev, with the help of the Azeri mafia, earned the profits from the Caspian Sea caviar, Sumgait oil, fruits and vegetables, cotton and customs and transport industries of Azerbaijan

There's no oil in Sumgait. An expert on the region would know that. If an article or book contains such ridiculous claims about "Azeri mafia" or "Sumgait oil", it cannot be taken any seriously. That's why I call it yellow press. If there's indeed such a thing as "Azeri mafia", why no one creates an article about it in Wikipedia? I would be interested to have a look at such an article. Grandmaster 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the Azeri mafia is powerful in Russia, actually. but generally the famous ones are not mafia leaders, "vor v zakone",but they are who decide the plans in background, even for mafia. and solutions between mafias are settled by them, called "lotu" in Azeri language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.137.101 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is a total POV

This article is very biased. Somebody should clear it up, present references on his so called Mafia relations. Till then it should be tagged as original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torebay (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Portrait must be replaced

There is a good portrait, He should be put at the top

File:Geidar Aliev USSR.jpg

Why? This portait is from Soviet times. The current picture in the article is from the last held position of Presidency. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because a member of the Politburo of the USSR is much higher position than the president of a small republic. This is a portrait, but not picture. Beautiful and well rubbed. A picture is a curve and not beautiful.--Vladlen666 (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. He is an Azerbaijani and was the president of Azerbaijan holding that position last. Moreover, he is known as President of Azerbaijan much more than First Secretary of Azerbaijan CP or Politburo member. Thanks. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew him only as a Politburo member. Do you think that the portraits in the encyclopedia should be only portraits of the elderly? Aesthetics are offering to throw in the garbage ledge?--Vladlen666 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying but why should the encyclopedia be based on how you know him? Aliyev was recognized by the international community and became well known by becoming President of Azerbaijan. There is no problem including this picture in the article but the infobox should include his Presidential photo. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I inserted the picture right by the text where it is mentioned he was member of Politburo

Checking on some substantial edits

I just noticed a whole slew of edits from 82.228.122.75 which substantially change the meaning of passages, such as this edit: "Managed to" and "failed to" are two completely different concepts, and as the edit isn't referenced at all, readers have no way of checking to see which one is correct.ChristopherGregory (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

hagographical

"According to his hagographical website" shouldn't that be Hagiographical? George Spurlin (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Almost no detail from years of presidency

There is an almost complete absence here of detail covering the years of his presidency, from 1993-2003. The few sentences that treat that time period have no citations, either. Surely that should be the most salient part of his career. It's sort of like writing a page on Barack Obama, but skipping over the years 2009-2017. Unfortunately, I'm not well informed enough to improve on it. Dgndenver (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Advertising

"...proved to be the catalyst that ultimately culminated in his becoming the undisputed leader of Azerbaijan. As such he implemented reforms to curb corruption and gained the trust of his citizens. He came to power at a time when Azerbaijan was in the throes of political and economic crises, and he was able to bring about economic development."

Sorry, but that's not encyclopaedic language - that's the language of political propaganda and should be changed. 178.54.8.64 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. It was added by two Azerbaijan ip WP:SPAs as their sole edits[2] [3], using unreliable and primary sources. I was considering a complete revert to 31 March 2017, but I don't have time to review all the subsequent edits and all the current sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Azerbaijani

change ((Azerbaijani)) to ((Azerbaijan))i 98.239.227.65 (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done = thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Born in Armenia?

An RS cites a villager as a possibility. Should be reflected with proper attribution. --Armatura (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Haydar Alıyev birthday

He birth 10 may 1923-12 December 2003 94.20.136.3 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Alley of honor has a page on Wikipedia

Here it is Alley of Honor so someone can add the link in the resting place section Darkdeath0123 (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Harold Perkin falsified Aliyev's biography

In his book, Harold Perkin wrote that Heydar Aliyev

Quote:'...thrust himself to the head of the Azeri People’s Front, and was elected to the Supreme Soviet of the republic in time for independence in 1991.

Link: page 139 of the book or page 158 of PDF: https://epdf.tips/the-third-revolution-professional-elites-in-the-modern-world.html

In fact, Aliyev has never been the head of the Azerbaijani People's Front. He founded New Azerbaijan Party (YAP) in 1992 that was actually in opposition to the Azerbaijani People's Front led by Abulfaz Elchibey from its foundation in 1989 to the Elchibey's death in 2000.

Considering such an obvious falsification, all other details given by Perkin on Aliyev can hardly be considered serious or reliable. Hew Folly (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is an absurd claim. Aliyev was never the head of the Popular Front. This is an easily verifiable fact. This author has no idea what he is writing about. I suggest to remove this source. Grandmaster 08:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Obviouly, if Harold James Perkin gives totally false information on one's public life, how can he be trusted to give any reliable information on private life.

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, the Perkin book appears reliable. The author is Harold Perkin and the publisher Routledge. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It might appear reliable due to the publisher, but the information it provides is clearly false and contradicts the known facts. Therefore, I don't think that we should consider this source reliable for this particular article. No other source says that Heydar Aliyev led Popular Front of Azerbaijan, because it is not true. Perkin might be a respected historian, but he is no expert on Azerbaijan and Heydar Aliyev. Grandmaster 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

What references identify these "known facts"? --Hipal (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Azerbaijan declared independence in 1991.[4]

Azerbaijan's People Front (or as mentioned by Perkin, Popular Front) was founded in 1988, and its head, Abulfaz Elchibey (not Heydar Aliyev or Geidar Aliev), became president in 1992. [5]

Meanwhile, in 1991-1992 Heydar Aliyev worked in the Autonomus Republic of Nakhchivan (an autonomus exclave in South-West Azerbaijan) formally holding the deputy chairman position in the Supreme Soviet[6] , and was a member of the Communist Party (not the "Popular Front") until July [7]. He founded another party (New Azerbaijan Party) in 1992. [8].

In the 1992-1993 period Azerbaijan was ruled by People's Front and Musavat [9] that were "ousted" by Heydar Aliyev and his supporters in 1993. [10].

Regards, Hew Folly (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Briefly skimming, I'm concerned that these links being offered may be to poorer sources. Are any of the publishers or authors of similar caliber? --Hipal (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. I believe at least one of them is Tadeusz Switechowski who was described as "One of the best known specialist on modern Azerbaijan"[11], and hold the Professor Emeritus of the Ivy League Columbia University [12].

I can also provide the Svante Cornell quote [13] similar to [14]. Even his critic admits that he "knows Azerbaijan well" [15] . Hew Folly (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Even if we assume your "analysis" is true and that the book has this one mistake on Aliev's position at the time, that doesn't make the source unreliable or everything else it says invalid, that's absurd and there is no Wikipedia policy that tells us to assume that. The source is extremely reliable, it's written by a distinguished historian Harold Perkin and published by a well established peer-reviewed publication Routledge. Please keep your analysis to yourself and stop saying everything cited by this highly reliable source should be removed or that somehow it's an unreliable source because of a simple presumed mistake in the book about a person's position that supposedly escaped the peer-review process of Routledge too. Also see your talk page for warnings, canvassing isn't allowed on Wikipedia [16]. Vanezi (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Perkin was not an expert on Azerbaijan. To my knowledge, he had no specific work dedicated to Azerbaijan. He only made a passing mention of Aliyev, and he apparently mixed Abulfaz Elchibey (whose actual surname was also Aliyev) with Heydar Aliyev. Just because a work is written by a respected scholar does not mean that it is reliable on every topic. I think that due to an obvious lack of knowledge on the subject of this article, Perkin cannot be used here. Grandmaster 08:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Please tell me a singe policy that suggests we should remove all of the well established published source written by a distinguished historian because a canvasser supposedly identified this one mistake in the book pages (those pages aren't even cited in this article). If you can't, then I have no more to argue here. Vanezi (talk) 09:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If a source shows clear lack of knowledge on the subject, and makes false claims, it cannot be considered reliable. According to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. We can take it to WP:RSN as well. Grandmaster 09:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Perkin isn’t “falsifying” anything, he cited The Independent news article that confused the two Aliyevs, so Perkin shouldn’t be blamed for when he was misled by another source. Vanezi (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

He should be. Fact checking is the responsibility of every serious scholar. In fact, it is the basics of any scholarly or journalistic research. Grandmaster 08:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, are you questioning the esteemed academic publisher Routledge and most importantly, its peer-review process? Like I said, a single minor mistake can happen and it's just a confusion of surnames which The Independent news article did itself to begin with, not Perkin. And it was a minor mistake because it wasn't even noticed in Routledge's peer-review process, the same Routledge which is regarded as one of the best publishers in the world. Vanezi (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. According to the rules, even if a source is generally reliable, a passing mention in that source may not be, and we should go with the sources that are dedicated to the topic of our article. And we see that Perkin is not an expert on Aliyev, not a specialist source on the subject, and provides inaccurate info about him. Grandmaster 08:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a case for removal, just a lot of personal opinions and poor sources being thrown about. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you find Perkin to be an accurate source about Heydar Aliyev? It was demonstrated that he makes false claims. Grandmaster 07:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. --Hipal (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

It is very much relevant. We should not use the sources that provide inaccurate information, and the rules advise us not to use sources that only make a passing mention of the subject of the article. Grandmaster 08:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That "information" which is just a surname confusion isn't from this source, it's from The Independent news article in the book. And the page where this surname confusion mistake is found (p.139) isn't even used in this article as a citation. The book is obviously reliable and no, it's not a "passing mention" when there are several statements about Aliev in the book (nothing to do with the surname confusion mistake you keep bringing up in page 139). And as if it wasn't enough that the author is a historian and the source is academic with established publisher + a peer-review process, here's a review (download link) of Perkin's book, describing it as:

• “The book is lively and well written. Surely controversial and thus worth reading. As an essay targeted to the public at large, it is a work of culture and finesse. It will make an excellent reference for one of those undergraduate discussions that so usefully open or close a political science, history, or even economics course.” [GIANNI TONIOLO, Duke University, The Journal of Economic History 1998]

So please, avoid personal opinion commentary as Hipal suggested and let's stick to an actual book review which is available for this book.

And even after all of this, there is another source which verifies the same things as Perkin said (the info that's actually used in this article), see for example the sex services info which is confirmed in this other book too: The Soviet Mafia by Arkady Vaksberg, page 176

• “Only once was there an unfortunate setback in this rapidly developing NKVD career. Being in charge of the 'work' of all the informers in Azerbaijan, he had at his disposal countless secret flats where professional Chekists could privately meet their unofficial colleagues, the so-called volunteer helpers. Among these volunteers, there were women, and the organization's property holdings solved the problem of secret rendezvous for them and their men friends. This was perhaps the key sense in which these flats were 'secret'. Using his official position, Geidar Aliev would encourage his 'volunteer' helpers to make love to him. One of them went along with it but then changed her mind and kicked up a fuss. This was after Stalin's death, and the terror of what had been Beria's outfit eased for a while. Unseen protectors saved the lover-hero; all that happened to him was that he was given a slightly less senior post and his rank reduced a notch—not for long, of course. He soon recovered and resumed his upward career path.”

Vanezi (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, Perkin misinterpreted some claims in Vaksberg's book. He actually refers to Vaksberg, who himself was more of a sensationalist type of a journalist. That still does not make Perkin a reliable source on this subject, and the review that you quote says that Perkin's book is "controversial". Perkin's book is about global economic and social changes, not political developments in Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 11:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for Perkin misinterpreting Vaksberg's book? Or for Vaksberg being a sensationalist? Or is this original research? Yes the The Journal of Economic History review uses the word "controversial" but not in the sense that it would be considered unreliable, because it is praised for being well written and an excellent reference for political science and history.

• The book is lively and well written. Surely controversial and thus worth reading. As an essay targeted to the public at large, it is a work of culture and finesse. It will make an excellent reference for one of those undergraduate discussions that so usefully open or close a political science, history, or even economics course.

While looking for any criticism of Vaksberg or his book, I instead found a source praising both. It even praises the Azerbaijani chapter in particular:

• the most interesting chapter is the one on Aliev and the Azerbaijan mafia. The recent civil disturbances involving the surviving communist leadership, the Aliev mafia and the popular front leadership becomes more comprehensible after Vaksberg's analysis.[17]

Vanezi (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Vaksberg should be a subject to a separate discussion. I took this to WP:RSN to get more third party opinions. Grandmaster 08:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Hew Folly (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If that question is for me, then my answer is that it's already been explained. --Hipal (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Link to Azerbaijan

There is no immediate link to the Wikipedia article for the nation for Azerbaijan and there should be. I suggest making this change:

CURRENT (using shorthand since I cannot see the Wikicode): the third president of Azerbaijan from

TO: the third president of Azerbaijan from