Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Sevag Balikci
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Murder of Sevag Balikci edit
- ... that a Turkish Armenian soldier was killed on the Armenian Genocide remembrance day?
Created/expanded by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nom at 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Article is new, and long enough, and hook is thought-provoking. However I'm concerned about the political aspect of the article. It concerns a living person who is described as a murderer, but the article doesn't state that he has been convicted. There is also mention of ongoing lawsuits. I'm new at reviewing, and would appreciate the comments of other editors. NinaGreen (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Nina, you make a good point. If the person involved in Balıkçı's death has not been convicted of murder, there are WP:BLP issues with saying that he is a murderer, or that what was done was a murder. Furthermore, the article should not be titled "Murder". I notice that someone tried to change it to "Death" rather than "Murder", although this doesn't seem to have been successful. This is a severe POV issue, and there have now been several articles by this author where POV has been a significant issue. When an author is partisan, it's especially important for said author to scrupulously check every word and phrase to make sure it's neutral in tone, factually accurate, and does not omit relevant information. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed several cases of murder to killing, as this hasn't adequately shown intent — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am willing to change the title from Murder of Sevag Balikci to Killing of Sevag Balikci. As you may know, the underlining difference between a murder and a killing is intent. Someone may kill accidentally or purposefully and as this article suggests, there are two sides to the story. Fair enough? Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- In the absence of a court verdict, I agree that the title of the article should be changed, irrespective of the DYK nomination. In line with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, particularly with respect to articles involving living persons (in this case the accused), and considering that the article is essentially a biography of someone who became noteworthy because of the circumstances of his death, I'd suggest that the title of the article should be Sevag Balikci, and perhaps some details of his background could be filled in at the beginning of the article. In terms of the article's neutrality, two other problems need to be addressed. Firstly, the paragraph which begins 'Details emerged about the accused killer', and which assigns negative motives to him, is sourced entirely to untranslated newspaper articles. If English language sources can't be found, that paragraph may have to be deleted because it concerns a living person, and it's not possible for non-Turkish speakers to assess the validity of the allegations in that paragraph. Secondly, the categories section is not neutral. It includes 'Anti-Armenianism', 'Hate crimes', 'Nationalist terrorism', and 'Assassinated Armenian people'. With respect to issues other than neutrality, I wasn't able to determine from the article and the cited sources what stage the trial is now at. I think that's a basic fact readers of the article would want to know about, and would suggest the article be amended to clarify the point. On a minor note, citation 24 isn't linked to anything, and the link to citation 26 didn't work when I tried it. I'm not unsympathetic to the underlying issue here, but the information in the article has to be put forward in accordance with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and particularly so in this case since the article has major implications for the reputation of a living person. NinaGreen (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Dear Nina, please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, which clearly states that "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy."
- Proudbolsahye had translated the sentences which are used from non-English sources.
- The mentioned categories were removed. Please check the references, they should work now. --Երևանցի talk 20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have changed the title and am willing to comply. But what I don't understand is if the Justice System in Turkey is in itself disputed (See:"Turkey ranks near bottom on democracy ranking list." and Human Rights in Turkey) and if crimes like the Armenian Genocide, Varlik Vergisi, 6-7 September Uprisings, Hrant Dink, and more weren't brought to proper justice, what makes any of us believe that this murder of 1 Turkish Armenian civilian will be any different? The fact that alleged killer was released and is roaming the streets of Istanbul as we speak, signifies the lack of professionalism and justice right from the start. I understand your concerns about a verdict but understand that justice is not the same in Turkey as opposed to America, especially towards non-Muslim minorities. Killing an Armenian is legal in Turkey (as outrageous as it sounds) and it is an ongoing topic of discussion. Just 2 days ago an Armenian woman was stabbed to death in Istanbul See: Elderly Armenian woman is murdered in Turkey. This is not to say it was a hate crime, but since justice hasn't been done to hate crimes in the past, Armenians have become susceptible and easy targets throughout Turkey. One would much rather kill an Armenian in Turkey than a Turk because the legal system in Turkey favors the killing of non-Muslims. I have proposed changing the article to Killing of Sevag Balikci but I have yet to received any answers. Nevertheless, as I have shown you, I am willing to go with whatever you would like me to do to get this article nominated for DYK. I just thought I can share this with you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- In reply to the points raised in the two preceding comments, the task of the article's editors is to ensure that the article is neutral, irrespective of whether the editors have strong personal feelings about the matter, while my primary task as a DYK reviewer in this particular instance is to ensure that Wikipedia is not seen as interfering in an ongoing judicial process in Turkey (it would be the same no matter what the country), which again essentially comes down to making certain that the article is neutral and merely reports the facts as they are currently known. The article has made progress towards neutrality with the title change, the replacement of the word 'murder' in the article with other terms, and the deletion of the non-neutral categories. There's still a neutrality problem with the paragraph which assigns motives to Agaoglu, and begins 'Details emerged', because all the cited sources (8-12) are newspaper articles in Turkish. Only one relevant sentence has been translated (citation 9): 'Translated from Turkish: Lawyer Halavurt said, "On his Facebook profile we discovered videos of Muhsin Yazicioglu. We also came upon nationalist and racist arguments, articles, video clips, and data". That translation doesn't cover most of the 'facts' stated in the paragraph in question. I suggested earlier that the paragraph should be deleted, but if not, then more of the article needs to be translated and inserted into the paragraph itself rather than placed in a footnote so that the 'facts' stated are clearly established. It would be preferable to quote the lawyer Halavurt (in an English translation) directly rather than to paraphrase his comments, e.g., 'Details emerged about Agaoglu's activities on social networks prior to the killing. At a press conference in (place) on (date), the Balikci family's lawyer (first name) Halavurt said (quote)'. Another issue apart from neutrality is that the article is vague concerning the nature of the trial, where it is being held, who the judge(s) is/are, who is represented at the trial (and particularly who Halavurt represents), the number and dates of the hearings already held, and the reasons for the numerous adjournments which have spread the trial out over such a lengthy period. There are a few articles in English on the internet which indicate that the trial is actually a hearing before a military tribunal, but this, and the other details I've mentioned are not clarified in the article. At present the article doesn't set out the information which Wikipedia readers would expect in a DYK article. NinaGreen (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have fixed the issues that you were concerned about. Please let me know if there are any other issues concerning the article. Thank you!Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed that there is now information in the article about the nature of the proceedings (i.e., the hearings are taking place before the Diyarbakir 2nd Air Force Command Military Court), but more could be done to clarify the details of the proceedings to date, and particularly the nature of the charge ('murder as a result of negligence') against the accused and the penalty sought (a 9-year sentence), which are mentioned in the English language sources cited. More importantly, though, the problem of the paragraph which begins 'Details emerged', and which assigns motives to the accused, has not been addressed. Some additional lines from the Turkish language sources which purport to support the statements in the paragraph which begins 'Details emerged' have been translated, but they're still buried in the footnotes. If someone got access to the accused's 'Facebook profile' after it had been shut down, and are saying that they found certain information there which explains the accused's motives, then that statement needs to be quoted word for word in the article, and clearly attributed to the lawyer Cem Halavurt or whoever made it, with the date and place and occasion at which it was made clearly specified in the text of the article. As I said earlier, for the article to be perceived as neutral, the accused can't be convicted in the article on the basis of circumstantial evidence as to his alleged motives, with no explanation in the article as to who obtained the alleged information, how they got access to it, and whether they actually stated that it explained the accused's motives. I think the article could also move a long way towards neutrality if the statement in one of the English language sources cited were quoted: 'The court judge stated that it is a matter of honor for him that the trial ends with a fair verdict'. I can appreciate that your suspicions are that the shooting was not an accident, and that the court will not render a fair verdict, but you could be wrong on both counts. I'm not saying you are wrong, merely that for the article to be neutral it has to be worded to allow for that possibility. Along the same lines, the heading 'Justice for Sevag', which implies that the accused is guilty and that the shooting could not have been accidental, should be changed to 'Justice Initiative', which is the name given to the movement in the cited source. I would also suggest that someone edit the article for grammatical errors such trials for 'trial's, 'the family . . . his son', etc. NinaGreen (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I have fixed all the issues you have raised. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed that there is now information in the article about the nature of the proceedings (i.e., the hearings are taking place before the Diyarbakir 2nd Air Force Command Military Court), but more could be done to clarify the details of the proceedings to date, and particularly the nature of the charge ('murder as a result of negligence') against the accused and the penalty sought (a 9-year sentence), which are mentioned in the English language sources cited. More importantly, though, the problem of the paragraph which begins 'Details emerged', and which assigns motives to the accused, has not been addressed. Some additional lines from the Turkish language sources which purport to support the statements in the paragraph which begins 'Details emerged' have been translated, but they're still buried in the footnotes. If someone got access to the accused's 'Facebook profile' after it had been shut down, and are saying that they found certain information there which explains the accused's motives, then that statement needs to be quoted word for word in the article, and clearly attributed to the lawyer Cem Halavurt or whoever made it, with the date and place and occasion at which it was made clearly specified in the text of the article. As I said earlier, for the article to be perceived as neutral, the accused can't be convicted in the article on the basis of circumstantial evidence as to his alleged motives, with no explanation in the article as to who obtained the alleged information, how they got access to it, and whether they actually stated that it explained the accused's motives. I think the article could also move a long way towards neutrality if the statement in one of the English language sources cited were quoted: 'The court judge stated that it is a matter of honor for him that the trial ends with a fair verdict'. I can appreciate that your suspicions are that the shooting was not an accident, and that the court will not render a fair verdict, but you could be wrong on both counts. I'm not saying you are wrong, merely that for the article to be neutral it has to be worded to allow for that possibility. Along the same lines, the heading 'Justice for Sevag', which implies that the accused is guilty and that the shooting could not have been accidental, should be changed to 'Justice Initiative', which is the name given to the movement in the cited source. I would also suggest that someone edit the article for grammatical errors such trials for 'trial's, 'the family . . . his son', etc. NinaGreen (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have fixed the issues that you were concerned about. Please let me know if there are any other issues concerning the article. Thank you!Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- In reply to the points raised in the two preceding comments, the task of the article's editors is to ensure that the article is neutral, irrespective of whether the editors have strong personal feelings about the matter, while my primary task as a DYK reviewer in this particular instance is to ensure that Wikipedia is not seen as interfering in an ongoing judicial process in Turkey (it would be the same no matter what the country), which again essentially comes down to making certain that the article is neutral and merely reports the facts as they are currently known. The article has made progress towards neutrality with the title change, the replacement of the word 'murder' in the article with other terms, and the deletion of the non-neutral categories. There's still a neutrality problem with the paragraph which assigns motives to Agaoglu, and begins 'Details emerged', because all the cited sources (8-12) are newspaper articles in Turkish. Only one relevant sentence has been translated (citation 9): 'Translated from Turkish: Lawyer Halavurt said, "On his Facebook profile we discovered videos of Muhsin Yazicioglu. We also came upon nationalist and racist arguments, articles, video clips, and data". That translation doesn't cover most of the 'facts' stated in the paragraph in question. I suggested earlier that the paragraph should be deleted, but if not, then more of the article needs to be translated and inserted into the paragraph itself rather than placed in a footnote so that the 'facts' stated are clearly established. It would be preferable to quote the lawyer Halavurt (in an English translation) directly rather than to paraphrase his comments, e.g., 'Details emerged about Agaoglu's activities on social networks prior to the killing. At a press conference in (place) on (date), the Balikci family's lawyer (first name) Halavurt said (quote)'. Another issue apart from neutrality is that the article is vague concerning the nature of the trial, where it is being held, who the judge(s) is/are, who is represented at the trial (and particularly who Halavurt represents), the number and dates of the hearings already held, and the reasons for the numerous adjournments which have spread the trial out over such a lengthy period. There are a few articles in English on the internet which indicate that the trial is actually a hearing before a military tribunal, but this, and the other details I've mentioned are not clarified in the article. At present the article doesn't set out the information which Wikipedia readers would expect in a DYK article. NinaGreen (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have changed the title and am willing to comply. But what I don't understand is if the Justice System in Turkey is in itself disputed (See:"Turkey ranks near bottom on democracy ranking list." and Human Rights in Turkey) and if crimes like the Armenian Genocide, Varlik Vergisi, 6-7 September Uprisings, Hrant Dink, and more weren't brought to proper justice, what makes any of us believe that this murder of 1 Turkish Armenian civilian will be any different? The fact that alleged killer was released and is roaming the streets of Istanbul as we speak, signifies the lack of professionalism and justice right from the start. I understand your concerns about a verdict but understand that justice is not the same in Turkey as opposed to America, especially towards non-Muslim minorities. Killing an Armenian is legal in Turkey (as outrageous as it sounds) and it is an ongoing topic of discussion. Just 2 days ago an Armenian woman was stabbed to death in Istanbul See: Elderly Armenian woman is murdered in Turkey. This is not to say it was a hate crime, but since justice hasn't been done to hate crimes in the past, Armenians have become susceptible and easy targets throughout Turkey. One would much rather kill an Armenian in Turkey than a Turk because the legal system in Turkey favors the killing of non-Muslims. I have proposed changing the article to Killing of Sevag Balikci but I have yet to received any answers. Nevertheless, as I have shown you, I am willing to go with whatever you would like me to do to get this article nominated for DYK. I just thought I can share this with you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I feel the article is now neutral, but would appreciate it if more experienced DYK reviewers would comment on that.
We're now down to finer points. Firstly, the English in an article nominated for DYK should be polished. There are still grammatical errors and non-standard phrasing, including 'as Kivanc' (should be 'while Kivanc'), 'charged for murder' (should be 'charged with murder'), 'and on charges' (should be 'on a charge of'), 'non-Commissioned' (should be 'non-commissioned'), 'charged for negligence of' (should be 'charged with negligence in'), 'trial however, an eyewitness also provided' (should be 'trial an eyewitness provided'), 'It was reported through the eyewitness' (should be 'The eyewitness testified'), 'verdict for the case' (should be 'verdict in the case'), 'psychological distress' (should be 'psychological pressure', as per the source), 'he was fearing for his life' (should be 'he feared for his life'), 'courts decision' (should be 'court's decision'). If you're going to submit further articles for DYK, it would be helpful to find someone to smooth out the English for you.
Secondly, you need to be scrupulous about statements which name living persons. (1) I can't find Ufuk Uras included among the attendees at the funeral in the English language source cited. If there isn't a source which states he was there, his name should be deleted. (2) The statement that 'The Balikci family insists that the shooting wasn't accidental but intentional and the suspect should be charged for murder' isn't supported by the cited source. The mother said only that the verdict will show whether Turkey sees the Armenian population as 'the other'. (3) I can't find any mention of Agaoglu's sister having written Eksi's testimony in the English-language sources; if it's in the Turkish sources, that part needs to be translated. If not, her name should be deleted. NinaGreen (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok I have fixed the above mentioned grammar and spelling mistakes. For point #1 - I removed Ufuk Uras and replaced him with another politician per source. #2 - I found an English source which says the family believes the shooting was intentional. #3 - I removed the sister from the Eksi testimony sentence since I myself couldn't find any sources regarding her involvement as well(which is odd because there is a lawsuit filed against her for obstruction of justice). Anyways, thank you for raising these concerns. Cant wait for its nomination! Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
