Misplaced Pages

I belive this is called ethnic hatred. George Spurlin (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is about throwing the cigarette onto the body, as you see, not killing. Brandmeister 16:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not ethnic hatred. It described moment of murder. Please add valid, unbiased and relevant source for adding the article this thing. Thank you.--Reality 16:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what motive for murder means. It is in murderer's own words. Please stop removing the source. Chaojoker (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No original research please. The question above is "why did you throw the cigarette onto the body", not "why did you kill Margaryan". Brandmeister 17:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a murder interrogation and it is his own words, no interpretation thereof. Chaojoker (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hah? Original research?

• "In addition I feel sorry that I haven’t killed any Armenian."
• "If there would have been more Armenians at school and if I would have the possibility I would not only try to kill two persons, but rather I would commit the crime on all."
• "My job is to kill all, because until they live we will suffer.".

IMHO, this is simply rephrasing in proper English, I don't see any kind of research, or even an assumption. No one is needed.

During whole Interrogation, he constantly refers to his victims (one he killed, and one he failed to kill) as Armenians. No other way of calling them, but their ethnicity. If you don't like "Ehtnic heatred" phrasing use "because they were Armenians" instead, but that would be simply poor English. Stating that he killed because "they mocked them" which was never prooved, or because Gurgen was disrepctful to imaginery flag no one seen, etc and other versions which advocates tried to use but _failed_ to proove in the court IS Original research, on the other hand and POV pushing. DIXI. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, there should be a reference which must directly support the material being presented. Find a court ruling or similar reliable source, that writes about the motive of the murder before inserting it. Brandmeister 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the records are not grossly mistranslated, Safarov himself says that the reason for the murder (and the subsequent murder attempt) was that the victim was Armenian. E.g. My willingness was that since he is an Armenian his mother would cry as much as our mother cried when they lost their child. The whole was just revenge. --Tgr (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is an answer to another question. But, first of all, as the source says, Safarov rejected his own evidence given during the first interrogation claiming, so that source cannot be used. Brandmeister 23:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

So we take his word for it? What if he said that he didn't do it? George Spurlin (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Péter Erdő

Can we add the opinion of the Archbishop of Esztergom? I know it is not an official statement from the government but he is the head of the Hungarian Catholic Church. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It could be added under the Reactions -> Hungary section. I don't think it has to be only from a government source. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Two more sources of use for someone to add: the OSCE's (as well as Russia's) reaction and condemnation of Azerbaijan: and inter alia the payment of eight years' worth of backpay to Safarov by the Azerbaijan government .--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I will add both! --Yerevanci (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

An idea to consider: In Russian wikipedia they created a separate section called "Other countries and organizations" and placed Archbishop's response in it, which may also make sense. Currenlty there are some responses from political and or religious organizations, which don't perfectly suite under state responses. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great! I'll add a section Non-government organizations which will include all statements by non-official sources. --Yerevanci (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Minsk group or CSTO can't be considered "Non-government" or "non-official". Plus there are cases, like post in Twitter from MFA of Sweden, which is not exactly "official", but still noteworthy. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check the article. I think it looks good.--Yerevanci (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

I see the page is being heavily edited by users of Armenian origin. I understand you hate Ramil Safarov, however, I suggest you respect other editors and do not oppose to providing opinions and claims of both sides, especially when they are cited. Otherwise, the neutrality of the article becomes questionable. Thanks Angel670 talk 23:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you're of Azerbaijani origin and I understand you love Safarov?? How does that feel?!? If you have problem distinguishing between reality and sugarcoating, then Misplaced Pages isn't for you. --Yerevanci (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Avoid racist comments like that, or you will be reported, thanks for understanding, my dear friend! --Yerevanci (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't hurry up with conclusions, mind WP:AGF and WP:NOTBATTLE. If I loved him, I would add lots of sources calling him a hero. As you can see, I haven't done so. Instead, I tried to add a balanced info referring to media of both sides, however, you shortly removed all my edits, and related references gone. Its not good approach that you are trying to block any view not matching your POV. The selective provision of sources and information undermines the neutrality of the article.Angel670 talk 12:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you call "heavily edited by users of Armenian origin" and "I understand you hate Ramil Safarov" assuming good faith, then I have nothing to add. Prejudice at its finest.

Don't hurry up with conclusions? Where did you gain the rights of judging others? You started your sentence with "I see the page is being heavily edited by users of Armenian origin." and you suggest others not to hurry with their conclusions? Are you kidding me?

The sources calling him a "hero" were added by me mostly to show how Azerbaijani authorities praise the axe murderer in his homeland. You added this news article which says the following:

During his trial in Budapest, Safarov claimed that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was at the root of his actions and that he killed Markarian while the victim was sleeping after the Armenian repeatedly provoked and ridiculed him.

And you indicated as a source for "Revenge for repeated provocation and humiliation". And you keep telling me you "tried to add a balanced info". This isn't balanced. This is sugarcoating. --Yerevanci (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"claim" is not a final judgment. Esc2003 (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A more sensible thing would have been to call for both sides to act with restraint. "Hey guys, I know this is a heated topic but let's try to discuss controversial content before we actually add it, that way, the article's quality and a neutral point of view are assured," or something like that. Instead, you lunge at one group of people and make absurd assumptions like "I know you hate Ramil Safarov" and so calls to mind AGF ring hollow in light of such comments. The pardoning of a convicted murderer is bad enough in its essence and I don't think any amount of editing can make it appear look worse than it already is. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for advise. Can I call Yerevanchi now to act with a restraint and restore my edits and references that he removed shortly after I added them? We may not agree on some aspects of information flow, therefore, I suggest we invite an uninvolved editor to help us with editing this article. How about that? Angel670 talk 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That was not an advice. That was to show your biased view on this topic. --Yerevanci (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No need to add a secondary source to explain his motive. In his first interrogation he explains in his own words what he means by "provocation" and "humliation", claims for which no witness was called in court:

In addition I feel sorry that I haven’t killed any Armenian. My army sent me to this training and being here I have to face the fact that two Armenian were learning with me and I have to say that because of personal effectiveness the feeling of animosity grow up in me. In the beginning we were greeting each other, rather to say they said hi to me, but I didn’t accept it and curiosity in the whole thing was that when they walked close to me they were mumbled something in Armenian and laughed at me. That was the time when I decided that I will kill these two persons, the Armenians, I will cut their head off.

Assuming anyone is biased based on their ethnic origin is pure racism. I am so glad you brought up the subject of neutrality though, in the light of the article appearing in the Azerbaijani news website day.az, where it has directly incites its readers to edit in the mentioned article in Misplaced Pages. The news page is in Russian; here's an excerpt from the page translated by Google:

Day.Az encourages its readers to participate in the editing of this page. We appeal to those who care about the image of our country, our officer - go to "Misplaced Pages" and actively fix any inaccurate information on Ramil Safarov.
Make changes to the materials "Misplaced Pages" is technically possible. However, this process requires the user's experience of the resource is above average. This is easiest to do the people have edited this "Misplaced Pages." Recall that, thanks to our joint efforts have repeatedly been able to seek to fix the errors and distortions related to Azerbaijan, who were admitted to a particular Internet resource.

The quotation says it all. Chaojoker (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I brought up this subject on the administrators' noticeboard yesterday and asked for the article to be protected and watched, but as far as I know, nothing has been done about it yet. Chaojoker (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yerevanchi, I haven't provided any view of mine. I briefly referred to the sources containing balancing information so that we provide a reader a view from both Azeri and Armenian media. I also provided reference to the opinion of the Armenian MP in the media. You could modify the sentences the way you feel it relevant, however, removing all my edits was too harsh. Angel670 talk 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinions are irrelevant and should not be included when contradicting official documents; read the above post with direct quote from court document, the most reliable source in this case. Chaojoker (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Chaojoker, the user above has already presented his point of view. Why are you trying explaining him something he's not willing to understand? --Yerevanci (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He did not say his point view. He talk about Seferov's claim. Do not be accusatory. Esc2003 (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Reread his first two opening sentences. That's what I call presenting point of view. --Yerevanci (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Extradition vs repatriation

Extradited *is* the more common term used in this case based on a Google search 13.900 for Safarov repatriation, 14.000 for Safarov repatriated, 167.000 for Safarov extradition and 167.000 for Safarov extradited.

Even though the Google results prove the same thing, they need not be taken into account as in an official statement by Hungary's Ministry of Public Administration and Justice it was stated that Safarov was extradited. Chaojoker (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Suport Extradition. Antelope Hunter (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Since there's a veritable edit war going on at this page with a handfull of people involved, I have now fully protected the article for one week per WP:BLP. That should give you time to discuss pending changes and controversial parts in the article. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reacting promptly. Chaojoker (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Translated several novels

but that's not the only thing he did in prison. According to this he also attacked a prison guard and for this he got a 2 1/2 years in a separate trial. There is also a bit of information here, a condemnation of Azerbaijan's decision from both the Council of Europe and the President of the European Parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.149.121 (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, "several" seems to be two (The Door by Magda Szabó and The Paul Street Boys). --Tgr (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Russian news agency Regnum confirmed that Ramil Safarov received in Hungary an additional sentence in a separate trial for attacking a prison guard. Should this information be included into this article to provide a more balanced account of his behaviour, while in prison? --Daniel (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 September 2012

Please change the link at the end of the section ==Budapest murder and trial== (section 2) from ] to ]. This will bypass a redirect. Hgrosser (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Yunshui 雲‍水 09:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

2 edit requests

Could you please add the official statement of France to the article under Ramil_Safarov#Other_countries_and_international_organizations? I think it should be placed between Russia and Sweden.

•  France: Foreign Ministry said that "France expresses her concern following the announcement of the pardon granted to Safarov by the Azerbaijani authorities". As one of the Minsk Group countries, France is "strongly committed to a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, believes that this decision risks seriously damaging the negotiation efforts and the establishment of a climate of trust between the parties."

Second request is to replace "A demonstration is planned in Budapest's Kossuth Square on September 4. More than 2 thousand people have joined the event on Facebook." with "On September 4 a demonstration took place in front of the Hungarian Parliament Building in Kossuth Square. It was reported that about two thousand Hungarians protested against their government actions."

Thanks.--Երևանցի _talk 15:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done De728631 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible fork

Extradition of Ramil Safarov. I'm not sure if a separate page is needed for the extradition at this moment and it doesn't seem to me appropriate that a new article has cropped up which can be edited, while this one can't. Perhaps a merge is in order.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed that as well. I support the merger, there is really no need for another article. George Spurlin (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Support merging too. I've put a merge tag there. Brandmeister 17:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Extradition article has been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Extradition of Ramil Safarov. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support merging --Daniel (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Extradition of Ramil Safarov is created/written based on different sources and provides references to every content. The article about Ramil Safarov contains general information and biography about this officer, while the other article includes information about extradition and some other relevant information. The article Extradition of Ramil Safarov is going to be improved with different aspects and views. The content will be completely different than the article about officer. Any contribution is welcomed. Konullu September 6, 2012. —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not supported - the article Ramil Safarov includes information about his life (biography, trial, prison life, popularity resons, etc.), while the article Extradition and pardon of Ramil Safarov includes information that happened and continues to happen after his extradition (August 31, 2012). Therefore the brief information about extradition and pardon in this article is enough, we can give the link to the extradition article in this page and to avoid duplication of information in two articles to avoid possible fork. Sincerely, Konullu (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 September 2012

Could you please add the following information to the Extradition and pardon section?

According to some reports, a week before Safarov's release, there were talks over a loan of 2-3bn euros from Azerbaijan to Hungary. However, Hungary's prime minister has denied any secret deal with Azerbaijan.

1. "Azerbaijan - Pardon granted to M.Safarov – Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesman (September 3, 2012)". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France. September 3, 2012. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
2. "Hungarians protest against release of Azeri officer". Reuters. September 4, 2012. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
3. ^ "Azeri killer Ramil Safarov: Nato chief 'concerned'". BBC News. 6 September 2012. Retrieved 6 September 2012.

Daniel (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks more like a dismantled rumour, not worthy of inclusion in my opinion. Brandmeister 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet enough news agencies and respectable analysts have made a connection with this "rumor" as the true motive for Hungary's otherwise inexplicable release of a convicted murder. You ever notice that not everything here is contingent on one's own personal beliefs? If it quacks like a duck...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Safarov requested the transfer himself, I added it to the article some time ago. The rest seems to be Aliyev's decision as it's only up to president to pardon according to Constitution. I remember Safarov's interview, where he said that the decision to pardon was unexpected for him. Brandmeister 21:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The transfer has been requested earlier (2008 I think?) but refused, exactly on the grounds that it is not guaranteed that he would serve his punishment. The Strasbourg agreement does not require countries to do the transfer, it only allows them. --Tgr (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Some reports" was this article of Hungarian economic newspaper Figyelő, which claimed the information came from an unnamed government source. (Note this was days before the extradition, when this information didn't seem politically significant.) Some member of the government denied this the next day.

At any rate, the extradition being part of some business deal between Hungary and Azerbaijan is treated as a fact by the Hungarian press (including most of the pro-government press, who defend the action saying this is the normal order of things in politics that moral regards are overriden by economic ones, and cite international parallels such as the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi or Varoujan Garabedian, but do not dispute that the extradition was done in the hope of economic advantages). So it is not a majority POV, at least in Hungary. --Tgr (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that in Hungary the link between this loan and the Safarov's release is treated not as a "dismantled rumour", but as a "fact" by most of the Hungarian press (including the pro-government press)?--Daniel (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes (including the moderate pro-government press, anyway - the really biased ones would never question a direct denial by government officials). Some suggest that the government didn't realize he would be let free, or let free this quickly and this obviously (and point out that the recent dealings were made over the head of the foreign ministry, by some high-level government members who are not too savvy diplomatically), but the transfer itself is generally treated as part of a secret deal. What exactly the other side of the deal is is usually seen as an open question (e.g. there have been guesses about Azerbaijan making business with Hungarian oil company MOL). --Tgr (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that The Economist suggested that "Azerbaijan had promised to buy state bonds from Hungary in exchange for Safarov’s release." --Երևանցի _talk 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Economist didn't suggested that: "Many scent a dirty deal behind the scenes, as this post on Hungarian Spectrum, a liberal blog, outlines. The main theory is that Azerbaijan had promised to buy state bonds from Hungary in exchange for Safarov’s release." A blog post suggested that and Economist simply reference to the suggestion. The fact that their reference is a blog and not a reliable source tells what kind of suggestion it is. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's have the entire quotation from the Economist:

The Hungarian media has reported that Azerbaijan has been pressing Hungary to release Safarov since his conviction. Many scent a dirty deal behind the scenes, as this post on Hungarian Spectrum, a liberal blog, outlines. The main theory is that Azerbaijan had promised to buy state bonds from Hungary in exchange for Safarov’s release.
Hungary needs the money. It has been in protracted and so far fruitless negotiations with the IMF and the European Union for a stand-by credit arrangement. The Hungarian government is actively seeking other potential investment partners in Asia and the Middle East. Mr Orbán visited Azerbaijan in June.
Hungarian and Azeri officials dismissed such claims.

The facts are:

a) Azerbaijan has been pressing Hungary to release Safarov since his conviction.

b) Mr Orbán has visited Azerbaijan in June.

c) Hungary, which depends on Russia for most of its energy imports, has been seeking to expand its economic relations with oil-rich Azerbaijan.
Laszlo Borbely, the deputy director of Hungary’s Government Debt Management Agency last week told daily newspaper Magyar Nemzet that talks between the two countries about a possible purchase by Azerbaijan of up to 3 billion euros ($3.77 billion) in Hungarian bonds were only at an “exploratory phase” for now. (quote from Washington Post)

Reliable news sources have continuously referenced these transaction in articles relating to Safarov, however, the Hungarian and Azerbaijani officials have denied any connection between the two. Therefore, it will be accurate to include both that such negotiations have taken place, and that the two country officials have denied any connection between the two. Chaojoker (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not gonna be accurate if you use the Economist article to reference the bond claims as if the claims belong to the Economist. As far as I can see reliable news sources report on the bond claims in the context that the claims belongs to blogs and such sources just like the Economist does. So, the bond claim can be added but the proper context should also be given not to mislead readers. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty the accusations came not from the blogs but from the "Hungarian business newspaper". As Tgr has mentioned above it was a Hungarian economic newspaper Figyelő, which is a reliable source. Later these accusations were repeated by other media in Hungary and also appeared in the blogs, one of them happened to be a liberal blog Hungarian Spectrum, which was mentioned by The Economist: "Many scent a dirty deal behind the scenes, as this post on Hungarian Spectrum, a liberal blog, outlines". --Daniel (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Then that article from that newspaper should be referenced but the point that the source of the newspaper is not disclosed should be mentioned. Though I'm not sure about using a non-English source. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Deep Throat identity was not revealed for over 30 years, so I'm not surprised that this "unnamed government source" (as the newspaper described it) prefers not to be disclosed. Would you like to provide the exact wording of this edit, which you would be happy with? --Daniel (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a place where you can write about things that you can source directly to. The current version is clearly a disruptive edit as it abuses the reference. The sentence I would suggest: "Various Hungarian blogs and a Hungarian newspaper have suggested that "Azerbaijan had promised to buy state bonds from Hungary in exchange for Safarov’s release."" Then you reference the blog article, Economist article and other third degree sources. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You can use the Reuters and the Economist articles. The BBC and France Diplomatie links don't really talk about the bond issue. At least I don't see it when I search for it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Motive: Double standards?

This article: The person (Azeri) has killed one Armenian. Motive: "Ethnic hatred" (Massacres of Azerbaijanis by Armenians.)

Article Gourgen Yanikian: The person (Armenian) has killed two Turks. Motive: "Revenge". (Massacres of Ottoman Armenians.)

Both persons have killed for "revenge" of massacres against their people or both have killed for "ethnic hatred". Why do we have motive "revenge" in one article and "ethnic hatred" in the other? Do we have double standards in Misplaced Pages? I request serious comments, please... --E4024 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Should I copy my reply from Yanikyan page? Are you going to spam anymore articles? George Spurlin (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am asking the WP community. (And not spamming anything. I only wish to have an objective WP.) --E4024 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It is true. Unfortunately, there is a double standarts in English Misplaced Pages. If killer is Armenian, he is hero. If killer is Turkish or Azeri, he is terrorist. I'm trying to fix it but some users prevent me.--Reality 14:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It proves double standards.--Reality 17:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The two murders don't seem that similar: Yanikian made careful plans to kill high-ranking members of the state, while Safarov just killed some random Armenian who was placed in the same class. In other words, Safarov killed his victim for being Armenian, Yanikyan killed his for being member of a government guilty in genocide. The first can be fairly characterized as ethnic hatred, the second not. (That said, I wouldn't call it revenge, either - that only make sense if you accept collective responsibility of all members of the government. For the lack of a better term, maybe it could be called terrorism.) --Tgr (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on Gourgen Yanikiyan. But not for Safarov. Because only source of "ethnic hatred" budapest.sumgait.info. This is a doubtful situation. You can try to talk about Varoujan Garabedian. --Esc2003 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about all "ians" or "ovs" or whomever. WP has to have one standard for all these cases: Look at the violence not the violent... --E4024 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I said for Tgr. I think Varoujan Garabedian and Ramil Safarov events are so similar. They received a life sentence. Then gets pardoned. They were welcomed like a hero in ceremony. Authorities gave them apartments. --Esc2003 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Killers made heros

Read the section "Legacy" in Article Gourgen Yanikian. As long as there are people who make heros out of assassins, there will be more and more assassins. Here in WP we should treat all the assassins with the same approach. (See above talk.) --E4024 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP. George Spurlin (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Armenian diaspora

Please add at the Armenian diaspora section the movilizations that the Armenian community in Argentina effected at the Hungary embassy at Buenos Aires, Argentina. --Liepaja1941 (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Télam link: http://www.telam.com.ar/nota/37138/ (in Spanish)

Telam presents Safarov as Hungarian. It does not look very much like an RS really. --E4024 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That was a Télem error. Here is another link about the protest in Buenos Aires: http://noticias.terra.com.ar/internacionales/protesta-armenia-en-buenos-aires-frente-a-embajada-hungara,40a70d8ad7b99310VgnVCM5000009ccceb0aRCRD.html (in Spanish).--Liepaja1941 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

They (Terra) only quote the Télam text and I can't find any reliable sources that cover these protests. Please try to find betters news coverage. De728631 (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Another sourse (Reporter): http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2012-08-31-outrage-as-hungary-releases-azeri-axe-murderer--Liepaja1941 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That link seems to be broken. All I get is a large table full of markup code and web templates from their site. De728631 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

http://www.reporter.am/go/article/2012-08-31-outrage-as-hungary-releases-azeri-axe-murderer <<<this one works--Երևանցի _talk 17:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yerevanci for the link correction. Muchas gracias. --Liepaja1941 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Extradition and pardon section

Extradition and pardon section needs to provide link to the main article:

Konullu (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)