Talk:Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov

Years of birth and death
I changed Jabrayilov's year of birth to 1899. I have no source for this, but I doubt that this man died at one year of age, after having fought in the Second World War fifty-seven years before he was born.

Also, if he died in 2000 then why is this article categorized under 1994 deaths? TJSwoboda (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the article was vandalized before you edited it. Fixed now. Grand  master  06:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fake article
In English and French books, there is no word about the "celebrated Azerbaijani activist of the French Resistance".
 * Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov
 * "Akmed Michel"
 * "Ahmed Michel"
 * "Armed Michel"
 * "Ahmad Michele"

According to Russian sources, he fought in the group of Captain Delplangue. Letter from Russian Wikipedia

Van: musee-resistance Verzonden: dinsdag 30 juni 2015 15:49 Aan: *** Onderwerp: RE:M. Delplanque ou Delplangue probablement surnommé Dumas Bonjour, Après consultation de notre fonds d'archives, nous ne conservons pas de documents sur cette personne. Elle n'est pas non plus référencée dans l'ouvrage de Michel Goubet sur la Résistance en Haute- Garonne. Peut être pourriez-vous contacter le Centre Jean Moulin à Bordeaux pour poursuivre vos recherches ? Cordialement, Conseil Départemental de la Haute-Garonne Musée départemental de la Résistance et de la Déportation 52 allée des demoiselles 31400 TOULOUSE —————   Van: *** Verzonden: dinsdag 30 juni 2015 13:31 Aan: musee-resistance Onderwerp: M. Delplanque ou Delplangue probablement surnommé Dumas Cher Monsieur, Madame, Je cherche tous les informations concernant M. Delplanque ou Delplangue probablement surnommé Dumas. M. Delplanque ou Delplangue était (selon le Wikipedia) un de commandants de maquis en région de Toulouse et a participé a la libération de Bordeaux. Cordialement, *** It's just soviet propaganda fake.

Divot (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, one can find something about Capitaine Delplanque here : . 84.98.254.48 (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But nothing about Jabrayilov. Divot (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov: real person or Soviet propaganda?
At the suggestion of, I'm bringing this matter to the experts here. A recent news article discusses how Armenian Wikipedians have discovered that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov may be a Soviet propaganda creation. The English Wikipedia article discusses him as a real person, but every single one of the cited sources is in Russian. (copied from wt:milhist) Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am generally not a fan of taking Armenian articles about Azeris seriuosly, but since I participated in the development of this one in real time, I am inclined to agree. Whereas the person with this name apparently existed and even participated in the French resistance, most of what was ascribed to him in the Soviet sources user for creation of this article is a fake.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The Russian Wikipedia article has been proposed for deletion; I haven't read the entirety of the (extremely long and thorough) discussion there, but what I have read suggests that this one should be proposed for deletion as well. Languagehat (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to AfD it. (I guess PROD would not work).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a French source. I will add more stritcly French sources later if people are going to keep claiming this is a hoax. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What you added is a blog. I suspect reliable French sources about this person do not exist. And please do not remove the template until the talk page discussion has been finished.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding the hoax template. Even if this person was a product of Soviet propaganda, that does not mean this article should be deleted as hoax. is for articles on invented subjects with no reliable sources confirming their existence. Jabrayilov has extensive reliable sources and meets every criteria for notability; We are not here to decide the "truthfulness" of history or do investigative journalism; we create articles based on what is reported by reliable sources. There are many articles on hoaxes or propaganda - see the article on Vasily Zaitsev as an example.  —Мандичка YO 😜 01:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is adding db-hoax as far as I can see. This is just an article about a hoax. It might be a notable hoax or not notable, I have no opinion on this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant regular hoax not db-hoax. Either way, this article does not meet the WP criteria of a hoax (invented with no sources verifying anything). —Мандичка YO 😜 06:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? "This is just an article about a hoax." I wasn't aware it had been decided it was a hoax. Why are you stating this is a hoax if you have no opinion? As for the notability, you have seen the large number of sources at the Russian article (some of which have been added here) and you are capable of understanding them, so it is bizarre to me that you are claiming lack of notability. The  template you keep adding is not to be used for this purpose; there are notability templates you should be using instead. As for the continued claim of this as a hoax, where are the reliable source stating this? I have no problem with such a section or discussion saying some have said this may just be propaganda (such as at the Zaitsev article); however, we must have a source stating this is propaganda. Also, this is a blog from a reliable source IMO. (a French political figure who is notable enough for his own WP article, and the son of a resistance fighter), but regardless, as I stated I will add more French sources. In the meantime, please kindly remove the hoax template and replace it with a more suitable notability template if that's what you think.  [User:Wikimandia| —Мандичка ]]YO 😜 01:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have apparently read the Russian deletion discussion. They clearly demonstrated this is a hoax - a completely made up bio which was then taken by state propaganda. They also found that reliable French sources do not exist. The only remaining question is whether this is sufficient or not to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a myth. This article was deleted in Russian Wikipedia (see: ru:Джебраилов, Ахмедия Микаил оглы, ru:ВП:Википедия:К_удалению/28_июня_2015 and https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D1%84_%D0%BE_%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5:_%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0_%D0%B4%D0%B5_%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8F_%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%B8%D0%B7_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B8) and in French Wikipedia (see fr:Discussion:Ahmadiyya_Jabrayilov/Suppression, fr:Ahmadiyya_Jabrayilov). Кадош (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"deleted in Russian Wikipedia" - Article about Azerbaijani hero of Great Patriotic War deleted from Wikipedia due to contradicting sources - english translation. Divot (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * : It is not a myth. I didn't aggree with the deletion. Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is really notable person as a participant of Resistance. There is a lot of sources claiming that. And nothing which can proof that he is myth. Only original research of some Wikipedia users. I also took part in that discussion. Also I visited house-museum of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov in Shaki, had a discussion with the director of the museum, Javanshir Jabrayilov, who is the son of Ahmadiyya, made photos of awards, documents, original photos from France and letters to him. Also Javanshir Jabrayilov gave me all scans of the documents and photographs of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov. During the research of Wikipedia users we identify some unclear moments in the biography of Jabrayilov. But it doesn't means that all biography of Jabrayilov is "Soviet-era hoax". It is normal that there are many unclear moments in the events of World War II. But during the discussion we confirmed that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov really took part in Resistance. In 1970s he visited France, we can see how really participants of Resistance (Rene Chambar, Louis Lasbareilles etc.) greet him. We can see how they visited memorial for Soviet victims. This visit was also documented in French "Sud Ouest" newspaper, where we can also see a photo of Jabrayilov. We cannot ignore these facts. We also cannot ignore the fact of the presence of French awards of Jabrayilov in his house-museum (Croix de Guerre, Croix des services militaires volontaires, Insignia for the Military Wounded, Croix du combattant etc.). Médaille militaire we can see only in the historical photos, which Jabrayilov brought from France (as his son said to me this medal was taken from him in Moscow in 1966, when Jabrayilov was invited to greet Charles de Gaulle). So, according to the rules of Wikipedia Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is really notable as a participant of Resistance to have an article about him in Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * - why do you not understand the difference between government propaganda/planted stories, and WP:HOAX? Do you need this explained further?  —Мандичка YO 😜 16:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the "facts" in the article are false. This means it is a hoax. I am not sure how I can be more clear. It does not immediately mean that the article needs to be deleted (though I personally voted delete), but if it is kept it should be completely re-written portraying the subject as a product of state propaganda. If we remove hoax, the reader may think that whatever is written in the article is correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion from Russian and French Wikipedia
Meduza is well-known reliable Russian media (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meduza). "Armenian" media just translate Meduza to english.

More, we have KP's story about deletion -. Divot (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

«Википедия» признала выдумкой историю о советском герое Джебраилове - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. Divot (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. But I removed Armenian media due to misinformation about facts from the talk on Russian deletion page. First of all, they write that according Semiryaga Jebrayilov Bordeaux was liberated before Paris. But it was according to "Baku Worker" newspaper, not Semiryaga. Semiryaga didn't write that Bordeaux was liberated before Paris. Second, there is no any sources talking about "Victor Delplanque". It was Gaston Delplanque who was also mentioned on talk as comander of Dumas. Another falsificated moment. --Interfase (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Все правильно пишет Панорама. Джебраилов утверждал, что он участвовал и в штурме Парижа (даже был ранен) и в штурме Бордо. А в БакРабочем 1966 года он описывает штурм Бордо, а потом пишет "И вот наконец Париж". Так что тут без вариантов, Джебраилов именно это и говорит, сначала Бордо, потом Париж. Фальсификация не в Панораме, а у Джебраилова. Это же все было в обсуждении, коллега. Divot (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Неправильно пишет Панорама. Она пишет: Bordeaux was liberated before Paris, according to Semiryaga, while in reality it was vice versa. Так где у Семиряги такое написано? Цитату можно привести? --Interfase (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Они вполне могли какие-то детали перепутать в таком обсуждении. Но факт удаления страниц и резонанса они подтверждают. Азербайджанские медиа вообще ахинею на ахинее пишут, но как факт медийного интереса они вполне авторитетны. Divot (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Это не просто "какие-то детали перепутать", а явное введение в заблуждение с целью дискредитации источника. --Interfase (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ну конечно, без них Семиряга с его героическим штурмом Бордо, которого никогда не было, считался бы надежным источником, но армяне дискредитировали. ))) Ну да ладно, информация есть, остальное неважно. Надо вечером ещё этого нового политолога внести для полноты картины. Divot (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Для полноты картины вам придется перечислить все ее аргументы за подлинность истории. Cathry (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Which French medals?


I can't read the Russian, Armenian or Azerbaijani sources. Do they identify the French medals he is meant to have been awarded in the row of six in the image to the right?

According to the article, he was awarded the Médaille militaire, Croix de guerre and the Croix du combattant.

Well, the first medal in the row - red star with gold sunburst "halo" - looks like a Russian medal but appears to be the French Insigne des blessés militaires (Insignia for the Military Wounded), although the red ribbon with three blue stripes is wrong (see below).

The second medal with cross pattée and crossed swords appears to be a French Croix de Guerre, which can have several different ribbons, depending on when and why it was awarded, but this red-yellow striped one is also wrong. The ribbon should be green with five red stripes and thin red edges (for the First World War) or green with three red stripes and broad red edges (Second World War), or blue with broad red edges (otherwise), or green with dark blue stripes (Vichy).

The ribbon of the Médaille militaire has always been yellow with green edges. There is no such ribbon here. The form of the medal has changed slightly over time, but has always been a circular medallion hanging from a device, and does not match any of those in the image above.

The fourth medal appears to be a Croix du combattant, but the ribbon should be light blue with seven red stripes and thin light blue edges, not red with two broad yellow stripes.

This is what they should look like:

Now, this could be a cock-up rather than a conspiracy. Has the museum just got it wrong, and hung French medals on ?Russian ribbons? But surely there would be some records in France, if he had been awarded these medals? Colour me sceptical. Ferma (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Divot (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are several spellings of his name in Latin alphabet and aliases also, so this answer is not comprehensive Cathry (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Besides, Wikipedia should rely on published material and while those scans might be acceptable on good faith, they may approach WP:OR as well. Brandmeistertalk  13:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. This document says nothing. For example here his name is "Djabraïlov Michel", here - Djebrajlov Ahmedia Mikhailovich. Also don't forger that during resistance he was known as Akmed Michel. --Interfase (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I was in this museum and took the photos of these medals. The Médaille militaire is not in the museum. We can see it only in old photos. The son of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov, Javanshir Jabrayilov, who is the director of his house-museum said to me that this medal was taken from Jabrayilov during his visit to Moscow in 1966. The ribbons are different because, according to Javanshir Jabrayilov, the original ribbons were very old and were replaced with other ones. So don't pay attention on the ribbons. --Interfase (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The medals, which are present in the museum, are: Insignia for the Military Wounded, Croix de Guerre, Croix des services militaires volontaires, Combatant's Cross, Médaille Société des Volontaires and Médaille du Titre de Reconnaissance de la Nation. --Interfase (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This really doesn't matter. We are not Internet sleuths. It very well be that Jabrayilov's life is complete propaganda, but propaganda is not the same as WP:HOAX. There's plenty of articles on propaganda and hoaxes that are notable. Incidentally, in the letter from the French government, it says they did not find any record under the name of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov in these three databases. His name in France was Ahmed Michel, which is not even close to Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov, so I'm confused why the letter did not mention an equally failed search for Ahmed Michel.  —Мандичка YO 😜 16:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia should rely on published material and while those scans might be acceptable on good faith" - Ok. I deleted French medals, Wikipedia should rely on published material. Divot (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT. These awards are published actually. Each guest of this museum can see them there, on the uniform of Jabrayilov. --Interfase (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)



Arbitrary break
Thanks for all of that. Just sticking to the medals, if they were awarded as claimed, then surely there would be a record in France under at least one version of one of his possible names. Is there no French official record or database that can be searched online? For recipients of significant official awards in the UK, they are (almost) all listed in the London Gazette for example: see https://www.thegazette.co.uk/

OK, so, on the other three medals, I agree, the third medal (after the Insigne des blessés militaires and the Croix de guerre) would appear to be the "Croix des services militaires volontaires" (indented cross on a blue ribbon with one broad red stripe) although, like with the other three, the ribbon appears to be incorrect. See

For the fifth and sixth medals, here is an example of the "Médaille Société des Volontaires 14-18 39-45" and of the "Titre de reconnaissance de la Nation" although that page suggests it is an unofficial award; the "rope" cross appears to be based on the croix d'Agadès. Is either of these medals awarded by the French government? Or are they awarded by a private body? (Incidentally, one of these links illustrates that it is possible to buy examples on the internet. But unlike the other four, these two at least seem to have the correct medal ribbons!)

Can someone enquire of the museum staff where the ribbons came from? One of the ribbons (broad red and yellow stripes) resembles this: Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal. The red-white-blue one resembles these: Conspicuous Gallantry Cross or France and Germany Star. It seems a bit odd to hang medals from ribbons selected seemingly at random that are entirely unrelated to the original award.

So, just to be clear, are we relying on the word of the family (and their presence in the museum, and the old photos of unknown provenance) that these medals were awarded? Are there any reliable independent sources?

Also, do we know why the Médaille militaire was taken away in 1966, and why was he left with the other medals at that time? Ferma (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with Jabrayilov is that no single French reliable source has ever been found. Most likely, they do not exist. We are relying on words of the family.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is several reliable independent sources about his awards. According to G. Mekhtiyev (Мехтиев, Г. Г. За социалистическую Родину // Вечно живые традиции — Б. : Азернешр, 1968.) Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov was awarded with 8 awards of France. Accoding to Mikhail Semiryaga (Семиряга М. И. Советские люди в европейском сопротивлении / Под ред. Н. Г. Цырульникова. — М.: Наука, 1970) among the medals of Jabrayilov were Médaille militaire, Croix de Guerre and Croix des services militaires volontaires. Médaille militaire was also mentioned in the article about Jabrayilov in Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia. His son doesn't know exactly where were the ribbons came from. As he said to me, he only knows that the original ribbons were very old and were replaced with others. --Interfase (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Photos
I am sorry, but since there is no freedom of panorama in Azerbaijan (and also not in France), most of the photos are of copyrighted material. I will eventually nominate them for deletion on Commons whatever is the POV they are intended to prove in this article. Pls try to use free pictures where possible, upload those which are absolutely needed here as a fair use, or, even better, convince the government of Azerbaijan to introduce freedom of panorama (this will not save the newspapers, but will save the monument and possibly the house-museum).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see only two possibly unfree photos concerning freedom of panorama (the monument and house-museum), this is not "most of the photos". Brandmeistertalk  18:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the picture of the newspaper; in addition, the PD-France photos are highly doubtful, and I am not sure they would survive AfD on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Victory anniversary medals
, please stop adding disputed information about the awards which were received by the son of Jabrayilov after his death. It is normal when the children of war participants receive medals of their parents after their death. And there is nothing strange. Meduza just copied what was published in Wikinews. It doesn't make this fact strange. Don't violate WP:CONS and stop edit warring. In case of continue adding this disputed information without any consensus here I will arise an issue on Administrator's noticeboard. --Interfase (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"It is normal" - really? It's just your opinion. Medusa said "Награды тоже выглядели сомнительно" - сомнительно = dubious. Divot (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First, Medusa said it general about the awards. Second, according to the context it was "dubious" for Wikipedia users which is not reliable and notable, of course. And of course it is normal to receive such medals after death. There are a lot of examples when such awards were dedicated after death of the person (e.g. this person recieved the same medal after death). --Interfase (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "it is normal to receive such medals after death" - it is normal only to receive such medals "посмертно" (posthumous), and only with decoration certificate. Without decoration certificate it's just a peace of metal. Divot (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who said that there was no decoration certificate? --Interfase (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoax
do not remove the note that this is a hoax until otherwise substantively proven. The fact that you said something during the nomination, what you will do if the nomination result would be keep does not mean that you have obtained the legitimacy of such an action. I already told you about this on the delete page. You haven’t answered anything. ·Carn !? 14:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Pay attention to what said in the  section. ·Carn !? 14:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I read over and over in both deletion discussions the conviction that this is not a hoax. There's already a disputed tag that covers disagreement over factual accuracy in the article. The hoax tag adds nothing to that. The lead makes clear the existence of the controversy. Given that, we no more need a hoax tag here than we do on the articles for figures from the scriptures of various religions. That isn't to say that the content after the lead couldn't prefix assertions with "According to accounts" or something to that effect, to emphasize that Wikipedia isn't coming down on one side or the other. Largoplazo (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unaccuracy and deliberate hoaxes are two different things. Disputed does not allow to add clarification like "Part of the information in this article is based on Soviet and Azerbaijani hoax."·Carn !? 16:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has plenty of articles about real-world hoaxes. The articles about those hoaxes are not, themselves, hoaxes, and are therefore not tagged as hoax. Perhaps Category:Hoaxes is what you have in mind. Largoplazo (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If an article contains misinformation that an editor added in good faith not realizing that the source was a hoax, that doesn't make the article or the contribution to it a hoax. It just means it's false, and that you are aware of the origin of that false information in a hoax. Tagging an article as a hoax corresponds to warning a user for posting hoaxes to Wikipedia. That would be appropriate only if you had sufficient grounds to accuse the user of posting false information knowingly. Unless you know that the editor's own intent was to perpetrate a hoax, it's inappropriate to tag the editor's contributions as a hoax. Largoplazo (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to charge me with accusations of Wikipedia participants in the preparation of hoaxes. I think I clearly say that the source of this hoax is state propaganda. Even a bona fide participant can add false information if he has source that been made up. A note that there are inaccuracies in the article is less powerful than a note that a deliberate distortion of reality was made in this topic (hoax). Therefore, if you insist that there is only one template - it is better to leave hoax, not Disputed. This will warn both readers and editors that sources should be checked with particular care. Soon the Azerbaijanis will make a film about Jabrayilov - and what, will we happily begin to add statements from this film to the article?
 * These considerations are not valid for articles on religious topics, since their mythological nature follows from the subject, which is not in this case (a military figure is not a prophet).·Carn !? 10:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "A note that there are inaccuracies in the article is less powerful than a note that a deliberate distortion of reality was made in this topic (hoax)." That's like "a charge of theft is less powerful than a charge of murder, so it's better to charge a thief with murder even if he didn't kill anyone". Largoplazo (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not all analogies apply to all situations, and your text contains direct logical errors. However, in Russian criminal law there is a practice of absorbing a longer term with a shorter one.·Carn !? 08:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for removing the tag in the absence of a clear consensus, but I did so because the AFD being closed as keep seems to have made clear that this was not a hoax, because if it had been a hoax the AFD would have been closed as delete. Clearly there is a concern that this person, though notable, may not have existed in the way the "reliable" sources that establish their notability claim. So of course the controversy surrounding the historical accuracy of these sources needs to be detailed to the extent that said controversy is also described in such sources. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your words "the AFD being closed as keep seems to have made clear that this was not a hoax" do not reflect the truth, I wrote why above. There is no such consensus, and this is reflected in the text of the article, in section "Criticism of biographies". I hope that it is not WP:STONEWALL tactics, and I just did not understand your position very well due to the fact that English is not native to me. For example I don't see much the difference between hoax and mystification.·Carn !? 10:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing WP:HOAX and the accuracy of the sources. They are not the same. This article reflects published sources on Jabrayilov, while the criticism is almost entirely based on original research, that is an email correspondence of some Wikipedians which by definition cannot be used as a source for anything. If there are reliable published sources disproving cited sources and demonstrating that Jabrayilov is a hoax, then we can state so. So far all cited criticism links are ultimately based on that email correspondence. Brandmeistertalk  18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We read the first sentence of WP:HOAX "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." than look on "Awards of Jabrayilov in his house-museum in Shaki" picture. This is not sloppiness, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead readers. This is an example of hoax. The fact is that the attribution of written does not relieve the reader of the impression that Dzhabrailov really had these awards.
 * About WP:OR: we are not talking about the part of the article that describes the exposure of hoaxes, we are talking about the relevance of the hoax. This is an internal Wikipedia template, the installation of which requires a reasonable and uncontested position on the discussion page. That is, the requirement of authoritative sources to install the template is not justified. However, I will give the source: https://meduza.io/feature/2015/11/01/dzhebrailov-drug-de-gollya where it says, of course, not about a full-fledged historical study, but about a letter, yes: «the answer of the archives of the Tarn and Garonne department (according to legend, Jebrailov joined the Resistance): “It is not mentioned, it does not appear in the list of awarded Resistance medals”». Since now the text about Dzhabrailov as a myth does not have a sufficient number of sources, and the text about Dzhabrailov as a hero is largely based on discredited sources, until an authoritative historical investigation appears that allows you to write the backbone of the article without relying on sources, with with which Soviet or Azerbaijani propaganda has worked, we will be forced to leave a template about the existence of hoaxes in the text. ·Carn !? 08:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Relying on published sources about Jabrayilov is not an attempt to trick and is inline with WP:Verifiability. If the sources are challenged - that's another matter. The sources confirm that such person did exist, what is disputed is his military actions, not existence. This means a factual dispute, not a hoax. Brandmeistertalk  09:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, in this case the problem with the sources is so serious that the number of problems turns into a qualitatively different problem. In fact, the article mixes the real person and the fictional character of Soviet mythology. ·Carn !? 12:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, we are dealing with an article where the text about a real character and a fictional character is mixed (but we do not have authoritative sources to clearly distinguish one from another). If you think that it is legitimate to replace the template hoax with the template fiction - I will not mind this.·Carn !? 09:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to try to place HOAX tags on the source material if you can find a way to do that. Please explain how you know that whoever added the picture here did so as a hoax rather than by relying in good faith on source material that you claim to be a hoax. Again, the HOAX tag here doesn't mean "the source material is a hoax" but that "the article is a hoax". Largoplazo (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBURO. It is obvious that this article have a problem associated with hoaxing. Yes, perhaps this template is usually used in slightly other cases. I think that if there were no other problems stated on top of the article, then it would be possible to simply indicate the existing problem at the beginning of the article by text.·Carn !? 12:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

MOS:SELFREF
This is not a discussion, and in another encyclopedia it may be written "the article was deleted from Wikipedia" - this is confirmed by sources, the presence of which indicate the significance of the fact. Please return the deleted.·Carn !? 16:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by the fact that you are not deleting the mention of Wikipedia in the "Criticism of biographies" section, you agree with me.·Carn !? 10:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hoax tag removed
Howdy hello! I have removed the WP:HOAX tag on this article, as it is not a hoax in the Wikipedia sense. Hoaxes on Wikipedia are things that do not exist and were made up by the editor, with the intent to deceive our readers. This person seems to have coverage, and actual sources discuss him. Now it is likely that he was made up by the Soviets for propaganda, but in that case, the coverage is still relevant. So while that makes it a Soviet hoax, it is not a Wikipedia hoax. I have removed the tag, as it was cluttering the hoax category and put the article in danger of deletion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple translation issues
Translation issues introduced by people more zealous than educated in foreign languages make this story even more confusing if not ridiculous. The "Poppies squad" makes absolutely no sense, but only if you don't know that Maquis in Russian is spelled "Мак" which is also plural for "Мак" (although with different accent, "Мки") which is Russian word for poppy flower. So it's about a French Resistance squad, not some fictitious "Poppies squad". A "memorable icon"(?!) is nothing more than a memorable lapel pin, "памятный значок" in Russian. The "third raw" also makes no sense (probably meant "row"). 93.80.182.152 (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to correct any errors in that regard. Unclear issues could be discussed further. Brandmeistertalk  08:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)