Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Propaganda

This article is typical Anti-Azerbaijani propaganda. There is not neutral point of view in this article. Authors forgot about Khojaly massacre, Garadaghly Massacre, March days, deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia, 1990 Tbilisi–Agdam bus bombing and other Anti-Azerbaijani acts by Armenians. Or may be they should also create an article Anti-Azerbaijanism by Armenians using information from these articles. I nominated this POV-pushing for deletion. See here. --Interfase (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Which was decided as Keep by a clear margin. And we now have Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The "20% myth"

Thomas de Waal, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War, 2003, pp. 285-286

--Երևանցի talk 19:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Category: Oriental Orthodox congregations established in the 19th century" - agenda?

The discussion has been started here and is tightly connected to the topic of this article here. I just wanted to draw your attention to it. Arminden (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Is regnum.ru, where Viktor Krivopuskov speech was quoted, reliable source?

Statement Sumgait pogrom was never given due assessment by the state; the perpetrators not only remained unpunished but some of them gained titles of national heroes as well as high positions in the government. This led to further escalation of the conflict, as assessed by Memorial. refers to the two sources:

1. Source is MEMORIAL. CHRONOLOGY OF THE CONFLICT , which states : A timely investigation into the circumstances of the pogroms, the identification and punishment of the perpetrators was not carried out, which led to an escalation of the conflict.. No issue with this source.

2. However, second source refers to the article from News site Regnum. which quotes the Viktor Krivopuskov speech in the Yerevan at a ceremony dedicated to the 21st anniversary of the pogroms of Armenians in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgayit. The part of the above statement, referring to this source, is the perpetrators not only remained unpunished but some of them gained titles of national heroes as well as high positions in the government.

So my question: Is news site article, where Viktor Krivopuskov (The Chairman of the Russian Society for Friendship and Cooperation with Armenia) speech was quoted, reliable source?

My proposal is to remove reference to regnum as it is not reliable source and reword statement Sumgait pogrom was never given due assessment by the state; the perpetrators not only remained unpunished but some of them gained titles of national heroes as well as high positions in the government. This led to further escalation of the conflict, as assessed by Memorial to match the information from the MEMORIAL. CHRONOLOGY OF THE CONFLICT : A timely investigation into the circumstances of the Sumgait pogroms, the identification and punishment of the perpetrators was not carried out, which led to an escalation of the conflict.

Dear editors, please share your constructive view. As i'm new on wikipedia, I do not think that it will be right for me to go straight for the edit, so I will wait for others to share their view.--Abrvagl (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

as you are new to wikipedia let me explain this, there are parameters which that according to those we judge whether a source is reliable, including verifiability, reliability, and neutrality; all of which regnum is, and thus is reliable in the context of the article. Other 2 points you should consider as a new user:
  • wanting to remove every statement you don't agree with is disruptive, and not basing your arguments on just personal opinions is a case of WP:JDLI.
  • please try to write more concisely, we don't have all day to read walls of text. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Kevo327, thanks for the advices, I highly appreciate that. Even if we consider regnum itself as reliable source, this specific article is refers to the speech of the Viktor Krivopuskov.

1. Reliability

The news paper article News site Regnum which used as secondary source is not reliable. I explain why. First article basically build on the Viktor Krivopuskov's speech in the Yerevan at a ceremony dedicated to the 21st anniversary of the pogroms of Armenians in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgayit. There is no official transcript of his speech, neither speech of the Victor can be taken as reliable source and neither there are any reliable source confirming following Victor's statements at his speech "the perpetrators not only remained unpunished but some of them gained titles of national heroes as well as high positions in the government." .

2. Neutrality

I doubt neutrality of the Viktor Krivopuskov and his speech at a ceremony dedicated to the 21st anniversary of the Sumgait pogroms. Victor is also The Chairman of the Russian Society for Friendship and Cooperation with Armenia, so neutrality of his speech is under big question.

3. Verifiability

There is no official transcript of Victors speech, but even if we take Regnum as reliable source - it is not possible to verify statement of the Victor that "the perpetrators not only remained unpunished but some of them gained titles of national heroes as well as high positions in the government.", because there no reliable sources confirming that.

I still cant see how we can use News site Regnum source as statement of fact. This can be used maximum as [WP:INTEXT], but not as statement of the fact.


Thanks, --Abrvagl (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked the source provided above. Indeed, Viktor Krivopuskov is not a reliable source. In addition to his known bias, he also makes claims of genocide, etc, which are not supported by any reliable source. And Memorial is a reliable source. Grandmaster 09:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I see, I think this could be solved with minor rewording and attributing "some of them gained titles of national heroes as well as high positions in the government." To Viktor Krivopuskov. - Kevo327 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Krivopuskov is not a reliable source. For such claims we need reliable third party sources, and better more than one. Grandmaster 13:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Same question here, what should be done next? The Viktor Krivopuskov's speech is clearly not a reliable source to make such strong statements in the article, should I apply proposed change? Im asking because 100% sure, that as soon as do the change - it will be reverted. So how does that work? --Abrvagl (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you take this to WP:RSN. Start a discussion on Krivopuskov. Grandmaster 17:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Duplication.

There is already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Armenian_sentiment article, any reason to have separate article on the same topic, but which focusing purely on the Azerbaijan?

This article more looks like propaganda rather than article from encyclopedia. Information provided does not have neutral point of view, mostly bias and in many cases opinions stated as a fact. What is the reason and value having this specific article which spreads hatred?

There is already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Armenian_sentiment article which combines Anti-Armenian sentiment in all countries. Proposal is to WP:ATD-M merge this article with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Armenian_sentiment.

Update Just reviewed [sentiment in Armenia], and discussions on [for deletion/Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia (2nd nomination)] where clear consensus achieved after thorough discussions. AS result of achieved consensus it was agreed to "Redirect to Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment as common for other pages on such subjects.".

It means that there already a case, where similar page was merged with main page. Also I reviewed similar ethnic/national discrimination pages - it is really common for other pages as My very best wishes stated. I think this article(Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan also should be merged with main article (Anti-Armenian sentiment. Dear editors, any thoughts on that?


PS. Just idea from top of the my head. My personal opinion and choice would be to create page Azerbaijani-Armenian sentiment, which would cover both Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan and Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. Positive side will be that reader would understand how sentiments related and will get full picture instead of article which purely one-sided. These articles (AZ/ARM Sentiments) have a very sensitive subject. If you write about them in separate articles, it is almost impossible to present information in such a way that it would be neutral and informing, rather than inciting hatred against Azerbaijanis or Armenians. But it is not subject of discussion, just idea from top of my head. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHER and not the same as the widely voted and redirected one. You also call this article "propaganda" which really shows your intentions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Szmenderowiecki, when you have time, can you also have a look here? My point is that there are two main articles Anti-Armenian sentiment and Armenia–Azerbaijan relations, which left pretty much empty about AZ-ARM relations and sentiments. Whereas there is an article Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan which reflects a mixture of information both about the sentiment and AZ-ARM relations, however one-sided. In my view merging Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan with Anti-Armenian sentiment and Armenia–Azerbaijan relations will improve the way information is represented. My reasonings are:

1. Azerbaijani and Armenian sentiments are interconnected. The majority of the sources on the topic describe and reason ARM-AZ sentiments and relations as a bundle. İn the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan information from the sources referenced one-sided. The deliberate omission of part of the information and the underlining of another part of it is WP:NPOV. This makes the article one-sided and creates a distorted picture for the reader. However, you can not reflect complete information on AZ-ARM relations in the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan article either, because there is already an article on that Armenia–Azerbaijan relations.

2. Merging Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan with Anti-Armenian sentiment and Armenia–Azerbaijan relations will improve the quality of the main articles. Improved quality and content of the Armenia–Azerbaijan relations article means that the reader will get a complete understanding and clear picture. I can see no point in having separate Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan article, while there main articles on that, which left pretty much empty.

--Abrvagl (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You can take this to WP:AFD. Grandmaster 08:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The proper venue for the thing you want to do is articles for deletion or WP:RM, I have no powers to do what you request - I'm only a plain user with no additional rights (hell, even admins shouldn't do what you ask by themselves). However, I see several problems with your proposal off the hat.
  1. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or other stuff doesn't exist) is not a good argument during these discussions.
  2. This article has 26KB of readable prose. This is not very much, but a convincing argument may be made that this requires a standalone topic, as pointed out by the abundance of sources on it, and merging it with that article will most probably make the destination article(s) too large, see WP:SPLIT, and overwhelm the anti-Armenian sentiment article with content on Azerbaijan. Anti-Armenian sentiment already presents with a copy-pasted lead, and this is enough for the general understanding of that topic, as this is an overview article. Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is not about the societal aspect of the relations, as this article is about, but purely about foreign policy, as are other articles of type X-Y relations, so in fact it's perfectly OK as far as I see it. That the govt participates in it is not exactly a matter of foreign policy but domestic policy.
  3. If your point is that this encyclopedia does not give enough weight to the other side of the problem (that is, anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia), you can just as well expand the relevant section or maybe even spin it off if the size is big enough. But you will have to work on that and find some really good sourcing, I can't be bothered.
  4. If your point is that this article is not neutral because it doesn't present the other viewpoint (which? the Azeri govt viewpoint is rather well-represented here), see Armenian genocide denial as an example of an FA article that doesn't. (which, again, it sort of does, but only as in "Turkey denies doing that, but no one buys their arguments").
In any case, my advice is not to refer this to AfD/RM. If you assert that this article is tendentious, find reliable sources to that effect and fix it. The solution isn't merging it, it's improving it as is. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Szmenderowiecki I know that you do not have such power, and I know that Talk page is not a place where such decisions can be given, however, I decided first to Talk about my points to see other editors view on them rather than jumping straight to the WP:RM. But first, using that opportunity I want to thank you for your efforts and sharing your opinion, please do not consider below as arguing, for me we just having friendly talk.
You are right, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can not be counted as an argument in this case. I just highlighted it because on previous Talks proposals on WP:RM this article ricocheted with the fact that there is an opposite article to this article.
Although Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan may look as an amount of information sufficient to be a stand-alone article, if you consider that part of it is actually not about Anti-Armenian sentiment (But more about AZ-ARM relations), and drop unnecessary information, then there will be not much readable prose left.
On point 4, Here are just some quick examples (not to discuss, just for example):
1. A 2012 opinion poll found that 91% of Azerbaijanis perceive Armenia as "the biggest enemy of Azerbaijan. - But not mentions information from the source that "63% of Armenians perceive Azerbaijan as "the biggest enemy of Armenia""
2. From 1918 to 1920, organized killings of Armenians occurred in Azerbaijan, especially in the Armenian cultural centers in Baku and Shusha. - what was happening was mutual, but in the article everything is written as if what was happening was only about the sentiments against the Armenians.
3. In response to these demands, anti-Armenian rallies were held in various cities, where Azeri nationalist groups incited anti-Armenian sentiments that led to pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku. - although sources state that "triggered waves of pogroms and violent deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan and Azeris from Armenia.", the article mentions only pogroms of the Armenians, but not mentions pogroms of the Azerbaijanis. This creates a wrong impression on the reader.
4. A number of international and Soviet sources described the events as genocide of the Armenian population. - Although the source state "these killings are examples of genocide directed by the Soviet regime against its own people", in the article it is written as if it was genocide conducted against Armenians.
5. Human Rights Watch reports - HRW reports reflects that both sides conducted war crimes, however, the information on the article represented selectively highlighting only where Azerbaijan did the war crimes.
6. the government of Azerbaijan condemns any visit by foreign citizens to the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh.... Azerbaijan considers entering these territories through Armenia (as is usually the case) a violation of its visa and migration policy - How this is related to the Anti-Armenian sentiments? Illegal visit to the territories of any country in the world is a violation. This purely goes to ARM-AZ relations article.
Above I just highlighted a few points, which are either one-sided as not reflect full information from the source. or rephrased to fit the article but do not reflect what Is written in the source.
I still can not see the value of having Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan as a separate article, while there are already two main articles Anti-Armenian sentiment and Armenia–Azerbaijan relations that covers this topic. However, you are right that if the majority decides, that topic has every right to be a separate article - then we should work on improving it. There is a very thin line that divides these types of articles from being informative and not biased/negative. We need to ensure that this line never passed.

--Abrvagl (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding points 1-3 and 5, these belong to the dedicated section of the anti-Azerbaijani sentiment article. Expand with the information, find more sources, and maybe you will be able to amass enough content for an article of its own. In any case, the logical extension of the article "anti-Armenian sentiment" is "anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan", and the same will be true for the anti-Azerbaijani sentiment of Armenia if such article appears. I also don't find it necessary to stress every time that Armenians/Azeris retaliated against each other after a massacre or whatever skirmish they had - this belongs more to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict article, unless a specific incident is used as a rallying call against its neighbors (see the article and its Battle of Aghdam invocation).
Point 6 is valid, I've tagged it myself as irrelevant. The occupation of each others' enclaves does belong to the AM-AZ relations.
Point 4 is badly formulated but I understand that the intention was to say that it was the Soviet Union in general, and not the Azeris, who was responsible for the genocide, according to the literary union opinion. I will also do something about it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I see your point. As you are more experienced in editing than me and taking lead in the improvement of the article, won't you mind if I will list you all the improvement points which I marked while reading the article? Then let's discuss them and decide whether improvement is required and if it is required, then how to implement it. Other editors obviously can also join to the discussions on the Talk page --Abrvagl (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Azerbaijani vs Azeri

There is presently a dispute which term is more preferable for use in the article. While both are correct, and none is wrong, in my opinion Azeri is more colloquial, and Azerbaijani is more official and scientific. Therefore while I have no issues with the use of Azeri, I personally prefer Azerbaijani, considering that our main article here is called Azerbaijanis. Thoughts? Grandmaster 14:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I would vote for Azerbaijanis, because In Azerbaijan official nationality is Azerbaijanis and in the article we referring to the things that happened in Armenia and Azerbaijan. But both options are ok to stay. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The current spelling is fine. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
So far there are 2 votes for Azerbaijanis and 1 for Azeris.

Why should it be Azerbaijanis? Article is about sentiments in Azerbaijan. The official nationality in Azerbaijan is Azerbaijanis. "Azeris" is an unofficial name. It is also more scientific. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch/Helsinki report no such information and sectional quoting .

Dear Grandmaster and Kevo327,

I read the Human Rights Watch/Helsinki Seven Years of Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh report and noted following improvements can be made to the following parts of the article:

1. In response to those Armenian demands, anti-Armenian rallies were held in various cities, where nationalist groups encouraged anti-Armenian feeling that led to pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku.

There is no such statement in the Human Rights Watch/Helsinki report stating that the pogroms occurred in response to Armenians demands. Looks like its personal conclusion based on the source. This is not acceptable.

The closest statement is: This demand was taken up by the Karabakh Oblast Soviet, which voted to appeal to the USSR Supreme Soviet for incorporation into the Republic of Armenia. Demonstrations by Armenians in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, in support of their ethnic brethren and continued rallies in Stepanakert prompted intervention by Soviet troops and triggered waves of pogroms and violent deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan and Azeris from Armenia.

Proposal: I propose to replace "In response to those Armenian demands, anti-Armenian rallies were held in various cities, where nationalist groups encouraged anti-Armenian feeling that led to pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku." to "This demand was taken up by the Karabakh Oblast Soviet, which voted to appeal to the USSR Supreme Soviet for incorporation into the Republic of Armenia. Demonstrations by Armenians in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, in support of their ethnic brethren and continued rallies in Stepanakert prompted intervention by Soviet troops and triggered waves of pogroms and violent deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan and Azeris from Armenia".

2. An estimated 350,000 Armenians left between 1988 and 1990 as a direct result of the violence directed towards them.

This quotation from the report is incomplete. Full quotation states "From 1988 through 1990 an estimated 300,000-350,000 Armenians either fled under threat of violence or were deported from Azerbaijan, and roughly 167,000 Azeris were forced to flee Armenia, often under violent circumstances". Reflecting only part of the information is bias and disinformation. Such approach is not professional and not acceptable.

Proposal: I propose to replace "An estimated 350,000 Armenians left between 1988 and 1990 as a direct result of the violence directed towards them." to "From 1988 through 1990 an estimated 300,000-350,000 Armenians either fled under threat of violence or were deported from Azerbaijan, and roughly 167,000 Azeris were forced to flee Armenia, often under violent circumstances".

--Abrvagl (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

In response to those Armenian demands, anti-Armenian rallies were held in various cities, where nationalist groups encouraged anti-Armenian feeling that led to pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku. This part is sourced in the body of the article, thus doesn't need to be sourced again in the lead. the second part you mention could be included but isn't in the scope of the article. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Kevo327, please point to place where it is sourced? In the body of which article? I can not find any source stating :In response to those Armenian demands, anti-Armenian rallies were held in various cities, where nationalist groups encouraged anti-Armenian feeling that led to pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku.. Such strong statements shall be sourced. Until valid source not provided this statement is a personal opinion.--Abrvagl (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Grandmaster if you also agree with second part of my statement - I will include it. Waiting for you response. --Abrvagl (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:OR, sources must directly support the material being presented, therefore the source must be quoted exactly the same way as it is written, or summarized to accurately reflect what is written in it. Indeed, from the quotes above I can see that HRW talks about pogroms in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. If there are other quotes that support the line included in the article, they need to be presented for discussion. Otherwise, it needs to be presented the same way as HRW wrote it. Grandmaster 19:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I propose following wording, which in line with the provided source and also shows clear picture and neutral - "However, contemporary Armenophobia in Azerbaijan traces its roots to the last years of the Soviet Union, when Armenians demanded that the Moscow authorities transfer the mostly Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast in the Azerbaijan SSR to the Armenian SSR. In response to those demonstrations by Armenians in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, in support of their ethnic brethren and continued rallies in Stepanakert prompted intervention by Soviet troops and triggered waves of pogroms and violent deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan and Azeris from Armenia. From 1988 through 1990 an estimated 300,000-350,000 Armenians either fled under threat of violence or were deported from Azerbaijan, and roughly 167,000 Azeris were forced to flee Armenia, often under violent circumstances."

Grandmaster and Kevo327, are you happy with proposal?

Yes, that is fine. It is what the source quoted says. Grandmaster 09:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Kevo327 I thought of how we can both match the provided source and meanwhile also reflect the body of the article. thoughts?

1. Contemporary Armenophobia in Azerbaijan traces its roots to the last years of the Soviet Union, when Armenians in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, held demonstrations demanding Nagorno-Karabakh's incorporation from the Azerbaijan SSR into Armenia SSR. This demand was taken up by the Karabakh Oblast Soviet which voted to appeal to the USSR Supreme Soviet for incorporation into the Republic of Armenia. Demonstrations by Armenians in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, in support of their ethnic brethren and continued rallies in Stepanakert, prompted intervention by Soviet troops and triggered waves of pogroms and violent deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan(Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku pogroms) and Azerbaijanis from Armenia.

2. Contemporary Armenophobia in Azerbaijan traces its roots to the last years of the Soviet Union, when Armenians in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, held demonstrations demanding Nagorno-Karabakh's incorporation from the Azerbaijan SSR into Armenia SSR. This demand was taken up by the Karabakh Oblast Soviet which voted to appeal to the USSR Supreme Soviet for incorporation into the Republic of Armenia. Demonstrations by Armenians in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, in support of their ethnic brethren and continued rallies in Stepanakert, prompted intervention by Soviet troops and triggered waves of pogroms and violent deportations of Armenians from Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis from Armenia, which led to pogroms of Armenians in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku.

--Abrvagl (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Official position and not correctly referenced information.

Dear Kevo327, First of all I remind you to stop edit wars.

Following points supported with the sources which are not reliable and not related to the [position]:

1. The 2nd President of Azerbaijan, Abulfaz Elchibey during a speech in June 1992, once said "If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku". He also once "threatened to occupy Armenia, wash his feet in Lake Sevan and drink tea on its shores"

Source refers to the Baroness Cox's speech at hearings, parliamentary debates & talks, where she states that As the then Azeri President Elchibey said in June 1992:. a. Baroness Cox speech at hearings is not a reliable source and not an Official Position. Cutting words from her speech as stating them as fact is unacceptable. Basically Abulfaz Elchibey never said that (unless reliable source proving that provided), but Baroness Cox said that Abulfaz Elchibey said that.


2. In 2005, the mayor of Baku, Hajibala Abutalybov during at a meeting with a municipal delegation from Bavaria, Germany stated: "Our goal is the complete elimination of Armenians. You, Nazis, already eliminated the Jews in the 1930s and 40s, right? You should be able to understand us."

Source refers to the PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH KNOLLENBERG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN at the HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. JOSEPH KNOLLENBERG stated that Hajibala Abutalybov said that, no other sources proving his statement available. Speech of the JOSEPH KNOLLENBERG is not reliable source. Cutting words from the JOSEPH KNOLLENBERG speech and stating them as fact in the article is unacceptable (unless reliable source proving that provided).

Proposal: above statement to be deleted from the article as they are not relevant and not proved by reliable sources. --Abrvagl (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

These 2 sources are absolutely unreliable. No official transcripts of those speeches exist, and they are reported by some western politicians. Joe Knollenberg was the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues in the US House of Representatives, and Caroline Cox openly admits in the same source being engaged in "advocacy for the Armenians of Karabakh". Neither of those politicians could have been present when such speeches were allegedly made, so it is nothing but hearsay. Both claims need to be removed. Grandmaster 08:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
2 new sources provided for alleged Abutalibov quote are also not reliable. First one is an opinion piece by certain Anthony Renard, Student at Preparatory Classes for Hight Schools, International Relations/Diplomacy studies. And second one is a self-published source by T.J. Petrowski, "an independent geopolitical analyst and specialist in the Middle East and Central Asia", who refers to: Baghdasarian, Edic. “Caucasian Albania, Azerbaijan Expansonism and Crime.” Dissertation, 2016. None of the sources provide the original source for the claim. It highly unlikely that Baku mayor would say such things to German politicians, and the latter would remain silent on that. Per WP:extraordinary, we need multiple high-quality sources for such claims. Grandmaster 14:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I see that Abutalybov's phrase is also sourced to a certain Le Journal International and appears in the article by Eynulla Fatullayev. Not an Abutalybov's fan, putting it mildly, but I'm not sure if those pass WP:BLPSOURCE. An outside opinion may be needed. Brandmeistertalk 18:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest we immediately remove info about Abutalybov, per WP:BLPREMOVE, because it is not in line with WP:BLP rules. We can take this to WP:BLPN too, if someone still insists on inclusion of this information. Grandmaster 09:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
On second thought, even if any of those sources is acceptable, this is ultimately WP:MINORASPECT: a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. So for NPOV sake this should go anyway. Brandmeistertalk 15:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
It’s not isolated at all and is very consistent with the article. It would be isolated if it were a politician from a random country that Armenia has little relations with. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the paragraph because it doesn't comply with strict RS sourcing for BLPs. I was notified about this problem at the BLP Noticeboards. Since you are already aware that this topic is subject to WP:ARBAA2, edit warring to reinstate may lead to the appropriate sanctions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that statement of the Elchibay should be removed, the provided sources are not reliable, there is big question on their neutrality, and it is not possible to verify them. Basically it is not official transcript of the Baroness Cox speech. Neutrality Baroness Cox is under big question. Neither the statements that she made was confirmed by any reliable source.

When it comes to Abutalubov, this one can not be stated as a fact, however, it can be used as WP:INTEXT, however I vote for removal because it is has little to no relation to the official position, and it is WP:MINORASPECT and not per WP:BLP. sourced to a certain Le Journal International published recently, high probability that it is WP:CIRCULAR. The earliest published source is the article by Eynulla Fatullayev. However, neither realazer.com is a reliable source, nor what said by Eynulla can be verified. No reliable sources available to support Eynulla claims. Being WP:extraordinary requires reliable sources.

--Abrvagl (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Most importantly, Abutalybov is a living person. WP:BLP rules require highest quality sources for claims about living persons. Grandmaster 13:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
So what should be done next? the statements above Abutalibov and Elchibay are sourced with not reliable sources and clearly have no place in this article. Noone replying on the talk page, but I'm 100% sure that as soon as I do the proposed edit - it will be reverted by someone, even if the edit was valid. --Abrvagl (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
And this could be discussed at WP:BLP. Grandmaster 08:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
This was dealt with at WP:BLPN. Info about Elchibey should go too, it is not reliably sourced. It is not a BLP issue, since Elchibey died many years ago, but still lacks reliable sourcing. Grandmaster 08:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Denying entry to Azerbaijan: Ilham Aliyev's interview to Simonyan

ZaniGiovanni, The whole "Denying entry to Azerbaijan" section of this article based on the news papers sources. The TASS news papers, source(https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/13831911) where President of Azerbaijan answering to the question about the Denying entry to Azerbaijan, has straight connection to the topic. Official position of the government is not WP:UNDUE.

Neutrality requires that main space articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl it seems like your WP:SPA journey continues to this day. You really don't make any edits outside of AA and bulk of your edits is on this page. These are some serious tropes of a SPA account. Moreover, you added the WP:UNDUE Aliev quote and removed Elchibay, you're now edit-warring over them. Per WP:ONUS it's on you to reach consensus. Aliev is WP:undue btw, his insiginicant view doesn't have a place in the article, read the guideline. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Please skip your WP:SPA threats, your edit wars and follow WP:AVOIDYOU. Watching your contributions...looks like you never reach the consensus and every bit of changes that you don't like always ends with the debates...who is the WP:SPA than? Anyway, not going to discuss unrelated staff with you.
Lets talk only about the topic. Official commenting the government position on the related topic is not insignificant or WP:undue. It is significant and related, and I read the guideline, it is not right to abuse WP:ONUS. SO we will discuss it further. --Abrvagl (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It is WP:UNDUE when multiple WP:RS contradict Aliev's claims, and do actually state that Armenian national / sounding surname entry denial in Azerbaijan is a very real thing. You would see this if you weren't on an WP:SPA journey. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
However, WP:RS does not contradict officials claims, they just state the fact, but non of the actually investigated why person was denied to enter, but other's also with Armenian nationality and Surnames are allowed? Official comment on that explains WHY. --Abrvagl (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Aliev's claim of "This information does not correspond to reality" isn't supported by any WP:RS. On the contrary, as apparent by the Denying entry to Azerbaijan section of the article and sources cited in it, multiple RS disagree with his quotes and non actually support him, this is the definition of WP:UNDUE. I have nothing else to add here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:RS you talking about it is just news portals which are WP:NEWSORG and only stating the fact. Non of them contradicts Aliev's claim, it is opposite, they are complement each other. But I got your point of view, thanks for sharing. --Abrvagl (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Bottom line is, Aliev quotes aren't supported by anyone in any reliable source. Importantly, there are multiple WP:RS stating the opposite of his claims. All of these combined makes him the definition of WP:UNDUE here. Hope this is clear enough. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Simple stating Aliyev's claim is that Normally Armenians by Nationality or by Surname are not allowed to the Azerbaijan due to safety issues of them. If any Armenian by nationality or surname wants to visit Azerbaijan they need to inform Azerbaijan government in advance and get the approval. Non of the sources in the article contradicts that they all complement that, and many sources proves that Armenians visited Azerbaijan. for example: 1, 2. Can see why information should be one sided on the article. Lets see what others think. --Abrvagl (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
A church official visiting Azerbaijan in an official trip isn't a regular citizen, that's not what the section in the article is about. And please avoid WP:OR, we look at sources when judging information. Most WP:RS are in opposition to Aliev, non actually support his bogus claim. Saying "this information does not correspond to reality" when talking about Armenian citizen's denial of entry among other quotes is his own WP:UNDUE claims that don't have a place here, simple as that. Not sure what else you want me to say. Take this to appropriate noticeboards like WP:DRN if you still think somehow you're in the right here, but it won't change much I can tell you that. You'll discover that 3rd part users don't share your WP:SPA views. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Elchibay's speech

Grandmaster, ZaniGiovanni, Brandmeister, Morbidthoughts. This Talk started in Official position and not correctly referenced information. section of the talk page. I starting it here to make it more clear, as several other points also were discussed over there.

The 2nd President of Azerbaijan, Abulfaz Elchibey during a speech in June 1992, once said "If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku". He also once "threatened to occupy Armenia, wash his feet in Lake Sevan and drink tea on its shores"

Issues are:

1. Not reliable source: Source refers to the Baroness Cox's speech at hearings, parliamentary debates & talks, where she stated that As the then Azeri President Elchibey said in June 1992:. Transcript of the Baroness Cox speech at hearings is not a reliable source and not an Official Position. Cutting words from her speech as stating them as fact is unacceptable. Basically Abulfaz Elchibey never said that (unless reliable source proving that provided), but Baroness Cox said that Abulfaz Elchibey said that.

2. Not neutral Caroline Cox's neutrality is under big question. She openly admits in the same source being engaged in "advocacy for the Armenians of Karabakh". By 2003 she had made more than 60 trips to the region. Frank Pallone, Jr., the co-chairman of the US Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, praised her devotion to Armenia and Karabakh. On 15 February 2006 she was awarded the Mkhitar Gosh Medal by the President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan.

3. Not possible to verify. The only source supporting alleged Abulfaz Elchibey's statement is Baroness Cox's speech at hearings. No reliable source confirms that. No official transcripts of his speeches exists.

For WP:NPOV sake, and for the fact that statement not supported by reliable source - it should be removed from the article. --Abrvagl (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a WP:REDFLAG issue. Googling that exact quote was inconclusive for me and from that single source it's unclear how or where did Baroness Cox get this quote from. Agree with the removal. Grandmaster has been topic-banned, so he can't reply. Brandmeistertalk 11:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, please provide your point. Also please read the talk page before accusing me at "Elchibay you removed yourself as "allegation" so I restored with the Uk source. Please explain yourself in talk. Further edit-wars will result in a report". It was part of the talk page where several editors reached consensus and agreed that it should be removed. --Abrvagl (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Replied in DRN. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A book for this article

There is a book downloadable at Academia.edu that look extremely helpful in expanding this article. For anyone interested it's:

  • Xenophobia Prevention Initiative (2021). ARMENOPHOBIA IN AZERBAIJAN. Aegitas. ISBN 9780369405593.

- Kevo327 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Mixed Messaging of Ilham Aliyev

Dear Kevo327, I reverting your ([edit]) to the article for the following reason:

You added information about living person and supported it with low quality partisan [| article] posted on the unknown most likely partisan news blog. Article itself written in the partisan manner, where author [| cherry-picking] information, while ignoring the significant qualifying information, in order to misrepresent the information. Just few examples from the article:

1. Author states that: "Ilham Aliyev included the message during a speech last week in which he simultaneously labelled Armenians “fascists” who will be forced from Artsakh “like dogs”.", however check of the referenced [| source] reveals that this words were said about Armenia leadership, not Armenians as nation.

2. Author states that: "We will continue to expel these liars. They see who is who now. They see that we were teaching them a lesson they will never forget.". however check of the referenced [| source] reveals that this words were addressed not to Armenians as nation, but about the Armenia army which was occupying Azerbaijan territories at that time.

Article is not even close to be neutral and written in impartial tone. Such a low quality partisan and biased article posted on the unknown online magazine can not be used as source for encyclopedia, especially if we talking about BLP. As for reasons stated above I reverting your edit, but Im open to hear your point of view and for discussions here. Please do not undo revert until we reach consensus, thanks. --Abrvagl (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

we could have done this before you dragged me around. First of all. While some parts of the source is written in a non-neutral tone, I haven't used any of those. As for the rest of your argument, The Armenian leadership and armed forces are, unsurprisingly, Armenians, and Aliyev doesn't seem to differentiate between any classes or groups or people, instead he uses a generalised "them". What you are doing is interpreting the source, which is against policy. None of the personal opinions of the author were added to article, I don't see the benefits of arguing about the part of the source that isn't used. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I never dragged you around, if you talking about ANI, then you should know that ANI is not related to our discussion on this page. I am not interpreting the source, I just fact checked the source you provided as it was partisan and biased article from unknown news blog. Armenian leadership and armed forces are Armenians, but article states that Ilham was talking about whole Armenian nation, which is not true. Here from fist sentence it is obvious that talks are about the Armenia leadership. Here from the context, talks are about armed forces, nowhere it is mentioned that it is about whole nation. In both cases author of the article cherry-picks words and tries give them as said about all Armenians. I strongly believe that this partisan and bias article can not be used as wikipedia source, but if you still do not agree - then we can escalate it to BLP board.
If you main goal is not whole article but only to include what Ilham stated in this two sources (One, two), then I invite you to workout on how information from them can be included into article on their own (not considering article). We can do it as part of work on the issue I raised in the talk page few days ago here --Abrvagl (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what is and isn't racism. Calling anybody a savaged based on ethnicity is racism, whether referred to civilians or military or leadership. You are interpreting whether this is or isn't a part of anti-armenian sentiment, which is absurdly whitewashing. That being said I found some other more neutrally phrased, 3rd party reviewed and primary sources included. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not said a word about racism. I am not interpreted is it part of anti-armenian sentiment or not, I clearly reasoned my position. Making unrelated comments full of accusations does not make a point. That being said you completely ignored my proposal and make an edit when we are not reached consensus. Abrvagl (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Consensus on what exactly and what is this proposal you're talking about? Aliev's own website has the quotes, and your WP:OR of "it's about leadership" doesn't match the source or make any sense. I would suggest you cease this WP:TENDENTIOUS line. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Consensus on can we use partisan source which knowingly misinterprets and cherry-pick words from the primary source to support the material about BLP. My proposal you can find above. Abrvagl (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
From your first comment, it seems like you're well aware of the official Az president's source which is where the info was taken from. How is this partisan, and why did you misinterpret it here in this talk page? The quotes are publicly available, and Aliev is talking about Armenians in general not just the Armenian leadership (which if you didn't know, also happen to be Armenian). You still haven't answered this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes I am well aware about sources. " Aliev is talking about Armenians in general not just the Armenian leadership" really? and how you made such a conclusion? would you be so kind to share it?. The quotes are publicly available and non of the quotes(that we are talking about) are addressed to the Armenian nation as a whole. Partisan sources where author [cherry-picking] information, while ignoring the significant qualifying information, in order to misrepresent the information is not proper source to state that, especially considering that it is BLP. Abrvagl (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
You didn't answer the questions I asked you. What's partisan about official Az president's website when it's used to demonstrate Azeri president's racist hate speech against Armenians? And you do really need to read when something is linked to you before asking obvious questions:
  • It was as if a wild tribe had taken over the city. The remains of the city of Fuzuli are a manifestation of Armenian fascism and a witness to Armenian fascism. [1]
  • The victorious Azerbaijan’s Army is driving and will continue to drive the enemies away from our lands in the ongoing battles. I said that if they do not leave our lands of their own free will, we will chase them away like dogs and we are doing that. [2]
Who do you think lived in these cities, the Armenian leadership or Armenian soldiers? He's addressing Armenians as a whole, and I just showed you examples. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Can u specify exactly to which questions I did not answer?
- “Armenian fascism” is not “calling whole Armenian nation fascist”. What he said is basically that remains of Fizuli is example of Armenian fascism.
- Nowhere in the source stated that speech is about Armenian nation, opposite to that, from context it is obvious that it was addressed to Armenia armed forces.
There no talk In the source that we will chase them from the cities, but if you talking about the Fizuli city - no-one was living in the Fizuli as city completely destroyed.
Can I ask you to summarize your point? Abrvagl (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
“Context” is original research, there’s no mention of the army. The Fuzuli example doesn’t work because Hadrut was an entirely Armenian town before the war and now no Armenians live there. And Fuzuli (Varanda) had a population, [3]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Rather than picking and choosing quotes directly from his website, editors should be focusing on quotes that are widely reported by peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and independent press per WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

President Aliyev regularly makes remarks seeking to belittle Armenia and inciting inter-ethnic hatred.

The below blockquote statement looks like someone's original research WP:NOR, and definitely not encyclopedic, and tone is definitely not WP:IMPARTIAL. Moreover, in some cases, sentences from the sources are torn out from the context, which raises issues with WP:NPOV.

President Aliyev regularly makes remarks seeking to belittle Armenia and inciting inter-ethnic hatred. He in particular encouraged to wage war against Armenia,[125] made statements alleging that Armenia is "a country of no value" that is run from abroad and artificially created from "ancient Azeri lands",[126][127] that "it is not even a colony, it is not even worthy of being a servant",[128] further stating that it is, in contrast to Azerbaijan, in constant decline[129] and that Armenia's existence should be called into question.[130][131] Aliyev also claimed that the main enemy of Azerbaijan is the Armenian lobby in the United States,[132] and invoked imagery of the Battle of Aghdam to argue that the Armenians are vandals and barbarians.[133][134]

Considering the above, I decided to work on it and improve. Below cited is my vision of how it should look like. Keep in mind that I keep long citations from the sources only for the talk page, so that editors can understand what is the context, and we can decide which of them worth keeping in the article and how they should be quoted/cited in the article. Note that I considered all sources apart from this and this because they are just repeating information taken from other sources. Does anyone want to make it jointly or any thoughts/comments?

--Abrvagl (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

https://president.az/en/articles/view/12487

Rather than picking and choosing quotes directly from his website, editors should be focusing on quotes that are widely reported by peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, and independent press per WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, is it acceptable from NPOV to state “ regularly makes remarks seeking to belittle Armenia and inciting inter-ethnic hatred” about the biography of the living person? This also looks like original research Thats why I proposed to rephrase.

It is analysis and the sourcing is suspect under WP:BLP scrutiny. It shouldn't have been reinstated by Kevo327. If it is that obvious that Aliyev does this, there should be multiple sources reporting it, especially in the independent press. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter". www.twitlonger.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
  2. ^ "https://twitter.com/presidentaz/status/560718307515318272". Twitter. Retrieved 2022-03-20. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  3. ^ "https://twitter.com/presidentaz/status/560718307515318272". Twitter. Retrieved 2022-03-20. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  4. ^ "https://twitter.com/presidentaz/status/497364584743718913". Twitter. Retrieved 2022-03-20. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  5. ^ "https://twitter.com/presidentaz/status/270830828035117056". Twitter. Retrieved 2022-03-20. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  6. ^ "Ilham Aliyev chaired the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers dedicated to the results of socioeconomic development in the first quarter of 2015 and objectives for the future » Official web-site of President of Azerbaijan Republic". president.az. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
  7. ^ "Azerbaijani President: “There will be time, we will live in Irevan, Goyce and Zengezur". Apa.az. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
  8. ^ "President and Supreme Commander-in-Chief Ilham Aliyev visited a military unit in Agdam » Official web-site of President of Azerbaijan Republic". president.az. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

Missile strike on the nuclear power plant in Armenia

First of all, provided source took information from the primary source (https://ru.oxu.az/war/406293) which states that "Azerbaijani Defense Ministry commented on the possibility of Armenia's strike on strategic facilities", and from (https://news.day.az/politics/1253956.html) which says "Azerbaijan may strike at the Metsamor nuclear power plant in response to the threat to the Mingachevir reservoir" . So it is already not threat and information with no reason changed to sound more scandalous in the provided source.

Secondly, this was said by the head of the press service of the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan, Colonel Vagif Dargahly, commenting on the information that Armenia could strike at the Mingachevir reservoir.

It is not right to take only heading of the article and write it in the Wikipedia. This makes the information distorted and does not reflect reality.

This should be either reflected as it is (with inline citations) and reflect full context , or deleted from the article as this has no relation to the Anti-Armenian sentiment.

--Abrvagl (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This "threat" about Mingachevir shouldn't be included as it doesn't exist. Third party confirming that it's just a made up claim from Azeri side. [4], [5] ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
talk,
1. does it exist or not, does not matter. The fact that the official was commenting on the information that Armenia could strike at the Mingachevir reservoir. His comments has nothing to do with sentiments and with this article in the first place.
2. Secondly, it is again does not matter does it exist or not, provided source based on the idea that it is exists. You can not just take the heading of the article and reflect it as fact on the Encyclopedia. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Third party sources disagree with you, [6], [7], it's just an Azeri gov. made up thing. We don't add every insignificant made up rubbish in articles, per WP:UNDUE. Maybe if you could slow down your WP:SPA crusade, you would see this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, neither of links you provided nor your comment have any relation to the my point. you repeat it even I explained again. But anyways, thanks for your input. --Abrvagl (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, I will try to attempt to explain once more. Headline of the news paper article used as source to support statement. This is clear WP:RSHEADLINES . If you read the body of the article, it clearly states that "The representative of the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan recalled the possibility of a strike on a nuclear power plant in Armenia, commenting on reports about the possibility of an attack by the Armenian military on the dam of the Mingachevir reservoir". This case has nothing to do with Anti-Armenian sentiments, therefore I suggest to remove it. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how a new account keeps citing all these guidelines, but this will be discussed in DRN. I commented there, I've explained myself here pretty clearly at this point as well ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Correction: this wasn't brought up in DRN but I have nothing else to say here. This is made up WP:UNDUE claim by Az gov which WP:RS disagree with [8] [9] and basically present as just Azeri claim. RFE describes this as "idle threat" that "Azerbaijan dramatically escalated", it is extremely WP:UNDUE and I don't see how it can be added in this article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Dear Zani, this is clearly a WP:HEADLINES case. " Azerbaijani Defense Ministry threatened with missile strike on the nuclear power plant in Armenia" stated only in the headline of the article. Article it self states "The representative of the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan recalled the possibility of a strike on a nuclear power plant in Armenia, commenting on reports about the possibility of an attack by the Armenian military on the dam of the Mingachevir reservoir". I do not see how we can cherry-pick the information and represent without context. It either should be removed, or represented properly. The fact that it was made up claim, or not, does not change the fact of what MoD Azerbaijan was commenting on the possibility of an attack by the Armenian military on the dam of the Mingachevir reservoir. So if you saying that context of what MoD was commenting is UNDUE, then this whole claim is also undue. Abrvagl (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Abrvagl, this isn't a WP:HEADLINES problem, you can't interpret sources to your liking, recalling the possibility of a strike on a nuclear power plant in Armenia is a threat. Saying that (from the source) Armenia should not forget that the latest missile systems that are in service with the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan are capable of inflicting an accurate strike on the Metsamor nuclear power plant, which will be a disaster for Armenia Can't be anything but a threat, gaslighting discussions don't work. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear Kevo, lets assume that it is not headlines problem. Then what we call the fact that we completely ignoring the context? Is it not making sentence not neutral and is it not cherry picking? Tbh I can not see how this is Anti-Armenian sentiment or this, for example, «Մեր զինված ուժերը պատրաստ են իրենց առջև դրված խնդիրն իրականացնելու»․ Օհանյան (archive.org) Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment. I think that both are UNDUE. However, back to our conversation, do you think that we should not include context? Abrvagl (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The only thing WP:UNDUE here is this "possibility threat" about Mingachevir, an undue claim by Az gov as even WP:RS disagree with it [5] [6] hence it is WP:UNDUE. RFE describes this as "idle threat" that "Azerbaijan dramatically escalated", it is extremely undue. You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit, that's why WP:UNDUE exists. On the other hand, as Kevo already said, the Missile strike on the nuclear power plant in Armenia was a clear threat by Azerbaijan to Armenia. Comparing two incomparable things to defend a point isn't productive. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The only “Idle threat” mentioned in the headline of the RFE article, It actually confirms that there was speculation that the Armenian side had first hinted it might somehow strike a civilian target, thus MoD of Azerbaijan was commenting on that.
Reuters that you linked is unrelated. It is about 04 October 2020, where statement of the mod made on 16 July 2020. It is about statement of the Hikmet Hajiyev, where he stated “Armenia’s armed forces launched a missile attack against the Azeri industrial city of Mingachevir”. It is not what we talking about.
non of above actually changes the point. Does not matter if Armenia really threaten to hit Mingechevir or not, what matter is that Vagif Djafarli was commenting on reports about the possibility of an attack on the dam of the Mingachevir reservoir and this information, in my point have a DUE weight Abrvagl (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Kevo327, {{u
1. This is WP:HEADLINES, because information cited there is taken from the headline of the article. WP:HEADLINES state "If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body." Body states as such "Azerbaijan may strike at the Metsamor nuclear power plant in response to the threat to the Mingachevir reservoir".
2. Commenting on the information that Armenia could strike at the Mingachevir reservoir, and comment itself has nothing to do with anti-Armenian sentiments; Thus, there is no place for this statement in this article.
I propose to remove this statement, as there is no RS describing this event as anti-Armenian sentiment, and moreover this is WP:BLP case. Abrvagl (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on an Elchibey alleged speech

CLOSED
There is clear consensus that the statement in question, attributed to Elchibey, should not be included in the article since it's not found in reliable sources. — kashmīrī TALK 19:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should the following quotes, attributed to a 1992 speech by the 2nd President of Azerbaijan Abulfaz Elchibey, be introduced in the article?

"If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku."

  1. Without attribution
  2. Attributed to "Armenian sources"
  3. Attributed to "pro-Armenian sources"
  4. Attributed to a particular source, naming which in your vote
  5. The statement should not be introduced in the article

A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey, Elchibey speech

Previous discussion here and here Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
DRN discussion leading to this RfC - Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_216#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
In the DRN ZaniGiovanni provided number of the sources to support statement about Elchibay. However, some of them were potentially partisan not well-establisher news outlets, which quoted alleged Elchibay's statement, but did not provide source to prove it. ([10], [11], [12]. Some of them did not mention anything about the alleged Elchibay's statement ([13], [14], [15]).
What is most important here, that all other provided sources are unknown news outlets and the yellow press from 2014-2021. None of the provided sources actually in any way prove that Elchibay made such a statement and there is no source available to prove that either. Just imagine, the president of the country making a speech with EXTRAORDINARY statement and there is nothing to prove that. There are no newsletter articles, no TV shows, no articles, nothing but the statement of Baroness Cox at debates 5 years later in 1997.
Finally and additionally, to nail this conversation down, not only no reliable source available to prove the alleged statement of the Elchibay, there is also no reliable source available to say that statement was anti-aremenian sentiment. Concluding above, alleged Elchibay's statement is hearsay and should not be included into article at all.--Abrvagl (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The statement should not be introduced in the article (Summoned by bot) per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The mere existence of a notable historic statement by a politician should be able to be supported with at least one contemporary source, even if partisan (either for or against) or self-published. This simply needs better sourcing. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion, Elchibey speech

I fully agree with Pincrete. Consensus on this also reached with number of other editors as Brandmeister, Grandmaster. There is no reliable source to confirm statement of the Baroness Cox, thus statement shall not be on the Wikipedia. --Abrvagl (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soviet sources described

Kevo327, I fixed WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the article and removed unrelated source. You reverted one and two of my edits.

1. You restored source "Time of change: an insider's view of Russia's transformation, Roy Medvedev, Giulietto Chiesa", although it does not describe Sumgait events as a Genocide.

2. You reverted my edit, where Glasnost: : Vol. 2, Issue 1, Center for Democracy clearly states "these killings are examples of genocide directed by the Soviet regime". We can not write an article based on your assumptions and your original research.

3. Moreover, while having only 1 source which compare Sumgait events to the Genocide, you can not state that "A number of international and Soviet sources described".


Please explain yourself.

--Abrvagl (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S.
1. "the source says that it should have been called so" the source does not says that. The one I removed just questions it "Who knows why, but the court examined the Sumgait events by subdividing them into single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide"
2. Second source clearly states "these killings are examples of genocide directed by the Soviet regime". Your objection of "Azerbaijani SSR is to blame for minimal punishments" does not mean that we should write WP:OR in the article and violate WP:NPOV. None of the sources describe it as genocide conducted by Azerbaijan. Abrvagl (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, "Who knows why, but the court examined the Sumgait events by subdividing them into single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide", not sure what "simple" English you talking about, but this sentence is questioning, not describing at all. You cant state based on this sentence, that Roy Medvedev described Sumgait pogroms as genocide. But, ok, I will take it to the one of the dispute resolution boards. Abrvagl (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, I raising 3O as you suggested.
Dear third party commentator, please note that part of the conversation was hold here Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan#Destruction of cultural heritage. Here are the diffs: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Abrvagl (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Short summary for the Third Party commentators.
Dispute is about the following statement from the Roy Medvedev's book: "Who knows why, but the court examined the Sumgait events by subdividing them into single episodes and not as a programmatic act of genocide"
The question is whether above statement describes Sumgait events as genocide or not? Abrvagl (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. With no actual discussion of the dispute since April, there is no recent discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Supplement: In light of further discussion on this page, a 3O re-filing may or may not be appropriate at this time. I will not be giving an opinion or removing the filing again. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan/Archive_1&oldid=1210789598"