Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

Shelling of Tigranakert

The 2,000-year-old Hellenistic Armenian city of Tigranakert was also struck by Azerbaijani artillery during this conflict.

There is no evidence that Tigranakert was ever shelled during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. The provided source states that Hamlet Petrosyan asserted that city of Tigranakert was struck by Azerbaijani artillery, however neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan have released information about the site.

As noted by @ZaniGiovanni, source also states that group of intellectuals and scholars published an open letter in the Los Angeles Review of Books on 16 October where they noted following: We remind you that the site of the bombing includes archaeological sites such as the ancient Armenian city of Tigranakert. However, what they say it not a evidence that Tigranakert was shelled, neither of them were there to claim that what they said is eyewitness. I searched other sources, and all of them refers to the Hamlet Petrosyan, without providing any evidences (no photos, no satellite images, no video footage, no witnesses), or other parties claiming that such happened.

We can not claim that something, that we are not even sure happened, was a act of Anti-Armenian sentiment. Any thoughts? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 13:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No reply yet... I also checked Tigratakert article, and guess what? it is also refers only to the words of the Petrosyan. Which I am highly skeptical of, claim of one person who provides no evidence to back up his words, are highly dubious in the absence of any other evidence of alleged "shelling." While his claims might have enough weight to be kept in Tigranakert article, they are definitely undue in this case. So I'm implementing suggested edit. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Allahshukur Pashazadeh

Hi all, another issue I identified is with There is also wide media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance. For instance, in 2008, Allahshukur Pashazadeh, the religious leader (Grand Mufti) of the Caucasus Muslims made a statement that "falsehood and betrayal are in the Armenian blood.".

There is also wide media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance. - this part is pure original research, as sources do not state anything like that.

For instance, in 2008, Allahshukur Pashazadeh, the religious leader (Grand Mufti) of the Caucasus Muslims made a statement that "falsehood and betrayal are in the Armenian blood." This part, combined with above sentence is actually SYTH. Also as per BLP it is not OK to cherry pick some words from what person said in order to imply something not stated in the article, and it is not related to media at all. Thoughts ? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I removing statement since there is no other opinions. There are no sources to back up that statement, which is seemingly an original research: There is also wide media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance" and the latter is irrelevant without it. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 13:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I added a non-primary source for the statements. --Dallavid (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote above? The source you added to the article is not reliable, and neither it fixes the fact that "There is also wide media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance." is original research, nor the fact of the cherry picking of the words of living person. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni, Since you reverted that edit also, I am interested to hear what consensus should I reach for removal of the content, which is partially original research and partially cherry picking of the words of living person and all together WP:SYNTH? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This - it's literally reported by Az news media like Day.az and you can find his quotes in the article [1]. What exactly is "cherry picked" here? Are you saying there is a scenario where his disgusting words are somehow justified and that it isn't included in the article? What "cherry-picking" you're talking about, I'm curious. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Which source exactly says "There is also wide media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance" ? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to find a source for it. In the meantime, I suggest putting a cn tag on it. But that sentence wasn't the only thing you removed was it? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed the material because the first part of it is original research, and rest is irrelevant without first part. Also, the rest needs an independent review by RS, otherwise it is just editors picking and choosing quotes from an speech of the living person to highlight. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material . A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl I suggested putting a cn tag on the specific sentence until we find a source. The next sentence is sourced (it can stay as an independent sentence if needed btw) and you haven't unanswered what part of his Armenophobic comment is exactly "cherry-picked"? Keep in mind you don't have consensus and if you remove sourced content you'll be reverted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

First sentence is now sourced as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Does it? I could not find inline citation supporting "There is also wide media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance." on the pages you pointed. Can you please point exactly? As far as I concerned this claim is made based on the personal conclusion of the reader , and also not attributed. For instance, Third Opinion on Azerbaijan adopted on 10 October 2012 states This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States which clearly tells us that information should be attributed.

Moreover,

A. There is also wide media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance.

B For instance, in 2008, Allahshukur Pashazadeh, the religious leader (Grand Mufti) of the Caucasus Muslims made a statement that "falsehood and betrayal are in the Armenian blood."

The B is linked to the A and irrelevant without it. You need to find source which contains both A and B and links them, otherwise it will be synthesis, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policies. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

According to European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) [2]:

• Political leaders, educational institutions and media have continued using hate speech against Armenians; an entire generation of Azerbaijanis has now grown up listening to this hateful rhetoric. (page 9)
• Other sources confirm recurrent hate speech towards Armenians, which is connected with the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, the frequent ceasefire violations at the contact line and the resulting deaths and injuries. The Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ACFC) for example noted “a persistent public narrative surrounding the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh identifying [in]variably Armenia or Armenians as ‘the enemy’ and openly promulgating hate messages”.34 According to other sources, there is a conflict-ridden domestic political discourse35 and Azerbaijan’s leadership, education system and media are very prolific in their denigration of Armenians. (page 17)

Allahshukur hateful comment can be stated without "for instance" to address 'synth', as separate comment. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but those do not support the claim of "media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance." It is more like a claim which made based on the personal conclusion of the reader. Why don't you use sources you found to write attributed statement instead of unsourced A, which will be improvement, and move Allahshukur to the Official's Statements section? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're probably having a misunderstanding about paraphrasing. You see I have to repeat again that on Wikipedia, we do not copy sources word for word. The sourced quotes provided convey the meaning of the statement in question. I'm afraid I cannot explain this any better other than suggesting improving your English skills if you still don't see this.

Allahshukur is not an official. I'll implement my suggestion regarding Allahshukur if there are no disagreements. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Pharaphrasing and analysis or synthesis of published material is not the same thing Zani. For example, there is no mention of "wide media coverage"; there information about the linkage to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and political situation, but statement A does not reflect any of that.

Why don't you paraphrase based on the sources you brought, rather than trying to fit that statement into the source? Also, as I highlighted above, that statement should be attributed to the reports you linked, and "for instance" wont address the synth. Based on what you claim that this case is "wide media coverage"? After all search I did, I found Alllahshukurs statement only on today.az, is it wide media coverage? The point is that it is not on us to judge whether it is "wide media coverage" or not. That should be analyzed and stated by the reliable source. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Political leaders, educational institutions and media have continued using hate speech against Armenians; an entire generation of Azerbaijanis has now grown up listening to this hateful rhetoric.
• Other sources confirm recurrent hate speech towards Armenians, which is connected with the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, the frequent ceasefire violations at the contact line and the resulting deaths and injuries.

The above are perfectly summarized by this - "There is also wide media coverage of some statements made by Azerbaijani public figures and statesmen which demonstrate intolerance.". I'm sorry that you can't see this, it's probably a language barrier that I'm not obliged to help you learn.

I already suggested separating Alllahshukur's statement and removing "for instance", did you miss it? This will solve any issues left. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Indoctrination in schools

Hi all. I finally found full version of the source supporting The Azerbaijani historian Arif Yunus has stated that Azerbaijani school textbooks label Armenians with epithets such as "bandits", "aggressors", "treacherous", and "hypocritical".

The statement wrongly implies that Yunus attributed that epithets to all Azerbaijani school textbooks, where in reality Yunus clearly wrote that mentioned epithets are from the "Я.Махмудлу, Р.Халилов, С.Агаев. Отечество" textbook. SO claim in the article is synth and possibly BLP violation, as it is wrongly attributes information to Yunus that he never stated. Moreover, Yunus talks about school textbooks approximately from 1992-2007 and today is almost year 2023, which means that his research is now outdated and can not be referred as something that is ongoing currently.

I reviewed Yunus' study and can say that he conducted analysis that explains processes in the region and Azerbaijan in the late 1990s and early 2000s, as well as how they influenced Azerbaijani school textbooks. So, if we are going to include material from Yunus' study to the article, we should do it properly, rather than merely picking a few words from it. We should do it in an encyclopedic manner, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vilification platform. I going to remove that statement for now. Any thoughts? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 13:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I added "various" so it now cannot be interperted as referring to every single school textbook. Yunus is detailing various different textbooks at multiple grades, not just that one in particular. Do you have any sources proving that the research is now outdated? --Dallavid (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

added "various" so it now cannot be interperted as referring to every single school textbook. - You did not get it, adding "various" does not fix the issue. Yunus's work clearly links "bandits", "aggressors", "treacherous", and "hypocritical" to the one specific book "Я.Махмудлу, Р.Халилов, С.Агаев. Отечество, с. 10". We cannot attribute that epithets to all or various Azerbaijani school textbooks.

. Do you have any sources proving that the research is now outdated? - Do you have any sources poving that the research is not outdated? School text books are updated regularly, Yunus work is about 1990s-2000s, today is 2022. There is even no text book called "Отчесво" in the curent list of used text books. Thus, while citing his work we cannot imply that to present time. As I said above if we are going to include material from Yunus' study to the article, we should do it properly, rather than merely picking a few words from it. We should do it in an encyclopedic manner, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vilification platform. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yunus clearly talks about books as in plural, then he brings the example of "Отчесво". This is evident from the source, quotes (translated):

• However, that was where the positives ended. The fact is, as it was mentioned above, school textbooks in Azerbaijan in the conditions of the Karabakh conflict were called upon to “educate patriots who can separate “their own” from “others” and are ready, if necessary, to take part in the next conflict”
• The construction of the image of the "enemy" begins already with the textbook for the fifth grade, i.e. With first year of teaching history. True, this is not yet a textbook on the history of Azerbaijan, this is “Fatherland” (“Anna Yurdu”), but written very emotionally, especially vividly when description of confrontations with “others”, and even more so with “historical enemies” Azerbaijan.
• In subsequent sections of the textbook, the authors pay more and more attention to Armenians, who are beginning to be perceived as "the main infidels in black robes." At the same time, all possible negative epithets are also used in relation to the Armenians. (“bandits”, “aggressors”, “treacherous”, “hypocritical”, etc.).

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources proving that the research is not outdated? What? 2000s was 20 years ago, how exactly it's "outdated"? What sources describe Yunus, a historian by profession, research as "outdated"? That's on you to prove, not anyone else. And please don't answer a question with a question. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What? 2000s was 20 years ago, how exactly it's "outdated"? What sources describe Yunus, a historian by profession, research as "outdated"? That's on you to prove, not anyone else. And please don't answer a question with a question. - Prove what? That Yunus work is talking about 1990s-2000s text books, where today is 2022, ergo the research can be implied only to the textbooks from that period, but not to present time text books? What else common sense obvious things shall I prove? Thas earth is round?

Yunus clearly talks about books as in plural, then he brings the example of "Отчесво". - It is not a case of what you believe what Yunus wrote about. This "При этом, в отношении армян также используются все возможные негативные эпитеты («бандиты», «агрессоры», «коварные», «лицемерные» и т.д.)." is specifically cited to the "Отчесво". It is clear from the citation "17" that written right after that paragraph. You can check it by yourself on the page 7. Said that, I expect you to self-revert please. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 12:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

2) This - I explained to you above and quoted the actual text directly from the source. I'm not planning to repeat myself; Yunus talks about books (direct quote) and bring "Fatherland" as an example. Later, he even talks about a 7th grade book aside from the 5th grade "Fatherland":

• Таким образом, уже в учебнике для первого года обучения был сформирован образ армян, как главных врагов Азербайджана и всего «тюрко-мусульманского мира». Впоследствии этот образ лишь дополнялся «фактами» из истории Азербайджана и новыми негативными эпитетами. Так, в учебнике по истории Азербайджана за 7 класс постоянно говорится о том, что «древняя Албания (т.е. по мысли авторов учебника – древний Азербайджан) «периодически подвергалась агрессии со стороны армянских правителей». И хотя в ответ «население и правители Албании в трудные времена протягивали руку помощи армянам», однако армяне платили «черной неблагодарностью» за это и в итоге «захватническая политика правителей Армении против Албании, их территориальные (уже тогда! – А.Ю.) претензии вынуждали албан» искать помощи у соседних стран. 21 При этом целью армян было распространить христианство в Албании, т.е. на территории современного Азербайджана, хотя «христианство в Албании не имело корней». Это было целенаправленная политика: «Армения под прикрытием христианства … проводила политику захвата азербайджанских земель».

Prove what? - prove that anybody with actual authority aside from yourself (a Wikipedia editor) calls Yusuf, a historian's research from 2000s, "outdated". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I explained to you above and quoted the actual text directly from the source. I'm not planning to repeat myself; Yunus talks about books (direct quote) and bring "Fatherland" as an example. Later, he even talks about a 7th grade book aside from the 5th grade "Fatherland": - Your last quote was irrelevant, as well as this one. Please carefully read what I wrote. Yes, Yunus talks about number of the 1990-2007 books, but the terms "bandits", "aggressors", "treacherous", and "hypocritical" from the Yunus research are referencing specifically to the "Я.Махмудлу, Р.Халилов, С.Агаев. Отечество" textbook. Thus it is not correct to say "The Azerbaijani historian Arif Yunus has stated that various Azerbaijani school textbooks label Armenians with epithets such as "bandits", "aggressors", "treacherous", and "hypocritical".".

prove that anybody with actual authority aside from yourself (a Wikipedia editor) calls Yusuf, a historian's research from 2000s, "outdated". - again, please read carefully what I wrote. I do not say that Yunus work is outdated, what I say that his work is applicable only to books printed 1990-2007. Implying that research, which reviewed books from specific date range, is also applicable to the books printed like 20 years later is ORIGINAL research. So ONUS is on the editors who want to link that research to the books which were printed after the research. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Yunus talks about number of the 1990-2007 books, but the terms "bandits", "aggressors", "treacherous", and "hypocritical" from the Yunus research are referencing specifically to the "Я.Махмудлу, Р.Халилов, С.Агаев. Отечество" textbook. - Ok? That doesn't mean you have to remove sourced information. We can easily reword per source;

• Azerbaijani historian Arif Yunus noted that the construction of the image of Armenians as the "enemy" in Azerbaijani schools begins already with a textbook for the fifth grade, i.e. from the first year of teaching history. In the same textbook, titled "Fatherland", Armenians are labelled with epithets such as "bandits", "aggressors", "treacherous", and "hypocritical". Yunus and his wife were jailed for allegedly spying for Armenia.

I'll expand this later with the example he brings of a 7th grade textbook.

again, please read carefully what I wrote. You should really stop asking others to "read carefully" when there is a clear disagreement with you. You have been asked for 10th time to provide a source that states Yunus research is outdated. That's clearly not the case. Why do you assume that all of these Armenophobic books have miraculously disappeared in Az schools? This is what you need to prove. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal continues to incorrectly imply that Yunus' 14-year-old research is applicable to current textbooks. That is unsupported claim, and it is unacceptable, because this is the case when age matters, and no, it is not me who has the onus to prove it, onus it on you, since it is you who claim that research on the text books from 1990-2007 is also applicable to the all future text books.

Nevertheless, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. After doing research on the source I came into conclusion that this PDF file is not reliable published source. It is PDF file of the research done by Yunus, which was neither peer reviewed nor reliable published. That is original research and thus unacceptable. It cannot be used in Wikipedia, especially when it comes to interpretation or analysis by Editors. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

So after I addressed everything, now a historian "isn't reliable" because "pdf"? Do you understand that we have specific templates for citing pdfs? At this point, the conversation with you is becoming very difficult, please don't say unreasonable things. If you think Yunus isn't RS take it to WP:RSN.

And you have a very flawed understanding of WP:AGEMATTERS. Agematters is applied so long as you can demonstrate "new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. " (direct quote). And btw, you were asked to demonstrate this many times since you already claimed "outdated" without grasping the guideline. You need to prove how a 14yr old research is exactly "outdated" by showing new WP:RS that challenges it, that's the essence of WP:AGEMATTERS. You don't wave around "outdated/agematters" if you have nothing to back up your statement, what? You really need to stop assuming all of the Armenophobic books have miraculously disappeared from Az schools if you have no WP:RS proving it / newer WP:RS challenging Yunus, again please don't make me repeat myself. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

So after I addressed everything, now a historian "isn't reliable" because "pdf"? -eh, you addressed nothing, but I'm not planning to go into the details unless you prove me that source you referring to is reliable published and peer reviewed. As far as I'm concerned Yunus's research, which we were discussing here, is neither reliable published nor peer reviewed, which means use of it as a source for Wikipedia is unacceptable. So he question is are you convinced, or you still want me to take this obvious case to the RSN? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

eh, you addressed nothing, but I'm not planning to go into the details... – this kind of comment summarizes your subpar understanding of policies and constantly repeating "outdated/agematters" for a mere 14yr old research without even providing a newer source that challenges it.

Yunus's research, which we were discussing here, is neither reliable published nor peer reviewed, which means use of it as a source for Wikipedia is unacceptable – Are you having a hard time picking your argumentation? You started this discussion with "statment wrongly implies", and after some back and forth, I suggested we reword per source itself mentioning the specific book 'Fatherland'. Now, you're saying "Yunus not reliable/peer-reviewed". First of all, Yunus's research is more than good enough as Yunus by profession is more than qualified (historian). And are all the sources on Wikipedia peer-reviewed? You yourself added sources that aren't peer-reviewed, do you want me to show the diffs? Why are you raising the bar exponentially for Yunus whom you simply don't seem to like, given how many times you switched your talking points regarding him. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your aspersions. I'm asking for a simple answer to my question: can you or can you not prove that Yunus's research is reliably published? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 09:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems like when I kindly asked you to familiarize yourself with WP:SEALION, you didn't. I'm not going to repeat myself again regarding historian Arif Yunus, and btw it's on you to prove how exactly Yunus is "unreliable" since you started to make this claim with nothing to support it. I'd advise we agree to reword per source. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Zani, are you going to answer simple question - can you or can you not prove that Yunus's research is reliably published? I am asking because I tried to find answer to that question on my own, but I did not find any evidences that Yunus's research is reliable published. Let me remind you that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material . A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself regarding historian Yunus, and verifiability has nothing to do with your "unreliable" claims. Again you're the only one claiming "unreliable" which is especially odd for a historian like Yunus. So that's a you problem as you claim this with nothing to back up your statement. Again for the last time, it's on you to prove how Yunus is unreliable if you're making such a claim, which you did above. Are we agreeing to reword per source? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Edits

1) This - doesn't need your rewording as it's paraphrased. You're copying from the source itself without paraphrasing, which isn't an improvement and is basically WP:PLAGFORM.

2) This - are you denying that beheading of Armenians by Azeris happened during the 2020 War? It was wildly reported [3]. And why are you so adamant to write word for word 'per source'? We paraphrase here not copy-paste. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI: I will ignore ridiculous assertion type questions like: "are you denying that beheading of Armenians by Azeris happened during the 2020 War?", which has no relation to what I wrote here. So please do not spent your time writing them and stick to the topic.

1) Rewording does not mean that one can use his imagination to write original research, and yes it is important correctly reflect what source states, even if you pharapharisn it. The source does not claim that specialist standing over an Azerbaijan map and fumigating the area of Nagorno-Karabakh "seemingly depicting ethnic Armenians in the area were being". The source says "The illustration accompanying the stamps shows a disinfection specialist standing over a map of Azerbaijan and fumigating the area of Nagorno-Karabakh — leading many to claim that ethnic Armenians in the area were being depicted as a virus in need of “eradicating”. Difference is that source does not say that illustration depicts specialist standing over an Azerbaijan map and fumigating the area of Nagorno-Karabakh, rather source says that illustration depicts a disinfection specialist standing over a map of Azerbaijan and fumigating the area of Nagorno-Karabakh, which some people online believe that ethnic Armenians in the area were being depicted as a virus in need of “eradicating”.

2. Again, the provided source does not support that. Paraphrasing does not mean that you can write something that is not in the source. Moreover, "During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, multiple videos emerged online where Azerbaijani forces have inhumanely treated the Armenian POWs." is a better start for the paragraph where below comes information about the cases. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 15:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

1) Again, this is completely fine paraphrased version and doesn't copy the source word for word. You really should be cautious of WP:PLAGFORM, Wikipedia takes copyright seriously.

2) I actually provided another source from Guardian, which you ignored for some reason. I'm suggesting we keep both per sources, this is what I'll agree to;

• During the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, multiple videos emerged online where Azerbaijani forces have inhumanely treated the Armenian POWs,[4] showing beheadings, torture and mutilations of the Armenian POWs by Azerbaijani forces.[5].

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

1) Again, this is completely fine paraphrased version and doesn't copy the source word for word. You really should be cautious of WP:PLAGFORM, Wikipedia takes copyright seriously. - The source should not be misinterpreted as a result of paraphrasing. WP:OR should also be followed, thus considering your argument, I paraphrased it accurately, and this is what I agree to:

The postage stamps  were accompanied with illustration of a disinfection specialist standing over an Azerbaijan map and fumigating the Nagorno-Karabakh area. This provoked fury on social media, with allegations that ethnic Armenians in the region are depicted as a virus that must be "eradicated," as well as accusations of anti-Armenian sentiment.

2. I actually provided another source from Guardian, which you ignored for some reason. I'm suggesting we keep both per sources, this is what I'll agree to; - I don't see the encyclopedic value in doing that, and it looks like WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, but not enough for me to pursue it. So go ahead and make that edit. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

1) Thanks for your suggestion, but using "allegation" would be a very weak word to use, as it would mean the accusations are not justified. I found another source for the record, which further confirms reference to Armenians and states;

• “There is no double interpretation to the message behind what is pictured on the postcard and stamp -- state-approved ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethnic Armenian majority, not the eradication of a virus. This “commemorative” stamp -- this postal atrocity -- attempts to put a happy face on an evil, a morally bereft assault on innocent civilians merely because they are Armenian. “

We can easily expand using this source, further confirming reference to Armenians. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"allegation" are "claims" synonyms, but I don't mind if it will be either of them. I just rephrase is as you was pointing out PLAGFORM.

I found another source for the record, which further confirms reference to Armenians and states; - no, that OPED published on barely known newspaper by the unknown authors is not suitable for Wikipedia. I did search for better sources beforehand, by the way, and did not find any respected source writing about that case, mostly bullshit propaganda sources.

We can easily expand using this source, further confirming reference to Armenians - those are only claims and online hysteria, I do not think that you will go anywhere with that. There is a postal stamp and there are reactions to it, so unless Azermarka will officially admit that this was the idea of stamp - there is no way you turning this claims into facts. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Where does it actually say the article is an OPED? CityWatch is a news website with journalistic standards, and your unexplained characterization of it as "mostly bullshit propaganda sources" is uncalled for, especially since you'd have a hard time proving this statement. I don't see anything in the article indicating an opinion piece, please show me if I missed. Seems like your disagreement revolves around the "claim" part, which I already addressed - saying "seemingly" (current wording) paraphrases it just fine and doesn't copy word for word. The new source further supports reference to Armenians. Your suggestion attributes to "allegation" which is just a watered down version and casts undue doubt.

those are only claims and online hysteria, I do not think that you will go anywhere with that. There is a postal stamp and there are reactions to it, so unless Azermarka will officially admit that this was the idea of stamp - there is no way you turning this claims into facts.

Listen, I'm not here to entertain your OR, so please keep it out of this discussion. What you deem as "hysteria" sources clearly deem as something else. Azermarka "unless officially admit" has nothing to do with what sources say, what kind of argumentation is this? The postal stamp even got rejected by Universal Postal Union which decided not to register the stamp as it was against their ethical standards [6]. So it's clearly not "online hysteria" as you seem to call it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The new source that you find is opinion piece / OPED. There are only 3 paragraphs about the stamp, and the rest story written by the Rachael Rose Luckey about herself. Here are some quotes:

The Armenian-American community of Los Angeles is rightly outraged. I stand with them and share their outrage.

I am one of a handful of transgender public office holders in the country. I know what it is to be isolated. And I know it is often necessary to be strong.

And actually, this opinion piece is kind of pre-election advertisement type of article, which is clearly visible from the the article:

(Rachael Rose Luckey is a Transgender and Housing Rights Activist, living in Los Angeles. As President of the Rampart Village Neighborhood Council, she is one of only a couple of dozen openly transgender elected public officials in the country. In December 2020, Rachael Rose announced her run for Los Angeles City Council District 13 in the municipal elections in 2022. For more information go to www.rachaelroseforla.com.)

.

I clearly explained why “seemingly” is original research and misinterpretation of the source, not going to repeat myself. So are we you happy with below?

The postage stamps were accompanied with illustration of a disinfection specialist standing over an Azerbaijan map and fumigating the Nagorno-Karabakh area. This provoked fury on social media, with claims that ethnic Armenians in the region are depicted as a virus that must be "eradicated," as well as accusations of anti-Armenian sentiment.

A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The new source that you find is opinion piece / OPED. There are only 3 paragraphs about the stamp, and the rest story written by the Rachael Rose Luckey about herself. Here are some quotes: - Number of paragraphs doesn't change anything.

And actually, this opinion piece is kind of pre-election advertisement type of article, which is clearly visible from the article That's just your opinion.

I clearly explained why “seemingly” is original research and misinterpretation of the source, not going to repeat myself. So are we you happy with below? And I clearly explained that "seemingly" is a parahprased version of the source which doesn't repeated the source text, WP:PLAGFORM. I also provided additional source which confirms reference to Armenians, and even the Universal Postal Union rejecting to register the stamp as it was against their ethical standards.

Yet another third party source that says this is an outright example of hate speech [7];

• “We must remember that mass killings do not just happen; they are always preceded by hate speech and propaganda. Armenophobia is quite prevalent in Azerbaijan, the most graphic example being a postage stamp that pictures an exterminator standing in Azerbaijan and fumigating a region of Armenia.”

And another [8];

• "It is evident, however, that these incidents are not just confined to the context of war or indeed post war tension. In January 2021, Azerbaijan released a commemorative postal stamp to celebrate the Nagorno-Karabakh war. The images depict Azerbaijani military personal alongside disinfection specialists fumigating the area of Nagorno-Karabakh. The very obvious allegory to ethnic cleansing is deeply unsettling. According to Azerbaijan, the images celebrate the nation’s fight against Covid-19. Given Aliyev himself described the conflict as “driving Armenians away [from Nagorno-Karabakh] like dogs”, the intentions behind the stamp are all too evident."

Judging from the 3 more third-party sources I provided, saying "seemingly" is more than justifiable and correct as it's not just "claims" but obvious reference of the stamp to Armenia/Armenians. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

1. You really should stop repeating that the Universal Postal Union rejected the stamp. That has nothing to do with our discussion and adds no weight to your argument. P.S. Although it is still irrelevant to our discussion, there is not a word about the stamp being rejected because it was against their ethical standards.

2. troymedia.com is not an established news outlet. Authors don't even know where Karabakh is: "exterminator standing in Azerbaijan and fumigating a region of Armenia". From about us page it is clear that it is editorial content provider, which is reliable for statements attributed to that editor or author, but is rarely reliable for statements of fact. Also, the quote from it supports the version which I had proposed, so I'm not sure why you mixed it with our discussion.

3. Citywatchla.com is not an established news outlet either. It is obvious from the article that it is an opinion piece, which is not reliable for statements of the fact. RACHAEL ROSE LUCKEY, candidate for LA City Council 2022, who literally talks about her story of life in order to earn support during elections.

4. International Affairs Network is unknown organization, there is no information about it in the Wikipedia, or Google. There is no address, no contact number, nothing. As per their page, they are sponsored, which adds to the source's questionability. Moreover, article is written by someone called "Lewis Read", there is no information about the author on their site or on Google. I don't understand how you want to use that to support statement of the fact.

The bottom line is that the illustration accompanying the stamps shows a disinfection specialist standing over a map of Azerbaijan and fumigating the area of Nagorno-Karabakh. All other stuff is allegations. It is unacceptable to write allegations as statement of the fact. The version that I proposed is the most accurate and reflects both what source states and reality. May I suggest that we achieve a consensus on version I proposed? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

“That has nothing to do with our discussion” - because??

“and adds no weight to your argument” - because??

“Although it is still irrelevant to our discussion” - because??

The Universal Postal Union has decided to not register the "Azerbaijan-2020", an anti-Armenian stamp, because they are against the conventions and ethics rules of the UPU [9]. There is difference between constructive arguments and personal opinions. The above are personal opinions that can’t serve as constructive arguments, because they are not explained to the opponent in a logical manner and leave the opponent in a gaslighted state.

The version that I proposed is the most accurate and reflects both what source states and reality. May I suggest that we achieve a consensus on version I proposed? - Not really, you don't seem to understand that "allegation" (your wording) doesn't represent the sources. I presented 3 more third party sources which support the current wording and beyond. Seem like your argumentation keeps changing to"non reliable" now based on your original research. These third party sources are perfectly fine for reporting about the rejected Armenophobic stamp, and I will repeat that it got rejected by Universal Postal Union for being a piece of garbage that was against their ethical standards. And please familiarise yourself with WP:SEALION. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

because?? - because our discussion is about whether post stamp illustration seemingly depicting ethnic Armenians in the area were being as a virus in need of "eradicating", or it is claimed that post stamp illustration depicting ethnic Armenians in the area were being as a virus in need of "eradicating". The fact that post stamp was rejected by Universal Postal Union does not contribute to that discussion. Not also that, but also the panArmenian source you provided is low quality propaganda site, which is unacceptable for AA2 area.

And please familiarise yourself with WP:SEALION - We having a discussion, where you citing some low quality sources to support your point. Nevertheless, I explained my concerns on why they are unacceptable for statement of the fact, and since it is you who to include them - BURDEN and ONUS are with you. Yet you still talk about 3 more third party sources which support the current wording and beyond, and not only that, but also assert me in sealioning. I honestly can not understand your rationale, but I would advice to stop assertions and focus to the things that genuinely benefit dialogue.

I am going to fix the article and remove the original research and match the material to the cited source. As I said, I am all right to change "allegations" to "claim", so that I will do. Here is the final version:

"The postage stamps were accompanied with illustration of a disinfection specialist standing over an Azerbaijan map and fumigating the Nagorno-Karabakh area. This provoked fury on social media, with claims that ethnic Armenians in the region are depicted as a virus that must be "eradicated," as well as accusations of anti-Armenian sentiment."

If you still believe that sources you linked are suitable, then I would advice you to take them to RSN and reach consensus on their inclusion. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

If you still believe that sources you linked are suitable, then I would advice you to take them to RSN and reach consensus on their inclusion. - Actually you're the only person here believing that 3 third party sources reporting on this hateful stamp aren't RS and you prefer the wording from only one source while ignoring the 3 others supporting current wording and beyond. And you're the only one claiming "non RS". So please, follow your own advice. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not calming "non RS", I already bold explained you why "thrid party sources" you brought can not be used for statement of fact, and I am not going to repeat myself. If you still believe that those sources are fine - you should take them to RSN, as onus us on you. Do you agree or not? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 08:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Your "explanation" is just a compilation of original comments which nobody concurs with here. If you think there are issues with 3 third party sources I presented, you're free to take your concerns to RSN. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Enver Pasha Street

This should be mentioned [10] [11] [12] [13]. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)