Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 72: Line 72:


::::: 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. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk:ZaniGiovanni|talk]]) 10:17, 5 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. [[User:ZaniGiovanni|ZaniGiovanni]] ([[User talk: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 have already aware that this topic is subject to [[WP:ARBAA2]], edit warring to reinstate may lead to the appropriate sanctions. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk: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 [[Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox|Baroness Cox]] is under big question. Neither the statements that she made was confirmed by any reliable source.
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 [[Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox|Baroness Cox]] is under big question. Neither the statements that she made was confirmed by any reliable source.


Revision as of 01:21, 15 February 2022


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 he 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 have 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And this could be discussed at WP:BLP. Grandmaster 08:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can take this to WP:AFD. Grandmaster 08:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The current spelling is fine. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I suggest you take this to WP:RSN. Start a discussion on Krivopuskov. Grandmaster 17:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan&oldid=1071915767"