Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan

Anti-Armenianism in Azerbaijan
Moved to mainspace by Yerevanci (talk). Self nom at 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ... that the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (pictured) called Armenians of the world their main enemy?



The article has serious neutrality and POV issues. The proposed quote is taken out of context. The article suggests that people of Azerbaijan have unmotivated hatred towards Armenians without explaining that Armenia military occupies around 20% of Azerbaijan's territory, and more than 800,000 Azerbaijanis and Kurds were ethnically cleansed from Armenia and occupied territories and found refuge in other parts of Azerbaijan. The article glaringly does not notice the following passage from the HRW report:

Sources in the article are grossly misinterpreted, like the line in HRW which reads "The unresolved conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh stimulated "armenophobia" is interpreted as "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", while the actual source says nothing of the sort. The line "In response to those Armenian claims, Azerbaijani nationalist groups, most prominently the Azerbaijani Popular Front,[13][14] organized anti-Armenian pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad and Baku" refers to 2 sources, neither of which supports the claim, moreover, there was no Popular Front in Azerbaijan in 1988, i.e. during the Sumgait events. HRW clearly states that any negative sentiment towards Armenians in Azerbaijan is related to the ongoing conflict with Armenia (Due to the unresolved conflict, there was still suspicion towards ethnic Armenians, especially those coming from outside of the country). I only cited 2 examples, but the rest of the article is written in a similar style, and it is more like a WP:Attack article based on selective quotations and misinterpretations of the sources. I don't think this is a good topic for an article, and in its present form I think it has no place in Wikipedia, let alone DYK. Grand master  22:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, not 20, but 13% of internationally-recognized Republic of Azerbaijan territory. This is the greatest example of the Azerbaijani propaganda and I don't think the user above isn't aware of this fact.
 * Let's see what context its taken out of.

Our political influence and economic power are growing. This is seen by those who like us and those who don’t. There are quite a lot of those who rejoice in our successes. But there are forces that don’t like us, our detractors. They can be divided into several groups. First, our main enemies are Armenians of the world and the hypocritical and corrupt politicians under their control. The politicians who don’t wish to see the truth and are engaged in denigrating Azerbaijan in different parts of the world. Members of some parliaments, certain political figures, etc. who live on the money of the Armenian lobby. We know them all. There is no need to name them. This is one group.
 * What exactly is misinterpreted here?
 * The user claims that the article suggests that people of Azerbaijan have unmotivated hatred towards Armenians without explaining that Armenia military occupies around 20% of Azerbaijan's territory, and more than 800,000 Azerbaijanis and Kurds were ethnically cleansed from Armenia. You know what this sounds like? When millions of Jews were killed during the Holocaust, Nazis have "explained" their "motivated hatred" against that certain ethno-religious group by the Aryanism of Germans, so they killed millions of them. I will not be surprised if Aliyev one day announces about the Aryan origin of the Azerbaijanis.
 * Remmber that the Shusha pogrom occurred in 1920 and the Sumgait pogrom happened years before the "occupation of 20%". Perhaps then the "occupation of Iravan" was the motivation?
 * The involvement of the Popular Front in Baku pogroms is stated in the sources: Its singular appeal centered on anti-Armenianism, a problem that became more acute after the fall of 1989 when some 200,000 Azerbaijani refugees arrived from Armenian and the NKAO. Since Azerbaijanis were not particularly interested in political reform and since these refugees tended to be very activist and vocal, emphasizing anti-Armenianism became the quickest way to blind some semblance of mass appeal. The Azerbaijanis government's unwillingness to adopt the APF's anti-Armenian agenda resulted in a series of strikes, including a transportation strike aimed at blocking the shipment of supplies to both Armenia and the NKAO


 * I'm glad you didn't say about Jugha cemtery destruction as many Azeris still deny the fact of horrible cultural vandalism as well as the fact of the Armenian Genocide. -- Ե րևանցի talk  23:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The figure of around 20% occupied territories comes from the source you refer to, HRW. Is HRW also Azerbaijani propaganda? With regards to the quote, it is quite obvious from the content that Aliyev referred to the Armenian political lobby and foreign politicians which have close ties to it. Therefore removing a few words out of context is not appropriate. As for Shusha pogrom, you again fail to mention that it did not happen for no reason, it was preceded by an Armenian attack on the Azerbaijani quarter of the town. And the quotes you provided do not prove AFPs complicity in Baku pogrom, quite the contrary, they say that the main contributing factor was arrival of a large number of refugees from Armenia. This is exactly what is wrong with you editing, you cherry pick the lines and misinterpret them. And of course, articles which violate WP:NPOV cannot be DYKs. Grand  master  07:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Says the editor who find excuses for pogroms and massacres. You might as well present us the list of excuses for Srebrenica massacre by Ratko Mladic or "motivation" for the Armenian genocide by Talaat and his alikes. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  20:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to take it to personal level. I do not find excuses to anything, I just point to serious issues in this article, i.e. gross misinterpretations, selective use of sources, etc. None of those issues have been addressed so far. Grand  master  20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't find excuses then how would you explain The article suggests that people of Azerbaijan have unmotivated hatred towards Armenians
 * You think hatred of a whole ethnic groups needs motivation? Hitler had "motivation", too, for ordering the extermination of European Jews. You might wanna add that to Holocaust article. -- Ե րևանցի talk  21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Jews did not ethnically cleanse Germans, invade their country or mass kill their people, so analogy with Hitler is totally out of place. And Reductio ad Hitlerum is not the best argument. When I talk about motivation of the negative sentiment, I only refer to the sources you yourself used in the article. It is kind of strange to expect from 800,000 refugees or survivors of Khojaly massacre gratitude to the Armenian government or the Armenian people. The sources that you refer to make it crystal clear that any anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan is the result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, yet you totally ignored this fact, and moreover, made a very questionable interpretation of what HRW actually wrote in their report. And this is the problem with the article that you wrote. In addition, I think that this article should be merged into Armenia–Azerbaijan relations, because things should be put in the correct context to be understood. Grand  master  22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree and the proposed hook is contentious. Basically it's just a cherry-picked political rhetoric and similar things can be heard from Armenian politicians as well. Brandmeistertalk  23:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You might want to provide us with a single source proving that "similar things can be heard from Armenian politicians". And if so, I want to see Sargsyan saying that Baku is a historical Armenian city, I want to see Ohanyan saying there will be no Azerbaijan in 20 years, I want to see a footage of destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia.-- Ե րևանցի talk  23:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The former Armenian president Robert Kocharian said (while still in the office) that Armenians and Azerbaijanis were "ethnically incompatible", and this was strongly condemned by OSCE and and PACE. Quote: "Speaking on 30 January in Strasbourg, Council of Europe Secretary-General Walter Schwimmer said Kocharian's comment was tantamount to warmongering. Schwimmer called on all presidential candidates in both Armenia and Azerbaijan to "refrain from bellicose or hate rhetoric." Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe President Peter Schieder said he hopes Kocharian's remark was incorrectly translated, adding that "since its creation, the Council of Europe has never heard the phrase 'ethnic incompatibility.'" Obviously, hate speech by the former Armenian president could also be a DYK nomination, but it is clear that unless the conflict is resolved, the statements like this could be expected. It is not like resentment towards Armenians in the Azerbaijani society exists for no reason, and there are no similar feelings among Armenians towards Azerbaijanis. How many Azerbaijanis live now in Armenia? Zero. And they used to constitute the majority of population in the territory of the modern-day Armenia. The mass killings of Azerbaijanis like Khojaly Massacre or Garadaghly Massacre also did not contribute to neighborly love. As for the cultural heritage, there used to be 8 Muslim mosques in Yerevan, the present day capital of Armenia. How many mosques are there now? That is your answer.  Grand  master  07:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to justify what Aliyev said. And what he said was that "our main enemies are Armenians of the world" not limiting himself to those living within Armenia or the former Soviet Union.  Jackal  07:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That may not be a good choice of words, but he clearly meant politicians, and not every single Armenian in the world. See the context, he talks about politicians, MPs, Armenian lobby. Also, it is not like Armenian leaders have always been politically correct, as I demonstrated above. But most importantly, this article has lots of issues that need resolution. The articles with NPOV and factual accuracy issues cannot be DYKs. Grand  master  08:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That words seem to be propaganda-influenced. You are not his secretary or adviser to justify his words. If you think Kocharyan said this or that, then go ahead nominate it for DYK. That has nothing to do with this article. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  20:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was actually the answer to your question. You wanted to know if Armenian politicians made anti-Azerbaijani statements. Grand  master  20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how stating the fact that two nations are "ethnically incompatible" is anti-Azerbaijani. And would you compare Kocaryan's statement of Armenians and Azeris being "ethnically incompatible" with Aliyev's statement calling "Armenians of the world" their main enemy? When things like Ramil Safarov happen, you should probably look more closely at the Azerbaijani government actions that prove that the two nations are "incompatible", such as the fact that Safarov was presented as a hero in Baku. -- Ե րևանցի  talk  21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may not see it, but OSCE and PACE considered Kocharian's statement to be "hate rhetoric", "tantamount to warmongering". But in any case, this discussion is offtopic. The point here is that unless serious issues with the article are properly addressed, this article cannot be a DYK. Grand  master  22:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png I'm not gonna start a huge discussion here, I suggest a user that is not involved in Armenian-Turkish-Azeri conflict in any way to review the nomination. In that way we will avoid this nonsense.  -- Ե րևանցի  talk  22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ok to go. Since the quote is taken directly from the President's official website, complaints about it seem pointless. I note the AFD has failed, & there is now a "mirror" Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. New & big enough when moved to mainspace on January 25th. Heavily referenced & sample all checked out (including the gobbledegook quoted from the EU President's official website).  Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How about misinterpretations of sources that I noted in my objection? See my first post on top, please. I think that the article still has serious issues, starting from the very first line, which presents opinions of persons and organizations as facts. For instance, the claim "Anti-Armenianism (Armenophobia) exists in Azerbaijan on an institutional level" is an opinion of an editor in chief of some Russian journal. Why should it be the opening line of the article, and not properly attributed to a person who voices this opinion? Grand  master  20:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't especially impressed by these; "institutional level" is clearly the opinion of most international observers, & the Aliyev quote alone is a pretty clear demonstration of it. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Who are those most international observers? You know that the claims of consensus also need to be sourced. Also, the notability of the Russian editor in chief and his journal is questionable. And as I stated above, there are gross misinterpretations of sources, which go as far as claiming that PFA was involved in the events that took place before it was established. None of my concerns have been addressed so far. I do not think the article that has so many issues, POV and OR tags could be made a DYK. It is against the DYK rules. Grand  master  21:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not happy with presentation of facts, which is not made in a neutral fashion. Like the line: "From 1918 to 1920, organized killings of Armenians occurred in Azerbaijan, especially in the Armenian cultural centers in Baku and Shusha, under the Russian Empire" is not an accurate presentation of inter-communal violence that took lives of both Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Why not mentioning that violence was mutual? HRW report describes the events much more neutrally:  Grand  master  21:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw, it was proposed by a number of voters at AFD to merge both articles, but the proposal has not been discussed yet at any forum other than AFD. Grand  master  20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I don't understand how an article with both neutrality and original research templates on it can be approved as ready to be on the main page. If these templates are no longer appropriate, then they should be removed, and approval for the main page could follow. But being faced with two such templates as the first thing that appears after someone clicks on an article link from a DYK hook? That's simply not acceptable. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have removed them, as I don't believe they are justified by the discussion above, although clearly not everyone is happy with the article, or is ever likely to be. But we should be able to have controversial topics on DYK, & often have had before. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with removal of templates, because none of the concerns raised by me have been addressed. Not a single one. Even the factual mistake claiming that Popular Front of Azerbaijan was involved in Sumgait pogrom in February 1988 remains in the article. In present form the article is not good to be featured on the main page. I would appreciate if another uninvolved editor looked at this article and gave his assessment. Grand  master  22:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very least your attempt to claim that Aliyev did not say or mean what his own official website says he said has been "adressed" by a number of people above, and dismissed. Quoting Armenians indulging in equally objectionable speech or behaviour is beside the point, especially as there is another article on that topic. Much of the stuff above stretches WP:AGF frankly. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My criticism was not limited to Aliyev's speech. How about many other issues that I mentioned? Grand  master  00:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see the 1988 claim relates to the PFA ("Popular Front") our article on which has now been merged with the political party founded in 1992 - that's from the article, plus talk page comments including yours where you say the PFA turned into the party. Now that's a POV article - I don't remember when I last saw anything like it. But you've edited it, & it has no tags. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not a major contributor to that article, and the quality of that article is not relevant to what is being discussed here. Plus it has 2 tags, and I clearly mentioned in my edit summary that the article has NPOV issues: So I do not understand what my editing of that article has to do with this discussion. The question here is: Is it possible to make a conclusion from the sources quoted that PFA was involved in Sumgait pogrom and Kirovabad pogrom? Even the respective articles do not say so, and I do not see how the sources quoted support this statement either. If you disagree, please show me where exactly sources 13 and 14 mention Sumgait and Kirovabad, and that PFA organized pogroms? It is one of the reasons why there was an OR tag in the article.  Grand  master  00:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * These edits should resolve the Popular Front issues. Were there any more substantive points? Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. I don't think that PFA could in any way encourage feelings that led to pogroms in Sumgait and Kirovabad, because it did not even exist during the events in Sumgait, and was not influential during unrest in Kirovabad. The whole article is very badly written, it needs total rewrite, to make it actually reflect what the sources say. That PFA line should be removed, or rewritten, it does not make much sense. Another example, the article says: 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. The source to which the reference is made actually says something different: "The unresolved conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh stimulated "armenophobia. The article claims that anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan exists because Armenians wanted land transfer, while the HRW says nothing like that, it connects the negative sentiment with unresolved military conflict that took many lives and resulted in large displacement of population (there are around 800,000 refugees in Azerbaijan). According to WP:OR, the source must directly support the material being presented. This is not the only example. The opening line is bad too, the opinions are presented as facts. The opening line should be something in line with what HRW writes, i.e. anti-Armenian sentiment exists in Azerbaijan due to unresolved conflict with Armenia, which resulted in many deaths and large displacement of population. Someone needs to do substantial editing to remove POV statements not supported by sources and make material in the article match the sources quoted. Grand  master  20:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an update on where this nomination is? Is it ready to be reviewed again; have the POV issues been resolved? I fear if there is no progress soon, the nomination will have to be closed.  Harrias  talk 16:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not the article that needs POV editing, it is Grandmaster himself. He has repeatedly tried to derail Armenian related DYK and FAC nominated articles because it doesn't support his POV. In fact here's what Grandmaster said during a mailing list to his "associates":

On 2/12/07, Grand Master  wrote: Armos nominated Nagorno-Karabakh War article for featured articles, which means that it will receive a status of a top quality article and be featured on the main page. Please be very active this time and don’t let it happen. Also we need to be editing the article more actively, if there’s any edit conflict going on the article, it cannot be featured. Express your opinions and vote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nagorno-Karabakh_War

Even now, he has tried vehemently to pick out little factoids (which can easily be fixed) of this article and thereby prevent it from being accepted as a DYK. He continues to complain, even though the article has third-party sources and has no Armenian source to back up any of the claims presented.KJ1890 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what an email from February 2007 has to do with the facts of this particular nomination, especially cited by someone whose first edit on Wikipedia was in December 2011, and has made a dozen edits in total. The disagreement appears to be with material taken from the sources, and the claim is that the information in the article does not accurately reflect what the cited sources say. I haven't looked into that here; what I do know is that an article that currently includes a "POV-statement" template, two "citation needed" templates, and a "Clarify" template is not ready for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is there to stay and the material presented in it is not going to be less important by the article's exclusion at the DYKnom level. By the way, no other article from Category:Anti-national sentiment would probably make it to the front page for the same set of reasons, so please don't take it personally. We have special WP:DYK criteria with that regard. Quote from #4a: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals [a nation is a living organism] or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." As a final note, if the newly-created Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia was DYKnomed, I would also vote "no". I would make no exceptions. Here's why. Did you know/Supplementary guidelines (D4): "Wikipedia, including Wikipedia in other languages, is not considered a reliable source." And D6: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags. (Removing the tags without consensus does not count.)" Please continue making these articles better. The issues are important, but "DYK approval is a subjective process" (D13). Thanks, Poeticbent  talk  17:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added the needed sources. I removed the sentence with the templates which shouldn't have been there in the first place. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Our criteria specifically instructs DYK to avoid taking sides in an ongoing dispute. There's a war going on in Nagorno-Karabakh (2013 NEWS.am, Yerevan). Please read #4a, and good luck with improving the article further. All best, Poeticbent  talk  07:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a conflict yes. But its just one of the reasons of Anti-Armenianism. The article doesn't take sides especially when there's been an anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia article. I believe the two articles are harmonious and thus discredits the notion of one sidedness. If need be we can put a see also section in both articles that will provide a wlink to one another. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png Iff the article is stable, and iff the article is neutral, and iff the article is fully referenced, and iff the article is free of copyright violations/close paraphrasing, there is no reason in the guidelines to prevent it from running. Having articles on a dispute is not inherently POV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Outside comment- I have to say that after reading the article I find it to be very well done, well referenced and as neutrally worded as the subject matter allows. I truly applaud the efforts put into this by the creator and other editors. That said, I would still have strong reservations about this article being featured on the main page because of the contentious nature of the topic. This is especially true given the ARBCOM history of Armenian-Azerbaijani topics. I hate to see valid and diligent effort not be recognized and, yes, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED but I don't believe that erring on the side of caution when it comes to avoiding controversy on the Main Page is censorship. AgneCheese/Wine 19:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's nowhere in the criteria... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. But nowhere in the criteria does it say that we have to feature every hook either. I certainly won't object to it being promoted (as I said above I think it is a very well done article) but I won't give it an approval either because, again, I think with the Main Page it is better to err on the side of caution. AgneCheese/Wine 22:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the point of having criteria if we are to fail articles based on non-criteria reasons. If you want "non-controversial" to be added to the criteria, WT:DYK is thataway. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is stable (hasn't seen edit warring), the article is free of copyright violations, the article is fully referenced and neutral (uses third party sources). There is no reason as to why this article should not make it to the front page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally, I don't like to this kind of nominations, because: 1. They show hate against some nations / race / ethnic groups which is against basic principles of Wikipedia; 2. Usually this kind of speeches have some background (particularly here March Days, Armenian–Azerbaijani War, Khojaly Genocide, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, etc.) which is completely ignored in the sentence suggested for DYK; 3. The statement by Ilham Aliyev is not worse than the ones of Armenian Presidents (e.g. President of Armenia Robert Kocharian voiced in his speech in Council of Europe saying “Armenians and Azerbaijanis are ethnically, genetically incompatible”); 4. This kind of articles, DYK nominations are against peaceful resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and encourages hates between nations. Sincerely,  Anastasia Bukhantseva   18:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg The only addressable comment (and the only one within the criteria) above was regarding the hook, which is quite easy to deal with. We have already run discrimination against Chinese Indonesians before, so there is precedent — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * * The wording and DYK statement is better in that article than here. Sincerely,  Anastasia Bukhantseva   12:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say, I have heard nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the critique. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * * I explained above why I don't like it (read as "I don't support this and similar DYK nominations"). Sincerely,  Anastasia Bukhantseva   12:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't given any explanation as to how this hook violates DYK criteria and guidelines. You're also talking about peaceful resolutions and what other Presidents have said and etc. etc. What does this have to do with the DYK criteria and guidelines? You also said that we should introduce an entire background history of the conflict in a less than 200 character hook which is entirely unrelated to what the President of Azerbaijan has stated. It is in itself irrelevant especially due to the fact that not ALL Armenians have committed those acts you have claimed in which the President suggests otherwise in his quote. The article does not promote hatred and it is compatible with the Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia article which I believe would have, could have and should have been a DYK as well. Above all, remember once again that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. If you have any arguments regarding background history or its impact on the conflict, you would have to refer to the TP of the article. It's time we get a reviewer. Otherwise, I will have to review it myself. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that Armenians in Azerbaijan have been the target of several massacres and pogroms owing to anti-Armenianism?
 * A much more neutral ALT. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this is a good alternative. The pogroms and massacres were not a result of abstract Anti-Armenianism, they were a result of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and similarly Azerbaijanis in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh were also targets of massacres and pogroms. If we only highlight the suffering of one of the sides of the conflict, it would not be in line with WP:NPOV. If it is really so necessary to feature this topic in DYK, then it makes sense to create a lead that would link to both the proposed article and parallel Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. Grand  master  22:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the article fails nomination for not being compliant with DYK requirements. Thus, according to WP:WIADYK:

This is clearly a situation when the article promotes one side of a dispute, making no mention of the context of the bloody conflict that resulted in bloodshed and displacement of a large number of population, especially in Azerbaijan. It is worth noting that the sources used in the article (in particular HRW) make clear mention that any anti-Armenian sentiment is directly related to the conflict, and did not appear out of nowhere. The non-compliance with this core DYK requirement was mentioned above by other reviewers as well.

In addition, I cited a number of POV issues and misinterpretations of sources, which still have not been addressed, after so much time. An article with NPOV issues cannot be promoted, according to the rules. And finally, this article is not new anymore, according to the rules it should be no more than five days old, but this one was nominated on 29 January, and since then nothing has been done to address concerns expressed on this page. Even an obvious mistake linking PFA with the pogrom in Sumgait was not fixed, despite being mentioned here countless times. Grand master  22:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article clearly states numerous times by third party sources that the Karabakh conflict is the main reason behind Armenophopia in Azerbaijan. In fact, there's an entire section devoted to the conflict. Therefore, the article is clearly not in violation of NPOV and thus provides an important background context as to when, how and why Armenophobia in Azerbaijan exists. As to anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia, I just added the See also section which gives a link to the mentioned article.

In regards to PFA, my knowledge of Azerbaijani served me well. The official website of the PFA states: 1988-ci ildə Azərbaycan Xalq Hərəkatı başlayanda məhz Elçibəy onun öndərlərindən biri oldu.

Translation: One of the principal founders of the Azerbaijani Popular Movement in 1988 was Abulfez Elchibey.

The Movement would eventually be known as and organized (Azer: təşkilatlanmış) into the Azerbaijani Popular Movement in 1989:

Non-Azerbaijani speakers, feel free to use Google translate.

Also, the article was nominated in the five day timespan of DYK therefore, it is still under qualification. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * PFA was founded in July 1988,  and Sumgait events were in February 1988. How could PFA have any involvement in Sumgait? The Azerbaijani source that you quoted says that PFA was founded in July 1989, which is inaccurate, because it was founded in July 1988. But in any case, it does not support your argument. Plus, the source used in the article does not say that PFA had anything to do with Sumgait. This is the problem with this article, it misinterprets the sources. What is needed in this article is to check every source quoted to see if it actually supports what is written in the article. My check of just the first part of the article shows that the sources are misquoted. While on superficial glance the article looks well sourced, in reality it is not.  Grand  master  08:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim has been removed from the lede. -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article says: In response to those Armenian claims, Azerbaijani nationalist groups, most prominently the Azerbaijani Popular Front,...doesn't say all the events were done by the PFA. Nevertheless, I'll add an additional source on Sumgait. Anyhow, I will not continue this discussion. I have already requested a third party Wikipedian to review this DYK and assess the nomination accordingly. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png All this article needs is a third party reviewer which I am requesting as of now. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is POV by definition, which is already a violation of DYK conditions. Besides, I believe the article is not new any longer, even if expanded, and if there has been no agreement about it for over three months now, chances are it is indeed unfit to appear on DYK. Parishan (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png We need a third party reviewer. Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to come in and review this as a third party. I've never written about anything in the Caucasus except for Black Hole of Baku. I've read the entire article, and all the comments above here. So... I think this has to be a Symbol delete vote.svg from me. There's some good writing, but unfortunately an article like this simply isn't OK for the front page. Even if the article were written perfectly neutrally, the hook is unacceptable - we have to look beyond Wikipedia at the damage that a main page Wikipedia hook could do to any sort of peace process in the region. We have a responsibility to the wider world to do no harm, and putting this hook, or possibly even this article, on the main page, would run the risk of inflaming the dispute (even in a minor way). Well done to those who wrote it for their work, but unfortunately it's not OK for main page viewing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)