I want to point out the ridiculous amount of hostility surrounding topics
related to Armenia/Azerbaijan. There had been multiple cases of abusive
sockpuppetry and other forms of disruption. There had been two arbcom cases
over the matter and the issue has been before the arbitration committee
not-stop with clarifications and appeals for well over a year now. As
arbcom is unable or unwilling to pass useful remedies community attention is
particularly necesary. The community had been avoiding these topics like
plague. The problem isn't unique to this article but to a wide range of
articles no mater how vaguely related.
I do believe that the "minority opinion" clause of NPOV should be very
carefully applied (if applied at all) on this issue. There is a lot of
misinformation due to the highly political nature of the matter. Content of
the "Armenian Genocide" article and the Holocaust article has very little in
common so using Holocaust as a model may be very problematic. At its current
state the article in question fails the core principle of NPOV miserably. I
do not believe there is a disagreement on this.
Consider an unrelated case, the content of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasakiavoids
using the words "genocide" and "massacre". Massacre is only used as a
category (that category should be deleted). US willingly and intentionally
incinerated 200K people on that incident according to the article. Rather
than wasting time by name-calling genocide/massacre article explains "The
radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), followed by fires
across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles) south of the
bomb" and the reader can decide weather or not that was mass
murder/massacre/genocide/whatever. Facts can stand by themselves without
colorful language and petty pov pounding.
Wikipedia is not in the business of passing judgement on what is a genocide,
what is a massacre, what is a terrorist and so forth. Article should present
sourced material and the reader can decide.
People without a conflict of interest should be working on this article
which pretty much disqualifies most of the people editing or that had edited
the article. I would hope to see this article as a featured one.