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.