Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians

Please also Create an Exodus of Azeris from Karabakh page as well.

Its important to cover both sides of this conflict. Midgetman433 (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about first war? Refugees in Azerbaijan Nemoralis (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, one explicitly for the 700K Refugees from Nagorno Karabakh in the first war. If apparently 120K people can get a whole detailed page, surely 700K Azeris can get an equivalent, rather than 2 paragraphs buried in a subsection on another page, surely the impartial and objective people at wikipedia would not object. Midgetman433 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

If apparently 120K people can get a whole detailed page, surely the impartial and objective people at wikipedia would not object why would you use this inflamatory tone in such a sensitive article? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done i've added the info with the interlink as context to the lede of this article. if someone has the time to create/rewrite/rename the article specifically about the azeri refugees from Karabakh fleeing from armenians in the 90-s - feel free to do so Daikido (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

lol, they threw your edit out. Midgetman433 (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It isn't directly relevant to this event, so it has been moved out of the lead, although it is still mentioned in the body of the article and hasn't been thrown out. I'd argue that a specific article for Azerbaijani refugees of the first war should be created, and I absolutely invite you to do so. There isn't a specific group of people at wikipedia with such responsibilities, and, being extended-confirmed, you are just in your right to create such an article as anyone else. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am joining the others in finding this comment needlessly inflammatory. The exodus of Azeris from Nagorno Karabagh happenned in the early 90s, almost a decade before Wikipedia's creation, whereas this event is currently in the news as we speak, when Wikipedia is more famous than ever. If you see other Wikipedia pages about current events, you would see how much larger they are compared to events that happenned a long time ago and haven't been as studied/aren't as popular with the general public (see for exemple the war in Ukraine, compared to the first Nagorno Karabagh war as a whole). As such, there are many reasons why a dedicated page was not made before, and there is no need to call out the "impartial and objective people at Wikipedia" as if it was on a malicious/biased intent.

With that said, I also join the others in saying such a page would benefit Wikipedia as a whole, and if you are able to you are very much free to make an independant page about it. Evo1726 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see any inflammation. The user is just saying that 700k is way more than 120k. My elementary math manual says he’s right. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's inflammatory because it's asking what about these greater numbers of people who fled their lands 30 years ago and why they apparently don't have a specific page, when that's totally irrelevant to this page about the 120K fleeing in response to threats happening at this very moment. It's inflammatory because this isn't the place to discuss creating new unrelated articles. And it's inflammatory because it opens the course to more whataboutism, like the two Armenian genocides that occurred in the 1890s and 1910s-1920s. JM2023 (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There are creams for your inflammation. People’s free speech donesn’t cause inflammation. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

we all know what type of inflammatory we are talking about, we're not talking about the type that needs creams, you know it, we know it, we weren't born yesterday. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for free speech. Free speech causes inflammation every day, that's why whenever someone draws Muhammad we get global protests. JM2023 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"If apparently 120K people can get a whole detailed page, surely 700K Azeris can get an equivalent," This reads as you comparing the number of victims to suggest that the ethnic cleansing happening today is less bad than or justified by the ethnic cleansing of the late 20th century, and that I find disgusting. I am going to be charitable here and say that's not your intent, but as Super Dromaeosaurus said, you are using a highly inflammatory and insensitive tone on a very sensitive and touchy article about a current ongoing human tragedy and I ask that you be more careful with your wording going forward.

I agree that the article about refugees in Azerbaijan should be expanded - ask at that article's talk page or do it yourself. Doing it here gives off the impression that you believe it's biased that we are even covering the exodus happening right now. This does not read as a sincere request for the article Refugees in Azerbaijan to be expanded or copyedited.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention it has no relevancy to this article and no relation as it happened in 20th century during a compeltely different war and no RS connects it to this, it is covered and mentioned in other Nagorno Karabakh relevant articles. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Its 30 years(very odd to frame its as "20th century" implying its from a bygone era, when many victims are not even middle aged, "20th century" is about as arbitrary as trying to separate 1999 from 2001 as if they were from different eras)) apart in the exact same place, and arguably the same war and its continuation. Midgetman433 (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The first war refugees from 30 yrs ago are mentioned in many relevant Karabakh articles where RS makes the connection. What reliable sources tie that to this? Completely irrelevant to this article until then. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"The first war refugees from 30 yrs ago are mentioned in many relevant Karabakh articles where RS makes the connection."

Ok, and yet there was never a specific page created(btw I'm not against the idea), and if we go by the logic of it being mentioned in other articles so not worth creating, technically this exodus was mentioned 2023 clashes article, so why create a new page then? Midgetman433 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, a page exists already Refugees in Azerbaijan. Secondly, nothing you said means this page shouldn't exist, it's a notable event covered by many RS. And third, you're shifting the discussion now.

And as I said, not only there are no RS connecting first war refugees of 30yrs ago to the current influx of refugees from Nagorno Karabakh, the first war refugees were mostly from adjacent territories to NK, not NK itself. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"Secondly, nothing you said means this page shouldn't exist, it's a notable event covered by many RS."

I didn't say it shouldn't exist, I asked for someone to create one for the Azeri Exodus, the impartial and objective volunteers here don't seem too interested though, that was all I intended to highlight.

"And as I said, not only there are no RS connecting first war refugees of 30yrs ago to the current influx of refugees from Nagorno Karabakh, the first war refugees were mostly from adjacent territories to NK, not NK itself."

"Artsakh" considers the surrounding districts as part of its territory, and passed a resolution to push for the "liberation" of "Akna(Aghdam). furthermore there were 40,000 Azeris from Inside Nagorno Karabakh oblast itself that were displaced. Thats not at all an insignificant amount. Midgetman433 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

is your use of quotes around artsakh, which i have not seen any other editor do, an indication of negative attitudes towards the existence of that country (i.e., implying it is "so-called")? if so, you would have a conflict of interest and should refrain from participating here JM2023 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would use "quotes" for any separatist unrecognized entity, the same way I would refer to the "Donetsk People's Republic", or the "Luhansk People's Republic" or the "Republic of Abkhazia" or the "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic" or the "Republic of Serbian Krajina"(which arguably is its closest comparison), how can it be a "country" when even Armenia refused to recognize it in its entire existence. You show your own biases and conflicts of interests in not acknowledging basic facts around how every state has rejected recognition for the entity. I would also refer you to the reactions to the "so called presidential elections"(term used by the EU, Council of Europe, US, UK, neighboring Georgia, and other post soviets states like Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Artsakhian_presidential_election?useskin=vector#International_reactions Midgetman433 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The existence of a state is not dependent on the recognition of that state; de facto states are real states. Putting quotes around such countries is called using scare quotes and it's against MOS:SCAREQUOTES and maybe WP:INDCRIT. No one else does that, no articles do that. So obviously that doesn't show my alleged bias or COI. Not that it could show COI in any case. On the other hand, it's something that you uniquely do.

Regardless, I have no COI; I live on a different continent, I speak a different language, I have different ancestry, my country is not allied to Armenia or Azerbaijan, and I'm an atheist so I have no religious interest. What about you? JM2023 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you say my french friend. :), I'm sure there is no cryptic "clash of civilizations" outlook underneath, like all my other "neutral" french friends. lol I haven't made any edits on this page btw, only in the talk page, requesting a creation of an equivalent page(that for some reason all my "neutral" and "objective" friends here have no real enthusiasm about. Midgetman433 (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not French and I don't know where you got that idea. What makes you say I'm French? What anywhere has ever even implied that I'm French? I don't even live in Europe let alone France. I am also only on the talk page and have made no edits to the article proper yet you also continue to question my supposed conflicts of interest. and you're still using scare quotes despite it being pointed out to you that it's against guidelines, this time to dismiss my claims to have no COI. You're not assuming good faith (and you're apparently saying all the French editors you know who claim to be neutral are secretly not neutral? that's definitely not AGF and I could probably find some other guidelines it violates).

You continue to question my impartiality and allege conflicts of interest yet refuse to speak on yourself to confirm or deny what ones you may or may not have. Reminder that if anyone has any COI they are supposed to disclose them even when only participating on the talk page as I outlined and cited in a specific section. I've only asked you specifically because you're claiming I have COI.

We are interested in this article because the event is ongoing whereas the event you're interested in happened ten years before Wikipedia's foundation. i'll point out that you haven't created it either despite being the most interested, so you have no grounds to criticize anyone else for not creating it. You're not assuming good faith. JM2023 (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm the French person so that's probably where the confusion came from? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"i'll point out that you haven't created it either despite being the most interested, so you have no grounds to criticize anyone else for not creating it."

Well I haven't created it, b/c it will get deleted, so i don't bother anymore. This place considers itself the pinnacle of neutrality, but in my experience in the past, It has felt otherwise. So I just use the talk sections and bring things up of significance for discussion. Atleast those elements don't get reverted or deleted. Midgetman433 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Logically that deletion would apply to anyone who creates the article, unless you mean there is a cabal against you specifically and not against the creation of the article. So your own explanation for why you haven't created it also applies to why anyone else hasn't created it. Anyway I'm still wondering why I was wrongly called French disparagingly out of nowhere JM2023 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no objections for the page existing, what I want equal treatment, people here are far less enthusiastic about covering Azeri matters, when wikipedia itself portrays itself as "balanced" "objective" and "neutral" IMO. I came to the discussion section here to discuss matters first, b/c If I created a page or section, It will undoubtably be deleted, so I started a discussion in hopes that people here "higher up" can create the page. If I'm being honest I think a lot of edits even on this page, mentioning the recent agreement signed by Samvel Shahramanyan with regards to right of return has not been mentioned. for reference: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7F7XLIWsAA8CS9?format=jpg&name=large Other elements which I added regarding interviews from people traveling to Armenia saying that they are planning on returning after the situation is less in flux were also reverted. I get the feeling there is a certain editorial line and anything that doesn't fit into the editorial line is removed. Midgetman433 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of having such an article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Repeating what I already said: A specific article for Azerbaijani refugees of the first war should be created, and I absolutely invite you to do so. There isn't a specific group of people at wikipedia with such responsibilities, and, being extended-confirmed, you are just in your right to create such an article as anyone else. We aren't people "higher up" than you, and, provided at least a few sources are given (even just links inside tags should suffice), I don't think anyone would delete the article.

If you want to be sure there is no issue, you can create it at Draft:Exodus of Azerbaijanis during the First Karabakh War, so you have time to work on it, and look at Wikipedia:Articles for creation for any support you need. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

There are people on wikipedia that are more "higher up" than me, I have created articles before that have been deleted, and sourced edits that that have been previously deleted, de jure we might be on equal standing but from my experiences its been a very different murky picture, I don't want to step on toes, and I don't like getting into edit wars with partisans, so I don't create articles and do edits anymore without building consensus first in the talk pages on politically charged events. I would greatly appreciate it if others here did create the page, I would be more inclined to add materials to the page, if that is ok. Midgetman433 (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and if that happened without justification you can report them at WP:ANI. Going through the WP:Articles for creation process will allow you to create the page as a draft while discussing it and building consensus before it being published. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Well they always claim justification, something arbitrary, sometimes it feels like there are usually a group with certain sympathies one way and they try to delete anything that doesn't follow their editorial line, even if its with citations. Idk I just don't bother with edits on contentious issues anymore, I don't want edit wars, so I just only write in comment sections and bring up topics and maybe if the people think ok this is reasonable, someone will add it after consensus. Alteast in talk pages, no one deletes your comments and input suggestions and things are there for the public record. Like right now I want to add the UN statements about their recent mission to Karabakh. https://twitter.com/UNinAzerbaijan/status/1708875427807121906 https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh maybe some people here might find that relevant to add to the article. Midgetman433 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve already updated the article with it. TagaworShah (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t say or read like that. You’re trying to put words into other people’s mouths. You should stop assuming people mean what they didn’t say. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I will expand that article once I finish Stalin's repressions in Azerbaijan Nemoralis (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Stalinist" be a better title than "Stalin's"? Stalinist repressions in Mongolia uses it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Mongolia was never an SSR of the Soviet Union, whereas Azerbaijan was an SSR of the Soviet Union for its entirety and was even (re-)created during Stalin's rule. Thus Stalin directly ruled Azerbaijan as an internal territory of the USSR, so they were his repressions; while in Mongolia, presumably, they were repressions in the vein of Stalin and hence Stalinist but not Stalin himself. So there is at least some reason to have the inconsistency (but that doesn't mean it is or isn't necessary). JM2023 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the page Stalinist repressions lists events occuring in the Soviet Union itself, with the Mongolia repressions only under "See also". Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Opinion with attribution

What's wrong with Haaretz's characterisation? It wasn't stated in wikivoice and clearly attributed. Alaexis_¿question? 08:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It is opinion article that reflects the author's opinion about a subject. Nemoralis (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

That's right, and so what? Per WP:RSEDITORIAL we cannot use them for statements of fact but we can use them with attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 11:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Then use them with attribution :) We should avoid stating opinions as facts. Nemoralis (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Article name

"Exodus" generally refers to a voluntary migration, which is a very inappropriate term to use when this has already been referred to as ethnic cleansing or genocide by a great deal of observers and experts, such as Luis Moreno Ocampo. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Exodus" refers to both voluntary and forced migration. Most of the events listed on exodus#Historical events are instances of forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. Currently the event is more commonly referred to as an exodus, which can very well be described as ethnic cleansing but the common name is preferred for article titles. Lightspecs (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

...it's indeed a voluntary event. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"either leave, or live in the most anti-Armenian nation in the world which refers to you as subhuman animals and has constantly threatened to genocide you or ethnically cleanse you and which has committed real pogroms and ethnic cleansing against you in the past and has just attempted to starve you all by blockading your whole country"... isn't exactly a voluntary choice JM2023 (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It in fact is. As terrible as I find this situation this exodus is happening due to the Armenians' decision not to endure life under Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan did say it will ensure linguistic and religious rights for the Armenians. One could argue actions like the blockade could indirectly constitute forced displacement but as I understand there's no consensus in sources. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What Azerbaijan claimed regarding security has been heavily doubted already, and the residents echoed same concerns. [3], [4], [5] - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There are reports of Azerbaijani soliders forcing entire villages to leave with weapons, that definitely is forced no? Or the mother who lost her children because Azerbaijan bombed civilian areas? That was reported by BBC, if you have civilians areas being bombed and soldiers demanding you to leave with weapons, how is that voluntary? TagaworShah (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

A comment like this definitively shouldn't go without linking any source. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Here: [1] and [2], I had added the sources to the article which is why I didn’t directly link them. TagaworShah (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I see. I imagine sources in the future will deal with these more detailed cases better. Then we will be able to tell whether this was a systematic and generalized behaviour by Azerbaijani troops. An Azerbaijani official claimed what happened at Sarnaghbuyr was accidental and "collateral". But the case of Vaghuhas is undeniable ethnic cleansing. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute, The article favors the perspective of an Armenian view point.

The Article here claims that what the Azerbaijani government is doing falls under ethnic cleansing, but this is debatable, the first few sentences of the article begin with "Fears of genocide and ethnic cleansing resulted in over 65,000 having fled by the morning of 28 September". The point is, the naming of this article points it as a fact that ethnic cleansing is happening inside Nagorno-Karabakh, but there are different view points that disagree with this, for example, the Azerbaijani Government has stated that all Armenians can stay inside of the land of Nagorno-Karabakh if they want to and don't have to leave the re-integrated area. Most people in the news are terming this as an Exodus and until it is factually known that the Azerbaijani Government is forcefully asking people to leave the area, that we can claim it as Ethnic cleansing in the article. Wakapoodiaaaa24234 (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The Azeri government is not a reliable source, especially not in relation to Armenians (see anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan), and especially not when it contradicts the consensus of reliable sources. We don't cite the Turkish government on the Armenian genocide either because of its consistent genocide denial. JM2023 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not specific to the claims that the Azerbaijani Government is making, but from previously the majority of news sources that term it as an "exodus", and besides, you would need actual evidence to prove Azerbaijan is forcefully making these people leave their homes for it to be called as ethnic cleansing, not foreign analysts who only guess if ethnic cleansing is going on. Wakapoodiaaaa24234 (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

well considering the current conditions in Artsakh are "leave or die" according to the office of the president of Azerbaijan: "Elchin Amirbayov, the Azerbaijani president’s representative, warning that "a genocide may happen" if Nagorno-Karabakh did not capitulate" JM2023 (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not true @JM2023. Amirbayov didn't say it may happen "if Nagorno-Karabakh did not capitulate". He said genocide may only happen if this clique of separatists will continue to hold their own population hostage in order to get their political goals. Watch his interview from this second. You can see how the sources changed this sentence. However, none of them are reliable. Nemoralis (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

verifiability, not truth. the article says what I quoted, it's reliably sourced, so you'll have to change the article, source it, and have it survive possible contention if you want it to say differently. and what he said is effectively "we will kill you all if your state does not capitulate", he's just characterizing the non-capitulation of the state as a "hostage situation". Which IMO is outright false as I'm sure the majority of Karabakh Armenians support the only thing keeping their civil rights, homes, and livelihoods away from Azeri anti-Armenianism. If there's any real hostage situation then it is the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh perpetrated by Azerbaijan to lay siege to and starve out an entire ethnicity in order to get its demands of capitulation; so he's simply characterizing Azeri hostage-taking as Artsakh hostage-taking. and regardless, he's still admitting that Azerbaijan is willing to commit genocide to get the Artsakh separatist state to capitulate. Therefore the sentence is accurate and the sources are correct. And also, you misquoted him: he didn't say "genocide may only happen," he said "genocide may happen". JM2023 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You're using your own interpretation of a primary source to disagree with a secondary source; that is WP:OR, and we aren't permitted to engage in it. (Your interpretation is also one I disagree with, but my interpretation isn't relevant either).

Why do you believe that this article is an unreliable source? BilledMammal (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Linking a youtube video with your own analysis when we have secondary sources, really? I restored the content with another source. You aren't supposed to remove sourced content because you OR analyzed a primary source like a youtube video and posted here, also who says cited sources are unreliable? This kind of behavior is unacceptable. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does this tag keep being re-added? Exactly why? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the pov tag that kept being added linking to this discussion - several editors already disagreed with supposed pov. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Why was the pov tag restored again? Several users have commented already, what purpose the pov tag serves here exactly and how this discussion warrants it? The unduly added tag should be removed from the article, this is perplexing. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Brandmeister please self-revert, see comments above by me and others like BilledMammal and JM2023. That tag serves no purpose and links to this discussion which doesn't warrant it. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The article excessively presents the Armenian point of view without mentioning other aspects, which is a WP:DUE and WP:IMPARTIAL issue. The conflict is between two parties, but only one is basically presented. Particularly, the background section and analysis should be more balanced by presenting multiple views. I can fix those two sections, but will require some time. Brandmeister^talk 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This was an attack by Azerbaijan, it is the aggressor. Fleeing refugees are a result of the offensive. The article is well sourced and balanced, the tag should be removed. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

For decades part of Azerbaijan's territory has been controlled by a foreign army, the Artsakh Defence Army, landmines have been planted on swathes of land, four UN resolutions called for the withdrawal of Karabakh Armenian forces back in 1993, but this wasn't done. One has to look at a broader picture within international law, not just this military operation and it would be good to reflect that in the article. Brandmeister^talk 14:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

UN resolutions were not about Nagorno-Karabakh, they were about the surrounding regions. This is an article about the rapid fleeing of refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh and relevant background info is already there, please stop. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Then have a good read of them. They were about both NK and the surrounding territories. Just like many other Karabakh-related articles before that have seen joint editorial effort, this article apparently requires input from both sides to avoid neutrality issues. Brandmeister^talk 14:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If the problem is about some sections of the article, they should be tagged individually rather than the whole article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem of a non-neutral POV is not just limited to a few sections in the Article, it is all laced with Biased Phrasing that doesn't portray the whole picture in the Article, and makes it seem like Armenia was completely innocent in this Article. Wakapoodiaaaa24234 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

well maybe that's because it was. your personal beliefs on the matter are irrelevant to what the reliable sources say, and Wikipedia's method is to straightforwardly and without comment report what reliable sources say. Reliable sources are "on Armenia's side" and not Azerbaijan's. JM2023 (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: NPOV doesn't mean we present both sides on a topic as equal, it means we present the sides in proportion to their prominence in reliable source. On the topic of the Armenian flight, reliable sources barely touch on the Azerbaijan's point of view, and when they do mention it they reject it. We can't do differently. BilledMammal (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Armenian flight is undeniably related to a broader context of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not merely the recent offensive. Particularly since under international law Azerbaijan was conducting the operation on its own territory while the four UN resolutions haven't been complied with since 1993. So, as I noted above, a broader picture should be presented in the background and analysis sections at least. Brandmeister^talk 20:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Below, I've presented a number of sources that demonstrate our current balance accurately reflects viewpoints around the flight in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. If you feel that this balance is incorrect and can present reliable sources in support of your position, I encourage you to present them - just keep in the mid the sources need to be focused on the flight, not the broader topic, as the flight is the topic of this article. BilledMammal (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

it's really questionable that this person keeps getting away with pushing their exclusively AZ POV (in complete disregard for more neutral sources) for years Domane14 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

and now their continued replacing of the tag has resulted in the blurb for this article being removed from ITN despite the strong consensus there. JM2023 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the tag should be removed and stay removed. The tag goes against what most editors want, and it's now compromised the existence of the blurb on ITN. JM2023 (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree: The article is mainy written with the Armanian perspective.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That is because the "Armenian perspective" is the correct one as shown by RS. JM2023 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no perspective that is the correct one especially in such a controversial and recent topic like this, even if one considers one perspective to be the best, it doesn't mean it is factually correct and in Wikipedia we must consider all perspectives and view points in an article for it to respect our Neutrality rules, this article overtly and blatantly only ever shows this article from an Armenia view point, it also mostly quotes Armenians and what they think, we need a counter point for it to be balanced. Wakapoodiaaaa24234 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Counterpoint to what? Azerbaijan alleges Armenians can "safely stay" which is doubted by multiple RS, that's in the article. Other than that, your comments are vague and you should beware pf WP:GS/AA, you don't even have double digit edits and you're making such vague unproductive comments it doesn't help the discussion. Maybe familiarize yourself with GS/AA, start editing more in less controversial articles, and then comment with concrete evidence for your claims, not vague comments. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

verifiability, not truth; your personal beliefs on the "correct" information about conflict are not relevant, the reliable sources are. "neutral point of view" does not mean what you seem to think it means; it doesn't mean presenting all sides in a "balanced" way, it means neutrally (i.e., without question or comment) presenting what reliable sources say. for example, we don't neutrally report the Armenian genocide denial of Turkey because it so obviously goes against academic and political consensus. JM2023 (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

how is it debatable? Check the definition and you will see that what's happening checks almost every single point of it. The former ICC prosecutor and others don't use the word 'genocide' for fun. While i agree that this term is debatable, 'ethnic cleansing' definitely is not in the context of what is happening on the ground. Domane14 (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - it is stated several times above that the article is reflective of the balance in independent reliable sources, but I'm struggling to see that as correct, so I think the NPOV tag is merited for the time being. If I read this BBC article for example, it clearly presents both points of view - what the Armenians are saying, what the Azerbaijanis say, and factual accounts of what happened. If all parties can work together to bring the tone of this article similarly into line with such neutral accounts, instead of bickering, then the tag can go. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  The article you link isn't focused on the flight but on the broader conflict; it helps us determine what is WP:DUE for 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh but not for this article. A better article would be this one, this one, or this one; all of which are focused on the flight and give little space to Armenian claims and when it does present them puts them in a context that casts doubt, such as Despite Azerbaijan's public reassurances, there are fears about the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh, with only one aid delivery of 70 tonnes of food having been allowed through since separatists accepted a ceasefire and agreed to disarm.

  When we review other reliable sources, such as Reuters, we see they go even further than the BBC in dismissing the Azerbaijani position. BilledMammal (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  yes exactly. people keep presenting a controversy in RS where there is none. This is not the 80s FCC, we have no fairness doctrine that tells us to present both sides of a story equally when one side is RS consensus and the other is the perpetrating country. JM2023 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree too. WP:FALSEBALANCE is not neutrality. Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Do we even need to entertain this by leaving the tag up? The editors claiming NPOV issues are a fringe minority in this discussion who've tried to articulate how the RS are unreliable by instead citing the Government of Azerbaijan and YouTube videos. Brandmeister's repeated insistence that editors be reminded of a series of 1993 UN Security Council resolutions on the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the UNSC's reaffirmed support for the cessation of hostilities is utterly irrelevant. This article is about a mass flight. With full respect to Amakuru (as I believe they've been a longtime voice of reason at ITN/C and they've earned much goodwill from me), I believe their assessment misses the mark here. A false balance is not neutrality. It is beyond inappropriate to "both sides" large-scale human suffering, especially when the power dynamic is this imbalanced. We do not need to dedicate an equal amount of bytes to presenting arguments that what's happening here is something to be celebrated.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  agreed. and the youtube video in question has the president's rep outright stating "genocide may happen"... JM2023 (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think we can remove it. I've rewritten most of the article and I believe improved the tone; while this won't address the WP:BALANCE concerns expressed we are not able to address those concerns unless sources are provided - and given that my own search found no suitable sources, I don't believe enough suitable sources exist to counter the weight of the reliable sources that we have already identified. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  given the amount of bytes that have been added by the dissenters without them providing even a single dissenting source except for Azeri government statements, safe to say it's time to remove the tag JM2023 (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree the tag should be removed, I don’t see any reliable sources being presented that directly focus on this event and present it as anything other than a humanitarian crisis. TagaworShah (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Copy-pasted contents from other articles

The entire "Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan" section and most of the "Analysis" section were lazily copy-pasted word-to-word from other articles. These are WP:UNDUE and of questionable relevance to the topic and thus should be removed and replaced with background info and analysis from RS that directly focus on the exodus itself. StellarHalo (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

anti-armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan is definitely not WP:UNDUE when the entire reason for the anti-Armenian ethnic cleansing is anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan. The reason for the ethnic cleansing should obviously be in the article about it. And text is copy-pasted between articles all the time, no point in rewriting something every time; it's even an actual editing function called transclusion. JM2023 (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The entire "Anti-Armenian sentiment" section consists only of cherrypicked instances of when the sentiment has manifested rather than any general background info on the phenomenon as a whole. There is no justification for any of them to be given WP:DUE weight for inclusion in this article. This article should only include what most RS say about the flight/exodus including the claims that this constitutes ethnic cleansing caused by intimidation and fear but it should not include any content purely because you think it is relevant based on original research. StellarHalo (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

it's not original research, RS are saying Armenians are fleeing due to valid fears of ongoing and future Azeri anti-Armenian persecution and sentiment. JM2023 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Then put in what RS are saying regarding this flight being a result of fear of persecution instead of the copy-pasted stuff that recently got removed. I never said we should not include discussion of anti-Armenian sentiment causing this flight/exodus but all contents have to be discussed in most RS in relation to this specific event. StellarHalo (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Then put in what RS are saying I can't do anything but talk because I'm not extended-protected confirmed. Someone else will have to do it. JM2023 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You can link the RS here and we can add them. Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

It seems categorizing this as ethnic cleansing is overstretching. Firstly, an ethnic cleansing is forceful. Here the're leaving voluntarily and have an option to stay. Judging by news sources, this accusation comes solely from the Armenian side, has been rejected by Azerbaijan and is not corroborated by third-party sources, particularly Russian peacekeepers in the area. Per WP:REDFLAG, some robust evidence is needed to categorize this as ethnic cleansing. The situation is basically migration due to perceived unfavorable conditions, similar to ongoing African migration to Europe and elsewhere. Brandmeister^talk 09:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are fleeing because of fears of ethnic cleansing and genocide, fears that are supported by a variety of sources - and an high ranking Azerbaijani official. I don't think it is appropriate to characterize such flight as voluntary. BilledMammal (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, they didn't just wake up and decided to flee the area, they're forced to because of what happened. There have been fears of ethnic cleansing and genocide since the blockade of the region, this is vastly sourced both in the blockade and offensive articles. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Fears is something different from the happened event. This is not the same as events at Category:Ethnic cleansing in Asia or Category:Ethnic cleansing in Europe that are backed up by muliple sources as real events. Extraordinary claims require evidence and appropriate sourcing. Brandmeister^talk 09:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's such an extraordinary claim when it's something pertaining to a region which has had multiple genocides, pogroms, and ethnic cleansings, with a country that has the most anti-Armenianism in the world, which apparently advocates for ethnic cleansing even in COVID messaging, and when the office of the azeri president is stating to the media that Karabakh Armenians will face genocide if they don't give up... JM2023 (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

A decision of displacement, exile, or eviction by a state has not been issued; therefore, this does not constitute ethnic cleansing. When people leave their places due to fear or suspicion, it is referred to as "flight." It should be removed from the category of ethnic cleansing.

"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation, or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction."

Your perspective does not align directly with the definition of ethnic cleansing in the article. The Azerbaijani government declared an integration program, and they stated that Armenians living in the region could live as Azerbaijani citizens, which is why it cannot be referred to as ethnic cleansing. The concept of ethnic cleansing is entirely based on allegations that you hypothetically put forward. NotDeceived (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

the "concept of ethnic cleansing" is actually entirely based on RS presented neutrally, which is what occurs on Wikipedia. Many experts and figures characterize this as ethnic cleansing, as well as the previous blockade (which has also been called a genocide attempt). This is because Azerbaijan's blockade was intended as genocidal pressure on the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh according to some experts. Azerbaijan's declarations are not reliable because Azerbaijan is not a reliable source. Azerbaijan has a long history of persecuting, ethnically cleansing, and mass murdering Armenian people on the basis of their ethnicity alone. There is also evidence of Azeri soldiers forcing Armenians to leave Nagorno-Karabakh directly. JM2023 (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

we don't go by the Azeri government, it's not a reliable source. We don't go by the Turkish government for information on the Armenian genocide. And in light of Russia's recent actions and track record I wouldn't say that the Russian government is a reliable source either. Just because the Armenian gov says one thing and the Azeri one says another doesn't mean we strike a balance or write neither -- there are other factors involved. JM2023 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what sources say. The categories should be uncontroversial. Let's add information to the article itself in the meantime and once there is a critical mass then the categorisation can be updated. There is no deadline. Alaexis_¿question? 11:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue of trust or distrust in the Azerbaijani government is not relevant to this article. The purpose of the article is to provide information about the definition of "ethnic cleansing" and assess whether a specific event aligns with that definition. While it may not directly address matters of trust in government officials, it is important to make additions to the article based on official statements and sources. I understand that such a discussion may require further details and evidence. To make additions to the article, you may need to refer to official sources and statements. NotDeceived (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue of trust or distrust in the Azerbaijani government is not relevant to this article it is actually of utmost importance. Azeri gov statements cannot be taken at face value because they go against almost all other sources, and it is not a reliable source anyway. Wikipedia does not accept unreliable sources. Official sources and statements are not accepted if those sources are not reliable - the word "official" means nothing. Just because something comes from a government does not mean it is true. Azerbaijan also denies the Armenian genocides, which demonstrably occurred. Learn the basic policies on reliability and neutrality before making arguments because if not we will just have to continue going over the same policies again and again. JM2023 (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone would appreciate it if Brandmeister refrained from using again analogies such as African inmigration to Europe to describe this event. I find it pretty disrespectful. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I made such analogy because both cases involve unfavorable conditions, either real or perceived ones. Particularly, migration due to war or armed hostilities has been a well-known issue and some areas, like Karabakh, Libya, Sudan or Syria are more prone to it than others. Brandmeister^talk 11:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The "unfavorable conditions" in this case being a decades-long ethnic conflict and aggressive discourse by the state hosting the target national minority. The "unfavorable conditions" are very real. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There's much more to it than merely "aggressive discourse by the state hosting the target national minority", including killing of thousands of Azerbaijanis during March Days, Armenian–Azerbaijani war (1918–1920), Khojaly Massacre, UN resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, etc. But I won't elaborate here as this is tangential to this thread. Brandmeister^talk 12:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a two-sided conflict, however this part of it is caused by the behaviour of one. Both should be blamed when due and in their respective articles. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

the least you could have done was bring up the Azerbaijani mass killing of Armenian civilians if you were going to bring up all those incidents. You're the one concerned with an imbalance you believe is present, yet you list off all those incidents without bringing up a single contextual incident of Azeris killing Armenians en masse and then just say "I won't elaborate". If you want us to portray "the wider context" as you say i.e., describing the wider conflict, then that includes Azeris killing and threatening Armenians for a hundred plus years, not just Armenians killing and threatening Azeris for a hundred plus years. JM2023 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Not an ethnic cleansing: This is clearly not an ethnic cleansing as Armanians leave the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan voluntarily because of fear. No proof of collateral damage or attacks on civilians after the offensive end along with the dissolution of self proclaimed "Republic of Artsakh" military let alone an ethnic cleansing. :Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, of course they have been attacked during 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh (one should check this page), and there was a lot of the "collateral damage". They are leaving "because of fear"? Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I said after the offensive and collateral damage is not an ethnic cleansing. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is the most anti-Armenian state in the world, historically has had multiple pogroms and ethnic cleansing perpetrated against Armenians, refers to Armenians as subhuman animals even in their education system to children, publishes images like this considered advocating for ethnic cleansing, and denies the Armenian genocide; their months-long blockade of Artsakh is considered an ethnic cleansing attempt and is the direct cause of the dissolution of Artsakh and the current exodus, and the office of Azeri president has threatened another genocide against Karabakh Armenians if they don't dissolve their nation-state... there is a strong case to be made that under these conditions it is an ethnic cleansing. "leave or be treated like this". JM2023 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Non of those Armanian point of view is a prove that there is a onging ethnic cleansing. And you forgot ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis by the Armenians during the first war in the same region.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You guys love whataboutism huh. One crime does not excuse another. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The article we are discussing has RS telling us it's an ethnic cleansing. It also tells us with RS that the blockade is also an ethnic cleansing and possibly a genocide. You have yet to cite a single reliable source (in fact you've only reported one source, that explicitly just reports an Azeri government statement) to back up any of your proposals or arguments to change the article or justify your views on it.

And we fail to see the relevance in bringing up crimes against Azeris; while it could show another Azeri motivation i.e., an attempt at "revenge", but that has no relevance to whether or not this is an ethnic cleansing. JM2023 (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is an appropriate category. The ethnically homogeneous population is leaving because of the currently ongoing and very recent violence (the war) and also under threat of future violence. This is very much obvious in the context of Armenian genocide and the previous much more recent ethnic cleansing during the AA conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Support "ethnic cleansing" because the event fits the classic definition of the term [3], i.e. Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group. The force (during the military operation) and the intimidation/fear are clearly present. Why else 100,000+ people would be leaving in a matter of days? Some people have been arrested, etc.My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Categories should reflect the article, and currently all it says about ethnic cleansing is that Pashinyan and Haaretz consider this as such and that Armenians are leaving due to fears over genocide and ethnic cleansing. The article does not convincingly justify the presence of the category. For that, a more nuanced analysis from a variety of sources will need to be added in the article. This was achieved in the blockade's article where it is argued with many sources that one of its objectives was/is the ethnic cleansing of Armenians. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. For an ethnic cleansing per WP:REDFLAG there must be reliable evidence on the ground fitting the definition. The Russian peacekeeping force has been deployed particularly to prevent such issues and so far, AFAIK, it didn't present any evidence supporting the partisan allegations. If and when such third-party evidence emerges, we can reconsider, but presently categorizing this as ethnic cleansing contributes to article's NPOV issues. Brandmeister^talk 16:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    The Russians are definitely not “third party” evidence, they literally authorized the offensive in the first place, we have numerous western sources describing this as ethnic cleansing. TagaworShah (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Changing vote. Not sure if this shit is true but it's gross as hell [4]. Strong support ethnic cleansing category. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• I read the best definition of ethnic cleansing I could find (actually two definitions, both by the UN), and I think it matches both quite neatly. In addition, when I simply google "ethnic cleansing" in google news, of course Karabakh comes up for the first few dozen hits, and about half either refer to Armenian govt fears of ethnic cleansing but the other half either call it that or say they fled from fear - and since the fear is quite justified given the history of the last 3 years - this past week being no exception, it meets I think all the criteria for calling it as such. Here are the two definitions in any case if you're interested: "A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”". So yeah these people didn't leave because they had grown bored of their home decor. They left out of fear due to 3 years of intimidation and attacks (they blasted Islamic calls to prayer loudly around the clock as psychological warfare against a couple of Armenian villages for example), as well as poor treatment of captured Armenian civilians and soldiers (see what they did near Jermuk for 2 horrific examples of human rights violations to military personnel), to put it mildly. Oh right, and they were all starved and deprived of freedom of movement for months and months before attacking the entire enclave, killing many soldiers and civilians. I mean, if that doesn't qualify as force and intimidation, I don't know what does. --RaffiKojian (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  exactly JM2023 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  it is important to clarify that there is no evidence or indication of ethnic cleansing taking place. The voluntary departure of individuals or communities from a region, driven by their own choices and motivations, is distinct from ethnic cleansing, which involves forced displacement or systematic violence against a particular ethnic, religious, or national group. In this situation, it appears that people are leaving the area of their own accord, which is fundamentally different from actions associated with ethnic cleansing. It is essential to differentiate between these scenarios to accurately address the situation and ensure the protection of individuals' rights and choices. NotDeceived (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I should probably ask you if you've read the very article you are discussing. you need to cite reliable sources to back up your claims. JM2023 (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I read the article. You want to reflect your own opinions in the article. First of all, it is obvious that the reason for using the Aghdam corridor is not because people are afraid but because it is a purely political move. Because if the Aghdam corridor had started to be used, you would have accepted that you are a region connected to Azerbaijan, not Armenia. Instead, you found it right to make propaganda of "they are starving us" by not using the Aghdam section. What you are doing now is a choice, just like your choice not to use the wax section. You chose to leave that region rather than live in a region affiliated with the territory of the Azerbaijani state. This is not ethnic cleansing. The definition of ethnic cleansing has been written many times in this speech section. NotDeceived (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I read the article then you know it is not my opinion, it is RS-verified. You want to reflect your own opinions in the article since you've read the article, you know it's been cited with RS consensus, so you know it's not my opinions. I haven't even edited the article a single time. using the Aghdam corridor there is no Aghdam corridor. you have yet to cite anything. not because people are afraid azerbaijan blockaded the whole country, prevented even food and medicine from entering, cut internet and power lines, then invaded. Azerbaijan is also the most anti-Armenian country in the world. a purely political move. that's not cited. however, what is cited is that Azerbaijan's intention was to take political control by causing a humanitarian crisis. you found it right to make propaganda as I said, it's RS consensus. calling it propaganda without citing a consensus is disruptive. they are starving us they were. people died of starvation. Aghdam section once again no one has ever heard of this. do you mean Lachin? It was the first thing that was blocked off by the Azeris. wax section no one knows what that is either. You chose to leave that region I am now the second person here you have assumed to be from Artsakh. I am not even from Eurasia. Why do you think we are Artsakhi? rather than live in a region affiliated with the territory of the Azerbaijani state you mean rather than live in the country that has persecuted, ethnically cleansed, pogromed, mass murdered, and genocided Armenians continuing to the present day. This is not ethnic cleansing once again you've not cited that one single time, and it goes against the RS in the article. The definition of ethnic cleansing has been written many times in this speech section your uncited definition alongside your own interpretation of the situation which is against the consensus here and in RS. stop disrupting. JM2023 (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  It was up to you whether to use the Aghdam corridor or not. You did not exercise the options for political reasons. It's the same as choosing whether to starve or not. Since we cannot talk about a complete blockade, the question of starvation or not seems invalid. This was a purely political choice and you chose not to use the Aghdam corridor and starve your people. NotDeceived (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  there is no adgdam corridor. there was the lachin corridor, which was blockaded. the blockade was so total that even humanitarian aid was forbidden from entering the country. so we can talk about a complete blockade. even internet and electric lines were being cut. and for some reason you're using the second-person "you" to refer to the government of Artsakh as if you're talking to it. and it was Azerbaijan's political choice to starve the people of Artsakh. your comment is off topic. you're debating the existence and motivation of a blockade instead of discussing improvements or criticisms of the article we are on. remember there are active sanctions on this page, the rules are more strict than normal. do not disrupt the project. JM2023 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, you continue to make Armenian propaganda. It has been stated many times that the Aghdam corridor is open. It has been declared many times by government authorities that the aid sent can be delivered through the Aghdam corridor. Frankly, I think you are in this situation entirely because of the news sources in your own echo chamber. NotDeceived (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The definition of ethnic cleansing has been written many times in this speech section you're referring to the consensus of western sources as "armenian propaganda" without even bothering with a citation (which would go against consensus anyway). It has been stated many times that the Aghdam corridor is open what is this Aghdam corridor? and who has stated it is open? because the consensus of RS for months has been that the Lachin corridor, the only way in or out, was the first thing closed by Azerbaijan and remained closed the whole time. the aid sent can be delivered through the Aghdam corridor so why does RS say aid was not allowed in by Azerbaijan? who are you citing? you have not cited anything. I think you are in this situation entirely because of the news sources in your own echo chamber that's astounding to hear from someone who doesn't even cite a single word they say. if it's an echo chamber then it's the world's largest considering it contains all RS. while the only ones agreeing with you are...azeri gov sources. reminder that there are active sanctions here, rules are more strict. refrain from disruption. JM2023 (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Արցախի նախագահ Արայիկ Հարությունյանը գիշերն իր ելույթում պնդել էր՝ մթերք ստանալու ենք միայն Լաչինի միջանցքով: Նախագահի մամուլի խոսնակ Լուսինե Ավանեսյանն էլ, մեկնաբանելով Աղդամով մարդասիրական օգնություն ուղարկելու Բաքվի քայլը, հայտարարել է, մասնավորապես, որ «արցախյան կողմի հետ որեւէ պայմանավորվածություն չի եղել»: Երեկ էլ համացանցում տեսանյութ տարածվեց, թե ինչպես է զոհվածի քույրը պնդում, որ ոչ մի պարագայում Ադրբեջանից ալյուր Արցախ չի մտնելու:

  Շուշիի քաղաքապետ Արծվիկ Սարգսյանը, «Հրապարակի» հետ զրույցում անդրադառնալով իրավիճակին, նշում է, որ Աղդամով սնունդ մատակարարել Արցախին՝ նշանակում է ինտեգրացիա Ադրբեջանի կազմում: Սարգսյանը հավատում է, որ նախագահ Արայիկ Հարությունյանն իր խոսքին տեր կլինի եւ որեւէ պարագայում թույլ չի տա, որ Ադրբեջանից ուղարկված բեռը մտնի Արցախ։ «Աղդամով ալյուր բերել՝ նշանակում է Արցախի հանձնում: Եթե մեկ անգամ այդ ճանապարհով Արցախ սնունդ մտավ, արդեն կբացեն Լաչինի միջանցքը եւ կարճ ժամանակ անց նորից կփակեն ու աշխարհին կասեն` էս ա, իրենք մարդասեր են, ամեն ինչ արեցին, հումանիտար աղետ չկա: Դրանից հետո արդեն ինչ ուզեն, կանեն, Ստեփանակերտ կմտնեն, ինչպես առաջ էին փորձում անել: Հակարիի կամրջից ո՞նց են մարդկանց գողանում տանում, այդպես էլ գալու են՝ արդեն Ստեփանակերտից մարդկանց տանեն: Դրանք լրիվ նախապես մտածված ծրագրեր են, որոնք փորձում են կյանքի կոչել, բայց մենք պետք է դեմ լինենք այդ ամենին: Եթե այսքան ժամանակ դիմացել ենք, էլի պիտի դիմանանք: Ուղղակի աշխարհը պետք է ականջները բացի, ակնոցները հանի ու տեսնի, թե ինչ է կատարվում արցախահայության հետ»,- նշում է Սարգսյանը: Նրա խոսքով` Արայիկ Հարությունյանը եւս դեմ է Աղդամով սնունդ մատակարարելուն։ «Նախագահ Արայիկ Հարությունյանը երեկ հայտարարեց, որ ոչ մի պարագայում չեն թողնելու Աղդամով սնունդ մտնի Արցախ: Ադրբեջանցիները փաստացի լկտիացած՝ ինչ ուզում, անում են: Հիմա էլ ուզում են մուտք գործել Ստեփանակերտ: Հետո էլ Ստեփանակերտից են մարդկանց գողանալու, 90-ականներին էլ էին այդպես անում: Սովոր են դրանք: Մարդկանց գալիս, տներից հանում տանում էին: Նույն բանը հիմա են ուզում անել

  Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այս հասցեով՝ : https://hraparak.am/post/689e375098dbbbbd84781a3f090ebd6e

  © 2008 - 2021 «Հրապարակ օրաթերթ»

  I don't think you need to use translate. But people who want to understand the subject can use it and learn what I'm talking about. NotDeceived (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think you need to use translate why is it you are so insistent on me being Armenian or speaking Armenian? even after I've said I'm not? why don't you beleive me? JM2023 (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  i've translated the text and discovered this mysterious "Aghdam" is apparently something Azerbaijan is trying to set up that requires NK becoming controlled by Azerbaijan. So you're saying NK is making a political choice of their own to make themselves suffer by refusing to become part of Azerbaijan? Why say that instead of that Azerbaijan is making a political choice of its own to force NK to suffer by refusing to give aid without taking control of the country? Your POV seems to be that "an ethnicity [at risk of racial persecution, ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide, and pogroms] must either submit itself to Azeris [who call them animals and commit crimes against humanity against them] to get food, and if they don't, it's their choice and their fault". This is called victim blaming. it's already been gone over on this talk page before. i invite you to reverse the roles and consider your position if Armenia began doing this to Azeris. JM2023 (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is where you are wrong. Blockade of the region. Only the Lachin corridor on the Armenian border was closed. "A blockading power can seek to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country; although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade.NotDeceived (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)" In 1992 there was a real ethnic cleansing. 500 thousand Azerbaijani citizens were deported from the region. Azerbaijani lands were occupied and a de facto state was established. Azerbaijan did not recognize this de facto state established on its territory. Likewise, the United Nations did not recognize this de facto situation. At the end of 30 years, when the Azerbaijani state took control of its lands again. Armenians who did not want to live as Azerbaijani citizens did not choose to stay, they chose to emigrate. NotDeceived (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Only the Lachin corridor on the Armenian border was closed a corridor is a corridor, if one end is closed then it is closed. A blockading power can seek to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country; although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade this is irrelevant to whether the blockade is illegal or a genocide or not. In 1992 there was a real ethnic cleansing. 500 thousand Azerbaijani citizens were deported from the region. unsourced. also, it's inflammatory to say this is a real ethnic cleansing implying this one is not real. You also didn't show that Azeris leaving Armenia and occupied territories was forced. the Azerbaijani state took control of its lands again lands lived on by Armenians for thousands of years, they had their own ASSR within the Azeri SSR. Now they have to flee ethnic persecution by Azeris, leaving behind their homes. Armenians who did not want to live as Azerbaijani citizens did not choose to stay, they chose to emigrate. you're leaving out the part where azerbaijan has been committing ethnic pograms and discrimination and dehumanization of armenians for decades. and not exactly an emigration when its, as i said, their country has vanished and has been taken over by people who want to hurt them. Experts have called this "ethnic cleansing" so it will remain in the article. JM2023 (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.azatutyun.am/a/32569287.html

  https://www.azatutyun.am/a/32569766.html

  It is clear that the rulers of the de facto state in the region did not accept the aid coming from the Aghdam road for political reasons. In short, they made a "choice". Currently, it is a "choice" for Armenians to leave the region. This is not ethnic cleansing. Trying to portray the Azerbaijani government as an unreliable source clearly shows that your views are biased. NotDeceived (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I can't read that language. the azerbaijani government is an unreliable source according to the article you are on the talk page of. they even deny the armenian genocides. no one has seen RS saying what you claim about whatever "Aghdam" is, RS say that Azerbaijan blockaded the whole country. "leave or suffer" is not a free choice. RS in the article make that clear. "15 June — Azerbaijani forces crossed the Hakari bridge and attempted to raise an Azerbaijani flag but were repelled by the Armenian border guards who opened fire. After the incident, Azerbaijan blocked all passage through the Lachin corridor, including humanitarian convoys from the Red Cross and Russian peacekeepers. Video footage showed Azerbaijani forces placing concrete road blocks on the bridge. 26 July — Azerbaijan blocked an emergency food convoy of 19 trucks (400 tons) sent to Artsakh and called it a "provocation."" and this whole section. perhaps you are confusing Artsakh blocking with Azeri blocking? Really if anyone's showing their bias it's the person going against the consensus of the talk page and the article itself and calling everything except for what agrees with the Azeri POV "propaganda". JM2023 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The President of Artsakh, Araik Harutyunyan, in his speech at night, insisted that we will get food only through the Lachin corridor. President's spokesperson Lusine Avanesyan, commenting on Baku's move to send humanitarian aid through Aghdam, stated, in particular, that "there was no agreement with the Artsakh side". Yesterday, a video was spread on the Internet, how the victim's sister claims that under no circumstances will flour from Azerbaijan enter Artsakh.

  Shushi Mayor Artsvik Sargsyan, "Hraparaki"referring to the situation in a conversation with, he notes that supplying food to Artsakh through Aghdam means integration into Azerbaijan. Sargsyan believes that President Arayik Harutyunyan will keep his word and will not allow the cargo sent from Azerbaijan to enter Artsakh under any circumstances. "Bringing flour with Aghdam means handing over Artsakh. If once food entered Artsakh through that route, they will open the Lachin Corridor and after a short time will close it again and tell the world that this is it, they are humanitarians, they did everything, there is no humanitarian disaster. After that, they will do whatever they want, they will enter Stepanakert, as they tried to do before. How are they stealing people from Hakari bridge? They are going to take people from Stepanakert. They are completely preconceived plans that they are trying to implement, but we should be against all of that. If we've lasted this long we will have to endure. "The world should open its ears, take off its glasses and see what is happening to the Armenians of Artsakh," says Sargsyan. According to him, Araik Harutyunyan is also against supplying food through Aghdam. "President Arayik Harutyunyan announced yesterday that under no circumstances will they allow food to enter Artsakh via Aghdam. The Azerbaijanis are actually insolent and do whatever they want. Now they want to enter Stepanakert. Then they will steal people from Stepanakert, they did that in the 90s. Are they used to it? They used to come and take people out of their homes. They want to do the same now," he said. According to him, Araik Harutyunyan is also against supplying food through Aghdam. "President Arayik Harutyunyan announced yesterday that under no circumstances will they allow food to enter Artsakh via Aghdam.

  Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այս հասցեով՝ : https://hraparak.am/post/689e375098dbbbbd84781a3f090ebd6e

  © 2008 - 2021 «Հրապարակ օրաթերթ»

  Then let me make it easier for you. I made an English google translation. If you don't believe the translation, you can go to the website and translate it yourself. NotDeceived (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've already responded above by translating it myself. no need to continue on two separate chains. JM2023 (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  In the news I sent, did you learn who the people who did not allow food aid from the Aghdam corridor were? NotDeceived (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  the government of artsakh who did not want their people to succumb to azeri domination which they know would almost certainly mean ethnic persecution. azerbaijan has a long and famous history of discriminating against and dehumanizing and murdering Armenians. that's why they've all left now that lachin's been opened again. Don't you think if Armenia surrounded Nakchivan and cut off all supplies for months to put humanitarian crises on Nachkivan Azeris, that it would be a bad and unjustified thing? JM2023 (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Azerbaijan can close or open a border belonging to its own state as it wishes. States can sometimes do this. I advise you to look at the true meaning of the blockade. We do not want Azerbaijani flour here. We want Armenian flour. It has policy. And it is clearly evident in the news who made the Armenians in that region starve for their own policies. NotDeceived (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Azerbaijan can close or open a border belonging to its own state as it wishes. and by closing that border it lays siege and intends to pressure with suffering an entire ethnicity. textbook ethnic persecution. against international law. crime against humanity. this is all explained in the article you are supposed to be discussing. i wonder what else could you just dismiss by simply stating "oh they have a right to cut off parts of their own country from the rest of the world"? you're also ignoring words in the article you are quoting: he doesn't just say "no azerbaijani flour", he says the condition for azeri supplies is azeri domination and this is unacceptable because everyone knows Azerbaijan is the most anti-Armenian country in the world, it has a whole article i've cited numerous times here. JM2023 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  What you don't understand is that the arguments you make are not "ethnic cleansing" arguments. It is the de facto Armenian government that does not accept aid from the Aghdam corridor. This is a political choice. But you cannot tell the Azerbaijanis that you are starving people because they did not open the Lachin corridor. Azerbaijan wants to destroy the structure of the illegal de facto state established on its territory. The aim here is to destroy this illegal state. They are sending humanitarian aid through the Aghdam corridor so that the people in the region do not go hungry. They say you can provide humanitarian aid using this corridor. Moreover, the news source I sent you is not a statement from the Azerbaijani government, which you do not trust. These are the statements of the president and spokesman of the illegal de facto state in the region. I don't know what country you are from, but your government would do the same thing to a state illegally established within its borders. States protect their borders. Citizens pay taxes for this. Azerbaijani citizens who were deported by the de facto state in 1992 will now be able to return to their lands. The Azerbaijani state did this because it now has the power to do this. NotDeceived (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is the de facto Armenian government that does not accept aid from the Aghdam corridor because they have to accept Azeri ethnic persecution if they accept aid. This is exensively outlined in RS in the article: living under Azerbaijan means a life of hell because of their ethnicity. This is a political choice. why do you keep blaming it on armenians when we know that Azerbaijan is the one who is doing the blockade? The aim here is to destroy this illegal state we all know from RS that there is an underlying goal to destroy the Armenian people. We all know Aliyev keeps calling Armenia "western Azerbaijan". they are sending humanitarian aid through the Aghdam corridor so that the people in the region do not go hungry, man, read the article. they are blockading the entire country and forbidding entry of all supplies unless they submit to an anti-Armenian regime. the news source I sent you is not a statement from the Azerbaijani government i know, i read it, we all know what it says. your government would do the same thing to a state illegally established within its borders I don't know whether it would or not, but if it did, why do you think i would agree with the action? and how is that relevant to the article? Azerbaijani citizens who were deported by the de facto state in 1992 will now be able to return to their lands and Armenians will now have to stay out of their ancient homeland because it's now controlled by an anti-Armenian regime which refers to them as subhumans. The Azerbaijani state did this because it now has the power to do this this is called "might makes right" and it is not mutually exclusive with ethnic cleansing. Since RS have described this as ethnic cleansing, the article will keep that wording. JM2023 (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I hope one day you will not be killed and exiled from the house you live in by those who say we have been living here for 1000 years. The ancient land debate is a complete fascist perspective. This fascism exiled 500 thousand people to extinction in 1992 and murdered many of them. You even ignore the decisions taken by the United Nations. The only reason for closing the Lachin corridor is the virtual destruction of the state. The Aghdam corridor was opened to prevent people from going hungry. Despite this, the de facto Armenian government, which you try to portray as an angel of goodness, closed this humanitarian aid corridor in order not to be dependent on the Azerbaijani government. Frankly, I'm writing again. De facto, the Armenian government has closed the humanitarian aid corridor simply because of its own political preferences. IF IT CONTROLS THE BORDER OF A STATE, IT IS A STATE. I realize you understand this. I think he is openly making propaganda. Because you are still trying to make a state's defense of its sovereignty look bad, and you are trying to portray those who expel the people of that state and occupy its lands as angels. Because the WORLD knew that this was not the case, the United Nations took prohibitive decisions on behalf of this defacto country. EVEN ARMENIA did not recognize this illegal country. NotDeceived (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)NotDeceived (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  those who say we have been living here for 1000 years well they have been, and they're being killed and exiled from their houses by azeris who say theyve been there for 1000 years (even though they're turks, who came from central asia long after the kingdom of armenia was established there which was in roman republic times 2000 years ago). The ancient land debate is a complete fascist perspective so Aliyev must be fascist since he claims Armenia as Azeri ancient land and wants to take it over. This fascism exiled 500 thousand people to extinction in 1992 and murdered many of them you keep bringing that up without sourcing it and ignore the two armenian genocides plus the ethnic cleansings of armenians from azeri territory in the 90s alongside pograms even in Baku itself. You even ignore the decisions taken by the United Nations the UN has not told Azerbaijan it is allowed to starve out a whole people. closing the Lachin corridor is the virtual destruction of the state closing the lachin corridor means no supplies, meaning destruction of the population i.e. genocide. The Aghdam corridor was opened to prevent people from going hungry on the condition of azeri racial hegemony and the deprivation of human rights and self-determination. which you try to portray as an angel of goodness you'll have to take it up with the RS, not me. you're acting like i'm singlehandedly responsible for writing the article and like I'm making all this up. the Armenian government has closed the humanitarian aid corridor simply because of its own political preferences but you just admitted yourself that Azerbaijan closed the lachin corridor simply because of its own political preferences. and reminder that aid was dependent on azeri hegemony and loss of rights. IF IT CONTROLS THE BORDER OF A STATE, IT IS A STATE what? I think he is openly making propaganda who is? who's he? Because you are still trying to make a state's defense of its sovereignty look bad are you not trying to convince me that artsakh's sovereignty is bad? defense of its sovereignty you mean extermination of an ethnicity it doesn't like being there? you are trying to portray those who expel the people of that state and occupy its lands as angels uhh, what? Azerbaijan just expelled the people of that state and occupied its lands and you're portraying them as angels, against RS. the United Nations took prohibitive decisions on behalf of this defacto country the UN condemned the Armenian occupation of surrounding territories, not of NK's existence itself. and again it's not sourced. but its in the article so i know what it says. EVEN ARMENIA did not recognize this illegal country and does this give Azerbaijan the right to attempt to destroy its people and then force them out under pressure of subhuman treatment? Regardless of the answer its a moral question irrelevant to RS. JM2023 (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  @JM2023: You don't need to waste your time with this person, they will never listen. Just ignore them and move on. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  sometimes i like to think of it as a form of mental exercise, but it does get tiring, so i'll take your advice. JM2023 (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Even on Reddit, people make fun of the arguments when you come forward. The Armenian diaspora, which promotes ethnic cleansing and especially genocide, has been discredited all over the world with the recent events. Also, don't forget to let us know that you can bring your own items to Wikipedia. I will file a dispute lawsuit soon and I guarantee that Armenians will not be able to block humanitarian aid on news sites, and that these details can somehow be expanded with evidence obtained from Armenian sources. Detailed explanations that find it normal for a country to invade another country's territory have been completed. You tried to defend a similar legitimacy in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "I will show Pashinya's calls for unification with Armenia and all similar evidence from the past, citing especially Armenian sources." Then I will ask you to state your claim that our ancient lands can sustain fascism.NotDeceived (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• It does not matter whether or not anyone here thinks that the article subject fits whatever definition they have of the term "ethnic cleansing". Wikipedia includes what most RS say about a topic and does not permit Wikipedia:Original research. If we have enough experts in reliable sources calling it "ethnic cleansing" like in the Operation Storm article, then we could put this article in the ethnic cleansing categories. However, I would say that the 2023 offensive article should be put in them instead of this article. StellarHalo (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2023

Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians → Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh – In the same style of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Exodus of Sarajevo Serbs, Exodus of Iranian Jews. This was the title for the longest time of the existence of this article. "Flight" is not used by any other article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment My interpretation of "flight" is that implies a greater sense of urgency than "exodus"; this aligns with the three examples you gave, which took place over years, months, and decades respectively, while this event is taking place over just a couple of weeks. BilledMammal (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Flight or Flight (disambiguation) do not mention anything related to this. I think it is a rather informal term for this event. Exodus does not have an article either but does feature several similar cases. I would argue "exodus" is already the established term in Wikipedia for cases of this kind. Dictionary definitions of "exodus" do not conflict with this article's scope [5] [6]. I think WP:CONSISTENT applies here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

See here and here; when used as a noun in relation to escape it means "(an act or example of) escape, running away, or avoiding something: They lost all their possessions during their flight from the invading army." It's not the primary meaning of the word, but my feeling is that it is appropriate here. BilledMammal (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this was the original title and just because it isn't used by other articles with completely different context (as noted by BilledMammal), doesn't mean this article shouldn't use it. 'fleeing' or 'fled' is used by many RS, it describes the situation best as Armenians of NK didn't just decide to leave out of blue, they're fleeing urgently because of Azerbaijani offensive and developing takeover of the region. And multiple human rights groups and the NK residents themselves do not believe that Armenians can safely live under Aliyev's regime, despite his alleged safety guarantees to the population.[7], [8], [9], so they're fleeing their homes. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Exodus" perfectly describes this situation, and is also used by sources [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. I also don't believe this article is exceptional regarding context. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

'fleeing' or 'fled' are used by many RS [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. It's more appropriate than 'exodus' given the context and residents rapidly fleeing. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as "flight" corresponds better to an immediate evacuation of the region. It has also been used in article titles, like Flight of Poles from the USSR. Also, the argument that this was the title for the longest time of the existence of this article doesn't hold too much weight when the article's title changed 4 times in 48 hours. Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• I strongly agree: "Exodus" is already using by the mainstream news media. Such as: https://apnews.com/article/nagorno-karabakh-armenia-azerbaijan-separatists-3a89f27726439e89569af1b77ccef325

https://www.dw.com/en/ethnic-armenian-exodus-from-nagorno-karabakh-swells/video-66934290 https://www.reuters.com/world/azerbaijan-says-it-does-not-want-exodus-nagorno-karabakh-urges-armenians-stay-2023-09-28/

Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I think both versions are OK. As someone said above, "flight" is an immediate escape, while the exodus is a more permanent process, but it does happen. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Support. The "exodus" is becoming more common, e.g. [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think flight describes what's happening better, and as has been pointed out is widely used by the media as well. These people are fleeing. This is a flight. Exodus to me can be slower, and it implies some permanence. Here, it is fast and may be reversed if an international peacekeeping force is deployed as is being reported. --RaffiKojian (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The discussion around this event is being framed as Christian vs. Muslims and Exodus is just another attempt by some media organizations to continue that framing. We can simply use the neutral and accurate verb "flee" instead of the religiously resonating biblical framing of "Exodus."Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Snowclose per WP:SNOW JM2023 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I am not informed enough to form an opinion one way or the other about this move request, but I would like to point out that there are some articles that use "flight" rather than "exodus". Case in point: 1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans, Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II, Flight of Poles from the USSR, and probably more. Some or all of those might need to be changed at some later date per WP:CONSISTENT, but that is besides the point of this move request. - 87.58.35.105 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Also relevant: there was a very long discussion about the move of "1948 Palestinian Exodus" to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. See this move discussion and prior ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#Requested_move_6_January_2023

Those in favor argued that "Exodus" was not NPOV to refer to that event and that it was euphemistic. They also showed that the words "flight" and/or "expulsion" were more commonly used in sources than "exodus". Those opposed to the move argued that "expulsion and flight" was not NPOV, and that "Palestinian Exodus" was the common name. The closer found that "Expulsion and flight" was neutral with a wide variety of sources referring to it that way, gave some weight to those arguing that "Exodus" was not NPOV, and did not give weight to the common name argument because NPOV had to be decided first. :Jsfigura (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The original commenter doesn't make any policy-based argument for "Exodus" being a better name than "Flight." And he/she is not correct that "Flight" is used in no other article. If someone wants to make a WP:NPOV or WP:COMMONNAME argument for using exodus, sure, but to me the current title is both common and neutral. Both of the articles linked by supporters also use "flight" or "flee" to describe the population movement. Jsfigura (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I don’t really have a preference WRT flight vs. exodus, but Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians sounds awkward to me, so I’d prefer Flight/Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  definitely sounds better. there is a clarity basis for it as well: Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians fleeing are not necessarily fleeing from Nagorno-Karabakh. JM2023 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also agree that sounds better Jsfigura (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Actually there seems to be some usage of "Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" in RS e.g.[21][22] but this might be a little clearer. Mellk (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Another option would be "Artsakhtsi exodus" or "Artsakhtsi flight". BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Artsakhtsi" seems to be seldom used in English-language sources. Mellk (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support as WP:COMMONNAME controls here, and it seems as exodus is more widely used than flight in sources. Yeoutie (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ether way the move goes, the title should be "Exodus/Flight of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh" for grammatical and consistency's sake. Yeoutie (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support I prefer the wording "Exodus/Flight of [ethnic] Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh" over "Exodus/Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" (for instance, in reference to the biblical exodus, we would say "Exodus of Jews/Israelites from Egypt" instead of "Exodus of Egypt Jews/Israelites"). Bfoshizzle1 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose change to "Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh"; the current title, while a little awkward, better conveys the fact that these Armenians are native to the region. BilledMammal (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Propose to removed the sentence "representative of the Azerbaijani president threatening genocide"

Which representative of the Azerbaijani president threatening genocide? That is the reference for it? If it is not valid please remove the sentence. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Elchin Amirbayov, and the source is the Christian Post. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Also the Guardian, I added sources to lead and moved undue highly doubted reassurances as undue. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian cannot be a source because it is not a news article, it is a letter to the editor form a person who CLAIMS that the Azerbaijani official said this. This is not a reliable source and neither is "the Christian Post" which I have never even heard of until today. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

neither is "the Christian Post" which I have never even heard of until today. You not having heard of a source doesn't make it unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

the source is his interview with "Deutsche Welle" media. Domane14 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

considering someone above linked a youtube video of him saying it, it's a little strange to question its existence. JM2023 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

What link? From a reliable source with a translation? Please share. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

despite it being easier for me if you just scroll up or use the "find" function of your computer to find it yourself, here: this is the link we were given by @Nemoralis, who has similar beliefs to you about the article's neutrality. JM2023 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

After watching the video it is clear that he is not threatening Armenians with genocide. Azerbaijan officials actually says it does not want exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh, urges Armenians to stay.https://www.reuters.com/world/azerbaijan-says-it-does-not-want-exodus-nagorno-karabakh-urges-armenians-stay-2023-09-28/Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

After watching the video it is clear that he is not threatening Armenians with genocide he literally, explicitly says, in plain English, on camera: "genocide may happen" if Artsakh doesn't give up control. JM2023 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

He literally says that a genocide may happen only if this clique of separatists will continue to hold hostage their own population. He's basically telling Artsakh "give up, or else...'" Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you for posting this. Here is a transcription of what he says: "There is no evidence provided by those who suggested that there is genocide in the making, that these people are exterminated due to their ethnic origin. As I said, genocide may happen only if this league of separatists are, continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals... " Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nafis Fuad Ayon: You claim that the Christian Post is not a reliable source, but you haven't presented any evidence for this. Do you have any? BilledMammal (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I support re-adding the deleted content since it was done without consensus, and it would be good to add the other sources people brought up (guardian, DW). I can't do it myself because I'm not EP confirmed JM2023 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I can do it, tell me what else to add and I can copy/paste it. Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I mistakenly believed the content was removed, so no need for any action. JM2023 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Reminder: if you have a conflict of interest then you must disclose it

See WP:EXTERNALREL and WP:COIEDIT for more information on these behavioural guidelines. In particular, if you have any personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial COI, then you are strongly advised to disclose it when you participate in discussions on this talk page, and refrain from editing the article.

This is not a targeted accusation to anyone or either side in particular — it's simply a reminder because this is a contentious topic and such topics naturally attract special interests. JM2023 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree with this. I don't believe I have any conflict of interest myself, being on the other side of the continent from this conflict and with no religious, ethnic or familial connection to either side. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Luis Moreno Ocampo

Luis Moreno Ocampo, is the former first prosecutor at the International Criminal Court. This is relevant, as opinion of an ICC official and a person who used to be an ICC official is two different things 2003:DE:7733:85FD:AC66:ACCB:24EC:70F (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand; he is still the first prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, and always will be; he was the first person to hold that role. The current individual to hold the role, Karim Ahmad Khan, is the third prosecutor. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree, apologies for misunderstanding 2A00:20:D00F:B468:A4CD:D692:715C:FEEB (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be clarified as the first-ever prosecutor at the International Criminal Court to avoid misunderstandings? Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Also Ocampo's statement is repeated three times in different sections, including twice in the same words, so maybe these could be consolidated? Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment; while reworking those sections I changed it to "inaugural Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court" - does that work for you? I'll look at consolidating it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the second statement; it wasn't providing much benefit there. We can probably also remove the first or the third, but it fits well in both sections and emphasizes different aspects; I'll consider how best to deal with it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with those two remaining, great! Also "inaugural Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court" works for me too! Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

1RR restriction now active

@BilledMammal, Chaotic Enby, JM2023, Nafis Fuad Ayon, Monopoly31121993(2), Kevo327, and Wakapoodiaaaa24234: I've activated a one-revert restriction on this article, consistent with Wikipedia:Contentious topics. This prohibits making more than one revert in a 24-hour period on this page, with exceptions described at WP:3RRNO. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've set the template to expire in a week, but the template doesn't actually implement that parameter, so an admin can feel free to yoink the restriction in 7 days or anyone can remind me to do so. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Good call. Let's hope it won't be necessary to renew it after it expires.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

UN Security Council

@Brandmeister: Do you have any reliable sources that would establish that it is WP:DUE to mention the Security Council resolutions in regards to this article? My own searches have not found any, and you didn't include such a source in your edit or when you previously brought the topic up. BilledMammal (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That is mentioned in the Background section which summarizes the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. As such, this is essential, particularly to understand the stance of the United Nations and international law in this conflict. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In addition to the NPOV issue there is also a WP:OR issue; the source you provided is a primary source and as such you are only permitted to make a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. This is not what you have done. In that source, there are four calls for withdrawal:

• Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan;
• Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and the immediate complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces involved from the district of Agdam and all other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijan Republic;
• Calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group's Adjusted timetable, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation;
• Demands from the parties concerned the immediate cessation of armed hostilities and hostile acts, the unilateral withdrawal of occupying forces from the Zangelan district and the city of Goradiz, and the withdrawal of occupying forces from other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijani Republic in accordance with the Adjusted timetable of urgent steps to implement Security Council resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993) (S/26522, appendix), as amended by the CSCE Minsk Group meeting in Vienna of 2 to 8 November 1993;

However, you went beyond those statements, making the claim that the United Nations Security Council adopted four resolutions that called for ... the withdrawal of all occupying Armenian forces in and around Nagorno-Karabakh; this requires interpreting recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijan Republic as including Nagorno-Karabakh, something that goes beyond a straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. For both these reasons I hope you will be willing to revert your edit, find suitable sources, and bring them here to be discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

In response to your reply while I was adding that additional comment: we don't base our articles on our personal opinions about what information is and isn't relevant, we base it on the opinions of reliable sources. That is why I am asking if you have reliable sources that discuss the resolutions in the context of the exodus, as only once we have such sources can we begin to consider including the content. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

As you noticed, UN resolutions didn't even consider Nagorno-Karabakh as "occupied by Armenian forces" like the edit suggests. UN considered the surrounding regions of NK as occupied. And it's WP:UNDUE, personally interpreted and erroneous to be in the background of fleeing refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I second this, sources covering this event are not citing these resolutions as background, these resolutions were for areas outside the scope of this article, the interpretation of these resolutions is personal and violates Wikipedia:No original research. TagaworShah (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree and support someone reverting the edit that added the questionable material (provided it doesn't break 1RR; once again I can't edit it myself). JM2023 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Brandmeister will recognize the issue and self-revert, both here and at 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh (I've opened a discussion there too). BilledMammal (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"All other recently occupied areas of the Azerbaijan Republic" is exactly what it is. Particularly, resolution 853 mentions Agdam District that is inside NK proper. So no interpretation is required per WP:PRIMARY. But I can change the wording to verbatim, that the resolutions demanded the withdrawal from all occupied areas of Azerbaijan.

As for WP:UNDUE, again, the exodus is undeniably linked to the entire Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, not merely the recent offensive, and the Background section is also about it. Multiple works about the conflict mention those resolutions. So claiming that the UN stance is somehow undue here is weird. Brandmeister^talk 10:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

well looks like a self-revert is out of the question then @BilledMammal JM2023 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'll try one last time. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: I feel we're really getting into why using that source in this manner is interpretation, and why such interpretation is problematic. For example, you say resolution 853 mentions Agdam District that is inside NK proper, but prior to the war there was no overlap between NKAO and Agdam District. Just now I actually went looking for sources to support your interpretation of the primary source, and the first source I checked was Post-Soviet Conflicts: The Thirty Years’ Crisis, which says The UNSC adopted four resolutions on April 30, July 29, October 14, and November 12, 1993, condemning the Armenian invasion of Azerbaijani lands and demanding the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the Azerbaijani regions of Kelbadjar, Agdam, Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Qubadli, and Zangilan, all of which are beyond the Nagorno Karabakh region. It's possible that this source is in the minority - I did not look any further - but even if it is the fact that this source has a different interpretation from you demonstrates that we are beyond straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. (Incidentally, this source appears to support your interpretation that "occupying forces" means "Armenian forces" not "Artsakh forces" - but again, that goes to demonstrate that we can't rely on our own interpretations, we must rely on reliable sources.)

the exodus is undeniably linked to the entire Nagorno-Karabakh conflict It is, but it isn't for us to decide which aspects of the conflict are relevant to the exodus. If reliable sources don't consider the resolutions relevant why would we - and, considering our WP:NPOV policy, how can we?

Consider it from another direction; your arguments apply equally to including details about the 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh independence referendum, but I hope you will agree that we shouldn't even be mentioning the referendum. BilledMammal (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. Resolution 884, in particular, "calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993) and 874 (1993)". Similarly, resolution 853 "urges the Government of the Republic of Armenia to continue to exert its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny-Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with its resolution 822 (1993) and the present resolution". So the resolutions explicitly cover the Nagorno-Karabakh region as well, where compliance with the resolutions was envisaged. Anyway, I've made the UN part in the article clearer by using direct wording of the resolutions. Hope that helps. Brandmeister^talk 14:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate - This is the issue here; we're not allowed to say "that secondary source is wrong" because we have a different interpretation of the primary source that the secondary source is writing about. As I said above, we're not even allowed to interpret primary sources in the absence of secondary sources.

How you and I interpret the resolutions is irrelevant; we need to follow reliable secondary sources, both in terms of the interpretation of the resolutions and how prominent to make the resolutions on any given article.

Unfortunately the changed wording doesn't help, because the WP:NPOV issue is unaddressed, while the WP:OR issue is only partly addressed; it is an improvement over explicitly listing the resolutions as applying to the Nagorno-Karabakh region but we should be explicitly listing that they do not to align with reliable sources. The sentence "The resolutions have not been complied with" is also WP:OR; it is uncited and an argument could be made that the 2020 war resulted in the resolutions being complied with - I feel this is yet another good example of why we need to rely on reliable sources rather than doing our own research.

Because of this, I've gone ahead and removed the sentences based on the clear consensus here. BilledMammal (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no interpretation involved. As above, resolutions 853 and 884 explicitly mention that there should be "compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny-Karabakh region". That's a straightforward, descriptive statement that could be checked by everyone online as required by WP:PRIMARY. The resolutions are related both to Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories. That's one thing. Secondly, the secondary source I cited, US Department of State Archive, says "1993 UN Security Council Resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh", i.e. all of them deal with NK. And in the UN Digital Library itself the resolution 884, for example, is subtitled "on the conflict in and around Nagorny Karabakh". So their mention is important for the background section, but that they "have not been complied with" could be dropped. Brandmeister^talk 19:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at RSN that relates to this. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Number of refugees has exceeded 100,000

Acoording to RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, the number of refugees is no longer in the "tens of thousands", so this figure should probably be updated on the section Topics In The News of Wikipedia's main page. 94.252.1.34 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

anyone want to add this to the main article? the IP provided the source already, would just have to change "97,700" to "over 100,000" or "over 100,400". Substantial landmark JM2023 (talk) 10:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Updated in the lead and the infobox, with the source! Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

appreciated JM2023 (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani border troops asking Armenians if they are leaving voluntarily

Hetq has reported that Azerbaijani border troops are asking Armenians from Artsakh now crossing into Armenia via the Lachin Corridor if they are leaving voluntarily, of their own free will. If accurate then it is likely pertinent information to add to the article, but I am not comfortable with the source, and a single source reporting it is likely not sufficient for WP:DUE.

I haven't been able to find any other sources for this statement, although there is no obvious search query to help me do so so I may have missed something; can anyone else? BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Not an Armenian-speaker but I've managed to navigate through Armenian-language sources these days. I couldn't find anything other than that article's Armenian version. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for searching! BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Typo

By early September 2023 the blockade had caused supplies to all but run out; there was little medicine or fuel, while bread, a stable in the region, was rationed to one loaf per family per day.

I would assume this is supposed to be "staple"? JM2023 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph in Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians#Flight

The first paragraph in #Flight currently says:

Prior to the Azerbaijani invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, there were growing concerns that Azerbaijan, with a long history of Anti-Armenian sentiment, might perpetuate a genocide against the region's Armenians. Elchin Amirbeyov, the representative of the Azerbaijani president, issued a stark warning, suggesting that "a genocide may happen" if Nagorno-Karabakh did not capitulate. Echoing this concern, Baroness Caroline Cox, the founder of the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, urged the UK government to take steps to prevent such a tragedy.

I think I added this paragraph, but I now believe the content would fit better in the second last paragraph of Background, as it discussing events prior to the collapse and the beginning of the exodus. Would anyone object to this - I ask since I can imagine objections, and since the article is under 1RR I think it is better to discuss first rather than WP:BRD.

I also want to switch out the mention of Caroline Cox for Bob Menendez; he is, or at least was, the more influential politician, and his comments have been covered in more reliable sources than Cox's were (a few examples:France24, Time Magazine, and The Hill). Would anyone object to this? If there are objections, one option is to keep Cox and add Menendex, but I think that might be excessive. BilledMammal (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the paragraph in question fits better as the penultimate Background paragraph, having looked it over.

But as for the Cox-Menendez part, I can see objections for adding Menendez due to what could be seen as credibility issues which have recently re-emerged and become much more extensive (he was just indicted for corruption again a week ago and instead of resigning is apparently accusing his own party of anti-latino racism?); but by the looks of the Cox article, she's perhaps got some COI issues like this and this (on the other hand the second one could also be seen as having an expertise dimension to it), and maybe some credibility issues like this; Menendez is more known in the US but Cox is more known in the UK; so I'm undecided; wouldn't object to adding both. JM2023 (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Crap, didn't really know about Cox and now I feel bad for having brought the paragraph back. While Menendez definitely had credibility issues due to the whole corruption scandal, they're not necessariy related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, while from what I read Cox seems much more biased, especially given the whole anti-Islam stuff:

In February 2023 it was revealed that Cox and Lord Pearson were members of a secret group called the New Issues Group, which had been operating out of the House of Lords for over a decade and collaborated with far-right anti-Muslim activists.

So yeah, I'd support switching Cox for Menendez given all of that. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Proof of threat?

We are saying in Wikivoice in the lead that Armenians faced genocide threats. Sounds excessive. Do we have those alleged threats documented? Did Azeri officials say that they were gonna kill all Armenians? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue is extensively discussed and sourced in the "Background" section of the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

If you read the article you'll find an abundance of reliable sources backing up those claims. For example, a youtube video of an Azeri presidential rep threatening genocide in plain english on camera. Make sure to read the article you're going to be discussing before you discuss it so that you are fully aware of what it is that you are discussing; your question is rendered unnecessary if you've read the article. JM2023 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I won’t do such a thing because you don’t pay me a salary. Also, slavery has been abolished. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You asked us for "proof of threat" and we pointed you to the proof and now you're claiming we're trying to enslave you by telling you to read that proof if you want that proof. If you're not going to follow the guidelines for participation in the project, even such basic things that they're at the top of the very talk page you are on as basic policies, then you shouldn't participate. You're being disruptive, which is against the rules. Either discuss improvements to the article according to the rules or refrain from participating, because otherwise you're just disruptive. Comparing people asking you to follow the rules when you voluntary participate in something to slavery is disruptive and inflammatory. Telling people you don't have to behave because we don't pay you is also disruptive and inflammatory. There are active community sanctions in place on this topic, which means standards are higher than normal. JM2023 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur with the above. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

If not being paid justified you not reading the article before making remarks, it would also justify people here not having to take these remarks seriously. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 00:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"Displaced" vs "Migration"

@Monopoly31121993(2): You recently switched "Displacement" for "Migration". I don't think this is an appropriate change; it downplays the situation, and it doesn't accurately reflect the prominence of the viewpoint for each option; "Migration" sees very little use, while "Displaced" see far more. The reference used in that section uses "exodus"; would you consider this appropriate?

I also think that this change goes into too much detail for the lede; I think we should revert to the former version and include the names etc in the body - either way, the claim is attributed, and that is what we need to comply with policy. BilledMammal (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

in what sources is "mass migration" used? multiple experts characterize it (and the blockade) as an ethnic cleansing (and the blockade as a prelude to genocide or a genocide itself). sources nigh-unanimously call it a fleeing or exodus. this is all shown by the RS of the article. a mass migration is when Africans cross into Europe or Latin Americans cross into the United States (or historically when Europeans crossed to North America). a mass migration is not when an entire ethnic group flees their country at once in a hurry in the midst of a siege, invasion, ethnic cleansing, attempted genocide (as some experts and figures tell us in RS), and the dissolution of their entire nation-state. It is a displacement. I fully support changing it back to "displacement". JM2023 (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Since the word "Migrate" no longer appears in the introduction I think this is a mute point.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel "mass movement" is much better; again, I think it downplays the situation and doesn't reflect the use in reliable sources - while it is used a little more than migration, most sources that do use it do so as a supplement to "displaced" rather than a standalone description of the event (news.am, bellingcat). BilledMammal (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

UNRA in lede

@Nemoralis: You recently moved the UNRA comment that 'no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move" to the lede, citing MOS:INTRO. However, INTRO says that we summarize the content in the rest of the article, and now that information only exists in the lede. In addition, this is WP:UNDUE emphasis; the statement is only covered in a press release and a obscure Russian news source.

It also isn't a statement that all sources agree with; for example, USAID stated that there were troubling reports of violence, and that they had begun gathering testimony. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, also civilian reports published by Hetq, CTV News, and Bellingcat state instances where Armenian civilians where forced from their villages under direct threat of violence. This statement does not carry due weight especially in the lead, the official who made this claim was not in Karabakh and is only going based on their limited information which isn’t even being widely published. TagaworShah (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added the USAID source - was in the process of doing so when you moved the UNHRC content so got caught in an edit conflict. While the USAID content has greater prominence in reliable sources (Politico, SBS, Reuters, the Senior, The Telegraph, among others), I am not convinced it belongs in the lede either but believe that if we are including the UNHRA statement (and given the lack of reporting on it I am not convinced that doing so is appropriate) we should include the two together. BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a displacement. It is forced in instances, literally on gun point [23], [24]. Undue alleged safety assurances by Az for Arm population in lead shouldn't be left without challenging as they were doubted by multiple sources [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. I also agree that USAID/UNHRC fits better in body.

I also think this change went too much detail in lead and I expanded on body instead. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nemoralis: I just realized you also reverted my clarification of UNHRA's statement about ethnic cleansing; currently the article says The UNHCR, having noted no incidents of mistreatment, viewed the flight as a refugee situation rather than ethnic cleansing, but this doesn't match the source, which says that they viewed this as a refugee situation and could not comment on whether it constituted ethnic cleansing. I assume that this part of the revert was accidental; could you self-revert? BilledMammal (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as we mention international assessment in the lead section, UNHCR should certainly be there as one of the top organizations and key points per MOS:INTRO. Brandmeister^talk 13:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was an accident, sorry about that. I noticed that Kevo327 reverted my change without waiting for a response from me. It is written in the lead that this exodus/flight described as crime by some international experts, as Brandmeister said. Why should the UNHRC statement be in the body and not in the title? Per WP:BALANCE and MOS:INTRO, we should mention it in the lead. Nemoralis (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s actually a Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE you’re proposing, the lead is meant to summarize major points of the article, not include quotes from a single individual, it doesn’t have due weight to be summarized in the lead, the quote has not been widely cited and there is no huge amounts of articles and governments confirming that point, the part about the war crime summarizes an entire section and has been repeated by multiple sources, a single quote is for the body, not the lead. TagaworShah (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced allegations

@Monopoly31121993(2), you added, without source: Immediately prior to the September conflict and following it several sources have claimed that genocide or acts of ethnic cleansing were either in the process of taking place or were about to. While the UN monitoring the situation has not found any credible evidence that ethnic cleansing is taking place it has been a motivating factor which has caused people to flee the region.

Is there any source for this? Apparently the UN only sent a mission to Nagorno-Karabakh today, for humanitarian purposes, so I don't think their mission has made any statement about ethnic cleansing yet. Without any sources, I don't think we can keep this paragraph as it is. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the source mentioned in the discussion above, it states that the UNHCR could not comment on whether it constituted ethnic cleansing, which is not neutrally reflected in the paragraph. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring the "Flight" section

The "Flight" section, describing the event itself, appears to be much lacking relative to the other sections. Even then, parts of it include the warnings given by various organizations, which should likely be in a separate section rather than the one describing the event itself.

I suggest this section should be prioritized, and possibly restructured. While the timeline is a good starting point, expanding on the respective roles of Armenia, Artsakh, Azerbaijan and Russian peacekeepers, on the way the evacuation was organized, on the situation on the ground, should all ideally be done, and possibly as different subsections. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 17:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

UN team completes mission to Karabakh

The UN's input and preliminary assessment of the situation in Karabakh might be relevant to add to the Article

https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh Midgetman433 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Who" tag in the lede:

referring to this edit; they are named in the article, that's how ledes work on wikipedia @Beshogur, be sure to read guidelines and the article itself before making such edits; can't revert it myself JM2023 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023: Template:Who This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like.

What do you mean? Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I checked the source, it doesn't give single name. Just because it is RS, it doesn't mean "experts" without giving a name is appropriate. Beshogur (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This was already mentioned in the above discussion by BilledMammal [30]. The experts are mentioned in the body "International legal experts, Priya Pillai and Melanie O'Brien, a visiting professor at the University of Minnesota and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars" so the tag is redundant. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If those are the "experts" alright. Beshogur (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Also verbatim mentioned in the source "several international legal experts believe the mass flight fits the legal definition of a war crime." – that's what the source says, not an OR by wikipedia editor to warrant that tag. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

UN report

BilledMammal, concerning this, how a UN report on the ground amid allegations of war crime or crime against humanity is WP:UNDUE exactly? I understand the desire to present a certain viewpoint, but not at the expense of MOS:LEAD which calls for a neutral point of view. Alternatively, it's possible to move the entire assessment down to relevant section. Brandmeister^talk 21:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. At the moment, the report does not appear to have got any traction in reliable sources, and so by putting it in the lede we are giving it prominence beyond what is proportional.

In addition, it appears the report is from "United Nations Azerbaijan", not one of the international committees that we would expect to be more neutral; this wasn't made clear in your addition, and if the report is to be added - and I don't think we should add it anywhere until it has been reported on by reliable sources - this needs to be made clear.

I understand the desire to present a certain viewpoint Sorry, can you clarify what you are referring to here? BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The UN report has been widely criticized by a number of sources, for arriving after the region had been entirely depopulated of Armenians:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/02/nagorno-karabakh-ghost-town-un-ethnic-armenians-azerbaijan

https://oc-media.org/un-mission-arrives-to-empty-streets-in-nagorno-karabakh/

Who exactly did they interview? The dogs on the street? Of course they didn’t encounter any instances of violence against civilians when there was no civilians to be violent towards. There are numerous civilian reports of the refugees in Armenia describing violence against them, this quote belongs with all the other quotes like USAID and the refugee agency, they’re not independently verifying any claims, just repeating what they hear, this is not an official investigation of fact nor do they claim it was one, they just said they talked to “locals” but Stepanakert is a Ghost Town. TagaworShah (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, actually reliable sources picked it up: Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera, etc. Al Jazeera noted that for the first time in 30 years there's a UN team in Karabakh. And frankly, if there are international experts' allegations of war crime or crime against humanity in the lead, then the relevant UN report on the ground should not be ignored there. Otherwise we end up with a partisan presentation and a WP:NPOV violation. As for the desire to present a certain viewpoint, I mean the viewpoint of Armenian side of the conflict. Brandmeister^talk 22:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The mission was picked up, not the report. And as TagaworShah points out, reliable sources have noted the issue with a UN mission that arrived after the people had already fled.

I mean the viewpoint of Armenian side of the conflict. Please WP:AGF; claiming that users are trying to present a certain viewpoint, rather than the NPOV viewpoint, is against that. My purpose is to neutrally present the situation, and while I agree that the result of such efforts are more favorable to the Armenians than the Azerbaijani's, that is to be expected given the nature of the situation and the position of reliable sources, just like the results of efforts to present the Ukrainian-Russian war in a neutral manner are more favorable towards the Ukrainians than the Russians. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, there was no official investigation or finding of fact that supported that claim, they were not able to independently verify or deny claims of violence against civilians, they just said that from the “locals” and officials they interviewed they didn’t find any, which is to be expected when they come after all the Armenians already left, which is what the majority of the articles are emphasizing, none of the articles you showed even mention the point you’re trying to add. Who did they interview if they arrived to a ghost town? That’s why this is undue weight, and the UN mission has been criticized and that should be mentioned in the body. TagaworShah (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The UN report explicitly says that they interviewed the local population and some interlocutors. On the other hand, it could be equally claimed that those international experts alleging a war crime or crime against humanity in the lead were not on the ground to assess the situation. And that they are less prominent and recognizable than the UN. See, we're bogging down in unhelpful nitpicking by now instead of improving the article. Let's drop it and follow the policy of neutrality without WP:cherrypicking. Brandmeister^talk 22:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The report also points out there less than 1% of the population remained, and reliable sources criticised the mission for arriving after the population had fled.

When reliable sources report on the report, we can add details about it based on how those sources perceive it. Until then, it doesn’t belong in the article and definitely not in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What local population did they interview, the stray dogs in the square? International experts assessing the situation from a legal perspective based on findings of fact is different from the UN representatives Azerbaijan appointed for this mission that did not even visit majority of the area and came after virtually the entire population left, saying they didn’t hear about any instances, not that they didn’t find any instances in an investigation, just that they didn’t hear about it, because there’s literally nobody left and they were barred from most of Karabakh where damage occurred. TagaworShah (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian, for example, cover both the mission and the report. And frankly, separating the mission from the report is pointless, sources may use different wording while covering it. As for the rest of arguments, I'd rather spare my time. Seriously, folks? Personally, I don't want to slap a NPOV tag again on the article. Brandmeister^talk 22:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You're right; I overlooked that. However, the article provides no coverage of the aspect you highlighted; based on the Guardian article, I think it would be appropriate to include the following in the "Flight" section: "A United Nations mission to the region at the start of October found that only between 50 and 1000 ethnic Armenians were left in the region".

And it would be inappropriate to add such a tag; we are presenting viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, as required by WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is ridiculous bias here, they are try to find any which way to throw out the UN report b/c it doesn't match up with the editorial viewpoint they wan to project. Some guy calling it "United Nations Azerbaijan" to somehow imply the UN is biased or lying. The UN does all its works via its missions in the different countries. Kavita Belani, United Nations Refugee Agency UNHCR Representative in Armenia said something similar about how "There were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people" The Spokesperson for the UN in New York Stephane Dujarric stood by the report and said it was led by a senior U.N. aid official. But they dismiss all this.

Then there is the matter where he claims that it wasn't widely covered, which is also untrue, its been covered by many prominent outlets, including several western outlets, thought they chose to mention some parts of the report and ignore other parts of the report, I guess to match their own editorial line. You see how much scrutiny they apply to the United Nations and yet Ocampo's word is taken as the gospel, like its irrefutable, despite the guy never having stepped in the country, he isn't even a researcher who collected info from being on the ground, all his info is from 3rd parties, his report was criticized for its flaws by some international law experts, he was commissioned for the report by Harutyunyan, and has no record of commenting on this conflict until recently, and has a record of receiving payment from foreign actors to write and lobby on their behalf for example with Khalifa Haftar, the libyan warlord accused of atrocities. All these "nuetral"/"objective" people want to tell a story, but they insist that anything that contradicts the preconceived be thrown out and whatever works in their favor be treated as the gospel. Midgetman433 (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree: Some editors only want to add those information and references which only supports the pro-Armenian views. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

its been covered by many prominent outlets, including several western outlets Can you link those reports? As for the rest, please remember WP:AGF and WP:PA, and strike the bits which are incompatible with those policies. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Here are a couple, Would Reuters and the Guardian suffice? They are western publication(i.e. the only ones seen as legitimate here on wikipdia), there are several other western publications that referenced the report, though coincidentally(or not so coincidentally) they only reference the parts of the report that match the editorial line, and leave out the rest. Reuters was more neutral and mentioned other parts. There are other nonwestern publications that mentioned the UN report, but I left them out.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-team-nagorno-karabakh-did-not-see-any-damage-hospitals-schools-2023-10-02/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/02/nagorno-karabakh-ghost-town-un-ethnic-armenians-azerbaijan Midgetman433 (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

They've just been over this yesterday up above this chain. The "UN Mission" was a bunch of people appointed by Azerbaijan, arrived after literally 99% of the population fled, didn't visit the damaged areas or indeed the vast majority of the country... and then claimed they didnt see any violence or ethnic cleasning. well of course they didn't see any violence, they arrived after the fact and after every victim had fled the whole country. and RS are ripping it for that. So if people want to put it in the article then make sure you put the RS criticism. JM2023 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide source of the claim that its a bunch of people appointed by Azerbaijan? most specifically Vladanka Andreeva, the lady who led the mission.

To My knowledge she is not Azeri and she was appointed by UN Secretary-General António Guterres

Here are my sources.

https://az.linkedin.com/in/vladanka-andreeva-96150614

https://press.un.org/en/2021/sga2047.doc.htm

Secondly the UN talked to ARMENIANS still in Karabakh, those 50-1000 that they mentioned in the report? those are the ones that made their statements to the UN, plus the ICRC personnel that were interviewed. Did you read the report? Midgetman433 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

from a comment above: international experts assessing the situation from a legal perspective based on findings of fact is different from the UN representatives Azerbaijan appointed for this mission you'll have to ask them where they got it. your second article shows she was appointed july 1 2021, so she wasnt appointed for this mission anyway; she was appointed to be the UN chief for AZ. secondly your personal opinion doesnt matter on the report. RS matter. JM2023 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"your second article shows she was appointed july 1 2021, so she wasnt appointed for this mission anyway"

As if that changes anything, you said she was appointed by Azerbaijan, implying she wasn't credible. Whether you are appointed in 2021 or 2023, it changes nothing, b/c she isn't working for the Azeri govt, she is working for the UN and under the mandate of the UN.

"secondly your personal opinion doesnt matter on the report."

Yeah only your personal opinion matters. You are the pope, and whatever you arbitrarily decide, you will allow or not allow in the editorial line. lol Midgetman433 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah only your personal opinion matters. You are the pope, and whatever you arbitrarily decide, you will allow or not allow in the editorial line. lol you should probably strike that. Also it's not my personal opinion, it's RS, it's been cited by me and others. I'm echoing what others are saying, I'm saying put the RS criticism next to the report in the article. JM2023 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

They are western publication(i.e. the only ones seen as legitimate here on wikipdia), there are several other western publications that referenced the report, though coincidentally(or not so coincidentally) they only reference the parts of the report that match the editorial line, and leave out the rest. If there are several reliable sources discussing the report then we should include it, but we need to reflect the focus of reliable sources - if Reuters is the only one that mentions the aspect that the mission found no reports of violence, then it would be WP:UNDUE to include it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the UN report should absolutely be mentioned. Not that I agree with their methods of arriving after everyone already fled, but that is my personal opinion on the report and shouldn't influence what gets in the article. It is still well-reported in many secondary sources, and definitely should be in the article.

However, if legitimate criticism of the report exists (as @JM2023 claims) and is mentioned in analysis from secondary sources, then it should also be added along with it. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 16:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I got it from @TagaworShah above.

The UN report has been widely criticized by a number of sources, for arriving after the region had been entirely depopulated of Armenians:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/02/nagorno-karabakh-ghost-town-un-ethnic-armenians-azerbaijan

https://oc-media.org/un-mission-arrives-to-empty-streets-in-nagorno-karabakh/

JM2023 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

US State Department also refrains from calling this "ethnic cleansing": [31], [32], [33] Nemoralis (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

US Federal Government also funds and aids Azerbaijan's military and gives them money for "humanitarian aid" so I don't know how much water their opinion holds. It's kind of like asking Russia what they think of Niger's military junta. JM2023 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

US govt's aid to Azerbaijan are mine sweeping equipment, Idk how that disqualifies them from being objective. Ironically since the conflict the US Congress has only sanctioned Azerbaijan with section 907 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_907?useskin=vector, and no sanctions on Armenia over occupation, yet somehow you you have us think that the US is pro Azeri or anti Armenia.

Yet somehow Cyprus which has a strategic diplomatic relationship with Armenia, plus a generally hostile relationship with Azerbaijan and Turkey is somehow not seen as biased, and their opinions of the matter are included. Very interesting reasoning to include one and not the other. lol Midgetman433 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

On October 24, 2001, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Act that would provide the President with the ability to waiver Section 907.They have done so since then. so Azerbaijan hasn't been sanctioned for 21 years now as far as i can tell. especially since the SD website i cited outright states they fund Azerbaijan. also your minesweeping claim is unsourced. and i didnt say US was anti-Armenia. It wasnt the same reasoning to include cyprus but not US because i am not the one who included cyprus. i have not edited the article one single time. JM2023 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

They said they are waiting for an investigation, no major world power can make such bold claims without proper investigation, heck it took them over 100 years to recognize the Armenian genocide, give it time, they have not confirmed nor denied such events, neither has the UN. TagaworShah (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. One's own personal objections are irrelevant here, Wikipedia is not the medium for opinions. It could be equally said and not just by me that legal experts' opinions of war crime in the article don't hold much water either because of presumption of innocence - a trial is required for such bold claims, let alone for lesser offences like stealing or fraud. Brandmeister^talk 15:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see an opinion? The UN nor the US department of State has either independently confirmed nor denied claims of ethnic cleansing that have been brought up by Armenia and other parties like Cyprus. That’s a fact not an opinion, the UN report simply said they did not encounter such reports, which reliable sources rightfully pointed out that there was no access to rural areas and almost the entire Armenian population left. Any claim that the US or UN has denied these claims or supported Azerbaijan’s position that no ethnic cleansing took place is Wikipedia:Original research. TagaworShah (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I was replying to JM2023's last comment above. I think enough has been said for the cause of neutrality here, sapienti sat. Brandmeister^talk 16:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

you actually weren't replying to me. you mean you meant to reply to me? Regardless, discussing what counts as a reliable source, directly relevant to the article, is not WP:FORUM. JM2023 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023 At this point it feels we should all go to WP:RSN again, although I still don't really get the case of not including the report despite it being in multiple RS. Like, of course the report has been criticized, but that means we should add both in context, not neither? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 02:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is now at neutraility noticeboard. Brandmeister^talk 07:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Remaining population

Not sure if anyone knows but the last count into Armenia seems to be a little over 100000. There were ~120000 people in the region, which from Demographics of the Republic of Artsakh were almost exclusively Armenians. Both the UN report former officials are talking about a remaining population in the hundreds. Does anyone have a source on where the 20000 went or who got their numbers wrong? Inteloff (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

120,000 was just an estimate, there hadn’t been an official census since before the first war. Keep in mind many people left after 2020 or died during the blockade/offensive/oil explosion. It’s likely the population was around 102,000 before the offensive, but we just have estimates so until there is a new estimate used by reliable sources I guess we’re sticking to 120,000. TagaworShah (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've also seen this from the BBC:

Artak Beglaryan, an Armenian former separatist official, said that "the last groups" of Nagorno-Karabakh residents were on their way to Armenia Saturday. 'At most a few hundred persons remain, most of whom are officials, emergency services employees, volunteers, some persons with special needs,' he wrote on social media.

so yes seems like the true number was significantly less than 120,000 if that statement is true. Perhaps better numbers will come out in retrospect. JM2023 (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The UN Karabakh mission says there are between 50 and 1,000 ethnic Armenians remaining in the Karabakh. Nemoralis (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

this should be put into the article if it is not already there JM2023 (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Already included it on the International response section. Not sure if those vaguer statements belong in the lede. Inteloff (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

i suppose once (if) we get some secondary sources reporting this and they'll say something like "only 50-1000 left, more than 95% of the population has fled", then that could be used to update the lede (right now it says 80% fled and 100,500/120,000) JM2023 (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Enver Pasha Street

Hello, I find these reports of Azerbaijan having renamed one of Stepanakert/Khankendi's streets to "Enver Pasha Street" as clear evidence of ill intentions by Azerbaijan. I would like users here to be aware of these reports [34] [35] [36] [37]. Also it probably should be included in this article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. How will the Azeri pov-pushers explain this? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)