Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Put 2023 before exodus

it just makes sense.. Lukt64 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't happened before, not on a seemingly permanent basis, disambiguation is not necessary. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, alright,. Lukt64 (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

203.174.163.236 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

27 September 2023 As of 8:00 Am 27 Sep 23 the persons crossing into Armenia stands 65,036.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

203.174.163.236 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Empty request. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2023 (2)

Flight 27September

Accumulated numbers of entrants to Armenia has reached to 65,036 at 8:00AM 27 September 2023. Armenpress 203.174.163.236 (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2023 (3)

Flight 28September From Nogorno Karabakh 65,036 persons has crossed into Armenia until 8:00 Am 28 September 2023 As per Armenia press 203.174.163.236 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

"displaced" -> "Azerbaijanis being displaced"

I think that for the link to the "Refugees in Azerbaijan" should be given through "Azerbaijanis being displaced" instead of just "displaced". Right now it looks like it would link to a page about displacement generally, as opposed to a specific displacement. Egezort (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:22, 29 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)