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)[reply]

Are you talking about first war? Refugees in Azerbaijan Nemoralis (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
lol, they threw your edit out. Midgetman433 (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am in favor of having such an article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I will expand that article once I finish Stalin's repressions in Azerbaijan Nemoralis (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is opinion article that reflects the author's opinion about a subject. Nemoralis (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then use them with attribution :) We should avoid stating opinions as facts. Nemoralis (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
...it's indeed a voluntary event. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
A comment like this definitively shouldn't go without linking any source. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why does this tag keep being re-added? Exactly why? - Kevo327 (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 14:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 14:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 14:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 20:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I strongly agree: The article is mainy written with the Armanian perspective.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the "Armenian perspective" is the correct one as shown by RS. JM2023 (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. Brandmeistertalk 09:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 09:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 11:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 12:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I said after the offensive and collateral damage is not an ethnic cleansing. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You guys love whataboutism huh. One crime does not excuse another. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [4] [5]. I think WP:CONSISTENT applies here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Exodus" perfectly describes this situation, and is also used by sources [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. I also don't believe this article is exceptional regarding context. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'fleeing' or 'fled' are used by many RS [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. It's more appropriate than 'exodus' given the context and residents rapidly fleeing. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support. The "exodus" is becoming more common, e.g. [19]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Elchin Amirbayov, and the source is the Christian Post. BilledMammal (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Guardian, I added sources to lead and moved undue highly doubted reassurances as undue. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
the source is his interview with "Deutsche Welle" media. Domane14 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What link? From a reliable source with a translation? Please share. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I mistakenly believed the content was removed, so no need for any action. JM2023 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. Brandmeistertalk 08:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. Brandmeistertalk 10:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well looks like a self-revert is out of the question then @BilledMammal JM2023 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I'll try one last time. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 14:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 19:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at RSN that relates to this. BilledMammal (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
 Done Updated in the lead and the infobox, with the source! Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
appreciated JM2023 (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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 [az], the representative of the Azerbaijani president, issued a stark warning, suggesting that "a genocide may happen" if Nagorno-Karabakh did not capitulate.[1][2] 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.[3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kumar, Anugrah (20 September 2023). "Ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh agree to disarm after Azerbaijan offensive". The Christian Post. Archived from the original on 29 September 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2023.
  2. ^ "Genocide warning in Nagorno-Karabakh". The Guardian. 18 September 2023. Archived from the original on 29 September 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2023.
  3. ^ Cox, Caroline (18 September 2023). "Genocide warning in Nagorno-Karabakh". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 29 September 2023.

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)[reply]

The issue is extensively discussed and sourced in the "Background" section of the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Concur with the above. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed. This is a displacement. It is forced in instances, literally on gun point [22], [23]. Undue alleged safety assurances by Az for Arm population in lead shouldn't be left without challenging as they were doubted by multiple sources [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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. Brandmeistertalk 13:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another infested article

Close to 1 million Azeris were displaced in the 90's. Where's the seperate page for them?

"Faced with threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan, over 100,400 ethnic Armenians, more than 80% of Nagorno-Karabakh's inhabitants, fled by the end of September 2023."

So today we have cameras and recording devices and the "genocide" propaganda wouldn't work, so now it's "THREAT of genocide" propaganda. Basically creating a story out of something non existent again.

This place needs to get rid of page-infestation. Too much passive aggressive propaganda.

Good thing is, truth has a way of coming out sooner or later. 88.230.171.94 (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories