Talk:Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

RFC on sources concerning Ruben Vardanyan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following is the best way to present the sources that discuss the role of Ruben Vardanyan as a potential factor in escalation of the crisis? Grandmaster 20:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 - long version
• Option 2 - shortened (paragraph or two) version
• Option 3 - very short (a sentence or two) version
• Option 4 - no mention at all

Please enter Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 or Option 4, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Please do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section.

Survey

• Option 2. The sources discussing the Russian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan's role in the crisis could be found at User:Grandmaster/Vardanyan. 3 different wording options that I proposed could be found at User:Grandmaster/options. Alternatives could be proposed too. This person was mentioned as a contributing factor to escalation in major international news outlets, such as The Financial Times and Time magazine, and by Laurence Broers, one of the top experts on South Caucasus, in Der Spiegel. Vardanyan's role in the region was also discussed in such a reliable news outlet as Eurasianet, which covers the South Caucasus and Central Asia. These are not some fringe sources, they are known for fact checking and accuracy, and are generally considered reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Therefore, I believe this information needs to be summarized in a couple of paragraphs in the Background section. Grandmaster 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 - No mention at all and keep the status quo. This is the recently added edit in question, and it was challenged by multiple editors and discussed extensively in the thread above for anyone interested. Some key points for my vote:

1) The so-called "activists" self-claimed (and highly doubted) reason for the blockade is allegations of "illegal" gold mining by Armenia [1], [2]. Even Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry parrots the same thing [3]. Vardanyan isn't mentioned as a "reason/factor", not even in the fringe claims.

2) What's most important is that majority reliable sources (the due WP:WEIGHT) write actual reasons for blockade as the following: Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor as the reasons for the blockade [4], Azerbaijan's pressure regarding "Zangezur corridor" [5], The Economist calls the allegations of what Azerbaijanis claim to be illegal mining in the NKR as just a pretext; "The real goal appears to be to ratchet up pressure on the Armenians to cede more sovereignty over Karabakh."[6], French scholar Jean-Yves Camus , who specializes in radicalism and nationalist movements in Europe, calls the blockade a slow strangulation designed to provoke a mass exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, with the subsequent settlement of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis in their places. Thus, according to him, Azerbaijan aims to finally change the demographic balance, after which it will completely absorb the region through a referendum, the result of which will be known in advance [7]. Among many other WP:RS that don't even mention Vardanyan in the context of a blockade factor/reason/escalation (see below for more sources).

3) Additionally, Vardanyan isn't even mentioned as "reason/factor/escalation" in overwhelming majority of WP:RS; [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

Thus, in conclusion, adding Ruben Vardanyan as anything even remotely close to "reason/factor/escalation" for the blockade would be highly WP:undue, WP:libel and probably would violate WP:blp as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 -- Only one article (FinancialTimes) directly states that Vardanyan's appointment has contributed tensions. The remaining articles that one editor attempted to introduce:

A) make vague claims,

B) are presented as opinion ("the blockade...might have to do with...Vardanyan"); or

C) in the very same article the theory is introduced, it is criticized ("The Russian agent theory, however, has lost some credibility as the blockade has dragged on")

There is debate about various analysts and political spectators. Speculative opinion belongs in the Reactions section, not the background section of an ongoing currents event article.

WP:BLPGOSSIP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true"

WP:VOICE:"Avoid stating opinions as facts" Virtually no sources directly say it is a fact that Vardanyan's arrival contributed to the blockade.

As pointed out by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention specifically in the context of the blockade: "Since the time of the Hamidian Massacres in the 19th Century, violence against Armenians has been justified through the framing of Armenians as Russian stooges and sympathizers. "

We should not be repeating such speculation, unless they are majority or are not speculation but fact.

If we include anything about Vardanyan, it should be limited to a single line and put in the Reactions section where it is clear that this is opinion not fact. Humanatbest (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 Enough reliable sources describing Vardanyan's role in this event have been presented. I think mentioning it in one short paragraph in the article would not constitute WP:UNDUE. But no more than that due to current article's size. Brandmeister^talk 10:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2. The arrival of Vardanyan did escalate tensions, and this was one of the factors that contributed to the current situation, which means that 1-2 paragraphs about Vardanyan's role is due for the article's background section. Here are some more sources that support this: [15] - Vardanyan formally took office on November 4 [...] at a time when Armenia and Azerbaijan have said that they intend to sign a peace agreement by the end of the year that could spell the end of Armenian control over the territory. The source also highlights that Azerbaijan was irritated with Vardanyan's arrival to the point that publication associated with Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense, posted a video calling for Vardanyan to be “liquidated.”

Vardanyan's role in relation to the current situation is also explained in various opinion pieces by political scientists, analysts:

1. www.jam-news.net [16] The article features excerpts from an interview with Azerbaijani political scientist Farhad Mamadov: The Vardanyan Project is Russia’s desperate attempt to stop the peace treaty process and bring the Karabakh issue back into negotiations. On the contrary, this has led to the acceleration of Azerbaijan’s control over the Lachin road.
2. www.washingtontimes.com [17]. The commentary from Janusz Bugajski which explains arrival of Vardanyan as Russia’s manipulation of the Armenian minority in Azerbaijan’s Karabakh to stir ethnic conflicts in the South Caucasus and to replace the Armenian government with a Moscow proxy.
3. www.politico.eu [18]. The analysis of Maurizio Geri states that Vardanyan uses Lachin road to to export his minerals as well — and Moscow’s peacekeepers aren’t hindering these exports. [...] Just last month, things came to a head when Azerbaijani activists appeared at snow-covered Lachin to protest the mines reopening, and the demonstrations had the effect of squeezing the route into Armenian-controlled Karabakh near shut. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 07:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4, per Humanatbest. The four additional sources presented by Abrvagl don't support this claim either; only one is a reliable source, and that one doesn't directly support the claim. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I was invited by the bot. I see that I am being asked to vote on four options, but it is not at all clear to me what those options actually entail. I doubt you'll have much luck generating further participation this way. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It’s regarding this recently added edit and the RfC is for whether it should stay at all or other options. If interested, you can see detailed back and forth in the discussion above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed, it was the edit that ZaniGiovanni indicated, and here's a proposed shortened alternative: [19] It is difficult to navigate through the long discussion at this talk, so maybe I should create a separate sandbox page with proposed wordings. Grandmaster 09:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I collected 3 different wordings that I proposed here: User:Grandmaster/options. However, alternative wordings can also be proposed. We need to decide in principle whether the information on the role of Vardanyan in the crisis should be reflected in the article, and in which form. The final wording could be agreed later. Grandmaster 10:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

However, alternative wordings can also be proposed – Yeah agree. Naturally, if editors want, they can vote no mention or propose their own version for any other options. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Grandmaster 10:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Humanatbest:, please add signature to your comment. Also, I would suggest removing the last paragraph (about Zangezur) because it is unnecessary to the RfC and takes up a lot of space, but that is solely up to you to decide. Thanks. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Humanatbest:, Michael Rubin is not a good source to use in Wikipedia. He frequently changes his opinion, and writes things totally opposite to what he was writing before. He himself called NK a fictional state, propped up by Russia. For example, a few years ago Rubin wrote that "In December 1991, Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh declared their own republic, one of those fictional states that the Kremlin has helped prop up with increasing frequency-for example, Transnistria in Moldova, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and more recently Crimea and Donetsk in the Ukraine." So which Rubin do we trust? And which one should we quote? [20] Grandmaster 19:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Grandmaster @Abrvagl Thanks for the feedback. I agree that the Zangezur corridor is a distinct point of which does not necessarily impact the decision of whether to include this, but since (to me) this is about due weight I think more sources cite other factors than Vardanyan. (im not sure how to add my signature on mobile but am looking into it)

  Re:Michael Ruben; it's not necessarily a bad thing if a scholar changes his mind, given new evidence thats what scientists do all the time. Also, since these are all speculations from analysts its more likely for them to change with the wind. Again, I never suggested that Ruben's comments be treated as fact because they clearly are just speculation just like all these other analysts comments. Speculation does not belong in the background section of an ongoing current events article. Humanatbest (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Humanatbest (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  People can change opinions, but not like this person, making a 180 degree turn. First he said that NK was a Russian puppet, now he says that it is not. That is not a serious scholarship. We cannot even quote him, because which Rubin should we refer to? The one that says NK is a puppet, or the one that says that it is not? Grandmaster 20:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Any reliable sources calling Rubin’s publications unreliable? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, nearly 10 years have passed between the contradictory quotes that Michael Rubin has made. 10 years is a long time for the situation to have changed someone's opinion.

  2014 article: "Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh declared their own republic, one of those fictional states that the Kremlin has helped prop up with increasing frequency"

  2023 article: "Artsakh has a history that predates Putin or the artificial proxies he has sought to carve out from his neighbors’ territory."

  To be clear, they're not complete contradictory statements. A state can be "fictitious" simply because it doesn't have enough forces or recognition from others to legitimize itself. The "state" vs "nation" of Artsakh are different concepts and it is unclear which Rubin is referring to. Humanatbest (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  Rubin is not a reliable source for statements of facts anyway. His op-eds could be used to illustrate his personal opinion, which he changes to totally opposite from time to time. He argued that NK was a fictitious entity propped up by Russia, and now he writes that "it is silly to suggest Artsakh is a Russian satrapy". But he himself wrote just that a few years ago. I don't see "fictitious entity propped up by Russia" being much different from "Russian satrapy". He also used to shower praises on Azerbaijan, and harshly criticize Armenia, and now made another 180 degree turn. Here's an example of his previous remarks. [21] His writings on the Middle East are also controversial, as is evident from our wiki article on him. In general, I don't think Rubin's opinion is the one we should consider due to self-contradictions of this person. Grandmaster 16:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

  The situation has changed in 10 years. Most notably, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War happened and Azerbaijan started to attack and occupy the Republic of Armenia proper.

  I think these two events and Russia's response to it are sufficient to change anyone's mind.

  Aliyev and the Azeri government used to promise special privileges/status for NKR Armenians. Since the second nagorno-karabakh war, they no longer do that. So the situation is quite different than it was 10 years ago. Humanatbest (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If other sources do not mention Vardanyan factor, it does not mean that we should not quote those that do. We are not talking about fringe sources, FT, Time and Broers for Der Spiegel are some of the most reliable sources out there. It is not a gossip, it is a discussion of the subject in the mainstream international media and expert community. Both FT and Time point to escalation occurring after the arrival of Vardanyan. Also, we do not have to write that in wiki voice, we can attribute the information to the sources. The proposed shortened wording says: Some analysts see the arrival of Russian oligarch Ruben Vardanyan to Nagorno-Karabakh as the factor that added to escalating tensions. Also, this is an ongoing event, there is no established scholarship on the subject, since no scholarly research of the blockade exists, and international media and experts only recently started paying attention to correlation between arrival of Vardanyan and subsequent escalation. It does not mean that we should not reflect any new information in the article. Regarding BLP, this is not a BLP issue, as it was discussed in the sources known for fact checking and accuracy, Vardanyan himself did not object to FT or Time articles, or Broers' statements, or sue them for libel, and our own article on Vardanyan contains information on his involvement in suspicions business activity. By that logic, we should not include any critical information about any Russian oligarch. Grandmaster 20:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"is an ongoing event, there is no established scholarship on the subject, since no scholarly research of the blockade exists, and international media and experts only recently started paying attention to correlation between arrival of Vardanyan and subsequent escalation."

I agree with this part.

Only a single source (FinancialTimes) has directly said that Vardanyan contributed to escalating tensions.

If and and when the Russian Agent theory is reported more by reliable sources or Vardanyan's arrival is directly described as contributing tensions as a fact not a theory (that is, no qualifications like "the blockade...might have to do with...Vardanyan") then it should be put in the background section. Up until then, I think it belongs in the Reactions section.

"Regarding BLP, this is not a BLP issue, as it was discussed in the sources known for fact checking and accuracy"

I thought we were going to wait for third-party editors to chime in on this on the larger board? Humanatbest (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The proposed version 2 attributes the claim to some analysts, because Broers sees Vardanyan's arrival as a potential factor that led to the present escalation, and Time magazine also writes that the situation worsened after arrival of Vardanyan. So it is not just FT that suggests a connection between arrival of Vardanyan to Karabakh and the corridor crisis, and it is an obvious fact that the escalation occurred after Vardanyan was appointed to a leading position in the region, which is mentioned by the sources. Grandmaster 16:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Even in the WP:UNDUE case of Broers interview, he puts these reasons as to what's Baku seeking with the blockade:

• "There are multiple objectives here. The first is to remind the Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh of their enclave geography, which makes separation from Azerbaijan unviable. Karabakh Armenians fear that Baku's intention is to make life so unbearable there, that people just move out in a form of "soft” ethnic cleansing. Second, Ilham Aliyev is exerting pressure on Armenia to make concessions on the transit route across southern Armenia, which Azerbaijan refers to as the Zangezur corridor. This corridor is supposed to connect Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhchivan, and Baku defines it as a virtually extraterritorial transportation route through Armenian territory. Azerbaijan cites the 2020 ceasefire agreement as the basis for this corridor, although this is a maximalist interpretation of the agreement text, which only refers to Armenian guarantees for secure Azerbaijani transit. The third objective is to discredit the Russian peacekeeping mission. Baku is trying to show that the Russians are unable to fulfill their mandate and are basically framing the peacekeepers as an occupying force that is denying Azerbaijan access to Nagorno-Karabakh."

Only after, he then goes to say: "The fact that this blockade is taking place now might have to do with the leadership change in Nagorno-Karabakh itself, in particular with Ruben Vardanyan taking office as minister of state of the de-facto republic in November." — might have to do is a speculation that can't be used again BLP to make such strong accusations, especially when it's a case of WP:UNDUE as only 1–2 sources even mention Vardanyan remotely in context of the blockade while overwhelming majority of WP:RS don't even mention him at all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster Correlation is not causation. My grandma died in November. That doesnt mean it triggered the blockade just because it happened before hand. The Times' quotation was extremely vague about this correlation. Humanatbest (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

An article in Forbes magazine also discusses the role of Vardanyan in the crisis: [22] Grandmaster 10:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece by a person who’s looking at the matter from the perspective of gas and money, ignoring the humanitarian aspect of the situation raved about by the whole world almost completely. Editors on Wikipedia should make conclusions based on cool-headed appraisal of the available publications, balancing their weaknesses and strengths, and not simply look for articles that would support the wording the editor believes is the right one. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, Vardanyan has been a minister in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic since November 2022, that is when this whole issue started he was already a high-ranking official there. This corroborates the proposal that Vardanyan should be mentioned to a certain extent in this article. Brandmeister^talk 20:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Vardanyan was fired yesterday: [23] His removal was the condition set by Azerbaijan to engage in direct negotiations with Karabakh Armenians. According to RFRL: Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said late last week that Baku will be ready to negotiate over the “rights and security of Karabakh’s Armenian minority” only if Vardanyan resigns and leaves “our territory.” I think the above information makes it necessary to discuss Vardanyan in the article. Grandmaster 09:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutral POV

Just from reading the lede, this article seems to me as not being written in a neutral POV. Am I the only one that sees it that way? Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie Can you be more specific? Everything in the lead has a citation and also reflects how the international community is describing the events. Even the use of quotation marks, i.e., "protestors" or alleged protestors, etc is how this is being written in reliable sources. Humanatbest (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Humanatbest: Although I appreciate your response, I'd be more inclined to get an opinion from someone who didn't write half of the article in question themselves. Nothing personal. But to be more specific, its some of the wording that I find to be biased, more towards the pro-Armenian side. Just some slight wording problems. Still I am looking for another opinion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie you are very welcome to contribute and improve the article, Wikipedia is a collaborative project :) Humanatbest (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the article employs provocative language and the sourcing for some claims seems dubious. Considering that the article is almost entirely written by a single user, this warrants a Template:POV, in my opinion. Tanz768 (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Azerbaijani soldiers set up checkpoint to the Lachin Corridor.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of a source from The Conversation

@Tanz768 removed a citation from The Conversation stating that it was an opinion piece.

However, The Conversation is an independent and reliable source, according to both their About Section and to the Wikipedia community at large.

Their editorial policy: "We only allow authors to write on a subject on which they have proven expertise, which they must disclose alongside their article. Authors’ funding and potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed"

Wikipedia's consensus on the reliability of The Conversation: "The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts. It is generally reliable for subjects in the authors' areas of expertise. Opinions published in The Conversation should be handled with WP:RSOPINION."

The author of the article that @Tanz768 removed is

Giulia Prelz Oltramonti Assistant Professor, Institut catholique de Lille (ICL)

She has no conflicts of interest to disclose as per the article:

"Disclosure statement Giulia Prelz Oltramonti does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment."

@Tanz768 please revert yourself. Unless I am mistaken, the source is considered reliable by The Conversation and The Conversation is considered reliable by Wikipedia, provided there is no conflict of interest and the piece is not an opinion. There is nothing in the article that says it's an opinion piece.

Thank you! R.Lemkin (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

@Paul Vaurie

Thanks for your feedback on my user page.

I agree that there is citation overkill. Part of that was from a structural edit, but also because a lot of articles in the Armenia/Azerbaijan topics are subject to contentious editing so generally if anything isn't cited it's often removed.

Let's start with definitions regarding your edit where you added "(alleged)" to one of the goals of the blockade.

Ethnic cleansing

Although "ethnic cleansing" does not have a strict legal definition, it usually includes intentional forced migration (either direct or indirect) through coercion, intimidation, and/or genocide. These characteristics are mentioned by United Nations entities, including the UNSC. Two other characteristics listed by the UNSC include "arbitrary arrest and detention ... confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas."

Genocide

The intentional destruction of a people based on their perceived membership in a group. Also some genocide scholars and advocacy groups criticize the distinction, many media and scholars consider genocide to be a form of ethnic cleansing but not all ethnic cleansing is genocide.

In the context of the blockade

Numerous reliable sources describe the blockade as aimed at ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

Numerous reliable sources also characterize the blockade as a form of "intimidation", "coercion," and state that there is "intention" to "expel" or cause an "outflow" of the Armenian population.

Given this, I'm struggling to see why you added "alleged" to the infobox. Looking forward to hearing you feedback on this!

• The founding prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, describes the blockade as a genocide, under Article II, (c) of the Genocide Convention: "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction," adding that "... President Aliyev has Genocidal intentions: he has knowingly, willingly and voluntarily blockaded the Lachin Corridor even after having been placed on notice regarding the consequences of his actions by the ICJ’s [International Court of Justice] provisional orders."
• Another group of genocide scholars at the 2022 Global Forum Against the Crime of Genocide declared: "we believe that the actions of the Azerbaijani government pose a threat of genocide to Armenians in the region."

• "Khachatryan’s detention confirms the fears of many Karabakh Armenians that, if Azerbaijan assumes control over Karabakh, it will detain (and torture) them arbitrarily, using their participation in one or more of the wars as justification. This criteria extends to nearly every male resident of the small enclave."
• The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect issued an "atrocity alert" in which it says Azerbaijan's "intentional and unlawful denial of humanitarian assistance may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity."
• The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention: "These events are not isolated events; they are, instead, being committed within a larger genocidal pattern against Armenia and Armenians by the Azerbaijani regime." The group also wrote "The genocidal intent of Baku has never been clearer and the actions carried out up to the moment highly predict this outcome."The group wrote Azerbaijan's "intentions are clear: to wipe out all traces of Armenian life and of an Armenian presence in this region. Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, has consistently and repeatedly stated that he intends to eradicate the indigenous Armenians dwelling in Artsakh."
• International Association of Genocide Scholars – condemned the blockade and Azerbaijan's "deliberate attacks on ... [Artsakh's] ...critical infrastructure." The group noted "significant genocide risk factors exist in the Nagorno-Karabakh situation concerning the Armenian population." The government of Azerbaijan...has issued repeated threats to empty the region of its indigenous Armenian population."

• Genocide Watch – issued an alert stating "Due to its unprovoked attacks and genocidal rhetoric against ethnic Armenians, Genocide Watch considers Azerbaijan's assault on Armenia and Artsakh to be at Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 7: Preparation, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 10: Denial." The group described the blockade as "a clear attempt by the Azerbaijani government to starve, freeze, and ultimately expel Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh."

• "The humanitarian catastrophe we are now witnessing—or, more accurately, the world is refusing to witness—is a textbook enactment of ethnic cleansing. More than a dozen nongovernmental organisations, including Genocide Watch, have issued a stark warning that Azerbaijan’s blockade is “designed to, in the words of the Genocide Convention, deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the end of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part. All 14 risk factors for atrocity crimes identified by the UN Secretary-General’s Office on Genocide Prevention are now present.”
• "This tactic is meant to bring about an outflow of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh through the creation of a humanitarian crisis."
• "Here, a deadly brew of armed aggression and ethnic cleansing against the majority population of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh"
• "The blockade...has as its aim the takeover of historic Armenian lands in the Republic of Artsakh and in the Republic of Armenia along with the forced displacement (“ethnic cleansing”) of the Armenian populations in Azeri-acquired territory."
• "This time, Armenians are being ethnically cleansed by Azerbaijan..."

R.Lemkin (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

References

@R.Lemkin: TL;DR. Learn to be WP:CONCISE, please. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, reliable sources are present in the article and everything is fairly sourced. Random removal of sourced content with extremely vague "POV" rationale isn't helpful and isn't productive at all, for example: supposed "scare quotes" that were recently removed are literally added in the source itself [24], and alot of the content that was removed/reworded was sourced or already discussed if you check the archives [25], [26]. None of these recent changes make sense as they're unhelpful, in contrary to sources, and extremely vaguely rationalized. I reverted to the stable edit and am asking for editor(s) to show their SPECIFIC well rationalized concerns on the talk page FIRST before making edits (minor maintenance edits were also undone unfortunately, but they were collateral and because it was part of overall recent edits, it can be restored anytime). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have left a message on your talk page, Kevo327. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie Replied to you there, comment further here please if you have anything to say, for convenience purposes. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie

In your edit you added "alleged" to one of the listed goals of the blockade, stating "This is a serious accusation, and citing it as a goal must be supported by more than speculation."

I’ve several reliable sources supporting info that was removed or reworded inappropriately. Please take a look at the sources that do support this info in the article. I agree with user Kevo327 that if there any specific issue, it should be discussed and replied first (if you have a good rationale) and please be specific without vagueness, like I am with my comments, so I can answer more if need be.

thanks!! R.Lemkin (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)