Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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"

In that case there should be a page about the following:

- Deportation & Massacres of Armenians from Nakhichevan

- Deportation & Massacres of Armenians from Azeribaijan (Including Baku, Sumgait, Kirovabad) DrVrej (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 29 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for the proposed title (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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

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

Flight or Flight (disambiguation) do not mention anything related to this. I think it is a rather informal term for this event. Exodus does not have an article either but does feature several similar cases. I would argue "exodus" is already the established term in Wikipedia for cases of this kind. Dictionary definitions of "exodus" do not conflict with this article's scope [1] [2]. I think WP:CONSISTENT applies here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

• Oppose this was the original title and just because it isn't used by other articles with completely different context (as noted by BilledMammal), doesn't mean this article shouldn't use it. 'fleeing' or 'fled' is used by many RS, it describes the situation best as Armenians of NK didn't just decide to leave out of blue, they're fleeing urgently because of Azerbaijani offensive and developing takeover of the region. And multiple human rights groups and the NK residents themselves do not believe that Armenians can safely live under Aliyev's regime, despite his alleged safety guarantees to the population.[3], [4], [5], so they're fleeing their homes. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

"Exodus" perfectly describes this situation, and is also used by sources [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I also don't believe this article is exceptional regarding context. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

'fleeing' or 'fled' are used by many RS [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. It's more appropriate than 'exodus' given the context and residents rapidly fleeing. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Support. The "exodus" is becoming more common, e.g. [16]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Actually there seems to be some usage of "Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" in RS e.g.[17][18] but this might be a little clearer. Mellk (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Support I prefer the wording "Exodus/Flight of [ethnic] Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh" over "Exodus/Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" (for instance, in reference to the biblical exodus, we would say "Exodus of Jews/Israelites from Egypt" instead of "Exodus of Egypt Jews/Israelites"). Bfoshizzle1 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose change to "Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh"; the current title, while a little awkward, better conveys the fact that these Armenians are native to the region. BilledMammal (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Flight" is a more neutral term than "exodus." Coretheapple (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support A Google search shows more sources are using "exodus" than "flight". "Exodus" is still a neutral term and better descriptive term to describe the situation than "flight". Dash9Z (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Support "Exodus" sounds much better and makes more sense than "Flight". DementiaGaming (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Makes more sense, however I would prefer "Armenian exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh" but the suggested name change is better than what we have. Completely Random Guy (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Strongly oppose changing “Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians” to Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh, it’s passive voice and implies that these are Armenian citizens that moved there instead of the actual reality which is that they have been in the region since before Armenia was established and their ethnicity identity is Karabakh Armenian, they are not just any Armenians. Also, I see flight and exodus used about the same in reliable sources, but flight is more accurate in describing how fast these events took place and the hurry associated with it. TagaworShah (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination Nemoralis (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title is perfectly fine, and I don't see how any of the proposals would be improvements. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - This is a more concise title. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support & comment: "exodus" become the more common term in coverage of the event. However, I do agree with @TagaworShah that Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians are their own subgroup of Armenians indigenous to NK and it may be better to change the title to "Exodus of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" rather than "Armenians from NK." I think there's a decent argument for both, however. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 21:55, 6 October 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.

Enver Pasha Street

Hello, I find these reports of Azerbaijan having renamed one of Stepanakert/Khankendi's streets to "Enver Pasha Street" as clear evidence of ill intentions by Azerbaijan. I would like users here to be aware of these reports [19] [20] [21] [22]. Also it probably should be included in this article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

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

"BuT iTs AzerBaiJAn'S teRRitOry!" they screech, heedless of the fact that despite their stupid lines on a map the land has been in Armenian hands for as long as we have records. George Mucus (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

That would belong to Stepanakert article rather than here per WP:TOPIC, if reliable sources criticized such naming decision. Brandmeister^talk 10:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably there and/or at the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh article (and that kind of stuff is the reason why I'm pushing for a separate "aftermath" article about the takeover) ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming amount of sources making the obvious connection putting the renaming in the context of the recent event, I think it's much more clear that it should be at all of these articles, including this one. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [Edit: Added it to the other two articles. 14:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)]

agreed JM2023 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually Armanians renamed those cities and streets 30 years ago when they occupied internationally recognized territory of Azerbaizan illegally. What's wrong if Azerbaizani government renamed those cities and streets again of their own country?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This is such a WP:FORUM like inflammatory comment: firstly, Armenians were majority in Stepanakert since early censuses [23]. And therefore I assume most streets had Armenian names unless you can prove otherwise - even if this isn't true which you haven't shown evidence for, the fact that you're comparing it to a specific renaming in this case, such as renaming streets after a genocide perpetrator, is simply baffling and perhaps raises concerns of your lack of competence in this topic area. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong if Azerbaizani government renamed those cities and streets again of their own country? "Enver Pasha Street" is one step away from "Heil Hitler Street". That's what's wrong. Like Kevo327 I also question your hability to work in this topic area from this comment alone. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Kevo and Super Dromaeosaurus. You have cited nothing that says Armenians renamed any streets when Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians declared the independence of their already-autonomous region to escape Azeri persecution and murder (it was not as you say a simple occupied internationally recognized territory of Azerbaizan illegally. And even if you did, you have cited nothing that shows that this street was named Enver Pasha St before NK independence. An "Enver Pasha St" in Stepanakert is like a "Heinrich Himmler St" in a formerly Jewish area. Like the other two editors, I too question your competence. Maybe a good starting point to measure competence here is whether editors can recognize the Armenian genocide and Enver Pasha's role in it? JM2023 (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the worst take I've seen about this. "What's wrong if the government renamed the streets after a genocide perpetrator?" Everything. Everything is wrong with that. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

None of these churnalist websites are reliable. Axar.az says their source is "Khankendi" page on Twitter and Bakupost says "According to social media". Nemoralis (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

These are better: Le Monde, Al Monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to the article with those two sources. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@BilledMammal Great, as the sources make the contrast between the renaming and the Azerbaijani claims about the recent events, it seems very much WP:DUE to add it in this case. Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 01:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Although the streets are named by decision of local government, it is interesting where these sources get this information. If we consider that there is no local government in Stepanakert yet, this is not confirmed. I think this news is based on an unofficial map shared by the "Khankendi" page on Twitter, as I said above for Azerbaijani churnalist websites Nemoralis (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Some government agencies said they were unaware of the street name change and assumed it was created by someone's own initiative. We can remove the sentence now. Nemoralis (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, "someone assumes that" is not a valid reason to remove material. Government agencies aren't instantly aware of every decision at every level, and a single report of this certainly doesn't justify material. Also, I don't think loaded terms like "churnalist" have their place in this kind of discussion, especially about such a sensitive topic. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"I think this news is based on" is not a valid reason to remove a claim that is well-reported in secondary sources. Our role is not to guess what was in the reporters' minds or how they got their information. Also, there's nothing about Azerbaijan in the article you link, and "it works like this in most countries" certainly doesn't translate to a recent warzone. It's way too deep into original research and unsubstantiated inferences to be mentioned, let alone to justify removing well-sourced material. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 22:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, read Article 9.8 and 5.1 They are not random government agencies, on the contrary, agencies that have authority directly related to this. First one is State Service on Property Issues, and second one is State Committee for City Building and Architecture. We cannot write that "Azerbaijan officials renamed street" which Azerbaijan officials clearly rejected it. It doesn't seem logical. They say it is someone's own initiative/opinion. We cannot write opinions as facts Nemoralis (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The added sources by BilledMammal are better and reliable, I'd rather we use that than engage in wiki editor OR analysis. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand. That sources says Azerbaijan changed street's name while Azerbaijan say no we didn't. This is not same with ethnic cleansing or genocide allegements. Nemoralis (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been digging around that, particularly for some official Azerbaijani sources, and also have strong doubts. In addition to what Nemoralis wrote above, I couldn't find any Azerbaijani government source confirming this, such as Trend News Agency or Azerbaijani Press Agency - whether in English, Azeri or Russian. So this is most likely a bogus non-story. Brandmeister^talk 10:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That has been reported on by reliable sources. We follow the sources, not our personal opinion; are there any sources which rebut it? (Two of the sources shared by Nermoralis are dead links, but my understanding of them is that they don't directly rebut this, which the third only says that they were unaware of it, not that it didn't happen) BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

To quote the aforementioned source:

There is a heated discussion on social networks about renaming the names of streets in Khankendi after the liberation of Karabakh from Armenian illegal formations. According to information from social networks, among the proposed names are streets and avenues named after famous personalities such as Mammad Emin Rasulzade, Taras Shevchenko, Alexander Pushkin and Enver Pasha. [...] The State Service for Property Affairs under the Ministry of Economy of Azerbaijan, in response to a request from haqqin.az, stated that they "are not aware of the renaming of the names of streets and avenues in Khankendi". The State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture is also not informed about this initiative, emphasizing that the decision on this issue is the responsibility of the local executive power.

So looks like that claim comes from discussions on social networks rather than official Azerbaijani sources. Brandmeister^talk 11:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That source says that the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture is not aware of the renaming, and that determining place names is not their responsibility. It certainly isn't a denial; to me it suggests that it did happen, but that a local administrator did it on their own initiative. Regardless, at the moment we have reliable sources saying it did happen, and no sources - reliable or otherwise - saying it did not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

So now, when I receive a news post based on a social media post and the news says "a street in Yerevan was named Hitler Street", we will not remove it until the Yerevan government denies this claim by citing the source. Is this what you're talking about?.

Now stop making fun of people. 31.223.61.157 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If RS says there is a street in Yerevan renamed Hitler St then it's included in the relevant article per NPOV. But of course you only raise the hypothetical for disruptive purposes because like anyone you should be capable of reading the relevant policies, and we are talking about RS reporting Azerbaijan naming a street Enver Pasha St. JM2023 (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't look like denial, they're just saying they weren't aware of renaming. But regardless, we have what reliable sources report and wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

They have not confirmed that either. Per WP:V lack of confirmation, particularly from official sources, means we should err on the side of caution. Mere verifiability itself does not guarantee inclusion per WP:VNOT. Brandmeister^talk 11:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If it ends up being disproved, then we can remove it. Otherwise there's no reason why we shouldn't display it. This is not a BLP, nobody is being defamed by this info. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Such news would typically originate from decisions taken officially in Azerbaijan. And there's a long-standing news practice to quote some official source when reporting new information. But here note that none of the sources reporting the alleged naming (including Le Monde) does not quote any official Azerbaijani source. Brandmeister^talk 11:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

They "quote" an official map. Regardless, we have reliable sources saying this happened, and no sources saying it didn't. Until that changes any speculation here is neither productive nor relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What map? There is no official map Nemoralis (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Two weeks after the surrender of Nagorno-Karabakh following a lightning-fast military offensive, on Tuesday, October 3, Azerbaijan re-issued a map of the capital of the former Armenian separatist enclave (Stepanakert in Armenian, Khankendi in Azerbaijani), with street names in Azerbaijani. One of these streets is named after Turkish military officer Enver Pasha, one of the main instigators of the Armenian genocide of 1915. The map was first published in August 2021. BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It neither says official map nor refers to official statement. Nemoralis (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would call a map issued by a country "official", but you may disagree. Regardless, unless we have reliable sources rebutting this claim this discussion isn't productive, so I am going to back out of it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand. No one issued a map, except unofficial patriotic Khankendi page on Twitter. These reliable sources neither refer to any official statement made by [local] government, nor share that "official map". Just because they mentioned this doesn't mean we should add this to article(s). Not all verifiable information must be included. Nemoralis (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan re-issued a map really seems like it means Azerbaijan re-issued a map, not a random Twitter account. And thats what RS say, so it's "verified"; and one of my favourite Wikipedia guidelines is WP:VNT i.e., even if OR finds that something that is verified is actually untrue, OR is inadmissible anyway. Should we include it or not? Well, it seems significant. JM2023 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that the Gomap.az app that Chaotic Enby posted, which includes a street named Enver Pasha, has an info page on the site that reads "The Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan",[24] while the bottom of the page reads "Azərbaycan Respublikası Mədəniyyət və Turizm Nazirliyi" as the copyright holder of the map. The app of the map is owned by a company whose main client is the Azerbaijani government. Combined with the secondary reliable sources reporting the street name change, this is very well referenced. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani officials deny that such a street name exists. I don't think we should present unverified claims as facts. No one saw a street sign with such a name, nor it was officially announced that there would be such street name. [25] At the very least, Azerbaijani official position on this should be presented. Grandmaster 13:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Before a street map with that name can be published, there must be an official renaming decision which has not been confirmed by local officials upon request from the Haqqin source. Brandmeister^talk 14:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

They do not deny that such a street name exists, some authorities say they weren't informed of the change, which happened at the local level. It's not the same thing at all. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, gomap.az also includes the change. So it wasn't just a random Twitter post. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

How do we even know that such name exists? It was never officially announced, and there is no such street sign. I don't think we can present this claim as a fact until it is officially announced. The map posted on the internet is not official. It is not known who created it. We can only report what some sources claim, and what Azerbaijani officials say, with proper attribution. Grandmaster 14:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Grandmaster: You've misrepresented that source; the Azerbaijani officials don't dispute that the street was renamed, they say they weren't aware of it - and say that they wouldn't be aware of it because it is the responsibility of other people. Further, there is no basis to say "some sources"; all independent and reliable sources that have commented on this story have said that it has happened, while some sources implies that it is disputed. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, what kind of editing is this? And just to reiterate, gomap.az actually confirms that there in fact is a street named Enver Pasha in Stepanakert (Khankendi in Azeri) [26], gomap is owned by SİNAM. From the Azeri language Wikipedia it is stated that “SINAM company actively participates in the electronic government project. The company's clients include the State Customs Committee, the Ministry of Education, the Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Institute of Cybernetics and a large number of other public and private institutions.” Gomap confirmation has to be added, if it’s not already, in the article, and it’s connection with the Azerbaijani government too. It confirms that the street in fact exists and it would be doubtful such an info from a company who’s main client appears to be the Azerbaijani government would just make such a mistake. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Gomap has an editing option on the left panel (named Add object) and as such is WP:SELFPUB - anyone can add anything to the map. Such sources are usually discouraged. I'd also recommend to refrain from further reverts per WP:ONUS - "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Brandmeister^talk 08:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unable to add anything or change street names, and Gomap isn't just some random website as I explained already. I doubt they allow random people to change street names if that's even possible (the topic we're discussing). The fact that the street name change also appears in Gomap presumably for days now further confirms it happened, that was my point. And in addition to what reliable sources already reported. In contrast, this kind of misleading edits are what's wrong here and it should be reverted. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as it was never officially confirmed that Enver Pasha street exists, we cannot claim it as a fact. Plus, no one saw a street sign either. And I see no reason why Azerbaijani official position on this should not be presented. If Azerbaijan does not officially confirm this, the reports of some sources should be attributed to those sources. I.e. some sources say, but it was never officially confirmed. It could be slightly reworded to say that "Azerbaijani officials stated that they were not aware of such a street name, and it is presumed to be someone's private initiative". And gomap is not official governmental source either. It is a company that works with some governmental entities, but does not represent the official position. Grandmaster 08:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You repeat the same thing again but it was already explained above: the Azerbaijani officials don't dispute that the street was renamed, they say they weren't aware of it, therefore your edit is misleading (and also squeezing unsourced expressions of doubt like "some sources" when all the RS reporting this have said it happened). And we have reliable sources reporting that the street was changed and a map confirmation as well by a company with close connections to Azerbaijani government. Please self-revert yourself, there are several issues with that edit. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I reworded to be closer to the wording of the source. Until it was not officially confirmed, we cannot claim as a fact that such a street name change took place. Grandmaster 09:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources explicitly say that it happened. Why should we be more sceptical than our sources are? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources have confirmed it. Unless you have reliable sources disputing it - and you don't even have official sources disputing it - then your personal lack of belief in it is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Because if some sources say that something happened, but officials do not confirm, we present both positions. It is not my personal belief, we must present official reaction to this claim as well. Grandmaster 09:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

But officials haven't denied it; they've just said that they are unaware and that naming locations is not their responsibility (and thus it is not surprising that they are unaware) - there are not two positions on this story, there is one position. Until you can find an actual second position, putting "some sources" as if there is doubt about the story is WP:UNDUE, as is putting the fact that some Azerbaijan officials were unaware of the change. BilledMammal (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Reports on rename do not refer to any official source. Therefore those are unconfirmed claims. Those reports do not make clear who exactly made the decision on rename, which shows that those are nothing but unverified claims. We report them, but we also provide the official reaction of the Azerbaijani authorities to those reports. Azerbaijani official reaction must be presented as well, per WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 09:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

To ask one simple question: Do you have any reliable sources saying that this renaming didn't happen? If you don't, we present it as fact. If you do, please share them. (And no, the source you have provided doesn't say that; it says that some officials, whose job doesn't involve renaming streets, weren't aware of the renaming. It's a statement that says nothing, and shouldn't be included in the article) BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that some reliable sources claim that Azerbaijan changed the name of the street, but neither Azerbaijan has officially confirmed this, nor these sources cite official statement or unofficial map service. How these sources claim that Azerbaijan changed street's name? You can't say Azerbaijani officials changed street's name without official statement. This is not the same with genocide or ethnic cleansing allegations, which the government is probably deny it. Another fact here is there is no local government in Stepanakert to change streets' name, so it is not clear where these sources get this information from. Nemoralis (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not our position to speculate or conduct original research; we follow the sources. Unless sources emerge disputing this then just say that Azerbaijan reissued a map renaming the street. BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And I don't understand the meaning behind tags like these [27], [28], [29] when there still hasn't been a single RS disputing what's being said, so OR speculations hardly constitute as a 'dispute' to warrant such tags. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I just saw this thread. My opinion is, I'm not against the inclusion on the main page, but inclusion here is simply irrelevant to the topic. Beshogur (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that is a reference to the genocide. Enver Pasha is seen as a savior against Russian occupation in Azerbaijan due to the Caucasus campaign. Isn't it obvious that the naming is a reference to this? Also the latest United Nations report showed that there was no aggression against civilians in the region. The article also states that almost the entire Armenian population emigrated from the region. I still cannot understand why you are trying to convince people that Azerbaijan has genocidal intent. Kyzagan (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

But this street is located in a town that until a few days ago had an Armenian majority, and Armenians overwhelmingly remember Enver Pasha as a genocidal piece of shit. Even if the renaming isn't meant as a deliberate mockery, it still shows an incredible lack of respect. If you don't see how this is problematic, then you shouldn't even be allowed to edit Wikipedia. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Spot on. Enver pasha is known as one of and main perpetrator of Armenian genocide, and importantly, RS that reported the street name change also describe him for what he is, a genocide perpetrator. The comment by WP:GS/AA user is OR and baffling insensitive justification at that, which should be ignored - I'd question their competence if they continue with this line of 'argumentation'. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trilletrollet, I agree with your comment about "lack of respect", the current change is extremely provocative. My comment was about the phrase "ill intentions by Azerbaijan" written in the first comment under the title. Just because the name change is disrespectful does not indicate that it carries genocidal intent. Kyzagan (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

To rename a street in a recently Armenian-inhabited town with the name of the perpetrator of the murder of the largest part of the Armenian people has crystal clear intentions. We don't ask for a lot for editing Wikipedia, one of the things is common sense just asked for in fancier words, but to appear to fail to grasp something as clear as this is indicative of a lack of precisely that. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• I read through this thread. The information should absolutely be attributed. It is a very contentious claim and it lacks official confirmation. If the rename did happen we should get more RS in the future anyway. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  The thing is that it's only contentious according to editors here; no reliable sources have disputed it, and several have confirmed it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sources did dispute it. Not a single Azerbaijani official is aware of such rename, which means that such rename is highly unlikely to take place. It was never officially unannounced, there is no street sign either. Yet the reaction of Azerbaijani officials is being persistently deleted from the article, in violation of WP:NPOV. [30] Grandmaster 08:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Not being aware of it is not the same thing as disputing it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  It pretty much is. It is inconceivable that not a single official in Azerbaijan is aware of such a rename decision. Who exactly made this decision? Which body, agency, ministry, department? If we cannot answer this simple question, we cannot claim the rename as a fact. Le Monde writes: "On October 3, Azerbaijan re-issued a map of the capital" ... which "was first published in August 2021". Who is Azerbaijan? The whole country? Impossible. Then who exactly? Le Monde provides no answer to this. Al Monitor article states: "Azerbaijan ... named a street in Stepanakert on Tuesday after Enver Pasha". Again, it refers to the country of Azerbaijan with no indication of who exactly in Azerbaijan did the rename. None of those 2 articles refer to any sources either. From what I understand, the only source for this claim is an anonymous map that has been circulating on Twitter since 2021. This appears to be an example of lazy journalism when the reporters pick up a sensational story on Twitter and run with it. Grandmaster 15:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  In addition to the fact that there is no reason to take anything any Azeri official says for granted, you have not interviewed every single Azeri official so cannot possibly say that not a single one knows. Also, verifiability, not truth; your OR cannot dispute RS no matter how "truthful" the OR is. JM2023 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that is a reference to the genocide Azerbaijani persecution has just caused all but 50-1000 people in Artsakh (probably all Armenians) to flee their own country. The first thing Azeris do after entering the territory they have just ethnically cleansed and attempted genocide against, is to rename a street in the now-deserted capital city the equivalent of "Chief Armenian Genocidaire Street".

Enver Pasha is seen as a savior against Russian occupation in Azerbaijan due to the Caucasus campaign. Isn't it obvious that the naming is a reference to this? Enver Pasha is also seen as the chief genocidaire of the Armenian people, a people the Azeris just so happen to hate with a passion, and a people they have just so happened to have just ethnically cleansed and attempted genocide against. Isn't it obvious that the renaming of a street in an ethnically-cleansed area to honour the person responsible for the biggest genocide against them a reference to this?

The article also states that almost the entire Armenian population emigrated from the region. because they were experiencing severe shortages that were killing them because the Azeris blockaded their entire country because they didn't accept their right to self-determination against a persecutory and extremely racist regime.

I still cannot understand why you are trying to convince people that Azerbaijan has genocidal intent maybe because many sources have stated the blockade was an attempted genocide and the pressure that forced them out was tantamount to ethnic cleansing, and also because the Azeri president's rep said "genocide may happen" on camera in plain english unprompted. JM2023 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"This is a genocide" it's true, you are very funny. We welcome you to the Gaza blockade article. 31.223.61.157 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There are some differences between Gaza and Artsakh -- namely that Gaza is actually a giant antisemitic terrorist training camp for Hamas run by Hamas for the purpose of committing genocide against Israelis including the burning, beheading, torturing, publicly executing, and otherwise slaughtering Israeli children for simply existing as Israelis in the Israeli homeland, whereas Artsakh was an autonomous fortification designed to prevent the persecution and ethnic cleansing and genocide of Artsakh Armenians by Azerbaijan; and also that Gaza shares a border with Egypt and therefore is not an enclave of Israel and therefore it is not a total blockade to my knowledge -- but regardless I fail to see the relevance of your comment to this article about the exodus of Artsakh Armenians. Stick to discussing improvements for this article, do not disrupt and break rules. Also who are you quoting, not me because I never said that in my comment. JM2023 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

None of those biased opinions about Gaza are relevant to this article either. Both of you, please ensure you're adhering to WP:CIVIL & WP:GF and stay on topic. This is not a forum. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see why those are considered "biased opinions"; per our own articles and RS, Gaza Strip is under total control of Hamas, which is recognized as a terrorist organization by most of the West, and it was just used as a base to launch the second-largest terrorist attack in history, in which they have tortured, burned, and beheaded Israeli children and also kidnapped Israeli children and threatened to execute them live on camera for being "settler colonialist oppressors" despite Israelis being in Palestine before Palestinians; and Gaza does in fact have a border with Egypt, meaning there is no total blockade, unlike in Artsakh;

I also fail to see why it's irrelevant or that it's forum-like, when it's relevant to explaining to the other editor why Artsakh is not the same as Gaza per RS in the article and so should not be insubstantially alleged to be such on the talk page to allege partiality or hypocriticality;

And I also fail to see why my explanatory comment was uncivil or assuming bad faith (especially considering you called out nothing in specific);

But for the sake of productivity and avoiding conflict I can desist from that path of argumentation (while also calling out that it's unwarranted to call the RS facts on Gaza my "biased opinions" and considering your allegations against me to themselves be against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). JM2023 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have another source to add to that list, Rauf Azimov of openDemocracy, who confirms the street was renamed and the connection between Enver and the genocide.[31] It seems there is no longer reason to doubt the street was renamed. Azimov also doubts Azerbaijan's desire for Armenians to stay and details the obvious ethnic cleansing intentions. This could be expanded upon in the article's section. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece. Cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia, other than to illustrate Azimov's personal views. And why the reaction of Azerbaijani officials was removed? It is a very important information that must be reflected in the article. So far the claim on rename appears to be a hoax picked up by some unscrupulous journalists. There is no factual evidence that such rename actually happened. I think we should take this to some dispute resolution, maybe ask wider Wikipedia community. What is your preferred option? Grandmaster 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Rauf Azimov's article looks like opinion piece, not RS. Without official confirmation and given how contentious the claim is, I would wait for more RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There was a public sitting of the ICJ in The Hague yesterday where Azerbaijani Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Elnur Mammadov, said in particular: "...this morning, Armenia showed images of a map that allegedly includes “new Azerbaijani” names on “renamed” streets in Khankandi. Let me be clear on that. No streets in Khankandi have been renamed. The social media post on which Armenia relies was originally posted in August 2021 — more than two years before the events giving rise to Armenia’s present request" (p. 22). There's now official refutation.

As for Gomap.az, Azerbaijan State News Agency said that "users can participate in the portal's updates" and indeed, as I noted before, there's an "add object" feature on the website's left panel. So it looks like Enver Pasha Street was added to Gomap by some user based on erroneous reports. Brandmeister^talk 07:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Since Azerbaijan's deputy foreign minister officially denied that such rename took place, the information should either be removed, or updated to present Azerbaijan's rejection of the claim. Grandmaster 08:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We should include that Azerbaijan disputes this, but we can't assume that Azerbaijan is telling the truth; we still have reliable sources saying that it was renamed, and Azerbaijan does have motive to lie.

Perhaps Sources reported that Azerbaijan had reissued a map renaming a street in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, after one of the main instigators of the Armenian genocide Enver Pasha. Azerbaijan disputed this during a case at the International Court of Justice, saying the "No streets in Khankandi have been renamed". BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems that the only Azerbaijani evidence on which sources may rely is Gomap, other than that they do not mention any specific official decision, a street sign, etc. In that situation, amid Azerbaijan's refutation, we can't give preference to foreign sources. It was the responsibility of official Azerbaijan to reject or confirm the claim which has been done. Brandmeister^talk 11:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We can't give preference to non-independent and biased sources. In my proposed text we don't give preference to either; we say what reliable and independent sources have reported, and we say that Azerbaijan denies it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Being biased or an involved party does not automatically mean that party is lying in a given case. Brandmeister^talk 12:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, but we also don't assume it's telling the truth. What we need to do is give the same weight to the reliable and independent sources making this claim as we do to Azerbaijan's denial. BilledMammal (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Both views are currently presented per WP:BALANCE, I don't think there's a need for rewording. Brandmeister^talk 12:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Elnur Mammadov, also officially refuted earlier reports, according to which a street in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, had been named after Enver Pasha, one of the main instigators of the Armenian genocide. - that isn't presenting both views. Presenting both views would be what I said. Further, "refuted" means to disprove the claims; that is too strong a word, we need to be using "disputed" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The incorrect usage of the sources in the article and overall bias

It can be clearly seen that many parts of the page are clearly non objective and biased, when clearly trying to overstretch the term of ethnical cleansing, impose radical opinions of some "experts" as governmental policies of Azerbaijan, without providing any factual evidence or even writing made up statements and as a source use an unrelated page, I have really strong concern about how is this page checked? This page needs a serious checking for objectivity, as it is breaking the rules of Wikipedia to allow information like this to be shared. One of the countless examples is literally within first sentences in the page, where a very loud and provocative sentence is given - "Faced with threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan, over 100,400 ethnic Armenians, nearly the entire current population of Nagorno-Karabakh,[6]". Sentences like this need very serious factual base to be mentioned, as they on itself can form an opinion of readers regarding the conflict as a whole. The source listed for this is an Human Rights Watch article, which not only doesn't mention words "genocide", "threat" or "ethnical cleansing" at all, but contrary to this talks about measures Azerbaijan makes to reintegrate Armenians. How come are things like this allowed? Wikipedia is not a platform to share biased political agenda, speculations, disinformation, personal opinions or falsifying data. I would ask any authorized user to start a topic towards an objectivity check of this article, because if even the first sentences are speculative and unbacked accusations of Azerbaijan making "threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing" and then falsely tries to use an article that doesn't say a word about this, it means that this page as a whole can be used by certain groups to form a specific opinion in uninformed people by not using sources as intended and manipulating data. People need to have access to accurate and checked information, not speculations and propaganda. Faxrib (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

We could also witness in page how opinions and accusations about the "genocide and ethnical cleansing" of people whom are absolutely disconnected to the area are being shared. And along with these accusations, no facts or anything remotely close to backing these accusations is given. The fact that a joint motion of some deputies in European Parliament was mentioned, but official statement of PM Pashinyan, whom said "At this moment, our assessment is that there is no direct threat to the civilian population of Nagorno-Karabakh," isn't is very incorrect, since PM of Armenia is a credible source making a statement and deputies of European Parliament have no direct information regarding to this conflict and make accusations, rather than a statement. The motion could have been mentioned, but the statement of PM of Armenia is much more important in the context of the conflict and the fact how cherry picked everything on this page is for "Azerbaijan is an aggressor" narrative is fascinating. Factual reports are the important things and any page regarding conflicts should focus attention on reports, rather than opinions. Opinions can be biased, reports cant. This page though for some reason instead of putting attentions on reports, directs it all purely on opinions or accusations. The UN conducted a mission to Karabakh and this mission is mentioned, but again in a very cherry picked manner - everything related to "Azerbaijan is an aggressor" is included in the page, while important statements from the report, like "The mission did not come across any reports – neither from the local population interviewed nor from the interlocutors - of incidences of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." isn't. These are just 2 examples out of the whole page, that are lying on the surface and should have been noticed by any informed person, but the statement I wanted to make is clear - cherry picking, speculations, one sidedness and disinformation is what this whole page is about. All of it. And it needs severe checking and corrections. Faxrib (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the lead has neutrality issues, with claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing not being in line with WP:NPOV, and HRW used as a reference for this claim does not use such words. Grandmaster 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

These claims are overwhelmingly stated by almost every single reliable source covering this event, WP:NPOV refers to covering all significant viewpoints, these claims are undoubtedly significant, having been stated even by the European Parliament, and the denial of Azerbaijan of these claims is presented so I don’t see how this violates NPOV simply because it states a perspective that the Azerbaijani side may disagree with but is widely covered in reliable sources. TagaworShah (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @TagaworShah,

I would ask you to give more attention towards the information written on the page and sources. Even though this article provides an overwhelming amount of pro Armenian viewpoints and very little statements and facts, even these few facts and statements are often speculations, cherry picked or completely falsified. When an overwhelming amount of pro Armenians viewpoints are provided with no real facts behind it, it is very dangerous to call it a Wikipedia article, it looks like a pro Armenian newsletter article, that demonizes Azerbaijan. The absolute majority of this article violates W:NPOV and other rules and needs to be checked. Almost all paragraphs violate the rules and it can clearly be seen why -

Entry Paragraph

"Faced with threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan, over 100,400 ethnic Armenians, nearly the entire current population of Nagorno-Karabakh, had fled by the end of September 2023."

As mentioned before, non verifiable information - a speculation. No threats of genocide or ethnic cleansing were made. Some media sources consider these events as ethnical cleansing, yet no threats were made and no force or violence was applied to civilians as reported by the UN. Violation of WP:V, no information to verify regarding the threats of genocide or ethnic cleansing is reported or shared. Violation of WP:NPOV, stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

"While the Azerbaijani government and its officials assured residents of their safety and emphasized their intent to reintegrate the Armenian population, skepticism surrounded these assurances, stemming from Azerbaijan's established track record of authoritarianism and repression of its Armenian population."

Skepticism should be based on factual reports, not on speculations. Factual reports by reputable sources are providing no evidence of danger to Armenians and the sentence needed to mention this fact as a backing towards Azerbaijani statement, instead of not backing it at all and rather immediately undermining it by providing speculative opinions of skeptics. This feels like it was specifically done to make Azerbaijani view seem unbacked, false and essentially worthless right after stating it. The article provided as source for this skepticism is written by an Armenian, which creates strong doubt if its really objective skepticism or just a biased view of an interested side. Violation of WP:Balance and W:NPOV.

Background

"The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is an ethnic and territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is located within Azerbaijan but is predominantly inhabited by Armenians."

Non-full information given, creating a non-full picture on the conflict. As stated in the Wikipedia article, Nagorno Karabakh conflict is a conflict revolving around Karabakh and 7 Azerbaijani majority regions, not only Nagorno-Karabakh. Using an article written by Armenian and structuring sentence this way creates a wrong idea of the conflict for uninformed readers and creates doubt about objectivity of this statement for informed people.

"During the Soviet era, Armenians residing in the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast experienced significant discrimination. The authorities of Soviet Azerbaijan suppressed Armenian culture and identity within Nagorno-Karabakh, actively encouraging Armenians to migrate out and Azerbaijanis to settle in. Despite these measures, Armenians remained the majority. In 1988, during the glasnostperiod, a referendum was conducted in Nagorno-Karabakh proposing its transfer to Soviet Armenia. This act was met with a series of pogroms against Armenians across Azerbaijan, before violence committed against both Armenians and Azerbaijanis occurred, leading to the outbreak of the First Nagorno-Karabakh War.The war resulted in the displacement of approximately 500,000 Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent occupied territories as well as 186,000 from Armenia, and between 300,000 and 500,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan. A subsequent conflict, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, caused thousands of casualties and ended with a significant Azerbaijani victory. This war allowed Azerbaijan to reclaim all the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and a third of the Nagorno-Karabakh region itself. Since the 2020 war, violations of the ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh and at the Armenian-Azerbaijani border have persisted, resulting in sporadic casualties."

No mention that the expulsion of ethnic Armenians from Azerbaijan and ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia was mutual.. No mention of the referendum being considered illegal by the whole world. Mentioned pogroms against Armenians, yet not mentioned much more fatal actions of Armenian army, that were committed during the First Karabakh War, that lead to almost 16,000 Azerbaijani civilian casualties, almost quadruple of total Armenian civilian casualties in the span of 35 years of the conflict. No mention of 4 UN Security Council Resolutions urging the Armenian army to leave Azerbaijan. If the background on the conflict was needed to be given and First Karabakh war is mentioned, it is important to show this war is it really was - by all facts and reports it was an awful crime against Azerbaijani nation that was condemned by whole world, but at the same time ignored for 30 years. Trying to depict Armenians as victims of that war or not mentioning the factual actions done by their army and the recognition of this regime and anything related to it as illegal by the whole world will make it impossible to have an objective knowledge about the background of the conflict. Extensive depiction of Armenian viewpoint, yet again, little to no depiction of Azerbaijani viewpoint. Clearly violating W:NPOV.

"In December 2022, Azerbaijan blocked the Lachin corridor, the only road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia that was supposed to be under the control of Russian peacekeepers, leading to shortages. In February 2023 the International Court of Justice ordered Azerbaijan to ensure free movement to Nagorno-Karabakh, ruling that the blockade posed a "real and imminent risk" to the "health and life" of Nagorno-Karabakh's Armenian population. By early September 2023 the blockade had caused supplies to all but run out; there was little medicine or fuel, while bread, a staple in the region, was rationed to one loaf per family per day. Azerbaijan also sabotaged critical civilian infrastructure in the region, including gas, electricity, and Internet access. Azerbaijan installed a border checkpoint on the corridor and, following a border shootout near the checkpoint in June 2023, tightened the blockade by not allowing any transportation to the region." Not mentioned the viewpoint of Azerbaijan at all. As helper of President of Azerbaijan mentioned, the checkpoint was done because facts of Armenia carried military ammunition through Lachin road were opened up. To offer alternative route Azerbaijan opened an Aghdam route, but Armenians refused to use it. Again, extensive depiction of Armenian viewpoint, yet again, little to no depiction of Azerbaijani viewpoint. Violation as per W:NPOV.

"International observers, including Luis Moreno Ocampo, the inaugural prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, expressed concerns that Azerbaijan's blockade could be the onset of a genocide. Ocampo specifically stated that Azerbaijan's actions, which included withholding essential supplies like food and medicine, appeared to be a calculated effort to inflict on the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. In August 2023, as a direct result of the blockade, the first resident of Nagorno-Karabakh succumbed to starvation. The Armenian President denounced Azerbaijan, asserting it was committing genocide by causing Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh to starve. Similarly, Ronald Grigor Suny stated, "Baku is determined to make the Armenians' lives impossible, starve them out, and pressure them to leave."

Very detailed explanations of unbacked accusations. What is the purpose of them? What encyclopaedical value do they bring in? The fact that opinion of Ronald Grigor Suny, an Armenian origin historian, is included in background section and 4 UN resolutions condemning the occupation of Azerbaijan after First Karabakh War werent even mentioned raises serious objectivity concerns. These resolutions bring in a lot of value in the context of understanding the background of the conflict, while Suny opinion (especially when its unsupported by facts) can barely even be considered as an objective one due to his Armenian origins.

Flight

"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, said that "a genocide may happen" if the Republic of Artsakh did not capitulate. Echoing this concern, Baroness Caroline Cox, the founder of the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, urged the UK government to take steps to prevent such a tragedy."

First sentence is an epitome of absurd. Country cant invade territory within its recognized borders - Azerbaijan cant invade Nagorno Karabakh, same as Ukraine cant invade Donbass. Structuring sentence like this implies that Wikipedia doesn't recognize the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan. Then, "growing concerns that Azerbaijan might perpetuate a genocide". These concerns are not a universally accepted consensus, its just an opinion of several people. Stating opinions as facts is unacceptable and violates W:NVOP. Elchin Amirbeyov never said this, the sentence is based on manipulating of his words. This is a classical speculation - unacceptable for Wikipedia articles. His whole words can be stated instead - "First of all you have to approach this issue from purely legal point of view, from the point of international law. There is no evidence which was provided by those who suggest that there is genocide in the making, that these people are exterminated because of their ethnic origin. As I said, a genocide may happen only if this clique of separatists will continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals. We must be very attentive and careful with using this very hard accusation". And now the premise is much clearer and different. Unlike manipulated "a genocide may happen. Opinion of Cox is irrelevant. This whole paragraph clearly needs to be rewritten as it violates W:NVOP.

"In the wake of the collapse of the Nagorno-Karabakh defenses, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention [ru] issued an alert, drawing attention to the acute risk of genocide faced by Armenians in the region and highlighting the extreme levels of anti-Armenian sentiments within the Azerbaijani military. Moreover, threats and abusive messages targeting civilians, even instances of reported massacres of Armenians who chose to stay, were rampant on Azerbaijani social media channels. In a concurrent announcement, Genocide Watchalso sounded an alert, categorization the situation as Stage 9 within their ten stages of genocide framework – Extermination."

What even is this and how it appeared on the page? Lemkin institute is very far from being called an independent and reliable source, its alert is based God knows on what. Why is this mentioned even? The cherry picked writings of some individuals are not " threats and abusive messages targeting civilians, even instances of reported massacres of Armenians who chose to stay, were rampant on Azerbaijani social media channels". They were made by singular individuals and same things can be seen during any conflict - some singular individuals are just saying violent nonsense. Reported massacres are non verifiable and violate WP:V. No sources reporting about massacres were listed and no reports of any massacres were reported by any reliable international organization watching the area. Reporting this nonsense of unknown and unreliable sources and not reporting the statement of the UN mission, which reported that "The mission did not come across any reports – neither from the local population interviewed nor from the interlocutors - of incidences of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." is spectacular.

"While the Azerbaijani government and its officials assured residents of their safety and emphasized their intent to reintegrate the Armenian population, skepticism surrounded these assurances, stemming from Azerbaijan's established track record of authoritarianism and repression of its Armenian population."

Again, skepticism should be based on factual reports, not on speculations. Factual reports by reputable sources are providing no evidence of danger to Armenians and the sentence needed to mention this fact as a backing towards Azerbaijani statement, instead of not backing it at all and rather immediately undermining it by providing speculative opinions of skeptics. This feels like it was specifically done to make Azerbaijani view seem unbacked, false and essentially worthless right after stating it. The article provided as source for this skepticism is written by an Armenian, which creates strong doubt if its really objective skepticism or just a biased view of an interested side. Violation of WP:Balance and W:NPOV.

Every single paragraph on this page I reviewed in its nature doesnt hold values and principles of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I dont have time to talk about every single paragraph separately, but these 9 paragraphs I explained and which constitute the first half of the page, all violate the rules of Wikipedia and need to be rewritten. At the same time I offer to check the entire page in this matter. Things like this are unacceptable in Wikipedia - ITS NOT A POLITICAL AGENDA PROPAGANDA PLATFORM, ITS AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA. And anything written here must serve the principles and values of Wikipedia, not a goal to show one sided propaganda, by sharing any viewpoint, even the most absurd of one side and then suppressing the most important viewpoints of the other side. Im a new user of Wikipedia and Im not informed about what should be done in cases like this, but I hope fellow users with enough knowledge or authorization, whom also want to serve the principles of this platform will help to make this article objective and truly and factually useful for readers. Faxrib (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTFORUM this is not a place to rant about how reliable sources present information because they don’t present it the way you learned it or the way you believe it happened, we can’t just add unnecessary context that reliable sources specifically covering this flight do not mention, most of the points you made were already discussed in the talk page already, unless you have a specific concern with reliable recent sources to back it up, this is not the place to rant about how you Wikipedia:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. TagaworShah (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @TagaworShah, stating made up information, not backed up by any source at all or backed up with just controversial or unreliable source is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Showing almost exclusively one side of the viewpoints is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Writing absurd accusations stated in Wikipedia's voice is a violation of rules. I am not interested whether you think its a rant or not, I want a constructive answer on why things written here are structured like that and why you do nothing about it.

Im not telling my own opinion, anything I said was backed by factual reports and sources, which are essential to the understanding of given events, but are completely ignored in this page. Contrary to the real reports of international organizations, the article doesn't forget to mention tens of opinions of the most random people, including even Armenian historians. Almost everything in this page is unfortunately revolving around opinions and not facts and over represents Armenian viewpoint.

Again, specifically I would address the most obvious example - "Faced with threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan, over 100,400 ethnic Armenians, nearly the entire current population of Nagorno-Karabakh,[6]". What is this based on? The source mentions nothing about it. Why is this said in Wikipedia's voice if its nothing, but unbacked speculation?

Please, when writing any answer keep in mind we are talking about a Wikipedia article, which needs to be as objective and informative for readers as possible. Faxrib (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the content of the article, there is a whole section about the very real and present genocide threats that Armenians faced, this is reliably sourced. Armenians did not leave voluntarily because they wanted to, 100,000 people don’t just abandon their homeland by choice, that much is clear from the sources. Objectivity does not mean giving Wikipedia:UNDUE weight to denialism by the Azerbaijani government and random quotes in a report that are not based in any real investigation nor have been independently verified by any news sources. TagaworShah (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia's WP:NPOV is not supposed to be WP:FALSEBALANCE as these people, knowingly or not, are advocating for. We do not include unreliable sources like the involved persecutory Azeri government. The person you are interacting with is performing an overwhelming WP:WALLOFTEXT gish gallop. JM2023 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

With this logic, we must also reject the resources of the Armenian government, which has occupied Azerbaijani lands since 1992. 31.223.61.157 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

which is why the article is verified using reliable sources, not just the Armenian government. JM2023 (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @JM2023, you can read even 10% of the text and it will still make the same point. The size of the text is explained by the fact that it covers many points, that you all ignore and go into technical aspects of it. Faxrib (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

JM2023 is correct, it is a wall of text and you need to stop WP:BLUDGEONing and ignoring the several WP:RS in the article. You're a new account with 5 edits, perhaps it's best to edit other topic areas before jumping to AA articles - also see WP:GS/AA. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Kevo327, read only as much as you want or read if the text is too large for you, then read any other message I wrote. These messages are not laws, you arent obliged to read all of them. The fact that I have 5 edits doesnt make me ignorant, I see many issues here. Please, address exactly them and instead of giving me advices on how to behave.

Lets start about the thing I ask for a 5th time already - Again, specifically I would address the most obvious example - "Faced with threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan, over 100,400 ethnic Armenians, nearly the entire current population of Nagorno-Karabakh,[6]". What is this based on? The source mentions nothing about it. Why is this said in Wikipedia's voice if its nothing, but unbacked speculation?

Why is this source used if its not related at all and mentions nothing at all and how come even account with 5 edits noticed it and you didn't? Faxrib (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The cited source in the lead part you're talking about is for "nearly the entire current population of Nagorno-Karabakh" - if you paid a bit more attention to where it's placed, it is obvious the source is for this statement. "Faced with threats of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan" is the summary of the article's body and WP:RS cited in the article, see how WP:LEAD works - again if you weren't a new inexperienced account and actually seen other threads in this talk page which already discussed this, you would understand instead of continuing to WP:BLUDGEON here. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Kevo327, open up any checking or arbitrage or any other instrument of the platform to solve this then. Talking to you and other editors of this theater of an article does not solve anything, neutral people, unrelated to both sided need to see this. Im new and inexperienced, you are right, so as an experienced user do me a favour like this. Of course, if everything is as easy and obvious as you say, neutral observers will also agree with you and case will be closed soon enough. Faxrib (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, do other impartial Wikipedia editors know about the theater here?. Most of the sources are unreliable Armenian sources.The reason why Armenian sources are unreliable is because they are taking sides.The sources in which you say that Armenians faced genocide are already Armenian claims.Additionally, as far as I can see, you are also an Armenian. Frankly, I think this article should be written from a completely impartial perspective. The wikipedia conversation part of the Article is not effective. I believe it was destroyed especially by Armenian editors.It's time to open Arb Com. The decision should be made impartially. Otherwise, the state of the article is obvious. 31.223.61.157 (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith; ArbCom is not necessary here. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Sawyer-mcdonell, what are other methods needed to use in this scenario? I see so many people discussing here and editing whatever they like and almost all of them end up having Armenian ancestry mentioned in their profile. I don't want to say anything about their objectivity, but when answering to me they ignore all, even the most obvious violations in the article, my explanations they call wall of text and then instead of trying to resolve the issues or at least doing anything to explain to me why these aren't violations, they tell me to go check other articles, because my account is new and this one isnt suitable for me apparently. So any other opinion, which is contrary to theirs they just try to suppress.

Maybe it will be good that people unrelated to both Azerbaijan and Armenia, in other words neutral people read the article and certain discussions in the talk page and will also decide whether the article is really objective and doesnt violate any rules or not. Thank you. Faxrib (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Everyone is free to look on my profile and see that I am not Armenian and have absolutely no Armenian ancestry (or Azeri). In fact I have ever even met an Armenian (or an Azeri). Your 15K+ byte comment is indeed a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Since I am unrelated to both Azerbaijan and Armenia (and have not once edited this article), do I count as neutral to you? As far as I can see, the article follows WP:NPOV, and I don't think we should mistake WP:NPOV for WP:FALSEBALANCE. Sometimes one side really is more correct than the other, and in this case it's Armenia. This is what we get from WP:RS, so in accordance with WP:VNT, it goes in the article, regardless of anyone's WP:OR. JM2023 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Some side is more correct than the other? Who says so? One second, did you just say that a side which occupied another country for 3 decades, really ethnically cleansed(which was proved to be one by HRW reports and others) hundreds of thousands Azerbaijanis and caused thousands casualties of civilians a more correct side? What is even this correct incorrect side rhetoric, are you a child my friend? The article should be objective nevertheless, no one has rights to invent facts, ignore UN reports, because apparently someone said its not reliable enough or turn an article to his favor because of their likings. But with such rhetoric as yours, when someone is apparently "more correct", its hard to be objective of course. What are you doing in Wikipedia if you pick sides? Faxrib (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Most of your comment is WP:FORUM and WP:OR so I will ignore those lines. Anyway, Some side is more correct than the other? Who says so? the consensus of reliable sources, which is what wikipedia is based on. What is even this correct incorrect side rhetoric it's not rhetoric, it's recognizing what reliable sources tell us, and they tell us that one side is indeed more correct. are you a child my friend? should be struck as a personal attack. The article should be objective nevertheless, no one has rights to invent facts Wikipedia is following the RS here with NPOV, that's objective. ignore UN reports, because apparently someone said its not reliable enough or turn an article to his favor because of their likings I said to include it with the RS criticism, not to ignore it. also youre not assuming good faith by alleging I'm "turning the article to my favour because of my likings" which by the way I have never edited this article. But with such rhetoric as yours, when someone is apparently "more correct", its hard to be objective of course question: do you think "objective" is synonymous with "reporting Azeri claims and narratives equally with reliable sources"? Because it's not; thats WP:FALSEBALANCE. What are you doing in Wikipedia if you pick sides? I'm not picking sides by following RS consensus. But you are going against RS consensus, which goes against one of Wikipedia's five pillars. JM2023 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That the sources are "Armenian" is unsubstantiated and irrelevant, because "Armenian" does not mean "unreliable". The reason sources appear to be "taking sides" is because one side of this conflict is perpetrating an ethnic cleansing and just attempted a genocidal blockade while the other side it protecting itself from that. It is not just an Armenian claim, it is a conclusion from observation by sources. "You are also an Armenian" is irrelevant and looks like you are biased against Armenians here. Impartial does not mean false balance. Credit is not automatically given to claims from persecutory regimes. "I believe it was destroyed especially by Armenian editors" once again looks like you have bias against Armenians here. What's far more likely than this article going to arbcom is you going to the administrators' incidents noticeboard (warning). JM2023 (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Per reliable sources, ethnic cleansing includes cases where violence, threats, or discriminatory laws are made with the intention of causing people to leave. Even if people left "voluntarily", it can still be a case of ethnic cleansing—it doesn't necessarily require such extreme measures as forced march at gunpoint. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Buidhe, thank you for providing such a good source with an explanation of what an ethnical cleansing is. Of course, even if people left voluntarily it still can be an ethnical cleansing, yet it doesnt mean that if people left voluntarily it necessarily is an ethnical cleansing. The reference gives an extensive explanation of what an ethnical cleansing is and if we compare current events with this explanation, almost no parallels can be made.

No direct or indirect force on anyone is being used whatsoever, as said by reports on the place. So this point is very controversial. The reference also says that "return is impossible". Its not impossible, the property isnt taken by anyone and there is a whole governmental portal meant to encourage reintegration - reintegration.gov.az . Government often conducts meetings with representatives or Armenians and makes specific statements asking them to stay or informing about the fact that they can return. So return is pretty much possible. Methods of coercion - none of them can be applied here too.

So what kind of ethnical cleansing is this, where no force whatsoever is applied, no discriminatory laws are applied, return is possible at any time and government constantly is in contact with their representatives and makes a portal with an option to reintegrate. What about current events make it an ethnical cleansing? If Azerbaijan really does nothing now to contribute to this "cleansing", probably it shouldn't be called as one at all. Faxrib (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of going into WP:NOTFORUM arguments, but those arguing that it is ethnic cleansing contend that the blockade of Karabakh and restriction of imports (including food supplies) as well as the military offensive, had the purpose of forcing Armenians to leave. All I am trying to say is that the claim is not ridiculous or extraordinary as some have asserted. (t · c) buidhe 07:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue with these blockades and etc., is that these events happened before 20 September, so before Azerbaijan returned control on the lands. Now issues like these are unreported - so its irrelevant. I dont want to have any arguments here, please dont get me wrong. All I say is that to write things like these a strong factual base needs to be given - In the end the article wants to accuse a country of ethnical cleansing and things like these aren't toys, they need to be seriously backed up to be said. The claim is not ridiculous perhaps, but still no factual evidence or report was said to back this claim yet. Even the things you said, they actually make sense, until the fact that during the events you mentioned almost no one left and now roads are open. So even this is very controversial. And controversial things should never be said in Wikipedia's voice as we can witness multiple times in the article Faxrib (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Elchin Amirbeyov

The article states:

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

It has 2 references, one of which is an opinion piece by Caroline Cox, which cannot be used as a source, and another is The Christian Post, not the most unbiased source. The best source for such claim would be the original interview of this person. If it is not available, I suggest that we remove this quote. Grandmaster 16:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

this is the interview: here. It is on camera in plain English. This discussion has already occurred more than once; no reason to go over it again. The consensus was that the Christian Post was a reliable source, and that the interview was conducted by Deutsche Welle which also counts as a reliable source. JM2023 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed it. Then it should be referenced to DW, and quoted exactly as he said it. The context is: "First of all you have to approach this issue from purely legal point of view, from the point of international law. There is no evidence which was provided by those who suggest that there is genocide in the making, that these people are exterminated because of their ethnic origin. As I said, a genocide may happen only if this clique of separatists will continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals. We must be very attentive and careful with using this very hard accusation". He said nothing of capitulation. Cox should be removed, as opinion pieces are not allowed as sources. Grandmaster 18:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

i've included more of the quote in there & cited DW as per your request Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

hold on, where's the consensus for that? or at least discussion? the part of the quote you've included allows Amirbeyov to frame the situation in Azerbaijan's favour and POV, as being caused by Artsakh's government and claiming that government has no support and is holding its own citizens hostage -- it goes with the denial that we have seen on this page that Azerbaijan had any fault for the blockade and that they had a right to do so because it was "their land". it has Amirbeyov claiming Artsakh was holding its population hostage to fulfil its political goals, rather than the other way around as per RS consensus in the article. In my opinion the quote should be put pack in its previous state but keeping the new citation. JM2023 (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

fair enough. i should've waited for more consensus. you're welcome to revert me there or add context to the quote Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

unfortunately i'm not extended-confirmed yet so i'm powerless here. if anyone wants to do it: i would support just getting the quote back down to what it was before but with the new source, but if they want to add context i can settle for that. JM2023 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

i gotcha Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unable to comment yesterday. I believe this official should be quoted exactly as what he said in his interview to DW, and not as the Christian Post erroneously quoted him. Amirbeyov said nothing of capitulation. Since the DW interview is available to us, we should use it as a source and provide the precise quote of his speech. Please note that this is also a WP:BLP issue. We cannot ascribe to living persons questionable statements that are not supported by direct quotes from their speech. Grandmaster 08:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's better the use the secondary source (Christian Post) than the primary source (DW). It allows us to include analysis into the meaning of the words, not just the words themselves. BilledMammal (talk) 09:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, we prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia. And this was discussed already, not sure why it's being rehashed again. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

But that sole secondary source inaccurately quotes the speech. Why should we refer to an inaccurate quote and not the accurate original report of the speech? Grandmaster 16:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It says Elchin Amirbayov, a senior spokesman for Azerbaijan's president, had earlier predicted that "a genocide may happen" if Nagorno Karabakh's elected leaders do not submit. The quote is accurate, and the broader analysis is reasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The wiki article distorts even that. I took it to WP:BLPN. Grandmaster 09:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I've switched "said" to "predicted". BilledMammal (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

UN finding

I don't think that the finding of the UN mission could be removed as undue. [32] Whether some sources agree with it or not, the UN is the most important international organization, and its opinion cannot be undue. Grandmaster 10:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It can be if reliable sources don't report on it; if reliable sources consider it irrelevant or misleading and thus exclude it from their reporting.

Further, the finding is essentially a finding of nothing; they didn't receive reports of violence from the few dozen Armenians who remained behind - which is probably why reliable sources consider it irrelevant or misleading. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Several WP:RS have already criticized this for arriving after virtually all population had fled - adding more to it would indeed be undue. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The UN is the top international organization, and therefore its opinion is important. Whether it is criticized or not is irrelevant to its inclusion. The main criterion here is WP:Notability. Is the UN notable? Yes, it is. Therefore its opinion about whether or not there was violence should be included. This report was voiced by the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric [33] It was a large mission that included also the Director of the Coordination Division of the [Office] for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), representatives of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), the UNHCR (United Nations Refugee Agency) and the World Health Organization (WHO). I don't think we can omit the findings of the top international organization just because someone disagrees with it. As for reliable sources reporting on it, I think Reuters is reliable enough: [34] Grandmaster 16:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And this has been discussed before. We can't WP:CHERRYPICK - if some international experts are good for the lead, then the UN report is also, if not even more so. Brandmeister^talk 17:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed a tendency from you to mix discussions in different places irrelevant or otherwise inappropriate to it, please stop this kind of behavior. Firstly, the edit in question wasn't even in lead, what are you talking about? Are you interjecting the npov noticeboard topic here which several users had stated is undue, in order to rehash again same "lead UN" extremely undue point?

And secondly, the criticized UN report which is barely reported in RS btw and appears to be more criticized rather than just reported [35], [36], is far less common than even the USAID [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], which also isn't in the lead and has more weight to be. Lastly, adding undue details to an already undue report is overkill, and please again don't rehash other discussions in here which is for something else entirely (a body edit). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, in addition, in the London Review of Books, specialist journalist Tom Stevenson also criticizes the report “The ugliness of Azerbaijan’s present actions are clear enough. It didn’t allow a UN mission to enter the area until 1 October, after almost the entire population had left. The threat of military force was ostentatious and, while stingy in its actual use, the effect was ethnic cleansing.” And the UN mission and report is already mentioned in the article, what you want to add is a specific quote that is not being reported by virtually any reliable sources to deny claims of ethnic cleansing, that is Wikipedia:UNDUE, the UN mission never claimed to have done an investigation, all they did was ask “locals” when there was almost nobody left. That’s why reliable sources don’t even give any notice to this claim, there was no investigation. TagaworShah (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The UN says there are locals left, and they talked to them, but also with ICRC personnel. The fact that some disagree with the UN report is not a reason to delete its findings. The UN cannot be undue, it is the top international organization that actually visited the place, and is not just discussing it sitting in a far away location. And the UN report does not have to be widely discussed to be included. But it is mentioned by many sources, in particular by Reuters which I linked above. The UN mission "did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire". This is a very important detail that is corroborated also by Kavita Belani, United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Representative in Armenia [42], who spoke with Karabakh Armenians in Armenia and also stated that "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move". And even The Guardian article linked above also confirms that people fled because of the fear of violence, and not because of the actual violence. Quote: Most Armenians have left because they do not believe that Azerbaijani authorities will treat them fairly and humanely or guarantee them their language, religion and culture. That does not contradict the UN report that says there was no physical violence. Grandmaster 19:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, and for the last time since I don’t like repeating myself, you’re speaking about a specific quote, not the entire UN report, which is already mentioned. They did not do an investigation, they just asked around when as reliable sources point out almost the entire population left. So why give it undue weight when they didn’t independently verify nor claim that they could verify or dispute claims of violence, there was no investigation as you’re trying to present. TagaworShah (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not our business to decide what they investigated or did not. Our business here is to report what the reliable sources say, and the UN is the top international organization that actually sent a mission to the location. Our job is to quote their findings accurately, and not to engage in original research about how justified their findings are. That specific quote is an important part of their report, and therefore must be presented in the article. Grandmaster 19:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, it’s not our business to decide, they do not make this claim in the report, they do not claim to have independently verified or investigated any claims of violence, so saying that a UN report found no evidence of violence towards civilians is original research. The report stated they simply did not encounter any such reports from the remaining people, by their admission mostly the sick and elderly, they do not take a stance on whether or not such violence occurred. TagaworShah (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. And we need to include what they said in the article exactly as they said it. It is not up to us to censor the information or make any research into what the UN implied or believed. We just state that this particular source said this particular thing, and let the reader decide. Grandmaster 08:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make it WP:DUE as already explained above [43]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)