Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

As I said there, I question the competence of any editor who thinks "if this clique of separatists does not give up" cannot be paraphrased as "if they do not capitulate", especially when it means we can avoid his POV in pushing the narrative that somehow NK is blockading itself. JM2023 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

UN finding

I don't think that the finding of the UN mission could be removed as undue. [1] 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 [2] 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: [3] 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 [4], [5], is far less common than even the USAID [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], 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 [11], 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 [12]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Admins advised us to do RFCs on the disputed topics, so I will go ahead and start one on this issue. Grandmaster 17:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)