(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phantomette (talk | contribs) at 15:35, 28 February 2024 (→‎Survey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 1 January 2024

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: Not Moved - there is clearly no consensus in favour of the proposed move in this discussion. Particularly, there is a rough consensus that the proposed name has POV problems. The discussion has obviously come to a natural conclusion so there is not point in letting it run further. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh → Azerbaijan's takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh – The offensive is only a small part of this takeover. Vast majority of the article is after the offensive. [1] Lots of sources uses "takeover" as well. Beshogur (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The proposed title better fits the content of the article. Grandmaster 10:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per WP:NPOV. Takeover hides that it was a military invasion that resulted in the "cleansing" of the Armenian population. BilledMammal (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BilledMammal. "Takeover" is definitely a NPOV title. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Takeover is too broad and comes across as POV. Perhaps offensive is too specific to the events that have taken place, but I don't think there can be another title which encompasses both the events without being blatantly biased. BBC, Al Jazeera and others use the term, very little use takeover. Other terms like liberation or capture I believe would also be unacceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 18:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Oppose, per BilledMammal, Chaotic Enby and EmilePersaud. Ken Aeron (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, WP:NPOV and this has already been discussed. The current title is appropriate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the military offensive is only one part of the article and the title should reflect that. I think takeover if much more preferable to annexation, capture, etc.Yeoutie (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Offensive describes only one aspect of the events that occurred and hence the title is too specific. Takeover feels more appropriate to describe the entirety of the article. - Creffel (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Because "takeover" would mask the armed invasion, and there is no evidence of takeover being the common name. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe stop misleading people here. No single word here described this as an invasion. Only 2 times 'invasion' appears, and that's about Ukraine. Beshogur (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: would like to hear your thoughts. People claim 'takeover' is POV term while 'offensive' isn't. Beshogur (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Takeover" seems unusually informal for an article title in the absence of resounding evidence that it's the WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure it's really a question of neutrality between the suggested terms so much as it is a question of tone. It also seems relevant that the scope of the article as-written is the 1-day military operation in September 2023, which matches "offensive" well, but "annexation" (or "takeover") would lead me to expect an article primarily about the administrative process following the initial military maneuver, not the maneuver itself. signed, Rosguill talk 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Estar8806: Actually I'm the only one providing sources. And 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh is not a commonname. Bad closure. Beshogur (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the results from the google search you provided (ie. not a reliable source) actually use the title you proposed. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Azerbaijan takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh - France 24
  • Nagorno-Karabakh during an Azerbaijani military takeover - AJ
  • Azerbaijan's takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh - Foreign Policy
  • takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh - FT
  • Azerbaijan's military takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh - DW
  • Nagorno-Karabakh after Azerbaijan's lightning takeover - The Guardian
These are results without even clicking. Beshogur (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. My results must be different. I see no problem with reverting and relishing, so that's what I'll do. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The proposed title makes more sense. The offence was just a few hours, whereas the article covers a much wider range of period including the aftermath that is talked about more than the offensive itself.KHE'O (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Azerbaijan's". As I've expressed before this is gramatically bizarre. Why would we not use the demonym form instead? No opinion on the rest of the wording. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @Kheo17 as a more accurate and meaningful description. Killuminator (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RFC on UN mission report

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include the proposed text in the article. The main point of this discussion was if the material met the threshold for WP:DUE, and it is clear that arguments that it is not DUE were not persuasive to those in the discussion. As for BilledMammal's concerns about the neutrality, the report from the EU and statement from USAID don't prevent coverage of the report discussed in the RFC, but they can be included in the article to provide the context from later reports to address those concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Belani, United Nations Refugee Agency Representative in Armenia, stated on 29 September 2023 that "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move". [2]

A UN mission that visited Nagorno-Karabakh on 1 October 2023 reported that "they did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." [3]

Should the above statements by the UN missions be included in the article when discussing reports on violence against civilian population?

  • Option 1 - Mention these statement in the article with proper attribution.
  • Option 2 - Make no mention at all.

Please enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section. Grandmaster 10:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Option 1. We have already had an RFC on the UN mission report in the parallel article [4], but since there is a disagreement whether the consensus applies to this article as well, I decided to do another one for this article. I support the inclusion of the UN reports, because the claims of violence have no independent confirmation or verification, while UNHCR and the special UN mission to the region are the UN representatives and the UN is independent from the parties to the conflict. If we discuss allegations of violence, the information from the top international organization is very important and has a direct relevance to the topic. Grandmaster 10:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 per the previous RfC. Yes, the report is controversial (I'd say awful but I prefer to stay polite), but it's still the UN and it still has a level of legitimacy attached to it, coming from such an important organization. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 10:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's from the UN, but I don't believe material is automatically WP:DUE just because it is from the UN; I think we need evidence of sufficient coverage of this material in reliable and independent sources to establish that it is, as well as to help us establish the context in which we should put the material. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. First, for the 1 October 2023 statement:
    1. First, inclusion of these aspects of the mission is not automatically WP:DUE. To establish that it is due we need sufficient coverage in reliable sources of these aspects; such coverage has not been presented.
    2. Second, this information is misleading. The quoted section of the report says they did not come across any reports from the local population, but neglects to mention that they arrived after almost the entire local population had already fled.
    3. Third, they are presented as a neutral mission, but they neglect to mention that they are from the Resident Coordinator for the United Nations in Azerbaijan.
Second, for the 29 September 2023 statement: It is now out date, with more recent reports identifying violence such as this report from the EU, which says whereas there have been credible reports of looting, destruction, violence and arrests committed by Azerbaijani troops since the beginning of the offensive and strongly condemns the threats and acts of violence committed by Azerbaijani troops against the population of Nagorno-Karabakh
Finally, as a side note, this RfC presents a disturbingly one-sided image of the conflict. For example, it does not proposing adding the contemporary statement from USAID, which did find reports of violence against fleeing civilians. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. No mention all; in the context of the "no incidents" being over a week after a ceasefire, and not referring to this article's subject at all. Besides, this report is already mentioned in the article, it doesn't need to be copied somewhere to imply something completely different. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 for the same reasons as previously. A report put together by a mission sent by the highest international authority cannot be undue by definition. The fact that the mission arrived in the region one week later is irrelevant. There are cases of UN fact-finding missions sent to conflict areas months later (e.g. here), some of them ultimately facing criticism, but they are still mentioned in ledes. Parishan (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 Feels very strange omitting such important information about the event, from the U.N. no less, in the lead of the article. Should have already been included there. - Creffel (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 There is a segment in the article about this exact report from the United Nations office in Azerbaijan [5], and it’s in a better context along with its criticisms. We don’t add an out of context sentence from after the offensive, and which ultimately came from the attacking side’s (Azerbaijan’s) UN office no less after nearly all the region’s Armenian population fled. Vanezi (talk)
  • Option 1 per the respective discussion and the point given. I support incorporating the UN statements into the article with proper attribution. These statements, indicating no recorded incidents of mistreatment or violence, offer a significant perspective from the organization. It should have already been included in the first place. — Toghrul R (t) 06:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 per Grandmaster. The UN is the largest and the most notable international organization in the world. It is absurd to ignore the UN report findings in this article.KHE'O (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 Due but not in the lead. Senorangel (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 This report of UN office in Azerbaijan is already in the article. What I don’t agree is adding to it the controversial bit of this not so independent report which comes from the attacking country’s office of the organization, and which was largely criticised in reliable sources. [6] Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

@BilledMammal

1. Whether this information was due or not was discussed in much detail in previous RFC. I will not repeat the same arguments, I just don't see how the most important international organization could be undue.

2. The dates of the reports show the time of their arrival.

3. The UN team was lead by the Resident Coordinator for the United Nations in Azerbaijan, but first, the UN representative in Azerbaijan does not work for Azerbaijan's governement, and second, it also included representatives of other UN bodies, such as, quote: The team included Ramesh Rajasingham, 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). It was a team representing various UN bodies.

And lastly, no one objects to inclusion of other sources, the RFC is on those sources inclusion of which is disputed. Grandmaster 11:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

NPOV issues

Hello Ken Aeron, you had made a number of WP:NPOV edits recently, such as the Armed Forces of Armenia being present in Artsakh, which was unsourced, and removing that Artsakh was primarily populated by Armenians, which you only explained as a "fix". And it is inaccurate to say Azerbaijan "regains" these territories, because it never had de facto control of them previously. I put the bias accusation in quotes, as it is in quotations within the source as well. Please don't remove sourced information without discussing why first. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Regain" is the correct term. The USSR ceased to exist in December 1991. With the exception of Stepanakert, every other major town in Nagorno-Karabakh came under Armenian control when Azerbaijan was already an independent state, e.g. Karkijahan (a suburb of Stepanakert) by late January 1992, Khojaly and Askeran by late February 1992, Shusha in May 1992 (see corresponding article), Hadrut in October 1992, Mardakert by late June 1993. If Azerbaijan did not control these regions de facto, then what were those battles about? Parishan (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because Azerbaijan had controlled over the majority of the former NKAO since the Soviet Union fell, "regain" in the de facto sense is simply incorrect. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand why. You said earlier that Azerbaijan "never had de facto control" over these territories as an independent country when it clearly did (cf. places and dates above). Why is "regain" incorrect? Parishan (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are sources confirming that Azerbaijan never previously had de facto control over the former NKAO.[7][8][9] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly do they say that? I am looking at the first source and it clearly says: "From 1988 to 1992, with the Soviet Union in decline, Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians entertained hopes that the demise of Soviet rule would also bring the end of Azeri control over the region", which means that Azerbaijan was in control of Nagorno-Karabakh as of 1992.
The third source says the exact opposite of what you are alleging: "Hence, the territorial decisions taken by the Soviets in those days had to be respected, and they still form the basis of current state structure in the region. Therefore, there are no doubts about the international borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which included Nagorno-Karabakh at the time it was founded according to the principle of uti possidetis."
I am discarding the second link: Haykaram Nahapetyan of the Public TV Company of Armenia is not a reliable source.
Just for the record: if you run "Azerbaijan regained control" in a search engine, you will end up with hundreds of results. This is not a difficult statement to back up with reliable sources. Parishan (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are referring to Soviet Azerbaijan within the USSR, not an independent Republic of Azerbaijan. The Republic of Artsakh and the Republic of Azerbaijan both declared statehood at virtually the same time at the fall of the Soviet Union. Various sources support the fact that an independent Azerbaijan never had de facto control over Artsakh, I can provide plenty more. Various other sources indicate that de jure control was also limited. Basically an independent Azerbaijan has never exercised de facto control over NKR (and limited de jure control of Az SSR, as per "autonomous oblast"), hence it is more neutral and accurate to simply state "took".
  • "Nagorno-Karabakh had never been ruled by a post-Soviet independent Azerbaijan" link
  • "Thus, the above-mentioned clearly shows that Nagorno Karabakh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan." link[a]
  • "Disputing the historical basis for Azerbaijan’s claim of title to territory, Armenia points out that the League of Nations refused to recognize the 1918–20 Azerbaijan Republic in part because the pro- spective state did not have effective control of the territory it claimed. This tidbit of historical legalism gives the Karabakh Armenians justification for claiming territory that was never, according to their argument, part of an independent Azerbaijan.... The Armenian argument emphasized not only that the disputed enclave had never been part of independent Azerbaijan but also that..." link
  • "Third, the region has never been part of the territory of independent Azerbaijan." link[b]
  • "Heydar Aliyev’s monument in the heart of Mexico City, which on the lower end has cost $5.5 million, was “generously” donated by oil-rich Azerbaijan and contains another underlying message: the huge map made out of marble behind Aliyev’s sculpture shows Nagorno Karabakh as part of modern Azerbaijan. This territory was never part of independent Azerbaijan and was granted to Soviet Azerbaijan upon Stalin’s dictatorial pressure in 1921." link
  • "Thus, Nagorno-Karabakh was arguably never truly a part of independent Azerbaijan."link
  • Considering the Karabakh question,for instance, Azerbaijani history usually begins in the mid-1800s; with the normative,ideal situation considered to be the state of affairs for the 20th century (i.e. Azerbaijan has sovereignty over Karabakh). While discussing the Southern Azerbaijan issue, however,the nationalists' historical record portrays the normative,ideal situation as having ended in 1828-but even that period is problematic because the "united Azerbaijan" was never independent(as Elchibey's previous remark about the "restoration of a united Azerbaijan"might mislead one to believe); instead,it was always a part of the Iranian empire." link
  • "Under the rule of the Russian Tsar, Nagorno-Karabakh was assigned to the administrative districts from which the Republic of Azerbaijan later emerged. When Russian supremacy was weakened as a result of the revolutions in 1917, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis laid claim to Nagorno-Karabakh. The region’s affiliation was disputed and not determined at that time. Moreover, the proclaimed Armenian and Azerbaijani republics could not be considered as independent states and their recognition was, therefore, refused by the League of Nations in 1920 due to the lack of recognized borders, of a constitution, and of a stable government.53" link
  • "On 2 September the Karabakh Armenians also declared independence, which they underscored by means of a swiftly organized referendum, in which 99 per cent of the (Armenian) population voted for full sovereignty. Reciprocally' the Azeri parliament abolished the autonomy of Karabakh, which, however, had no further real influence on developments." link
  • "Under this agreement Nagorno-Karabakh has not been part of an independent Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan has not exercised sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh." link
KhndzorUtogh (talk)
These sources are referring to Soviet Azerbaijan within the USSR, not an independent Republic of Azerbaijan. There was no Soviet Azerbaijan in 1992, so no, they do not refer to Soviet Azerbaijan.
The Republic of Artsakh and the Republic of Azerbaijan both declared statehood at virtually the same time at the fall of the Soviet Union. It matters little when either of them declared independence since the discussion started with you doubting that independent Azerbaijan was ever de facto in control over Nagorno-Karabakh before 2020. If as of 22 December 1991 (the day the USSR ceased to exist), Azerbaijan was still in control of Shusha, Khojaly, Askeran, Hadrut, Mardakert, and even of Stepanakert suburbs, all which came under Armenian control throughout 1992 and 1993, it means that Azerbaijan as an independent state was indeed in de facto control of Nagorno-Karabakh at least for a few solid months (and up to a year-and-a-half's period). This is supported by the sources I quoted above.
The links you have provided to support your allegation are a compilation of results of a what appears to be a hasty online search. Their reliability really leaves much to be desired. Let us take a look at whom you are citing:
  • Yelena Ambartsumian, a transactional lawyer who published her article in an arts blog;
  • Hayk Torosyan of the Yerevan-based Russian-Armenian University, a clearly partisan source (if I start quoting what scholars from Azerbaijan have to say about Karabakh, this discussion will never see its end);
  • Arman Sarvarian, a Bachelor's student in Law when his article was published, unlikely peer-reviewed at the time;
  • Haykaram Nahapetyan of the Public TV Company of Armenia, a partisan source of dubious reliability;
  • Tigran Yepremyan of Yerevan State University, another partisan source;
  • The last link yields the text of a bill (!) referred by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to the state government and never voted on.
I believe the affiliations and the credentials of these sources speak for themselves. I am therefore only going to comment on the four sources that are reliable and authored by established, peer-reviewed scholars.
  • Anne-Marie Gardner summarises the Karabakh Armenians' point of view when talking about Azerbaijan allegedly never being in de facto control of Nagorno-Karabakh (she clearly says "according to their argument"; this is neither her opinion, nor a reflection of any third-party opinion).
  • Cameron Brown adresses Elchibey's "united Azerbaijan" concept, which has nothing to do with the Karabakh issue and refers to Elchibey's support of Iranian Azerbaijani irredentism, with the goal of it forming a single state with the Republic of Azerbaijan. Where exactly does the author say anything about Azerbaijan never controlling Nagorno-Karabakh?
  • Heiko Krüger discusses the quarrel over Karabakh in 1917–1920 in the excerpt you have provided. I already quoted the part of his article where he concludes that Azerbaijan was indeed in control of Nagorno-Karabakh at the time of the USSR's dissolution.
  • Emil Souleimanov does not say that Azerbaijan was never in de facto control of Nagorno-Karabakh; he only says that the abolition of the autonomy by the government of Azerbaijan did not curtail the sovereignty movement. Parishan (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your source breakdown is really just opinion. Several of these sources like HyperAllergic were previously discussed on WP:RSN, and the community didn't deem it unreliable or unsuitable for Wikipedia. Here are two more sources that describe the leadup and the actual first NKR war as "a civil war" either within Azerbaijan or within the USSR.
  1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/11/08/afghan-fighters-aiding-azerbaijan-in-civil-war/48f8e736-75b6-4472-8d6f-4665df1debe8/
  2. De Waal. Black Garden, p. 120.
This means that Soviet Azerbaijan was not in de facto control of Nagorno-Karabakh before the USSR collapsed (again, emphasizing the distinction between an independent and Soviet Azerbaijan, and de facto and de jure). De Waal describes a Soviet civil war "in which units of the soviet army were engaged in fighting on Soviet territory".
Prior to 1990, Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous region within the Azerbaijan SSR, meaning Azerbaijan had de jure control over the area. De facto, it was governed locally by its predominantly ethnic Armenian population, but within the constraints of its status as part of the Azerbaijan SSR under the Soviet Union. The situation began to change dramatically as the Soviet Union started to disintegrate, leading to the declaration of independence by Nagorno-Karabakh and the subsequent war.
Local governance in Nagorno-Karabakh, like other autonomous oblasts in the Soviet Union, was designed to reflect the ethnic composition of the region. This meant that many of the local administrative positions were held by ethnic Armenians. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several of these sources like HyperAllergic were previously discussed on WP:RSN, and the community didn't deem it unreliable or unsuitable for Wikipedia. It was discussed there only in the context of an art-related matter. I do not remember there ever being consensus either about that or about HyperAllergic's authority on any AA2 issue, especially when it comes to articles published by authors with questionable credentials.
the actual first NKR war as "a civil war" either within Azerbaijan or within the USSR. A civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" (as defined by Merriam-Webster), so if a source refers to the First Karabakh War as a "civil war in Azerbaijan", it can only mean Nagorno-Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan at the time of the war according to that source.
I am afraid I must repeat my original question: if Azerbaijan did not control Shusha, Khojaly, Askeran, Hadrut, Mardakert, and even of Stepanakert suburbs (all of which were situated within Nagorno-Karabakh) de facto until 1992–1993, when it was no longer a Soviet state, then what were those battles about? Parishan (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that same country was the Soviet Union. Michael Croissant writes in The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict that "with de facto Azerbaijani authority over the NKAO broken in the latter half of 1988" (p. 34). This confirms an independent Azerbaijan never had de facto control over the region previously. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that same country was the Soviet Union. Then what was the point of you bringing up that source?
Croissant does not say that Azerbaijan's authority over the NKAO was lost permanently in 1988. In fact, just on the next page he talks about the reinstatement of "direct Azerbaijan rule over the NKAO" in November 1989.
Also, when talking about the capture of Khojaly in February 1992 (p. 78), Croissant states: "Khojaly was of major symbolic and strategic significance to Azerbaijan in its quest to retain control over the territory of the former NKAO". The word "retain" suggests that (post-Soviet) Azerbaijan had up until that point been in control of the former NKAO.
Croissant adds (p. 80) that the capture of Lachin in May 1992 "consolidate[d] the ouster of Azerbaijani forces from Nagorno-Karabakh that had begun at Khojaly", which is a clear indication that the Azerbaijani (not Soviet) army was in control of Nagorno-Karabakh before it was ousted from there as part of a process which started with the capture of Khojaly.
Next is the 1992 summer offensive (p. 84), on which Croissant comments thus: "The fall of Mardakert and surrounding towns left virtually all of northern Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijani hands for the first time since the beginning of the year, thus signaling a shift in the fortunes of war in favor of Azerbaijan."
I can continue but I believe these excerpts are enough to illustrate that Azerbaijan was in de facto control of the NKAO (and specifically of the regions recaptured in 2023) for months after the dissolution of the USSR and that the word "regain" is justified for the 2023 developments. Parishan (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parishan, please do not pull quotes out of context. Page 35 refers to a Soviet vote decision (de jure, not de facto) that, as the next paragraph states, was rejected by the NKAO leadership and never put into practice. The very next page refers to it as a "toothless roar from the Kremlin". In any case, this is still predates an independent Azerbaijan state.
On pages 77-78, Croissant explains that the area was already de facto controlled by Armenian forces and Azerbaijan had been preparing to take full de facto control of Nagorno-Karabakh in late 1991 when it gained independence, then tried to march on Stepanakert but failed to capture it:
The opening months of 1992 were marked by the explosion of full-scale war in and around Nagorno-Karabakh between forces of the fledgling Azerbaijani national army and locally raised units of the so-called Karabakh army, both of whom had acquired substantial amounts of weaponry from withdrawing Soviet Interior Ministry troops and from Soviet military facilities. While Baku had begun mobilizing for war in December 1991, the ostensible catalyst for an early 1992 Azerbaijani offensive was the 18 January proclamation of an independent "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (NKR) by the Supreme Soviet of the former NKAO.
In response to the declaration of independence by Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijanis launched a major military operation against Stepanakert from the nearby town of Agdam on 31 January. Intended apparently to drive Armenian forces out of the area, the offensive included several thousand Azerbaijani soldiers backed by armored vehicles and rocket and artillery fire. However, in what emerged as a pattern common to most of Baku's military operations over the next two years, Azerbaijani forces carried out their attacks in a haphazard and uncoordinated way and were beaten back in rapid fashion by Stepanakert's Armenian defenders. Thereafter, Azerbaijani troops resorted to seemingly indiscriminate rocket and artillery attacks on the Karabakh capital and nearby villages from nearby heights in an attempt to break the will of the Armenian populace. Such attacks, however, failed to achieve their goal, and Armenian efforts to silence the sources of Azerbaijani fire became a major factor in the escalation of hostilities through early 1992.
This proves very definitely that the current Azerbaijan state never had de facto control over the entire Nagorno-Karabakh. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any contradiction with what I said earlier. Yes, Stepanakert was under de facto Armenian control as of the day the USSR ceased to exist, and I do not believe to have ever argued with this. However, Stepanakert is far from qualifying as "the entire Nagorno-Karabakh" due to constituting but a tiny percentage of its territory. Every other place on which the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic laid claims in its declaration of independence, including Karkijahan and Malibeyli, both immediate suburbs of Stepanakert, were under Azerbaijani control until at least February 1992. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic was not in full de facto control of its proclaimed territory until summer 1993, i.e. 18 months into Azerbaijan's independence, so "regain" seems like a very suitable word to use. Parishan (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From January 1992, Armenian forces had de facto control over almost the entire NKAO. Crossiant clearly states full-scale war in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. If you are now admitting Azerbaijan never had full de facto control of Nagorno-Karabakh previously, then you are also admitting that using the word "retakes" is false. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From January 1992, Armenian forces had de facto control over almost the entire NKAO. It most certainly did not. See Capture of Gushchular and Malibeyli, Battle of Shusha (1992), Khojaly massacre, Mardakert and Martuni Offensives. If Azerbaijan did not control Shusha, Khojaly, Askeran, Hadrut, Mardakert, and even of Stepanakert suburbs (all of which were situated within Nagorno-Karabakh) de facto until 1992–1993, when it was no longer a Soviet state, then what were those battles about?
Crossiant clearly states full-scale war in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. Yes, but where does he say exactly that Azerbaijan was not in de facto control of Nagorno-Karabakh? If the NKR controlled Nagorno-Karabakh de facto, then why was there "full-scale war" in Nagorno-Karabakh to begin with?
If you are now admitting Azerbaijan never had full de facto control of Nagorno-Karabakh previously. I am not sure what you are referring to. I do not recall "admitting" anything of this sort. In any case, it is irrelevant what I am "admitting". We need reliable sources stating that independent Azerbaijan never had any factual control of any part of Nagorno-Karabakh before 2020. So far we have seen none. On the contrary, we have seen a series of sources, including some quoted by you, confirming that Azerbaijan was indeed in control of Nagorno-Karabakh at the onset of the war. Parishan (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NKAO and successive NKAO controlled most, not all, of Nagorno-Karabakh. Most of the settlements you listed changed hands several times. We are not discussing if an independent Azerbaijan "never had any factual control" or Nagorno-Karabakh, we are discussing if it previously controlled all of Nagorno-Karabakh, because "regain" is not the correct term unless all of Nagorno-Karabakh was previously occupied by an independent Azerbaijan.
Regarding the Sarvarian source, which you had said "unlikely peer-reviewed at the time". Your assumption was false. The Melbourne Journal of International Law is in fact peer-reviewed. And here is another source, which states Nagorno-Karabakh, "has never before been under the governance of the state of Azerbaijan. Under the Soviets it had the status of an autonomous oblast; in the 1980s it sought separation from Azerbaijan according to the constitution of the Soviet Union; and in the 1990s it fought a painful war for its independence after an Azerbaijani invasion". KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NKAO and successive NKAO controlled most, not all, of Nagorno-Karabakh. You have already said this. I would like to see some sources that back up this claim. Reiterating this in every message is not a convincing argument.
Melbourne Journal of International Law may be peer reviewed but Sarvarian held a Bachelor's degree in law at the time his article was published and was not much of an authority on the matter, definitely falling short of meeting WP:GNG.
Lemkin Institute is a partisan source with a marginal stance and, judging from their reports, the farthest thing from reliable. A self-declared "genocide prevention institute" largely lone in qualifying the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh as genocide (and using other red-flag terminology when addressing it) but referring to the Khojaly massacre as "so-called" and ostensibly performed "by individual Armenians" which "no Armenian statesman" should be held accountable for, clearly lacks sensitivity to key issues having to do with the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and cannot pretend to be authoritative. Incidentally, the only time this institute even mentions the Khojaly massacre, the largest civil bloodshed of the First Karabakh War according to much more authoritative sources like Human Rights Watch, is to whitewash the scale of the tragedy and to lampoon Azerbaijan's efforts (however bulky) at raising awareness about it. This is, of course, beside the point but it clearly illustrates how biased this source is.
I am not exactly sure how important it is to delve into discussions over which author meant what and whether not being in control of downtown Stepanakert in December 1991 counts as "not controlling Nagorno-Karabakh". My understanding is that if a matter is an established or widely-believed fact, it should not take us six weeks to find multiple reliable sources that say exactly that, without there being a necessity for subjective interpretations. For now, the overwhelming majority of sources talk about Azerbaijan regaining and not simply taking control of Nagorno-Karabakh. To name just a few (all of them are from September 2023 or later):
  • International Court of Justice: "the operation commenced by Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh on 19 September 2023, after which Azerbaijan regained full control over Nagorno-Karabakh" [10].
  • International Crisis Group: "During a 24-hour military operation on 19 and 20 September, Azerbaijan regained full control of Nagorno-Karabakh" [11].
  • Human Rights Watch: "In September this year, Azerbaijan regained control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh" [12].
  • Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty: "Azerbaijan regained full control of the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh in a 24-hour military offensive on September 19-20" [13]; "Aliyev's visit to the region on October 15, which Azerbaijan regained control of in a lightning offensive in September" [14].
  • Euronews: "Thousands of Armenians flee Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijan regains full control" [15].
  • France 24: "As Azerbaijan regains control of Nagorno-Karabakh, 'most acute issue is humanitarian situation'" [16].
  • The Economist: "But the Karabakh Armenians see this as a Trojan horse that would lead to Azerbaijan regaining effective control of the territory" [17].
  • Voice of America: ""Ethnic Armenians flee to Armenia after Azerbaijan regained control of breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region [18].
  • Stratfor: "The incident is the deadliest since Azerbaijan regained control over the Nagorno-Karabakh region in September 2023" [19].
There is clear consensus among reliable sources that Azerbaijan regained control of Nagorno-Karabakh. I doubt any compilation of sources saying the opposite can reasonably counter its weight. 19:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC) Parishan (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But luckily because Melbourne Journal of International Law is peer reviewed, those with great authority confirmed what Sarvarian stated was accurate.
Just as many if not more sources can be found stating that the region as took or taken:
  • The Wall Street Journal: "But since Azerbaijan took control of Nagorno-Karabakh last week" [20].
  • The Guardian: "residents of Nagorno-Karabakh fear worst as Azerbaijan’s troops take control" [21].
  • France 24: "Azerbaijan took control of the Armenian-majority enclave" [22].
  • Peoples Dispatch: "after Azerbaijan took control over the territory in a military operation last week" [23].
  • Portland Press Herald: "Thousands of Armenians flee Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijan military takes control" [24].
  • Reuters: "took control of the enclave." [25].
  • Aljazeera: "Azerbaijan took control of Nagorno-Karabakh" [26].
  • Annenberg: "the region known as Nagorno-Karabakh became uncertain after the Azerbaijani military took control following" [27].
  • Washington Post: "roughly 120,000 Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh fearful of genocide once Baku takes control" [28].
  • Aljazeera: "Tens of thousands of ethnic Armenians flee Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijan takes control" [29].
And there are still academic sources directly stating Azerbaijan never had previous complete de facto control. You have made many issues with these sources (although you haven't brought them to WP:RSN yet) but you haven't provided a single source that actually states Azerbaijan had 100% de facto control previously. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you have quoted contradicts in any way the ones I quoted above since none of them suggests Azerbaijan had no control over the territory before the First Karabakh War. So I am not very sure what these sources are intended to illustrate.
I see little point in providing a source that says that "Azerbaijan had 100% de facto control previously" because that is currently the consensus. It is up to you to prove that Azerbaijan had nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh before 2020, in which case I will agree with you that the use of the word "regained" is not just ambiguous but indeed inaccurate. So far, I am yet to see "academic sources directly" making such a claim. I note the plural use of the word "source" in your answer because I am truly, genuinely interested in seeing academic sources that "directly" say Nagorno-Karabakh was never part of Azerbaijan before the Second Karabakh War. Sarvarian is a no-go, sorry. He is not now, nor was he back in 2007 when his article was published, an authority on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
In addition, I hope we are on the same page regarding the fact that any source containing the wording "Azerbaijan lost control of Nagorno-Karabakh" with regard to the early 1990s, of which there are literally hundreds (courtesy of any search engine), is in direct contradiction with the claim that Azerbaijan never exercised control over Nagorno-Karabakh.
I will, nevertheless, finish with a quote from an article by Paul A. Goble, a much better recognised authority than Sarvarian, who says in an article published in summer 1992 (the sentence "the conflict persists following independence on both sides" proves the article was submitted after the dissolution of the USSR): "The positions of Baku and Yerevan remain asymmetrical, however. Baku seeks a return to the status quo ante - a clear impossibility - plus Armenian concessions on access to Nakhichevan. Armenia wants a transfer of territory from Azerbaijan to its own control without having to give anywhere else. The position of the government of the NKAO reflects that of its Armenian population at any particular time." In another paragraph, he says: "To date, Azerbaijan has been the more restrained party. Under Mutalibov, Baku did not strike back after every Armenian attack, insisting only that the NKAO remain within Azerbaijan. The Popular Front government that displaced him, however, came to power precisely because of Mutalibov's unwillingness to strike back." (Goble, Paul A. (1992) "Coping with the Nagorno-Karabakh Crisis." Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 16/2: 19–26).
If in summer 1992, Nagorno-Karabakh was "not under Azerbaijani control", then why would Goble talk about Azerbaijan being expected to relinquish its control of Nagorno-Karabakh or about Nagorno-Karabakh being expected to remain within Azerbaijan? Parishan (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing

@Grandmaster What sources do you have for removing information from a peer-reviewed journal article published by John Hopkins University Press and written by a subject-matter expert? Where are the reliable secondary sources that say there is no consensus of ethnic cleansing? And no the UN report does not deny ethnic cleansing, nor is it a secondary source, international organizations don’t decide what is written on Wikipedia, reliable peer-reviewed historic sources do, and there is consensus among these sources that these events constituted ethnic cleansing of the Karabakh Armenian population. Besides Saparov, we have a multitude of other international scholars who have stated this such as Christina Maranci, Luis Moreno Ocampo, and more. There is consensus among secondary sources that this was ethnic cleansing, this is not a current event anymore, we don’t need to rely on primary sources. TagaworShah (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying reverted source below for clarification:
Saparov, Arsène (2023). "Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: What's Next?". Ab Imperio (3). Project MUSE: Johns Hopkins University Press: 184. doi:10.1353/imp.2023.a915234. ISSN 2164-9731. TagaworShah (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have already discussed this at Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians#Requested_move_18_January_2024. The Wikipedia community did not agree that there was a consensus among the reliable sources to call this event an ethnic cleansing. What is the basis for your claim that "There is consensus among secondary sources that this was ethnic cleansing"? If you want to include the claim of an ethnic cleansing as a fact, you must demonstrate that this is what the majority of reliable sources call it. Just because some sources call it so does not mean that it is generally accepted to call this event an ethnic cleansing. The infobox should only contain generally accepted facts, and not opinions of some sources. We can also do another RFC on this, if you wish. Grandmaster 08:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are misrepresenting the result of that unrelated discussion, the consensus was that specific article should not be renamed with many editors agreeing that a new article should be made covering the entire ethnic cleansing of Karabakh Armenians. It was a case of article titles, but this is not such a case, it’s a statement of fact in an infobox that is backed by peer-reviewed expert sources, I can provide much more sources If need be, this is not a fringe opinion and in fact most scholars (people who actually study ethnic cleansing) agree that this offensive did lead to a final ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population of Karabakh. Let’s discuss this here before jumping to RFC, that should only be done after extensive discussion not at the start. TagaworShah (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly did you establish that most scholars call this event an ethnic cleansing? What methodology did you use? I don't see that it is generally accepted to call this event an ethnic cleansing. Most international organizations, such as UN, OSCE, CoE, etc, do not use the term. There is no international court ruling establishing the fact. As for RFC, it is good to make decisions on such sensitive issues by consulting the wider Wikipedia community, to get a broader consensus. Grandmaster 09:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added back ethnic cleansing with a few different sources. As @TagaworShah correctly noted, Grandmaster has misrepresented/misunderstood the discussion. The consensus was that a particular article's title should not be renamed due to the content; however, multiple reliable sources including [1] subject matter experts (genocide scholars), [2] peer-reviewed articles, and [3] at least two governments (PACE and France) [30] state that ethnic cleansing has happened. Multiple reliable sources also characterized the ongoing blockade, itself, as a form of ethnic cleansing or genocide. Genocide Studies International -- a peer-reviewed journal specializing in genocide studies -- published a special issue specifically on the crisis. [31] Four out of six articles in this special issue describe the situation as "ethnic cleansing."
Genocide experts themselves, in fact, call the situation "genocide," stating that "ethnic cleansing" is a euphemism for genocide denial.[32][33][34]" This consensus is clearly and succinctly summarized by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention
"There is no doubt in the minds of experts in genocide prevention – at the Lemkin Institute, but also at Genocide Watch, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and among legal experts such as former ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo – that what Armenians are facing from Azerbaijan is genocide." [35] Phantomette (chat) 15:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources, most governments and international organizations do not call this an "ethnic cleansing". Most sources refer to this event as exodus/flight, etc. We cannot present opinions of some sources as a fact, especially the likes of Lemkin, who are a minor NGO and are nowhere near in authority to well established HRW or Amnesty who do not use the term "ethnic cleansing". Grandmaster 11:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most subject-matter experts call this "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" including the International Association for Genocide Scholars, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Luis Moreno OCampo (former ICC chief proesecutor), and Genocide Watch.
Genocide Studies International – a peer-reviewed journal specializing in genocide studies – published a special edition specifically on the crisis. Four out of six articles in the edition describe the situation as "ethnic cleansing."
Agnieszka Klonowiecka-Milart and Sheila Paylan, both legal experts who are formerly affiliated with the United Nations stated that there is consensus among subject-matter experts:[36]
"Dr Bagheri nevertheless parrots Azerbaijan’s stance by stating in his article that “every individual is free to leave [Nagorno-Karabakh] if they are unhappy with Azerbaijan’s proposals”, adding that “the exact criteria for an act to be considered ethnic cleansing is not met in the case of [Nagorno-Karabakh]”. On this, he stands largely, if not completely, alone among international legal experts, several of whom have expressed the view that the displacement of the Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh was criminally forced."
In addition to the subject-matter experts, there are many other reputable sources that describe this as 'ethnic cleansing': including Laurence Broers, the Economist, the Conversation. Phantomette (chat) 15:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly did you establish that most sources call it "ethnic cleansing"? Do you have any statistical info? The ones you mention do not represent the majority view. Lemkin is an obscure NGO created as recently as 2021, and others are also no match to well-known human rights organizations such as HRW and Amnesty. If HRW and Amnesty do not use the term, why should we go with someone like Lemkin Institute? Ocampo is not a person with perfect reputation, with all the scandals he was involved in, plus he calls pretty much every conflict "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing". For example, he also uses these terms on Israel - Palestine conflict, which does not mean that his opinion should be given prominence there. As for scholars, there are many who express different views. But what's important here is that most states and international organizations do not call it "ethnic cleansing". USA, UK and Russia do not call it so. Missions by the UN and CoE did not come to a conclusion that there was ethnic cleansing. European parliament is the only exception, but its resolutions are not binding even on the EU itself, while the head of the European Commission refused to call it ethnic cleansing. The mainstream international media mostly uses words such as exodus/flight, etc to refer to the topic of this article. If there is no international consensus to call this event an ethnic cleansing, how can we claim it as a fact? Grandmaster 09:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of subject-matter experts, including Genocide Watch, the Lemkin Institute, International Association for Genocide Scholars, Luis OCampo, Laurence Broers, and multiple authors in Genocide Studies International describe this as "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide".
That there is a consensus among subject-matter experts is made clear by the excerpt above by Klonowiecka-Milart and Paylan, peer-reviewed publications in journals, and various periodicals such as the Economist, the Conversation, and Atlas 24. This article also supports this consensus: "Genocide experts believe that Azeri policies including the nine-month blockade and attacks on civilian population centres amount to ethnic cleansing and genocide." citing additional genocide experts including Dr. Joanna Beata Michlic (Centre for Collective Violence, Holocaust and Genocide Studies at University College London) and Dr Elise Semerdjian (Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies).[37]
We must defer to the subject-matter experts on this whose claims are also echoed by numerous peer-reviewed publications and periodicals. Phantomette (chat) 15:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just on one point—ethnic cleansing is not a legally recognized category in international law, so Amnesty/HRW/UN experts etc. not using this phrase cannot be taken as evidence for their disagreement that it applies to the situation. (The actions described as ethnic cleansing, though, would usually be classified as a war crime and/or crime against humanity.) (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it shows that it is not generally accepted to use that term, as the leading human rights organizations don't use it. The ones that use it are lesser known organizations such as Lemkin. Grandmaster 14:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonconstructive edits

@Nafis Fuad Ayon This isn't an improvement and is quite unconstructive, you're also edit-warring. 1) it was disputed at the time of the offensive, Artsakh dissolved only after the offensive, so it would be misleading to remove disputed here, 2) Armenia wasn't even a party in the offensive so partisan allegations of Azerbaijan like "Armenia’s armed forces" shouldn't be in this article let alone in the lead, 3) it already says "part of Azerbaijan" and already says "self declared breakaway state", we should have some respect to the readers' understanding ability and not spam the same thing over and over. Vanezi (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It is requested that you mention both the disputed and internationally recognized if you want to add the word "disputed". (2) Nobody can change the official statement when mentioned as official statement. It is statement of Azerbaizan not the wikipedia.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is requested that you mention both the disputed and internationally recognized if you want to add the word "disputed"" -
this is repetition and isn't an improvement which I have already demonstrated by my argument above, you can't "request" things because you prefer that way and not provide solid arguments to back it up - wikipedia isn't written for children to repeat the same thing as if our readers have basic reading/understanding skill issues.
"Nobody can change the official statement when mentioned as official statement. It is statement of Azerbaizan not the wikipedia" -
Azerbaijan doesn't control Wikipedia and this allegation isn't confirmed by reliable sources, so it has no place in the article. Armenia wasn't even a party to the offensive, which unlike your added allegation is a fact confirmed by reliable sources. Stop engaging in tendentious editing and see your talk page for an important warning. Vanezi (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mention "I request" to you as a good manner even I have already added the UN resolution as the reference. I can add many more references to support the statement but I think that one is enough. Neither Azerbaijan nor Armania control the Wikipedia. But when someone added a statement from anyone you can't change it according to your will. Example: I can't change what you write to me as my will. Statement of anyone is unchangeable when you mention he/she/them told it. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You removed "disputed", I already explained that at the time of the offensive it was disputed, Artsakh dissolved only after the offensive - you have not rebutted this in any way because it's a fact. You added the "international" in lead when it already says "part of Azerbaijan" and already says "self declared breakaway state" - you're not improving the article by adding repeated content which makes it look like our readers' have basic understanding issues - you're not improving by adding this and you haven't rebutted this point either in any way. Also you were reverted for something similar by another user [38], do you not see that you're being disruptive by restoring same repetition over and over again and edit-warring with different users? If you continue edit-warring, you'll be reported. And you restored an Azerbaijan allegation which wasn't confirmed by reliable sources, Wikipedia is based on what's stated in reliable sources, an unconfirmed allegation has no place in the article per our rules. I have no intention of repeating the same things over and over, please be mindful of this. Vanezi (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on infobox information

Should the infobox contain "Ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" as the result of the offensive?

  • Option 1 - Yes
  • Option 2 - No

Please enter Option 1 or Option 2, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section. Grandmaster 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Option 2. We have recently had a discussion about renaming Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to ethnic cleansing [39], and the Wikipedia community did not agree that there was a consensus among the reliable sources to call the event in question an ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is also a legal term, and no international court or international organization established that an ethnic cleansing took place. There were 2 international missions to the region, one by the UN, and another by the CoE, and neither came to the conclusion that there was an ethnic cleansing. Most third party sources use terms such as flight, exodus, displacement, etc. Even if some authors and researches use the term "ethic cleansing", it is still a minority opinion that cannot be presented as a statement of fact in wiki voice in the infobox. Grandmaster 13:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, speedy close. RFC is usually used as a last resort when the related discussion has gone on for too long and reached a stalemate. Clearly, this is not the case here, the nominator (Grandmaster) has abandoned the related discussion and instead opened this RFC after two editors opposed his/her revert. This isn’t how RFCs are supposed to be conducted.
When it comes to the vote, I’m not sure if I should vote in this premature and rushed RFC, but I’ll repeat what was said in the related discussion – Ethnic cleansing occurred: most subject-matter experts call this "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide": the International Association for Genocide Scholars, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Luis Moreno OCampo (former ICC chief prosecutor), and Genocide Watch, as well as Laurence Broers, the Economist, the Conversation and many more. Reliable sources also state there is consensus among the subject-matter experts.[7][6][8]
  • "Dr Bagheri [states] ‘the exact criteria for an act to be considered ethnic cleansing is not met in the case of [Nagorno-Karabakh]”’ On this, he stands largely, if not completely, alone among international legal experts…":[7]
The nominator continues to misrepresent the other article’s requested Move, even after he was told this by two different editors. The consensus in that Move was about the article’s title rather than the event. Despite what the nominator has said, ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law, and even if we go down that route, the EU Parliament, the French Parliament, and the Parliamentary Council of Europe – a supranational governing body of 46 countries – stated that ethnic cleansing occurred. Phantomette (chat) 23:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, for the same reasons as in the previous discussion. The article Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians was not renamed certainly not because "Ethnic cleansing" did not look nice in the title but because there is no consensus regarding the exodus qualifying as ethnic cleansing. Most sources that are convinced of the applicability of this term are either partisan (Lemkin Institute), marginal (Ocampo, who went as far as calling it "genocide") or fail WP:NOTNEWS (The Economist). There have been two independent international missions sent to the region since and neither has resorted to using such a term. Before employing sensitive language (and having a discussion over the same thing once every three weeks), I suggest waiting for at least one credible finding, such as a court ruling or a human rights practice report. Parishan (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, speedy close. Per the sources brought forth by Phantomette and myself in the discussion above. RFC should be the last resort after extensive discussion, there has barely been any discussion. Moreover, there are a multitude of reliable scholarly sources such as Arsene Saparov in the peer reviewed Ab Imperio journal published by John Hopkins University, Harvard Mashtots professor of Armenian studies Christina Maranci in TIME, South Caucasus expert Laurence Broers in the Associated Press, and the two articles in the Journal of Genocide studies has shown a widespread scholarly use of this term in reference to what happened to the Armenians of Karabakh in 2023. This is NOT the same as the flight/exodus, which was only a part of the ethnic cleansing, as many of these scholars who specialize in this domain point out, the cultural erasure aspects following the flight and the rhetoric/actions from the Azerbaijani government all form part of this ethnic cleansing definition as well. Wikipedia is built on secondary scholarly sources from subject-matter experts that are published reliably, not the opinions of international geopolitical organizations. Opposing editors have failed to provide any justification from reliable secondary sources that dispute that ethnic cleansing was a consequence of this event. TagaworShah (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, this is a long-lasting effect of the offensive and a direct result of it. So yes, the infobox should contain the information about the ethnic cleansing. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

  • Comment (summoned by bot). Infoboxes work best when they contain uncontroversial information that can be consumed at-a-glance, without needing explanation or nuance (because there isn’t room for elaboration). Anybody wishing to add a value-laden or contentious label to an infobox should be prepared to demonstrate that it is universally or near-universally used by independent reliable sources. If the matter is not settled amongst the sources, the infobox is not the place to try to settle it. I add this as a comment rather than a vote, because I haven’t looked at the sources myself. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to add that it's been just 5 months since the offensive, and it is impossible to claim a scholarly consensus within such a short period of time. It usually takes a few years for such consensus to be formed. European parliament is the only international organization to use the term, but its resolutions are not binding on the European Commission, and the Commission, the EU Council President and other officials do not use the term. [40] PACE resolution mentions "allegations" of ethnic cleansing, but allegations are not the same as the established fact. Ocampo is the person who uses terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" quite easily, without any field investigation. For example, he accuses Israel of genocide too: [41], and he also made statements accusing Hamas of genocide. Lemkin Institute is a little known small NGO that exists for about a couple of years. Well established and respected HRW [42] and Amnesty International [43] make no mention of ethnic cleansing, but use terms such as "exodus", "flight" and "displacement". In addition, as is mentioned by HRW and Amnesty, there was a much larger displacement of ethnic Azerbaijani population from Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, but we don't use the term "ethnic cleansing" for that situation, even though sources such as aforementioned Broers use it. [44] And mainstream international media also does not mostly use the term. Grandmaster 00:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any sources that explicitly disaffirm that ethnic cleansing has occurred, as opposed to being silent on the matter or using some other term? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because the claims of ethnic cleansing were not upheld on any important international forum, like the UN. If something is not widely accepted, no one feels the need to question it. Armenia actually brought up the claims of ethnic cleansing to ICJ, but the court did not accept them. [45] [46] The final verdict only instructs Azerbaijan to ensure the safety of people who want to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. The problem is that since the term is not widely used in the mainstream media, and most international organizations and states do not use it either, it is a minority opinion. It is only used by some authors and a few minor NGOs, but the top ones like HRW and Amnesty refrain from using such terms. UN and Council of Europe sent special missions to the region to inspect the situation, and neither used the term "ethnic cleansing". And those are top international organizations. We simply cannot present some personal opinions as facts in a wiki voice, that would be against WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If we look at Israel–Hamas war, same Ocampo and Lemkin Institute mentioned here accuse Israel of genocide, but the infobox does not say that there was genocide or ethnic cleansing, it only mentions population displacement. I think that is a neutral way of presenting the facts. Grandmaster 22:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that Lemkin at least is a problematic source as they seem to take a very broad (dare I say fringe) definition of what counts as genocide. I’m pretty sure almost every major conflict would qualify as one of their “patterns of genocide”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the challenge is: how do we know that the UN, HRW, Amnesty and the Council of Europe are the gold-standard authorities on what is an ethnic cleansing and what isn’t? And do they publish lists of ethnic cleansings on which this one is conspicuously absent? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, such lists do not exist. But the fact is that such terminology is not used by major international organizations. Neither did the International Court of Justice created by the UN agree to use that term which was proposed by Armenia. So if the highest international court does not support it, there is no legally established fact of the ethnic cleansing. How can we claim ethnic cleansing as a fact when it was not established on the international level? Many of the sources using the term are quite problematic, for example Ocampo and Lemkin use it for other conflicts too. But should the Gaza conflict be labelled as genocide and ethnic cleansing, because these sources call it so? And if the UN, HRW, Amnesty and the Council of Europe don't use the term, why should we go with less authoritative sources that do use it? If we have to choose between HRW and Lemkin, HRW is a lot more serious and well respected organization than little known Lemkin. Grandmaster 14:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another question is, during the 30 years of its history, this conflict resulted in displacement of large groups of population on both sides. Is it only an ethnic cleansing if one group is displaced, or it is the same for all people? For example, Laurence Broers cited here as a source considers displacement of much larger Azerbaijani population (over 650,000) from Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to be an ethnic cleansing too: [47] Should we include "ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijani population" in the infoboxes of the articles about the First Nagorno-Karabakh War? Grandmaster 14:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment：There have been more than 5 months for subject-matter experts to reach a consensus. The flight of Karabakh Armenians reached its peak on September 19, 2023 but was a process which began as early as December 22, 2022 when Azerbaijan launched a blockade of the region and sabotaged critical public infrastructure (gas, electricity, Internet). This is why Genocide Studies International – a peer-reviewed journal specializing in genocide studies – published an entire special issue on the crisis long before Azerbaijan’s offensive in September 2023. Four out of six peer-reviewed articles in this special issue described the crisis – blockade, intimidation of civilians, sabotage of public infrastructure – as "ethnic cleansing." Multiple reliable sources described the blockade itself as a form of “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” long before the military offensive and state that there is consensus among subject-matter experts:
    • "While this [genocide] alert was dismissed by some Azeri websites, it is significant that the Lemkin Institute is not alone in warning that the serious situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is in danger of descending into genocide. In September 2022, Genocide Watch also issued a Genocide Warning, noting that…"
    • "There is no doubt in the minds of experts in genocide prevention – at the Lemkin Institute, but also at Genocide Watch, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and among legal experts such as former ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo – that what Armenians are facing from Azerbaijan is genocide."
    • ' "Genocide experts believe that Azeri policies including the nine-month blockade and attacks on civilian population centres amount to ethnic cleansing and genocide." Phantomette (chat) 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a minority opinion. As I mentioned above, the most authoritative human rights organizations HRW and Amnesty do not say that there was an ethnic cleansing, so we cannot take those minor entities's opinions over the more respected ones. Also, genocide warning is not the same as the established fact of ethnic cleansing. Clearly, there is no consensus among the reliable sources to call this event an ethnic cleansing. It is just an opinion of some, but not all, or most. Grandmaster 08:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a minority opinion among subject-matter experts: “genocide experts believe that…”, "Dr Bagheri [states] ‘the exact criteria for an act to be considered ethnic cleansing is not met in the case of [Nagorno-Karabakh]”’ On this, he stands largely, if not completely, alone among international legal experts…"
    Subject-matter experts that characterize the situation as “ethnic cleansing”
    I could provide more sources from journalists and academics but I’ve limited the list to those whose credentials are focused on the region or genocide/international law
    Multiple governments characterize the crisis as ethnic cleansing:
    • EU Parliament "supports the ongoing peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which have been seriously hampered by the recent military operation against Nagorno-Karabakh and the de facto ethnic cleansing;"
    • PACE: "the massive exodus of almost the entire Armenian population from this region, has led to allegations and reasonable suspicions that this amounts to ethnic cleansing" and "notes the strong statements by Azerbaijan refuting such allegations and suspicions and calls upon the authorities to spare no effort in proving, through deeds and words, that this is not the case."
    • French Parliament: “the forced exodus of Karabakh’s ethnic Armenian population caused by the offensive amounted to ethnic cleansing.”
    Phantomette (chat) 17:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still a minority. UN and CoE missions to the region do not say there was an ethnic cleansing. HRW and Amnesty do not say that either. Major states such as USA, UK and Russia, plus pretty much every other state in the world, except France, do not say there was an ethnic cleansing. So no recognition at the international level whatsoever (except the EU parliament that is not supported by the EU commission, the higher authority). PACE resolution that you quoted does not say that there was an ethnic cleansing, it says that there were allegations. We cannot claim allegations as facts. The vast majority of media reports do not use the term either. That leaves us with a few opinions that do not represent the general consensus. Hasmik Egian was sanctioned for misconduct by the UN: [48] and left the organization, so she has a conflict of interest there. Lemkin is accusing Israel of genocide too: [49], but we do not see the articles about the Israel-Palestine conflict going by Lemkin Institute opinion. And as I said above, scholarly consensus takes years to form, not just a few months or even a year. Grandmaster 22:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may just chip in with my opinion, I feel like for every source you cite that covers the 2023 Karabakh offensive that calls the flight of Karabakh Armenians an "ethnic cleansing" there is at least one more source that does not call it that. Just take the U.N. mission for example that says "they did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire."
    It seems like an issue of taking the opinions of a select groups of people and organizations, and presenting it as the consensus opinion – which I don't think it is. - Creffel (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&oldid=1210834673"