Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians

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

Requested move 18 January 2024[edit]

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.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians → Ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh – This article should be renamed to ethnic cleansing to reflect the due WP:WEIGHT of various neutral sources that have classified it as such. From prominent lawyers such as Luis Moreno Ocampo and David Scheffer to an official resolution by the European Parliament, this would be a very balanced article title. There are some political figures that have avoided using "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" (while not stating it isn't either), but they have in turn been criticized by the legal experts, including for having a conflict of interest. These is also a need for consistency WP:CRITERIA because of the Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia and Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia resulting from nearby conflicts that have often been compared to Nagorno-Karabakh. Keep in mind that there are still thousands of Georgians living in those regions, while the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have been completely ethnically cleansed. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominatior. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the nominator's arguments. Alaexis¿question? 08:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Such name would be a rude violation of WP:NPOV, as it is not neutral, and does not reflect the general consensus in reliable third party sources. In addition, the international organizations such as the UN [1] and Council of Europe [2] carried out their own inspections, and make no mention of any "ethnic cleansing". As for Ocampo, he is a private person now, and tends to consider any ethnic or national conflict a genocide and ethnic cleansing. For example, he accuses Israel and Hamas of genocide, but that does not mean that we must change the name of the article about Israel-Hamas conflict to something calling it ethnic cleansing or genocide. Grandmaster 15:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely false, there is a Council of Europe resolution stating: "the massive exodus of almost the entire Armenian population from the region had led to allegations and reasonable suspicion that this can amount to ethnic cleansing". The Council of Europe is in support of calling this ethnic cleansing. And the UN mission was the assess humanitarian needs,[3] interpreting it as a legal assessment is original research. If it made no mention of "ethnic cleansing", than it is not a source for this not being ethnic cleansing. The UN mission admitted to having limit access and was also heavily criticized by neutral sources for ignoring civilian deaths, the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, and for only arriving after the ethnic cleansing was complete.[4][5][6] As for Moreno Ocampo, neither the Israeli or Palestinian populations have been entirely displaced to date, so this comparison is a false balance. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use "allegations and reasonable suspicion" as the article title. And this resolution was passed before the CoE sent the fact-finding mission to the region which did not support the claim. Grandmaster 08:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then luckily we also have the legal analysis of Moreno Ocampo and Scheffer, and the official resolution by the European Parliament. The CoE never denied ethnic cleansing, and the link you posted is never described as a "fact-finding mission" anywhere. This is still original research. Please provided a source for this not being ethnic cleansing. There are still none. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the Council of Europe to "deny" that there was ethnic cleansing, it needs to be established, first of all, that there was ethnic cleansing. The fact that the report by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (published months after the Council of Europe resolution was passed, meaning that the Commissioner was well aware of these allegations) does not reiterate the concerns reflected in the resolution nor acknowledges independent assessments which propose such labels is a rather clear indication that ethnic cleansing is not an established fact. Parishan (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Parishan. Also, US State Department does not support the claim of "ethnic cleansing". Quote: Spokesperson for the United States Department of State, stated that the US State Department cannot consider the flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians an ethnic cleansing until there is evidence. So far they have received no such evidence, obviously, as they have not changed their position. Grandmaster 07:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grandmaster. There hasn't been a common reference to the exodus of Armenians as ethnic cleansing. The proposed title is a POV; therefore, it can violate WP:NPOV — Toghrul R (t) 16:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No individual analyst or, worse yet, parliament member can offer an opinion that could outweigh that of official international missions (representing organisations that both Armenia and Azerbaijan are members of) deployed to the region to investigate specifically whether or not ethnic cleansing took place. I fail to see how individual analysts investigating matters based on news reports or parliament members, who are not even fact finders and whose decisions are motivated by policy more than anything, can claim to be "more balanced" than special envoys whose authority is universally recognised and who have given themselves the trouble of carrying out a real on-site investigation. Findings of the UN mission which visited Karabakh and of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who personally met with and interviewed persons affected by the conflict (neither of which have reasons to "like" Azerbaijan better than Armenia), make no mention of ethnic cleansing, making the term marginal, non-neutral and thus unfit for the title. Parishan (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN missions was, in their own words, deployed to access humanitarian concerns. Nowhere was it ever stated to be "specifically whether or not ethnic cleansing took place". The Azerbaijan office of the UN admitted to being given limited access, and was criticized for failing to mention civilian deaths, the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, and for only arriving after the ethnic cleansing was complete.[7][8][9] I will reiterate, there is not a single international organization saying it was not ethnic cleansing. On the other hand, both the European Parliament and the Council of Europe have passed official resolutions acknowledging ethnic cleansing. Your opposition to the move seems to directly conflict with your high regard for official international statements. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and ethnic cleansing is a humanitarian concern, so if a detailed humanitarian report fails to mention it and later, despite "criticism", a commissioner for human rights refrains from using the term, there is something to it. I am afraid your opposition is more in conflict with your argument that my opposition is with mine: if accessing every square metre is such an important condition, then why would you give priority to Ocampo's account, given that Ocampo himself was nowhere near Karabakh when he compiled his report (which did not stop him from resorting to much stronger language and making allegations that turned out to be marginal to say the least)? Besides, an organisation cannot be expected to say something "is not ethnic cleansing" because that would somehow presuppose that said ethnic cleansing is an established fact which needs to be refuted. As always, the burden of proof is on the side that makes an exceptional claim, and an accusation of ethnic cleansing is an exceptional claim (not every case of mass exodus constitutes ethnic cleansing: this needs to be proven and not simply alleged). As far as I am aware, no real authority, such as the International Court of Justice or the UN Security Council, has so far found Azerbaijan guilty of committing ethnic cleansing. So why talk about it as if it were a fact? Even the Council of Europe talks of it as "allegations" and "suspicion" rather than a fact, which is too hazy of a wording to be reflected in the title. As for parliament resolutions, they are a dime a dozen: they reflect a country's domestic and foreign policy rather than being based on any proper investigation. I am not sure I understand what those news site links are supposed to illustrate other than the fact that some officials in Armenia were not convinced by the mission's findings, which is hardly surprising given that Armenia was a party to this conflict. This does not invalidate the authority of the mission, especially when it was one of the few ones that actually carried out a proper investigation. Parishan (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting something a report didn't mention is original research. And the United Nations is not recognized as the highest authority of sources on Wikipedia, instead United Nations has a long criticism history of being ineffective, biased, and corrupt. The UN resolution for Abkhazia only says including victims of reported "ethnic cleansing", putting ethnic cleansing in scare quotes and not even specifying who was ethnically cleansed, but the article is still called Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia. You also said a parliament member cannot offer an opinion with heavy weight, and yet Leo Docherty is the only one in the article who actually denied ethnic cleansing. The most reliable WP:SOURCES are those written by independent experts in their fields, such as Luis Moreno Ocampo and David Scheffer. Moreno Ocampo's assessment is based on the Genocide Convention, which, given his academic and professional background, he is one of the most definitive sources for. And this is in addition to the official resolution passed by the European Parliament, which also provides an organization with real authority confirming ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. So there is nothing being simply alleged here. And The Guardian and OC Media are not "some officials in Armenia". KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not resort to interpretations, and I do not see the need to justify how ethnic cleansing is obviously a humanitarian issue. Are you saying that a report containing the passage "Our colleagues were struck by the sudden manner in which the local population fled their homes and the suffering that the experience must have caused them. They did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." is unable or unfit to assess whether or not ethnic cleansing took place?
Ocampo's account makes a series of marginal and excessive claims: needless to say that his characterisation of the events as "genocide" was never supported by anyone but himself. His report cannot serve as a basis for renaming such an NPOV-sensitive article.
I believe I have already said what I had to say about "parliament resolutions". Discarding the UN's authority while upholding that of the European Parliament does not seem very logical to me, especially (since you have chosen to bring up the UN's history of criticism) given all the corruption scandals in which the latter has recently been involved. Curiously, they have affected, among others, some of its members that were previously extremely vocal in endorsing resolutions in solidarity with the Nagorno-Karabakh sovereignty movement. I will leave it at that.
I do not see anything surprising in The Guardian; it merely quotes Armenian officials with regard to their take on the UN mission findings. This does not necessarily reflect The Guardian's opinion. Parishan (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that Ocampo's reputation is far from perfect. There were a number of controversies surrounding this person, in particular, there were critical reports about him in such authoritative international publications as Der Spiegel: [10], The Financial Times: [11], The Times: [12], The Telegraph: [13], World Affairs [14], etc. Grandmaster 07:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh will be written, it is a different topic from this article. Both are notable separate topics, this is about Armenians fleeing the ethnic cleansing, the actions of Azerbaijan and Azeris before and after the flight, and the international response to the ethnic cleansing deserve their own article.  // Timothy :: talk  04:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: How exactly would that article be structured and what exactly what it contain? Because it seems that it would be inevitably merged with this article. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be merged, which is not a bad thing, it happens all the time, and often happens with a name change for the resulting article. The end could be a merged into an article named Ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh
I am hoping this doesn't turn into an entire category tree of articles for every individual incident (it probably will), a summary style article with sub articles for possible major subtopics will cover the subject well (eg, the flight, acts of cultural genocide, sexual violence and gender issues, international court cases and reactions, impact on children, final negotiations and reparations, post expulsion erasure, the impact on blended families, fate of survivors). Lots of potential here, it just happened and there is already a lot of RS, time and research by reliable sources will reveal more information.
The flight is an important part of this, but just one facet, it shouldn't be buried in a more general article. // Timothy :: talk  00:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: This article already does focus on the "flight", acts of violence, and international resolutions. That is another reason why the article title should be changed, to encompass a wider subject. Otherwise, we will end up with too many specialized articles, as you said. For example, Armenian deportations and Expulsion of the Armenian population both link to the Armenian genocide article, they are not separate articles. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Grandmaster. There is no evidence of ethnic cleansing.KHE'O (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator because it was ethnic cleansing, or at least a part of it (the entire Armenian population has escaped, and everyone knows why). I agree with TimothyBlue that Ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh could be written independently on this discussion because it should cover a lot more events than just the recent flight. However, it already covers such additional events in the Background section, hence it would be useful as a starting point for developing a larger page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral While I personally think it was undoubtedly ethnic cleansing, we do not have a consensus in sources for the use of that word, although we do not have a consensus against it either. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 07:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view, priority should be given to positive evidence. Everyone seems to agree that this was exodus/flight. Not everyone seems to agree that there was ethnic cleansing. Parishan (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: What exactly would establish a consensus? Because there are still politicans and newspapers in the United States and (especially) United Kingdom that speak of the Armenian genocide as if it is something debatable, and Turkey never had a Nuremberg trial, yet the article being titled genocide was never seriously disputed. I also don't recall a consensus for a word most often used to describe the migration of birds being the best choice for an article name. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh Consensus doesn't mean unanimous, a small but vocal minority doesn't mean consensus doesn't exist. And I don't think "fleeing" and "flying" are the same verb even if they happen to be conjugated in the same way. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: How can the inaugural Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the inaugural United States Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice, the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and the European Parliament, all be dismissed as a minority? Again, what exactly is this already strong due weight missing from qualified WP:SOURCES? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh I think you're misunderstanding WP:SOURCES. I'm not saying they're not reliable sources or that they're not due to be included in the article, but that they alone do not constitute a consensus. It's not dismissing them to say that the wording they use is not yet a consensus. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: I meant that all the preferable citations as described in WP:SOURCES support calling it either ethnic cleansing or genocide. That is, leading experts in law and acclaimed academic researchers, both of which are independent. What I was asking is what more would be needed when there are no reliable sources opposing the term ethnic cleansing? Is there a certain amount of sources needed? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support According to the United Nations, ethnic cleansing is "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.". It is evident that the mass removal of Armenians from Artsakh was preceded by an armed attack by Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh, resulting in it loss of civilian lives. Approximately 64 civilians died while being moved from Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, it is undeniable that the current number of ethnic Armenians in Artsakh is below 10, and their presence there is constrained by specific circumstances. If this is not ethnic cleansing, perhaps the UN definition of ethnic cleansing should be changed.--Ավետիսյան91 (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose while I personally think it is an instance of ethnic cleansing, we would need at a minimum a significant majority of sources to agree to put it in wiki voice per the WP:NPOV policy. I don't see evidence that this significant majority exists. I don't agree that statements by politicians are relevant because they are not reliable sources for anything except their own POV. Whereas, it's not disputed that the Armenians fled even if the alternative might have been a concentration camp. I think this question should be revisited in a few years when serious scholarly works might have been written about the topic. (t · c) buidhe 19:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: The President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars isn't a politician. I understand what you're saying, but scholarly sources have already provided their input. O'Brien and Moreno Ocampo (who published research relating to the Genocide Conventions) have already supported classifying it as genocide; ethnic cleansing would actually be the most "safe" neutral title for the time being. And of course there are zero scholarly sources denying this was ethnic cleansing or genocide. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ocampo also accuses Israel of genocide [15] He also made statements accusing Hamas of genocide. He makes such accusations easily, without any field investigation. It is his personal opinion that is not shared by any serious institution, such as UN, OSCE, etc. Plus, Ocampo reputation is far from perfect, to put it mildly, he was involved in a number of serious scandals, including accusations of corruption, using insider information to help clients to evade prosecution by ICC, using offshore accounts, etc. He was even accused of rape, and when the charges against him were dismissed, he fired the whistleblower, who then sued the ICC and won a substantial compensation. It was considered a highly unethical behavior on Ocampo's part [16]. So in light of the above, I don't think that his claims should carry significant weight here, as they don't in the Middle East conflict. Grandmaster 07:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot more that could be said about criticism of the United Nations, but while Moreno Ocampo trying to recruit Angelina Jolie to help capture a warlord does not diminish his accomplished legal knowledge and career or show a conflict of interest in Artsakh, the UN deliberately censoring widespread killings in Sri Lanka does cast doubt on their ability to identify ethnic cleansing (which again, they are not even denying). Moreno Ocampo has even pointed out that the UN refused to call the Rwandan genocide a genocide in 1994.[17] Evidently, his word carries a lot of due weight. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's called United Nations for a reason; most war crimes are committed on the behalf of nations. It's like an association of landlords speaking on behalf of the tenants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's called United Nations because that's the name the alliance had in WW2. Not a secret plot by countries to mutually hide their crimes against civilians. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 17:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that nations (and United Nations) interests (particularly those shared like territorial integrity) often conflict with human rights, since the worst abuses were mostly done by nations. The United Nations is an involved party here, not a neutral observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikesBanana (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ocampo did much worse than try recruit Jolie. He took lots of money to help people evade prosecution by ICC using insider information, among many other controversies. And him calling every humanitarian crisis and military conflict affecting civilians a genocide is an obvious pattern we can see from other conflicts. Grandmaster 04:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Numerous reliable sources characterize Azerbaijan's blockade, destruction of public infrastructure, military assault, and flight of Armenians as “ethnic cleansing.” Various experts in genocide studies go further and call Azerbaijan’s actions “genocide,” including the Lemkin Institute, Genocide Watch, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and legal experts such as the former ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo.
  1. October 2023: the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) “notes the strong statements by Azerbaijan refuting such allegations and suspicions [of ethnic cleansing] and calls upon the authorities to spare no effort in proving, through deeds and words, that this is not the case.” [link]
  2. Additional non-governmental sources: Laurence Broers (Caucasus expert), the Economist, Hasmik Egian, (former chief of staff in the Office of the UN Special Envoy for Syria from 2014-2016 and director of the UN’s Security Council Affairs Department from 2016-2022), Susan Korah (journalist), Aldo Zammit Borda, (Reader in International Law at City, University of London)
Many reliable sources also considered Azerbaijan’s blockade to be ethnic cleansing or genocide even *before* the military assault.
Sources: Lindsey Snell (journalist), Karena Avedissian (Political scientist), Armen T. Marsoobian (Profesor and First Vice President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars), Bedross Der Matossian (Hymen Rosenberg Professor in Judaic Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln)
Conclusion: Characterizing the September military assault as “ethnic cleansing” is (1) supported by multiple reliable sources (2) not exceptional since multiple reliable sources already described the blockade alone as “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” before the military assault. Vanezi (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good argument for making a wider article about the ethnic cleansing, separate from this article about the flight specifically. The question isn't "was there ethnic cleansing of Armenians by Azerbaijan?" (yes, obviously), but "is the flight of Armenians specifically described as an instance of ethnic cleansing?". ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A wider article about ethnic cleansing and displacement of civilian population during this conflict should also cover the ethnic cleansing of much larger Azerbaijani population of Karabakh and 7 surrounding districts by Armenian forces in 1990s, but the terminology such as "ethnic cleansing" is a matter of legal definition too. As you say, so far this kind of language is generally avoided by the international community. Grandmaster 09:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the majority of reliable sources describe the topic of this article as "ethnic cleansing". Wikipedia titles are based on commonly accepted names for the events or things. "Ethnic cleansing" is clearly not a common name. Grandmaster 06:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to cast a vote since I haven't edited in this subject area all that much, but maybe consider something along the lines of "Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh" if the term "ethnic cleansing" proves to be too controversial and doesn't end up being used. That seems to be how a lot of other Wikipedia articles dealing with similar events in other conflicts are titled. TheDoodbly (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per the sources from international bodies that did not find evidence of ethnic cleansing, especially the U.N. An accusation of "ethnic cleansing" is a very serious one, and per WP:EXTRAORDINARY "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and it seems many of the sources mentioned in the discussions above in favor of calling it "ethnic cleansing" are either not authoritative enough and/or detailed enough to put such a serious label on the event. - Creffel (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are virtually no Armenians left in Nagorno-Karabakh. The proposed title better encapsulates the gravity and nature of the events. The term "ethnic cleansing" implies a systematic and deliberate attempt to remove a particular ethnic group from a specific region. In the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the term “flight" does not adequately convey this. Nocturnal781 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't re-title an article just to convey the "gravity and nature of the events." That would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV and sets a terrifying precedent. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Strong) Oppose per Grandmaster and Creffel. It isn't a matter of properly "conveying" what we believe to be the "truth" of the matter, it's about WP:NPOV and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Whatever some users seem to think, we can't label an incident with such a contentious label just because we think it qualifies as ethnic cleansing. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What if a few users decide that Israel's war in Gaza constitutes a genocide— a very loaded term—against Palestinians? And they rename a few articles accordingly? Let us decide the truth and flout NPOV and Wikipedia goes to hell in a handbasket. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I am not seeing most RS refer to as a case of ethnic cleansing. I think this can be mentioned in the article but I do not think there is enough to move the article to such a title. Of course, this may be revisited in future when there are more sources available. Mellk (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk: What are the RSs that deny ethnic cleansing? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. While "Flight" is probably an understatement of what happenned, saying "Ethnic cleansing" is definetly non-neutral. We can't rename an article just to say our personnal opinion about what happen, and if we do, we risk creating a dangerous precedent on the encyclopedia. This topic need neutrality and verifiablity, see WP:NPOV and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. "Ethnic cleansing" in the title of the article (!) is neither, especially since those events are very recents and that we can't take a step back to look the real facts. Cosmiaou (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cosmiaou: WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The European Parliament and President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars support using ethnic cleansing. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh: Um. You mean they support using the term ethnic cleaning in reference to this event. Because that sounds really bad... 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, that should be mentioned in the article. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nominator's arguments. Arakui (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, absolute, CATEGORICAL oppose vote in the strongest manner possible - that is not remotely the subject of the article. The article is about ethnic Armenians fleeing Nagorno-Karabakh in the wake of the collapse of the Republic of Artsakh. And that is what the title should reflect, nothing more. Anything else is a promotion by a biased editor. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And @KhndzorUtogh: Yes, I'm calling out here. This isn't even a remote attempt at viewing the topic of the article and what the title should be through a WP:NPOV lens. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idea: If consensus can't be reached, is Possible ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh (2023), or something along those lines, an acceptable compromise? @Grandmaster, KhndzorUtogh, Parishan, Alaexis, Toghrul R, TimothyBlue, Kheo17, My very best wishes, Chaotic Enby, Ավետիսյան91, Buidhe, LikesBanana, Vanezi Astghik, TheDoodbly, Nocturnal781, Creffel, Cosmiaou, Paul Vaurie, and The Corvette ZR1: 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a fair compromise to me, at least. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 23:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to have to disagree, for all the same reasons. I cannot really see how this is a compromise. All sources agree that there has been a population movement (flight, exodus, evacuation, etc.) induced by a military operation. Not all sources mention ethnic cleansing, even as an allegation; more specifically, none that has initiated a formal investigation into the matter does. We are pretty much down to a parliament resolution and a highly dubious off-site report, which, in all honesty, is a rather meager rationale. I believe it would be wiser to wait for at least one reliable finding (a court ruling, a human rights practice report) before resorting to red-flag terminology. For once, we have two options that are not mutually exclusive: why not agree on keeping it as "flight" or "exodus" for the time being since these terms are not being contested here for the events described in the article? Parishan (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is in no shape or form a compromise. The article does not need to be moved. The current title accurately reflects what the article talks about. It's about a population movement, and NOT about "claims of ethnic cleansing". You can make a new article about claims of ethnic cleansing. But that is NOT what this article is about. There is no "compromise" to be made. The propositions are all quite frankly inaccurate.
    And to add on to what Parishan said, even a court ruling or report would not change what the subject of the article is. The article is about people fleeing, not about being persecuted. That could become a section in this article, or a new article, but never its title. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I like how it sounds, it's a bit unencyclopaedic. Alaexis¿question? 21:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit of an unencyclopedic way to word it. A possibility would be to keep a description everyone agrees with (here, "flight" or "exodus" is an accurate description, whether or not it was also ethnic cleansing), and either have a section describing how it was labeled in some sources as ethnic cleansing, or have a separate article for either "Ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Allegations of ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh" (which could be a broader article also discussing pre-2023 events). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would not make any sense, because it contradicts what reliable sources state. President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Melanie O'Brien referred to the ethnic cleansing as "an ongoing genocide", not "a possible ongoing genocide". The European Parliament made a resolution that it "considers that the current situation amounts to ethnic cleansing", not "considers that the current situation possibly amounts to ethnic cleansing". And Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia is not titled "Possible ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia". There still has not been a single reliable source provided that denies ethnic cleansing, nor have any of the "oppose" votes even made an argument related to the WP:AT policy. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we can create such an article, because again it is not based on the common name for this event. That would be against the Wikipedia rules. Also, let's not forget that a much larger displacement of about 700,000 Azerbaijani population of Nagorno-Karabakh and 7 surrounding districts of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia in 1992-2000 also qualifies as ethnic cleansing. So there could be a large article about the ethnic cleansings over the 30 years of history of the conflict, but it should not be only about the Armenian population, and the title should be based on the common name, because it is not generally accepted to call these events "ethnic cleansing". Grandmaster 10:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be one article for the ethnic cleansing of Armenians by Azerbaijan, and one for the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis by Armenians. They don't cancel each other out, and are obviously two separate events. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support a new article about ethnic cleansing. This flight is only a part of the ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, which started in 2020 as defined by the Historian Arsene Saparov in the peer-reviewed Central Asian Survey published by Routledge: “In 2020, Azerbaijan not only recaptured Armenian controlled territories outside the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, but also conquered and ethnically cleansed several districts of the former autonomy itself.”[18] Christina Maranci the Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies at Harvard University defined the 2023 flight and subsequent actions by the Azerbaijani government as an ethnic cleansing in her article in TIME,[19] differentiating it from just a flight by the state-sponsored cultural genocide that Azerbaijan is pursuing following the flight which is why it should be a separate article. Multiple historians and international organizations (as stated above) have labeled these events ethnic cleansing to the point where a separate article is warranted, one covering 2020-2023 including the ethnic cleansing during the war, blockade, final flight, and post-war cultural genocide. TagaworShah (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support creating a separate article covering the ethnic cleansing, oppose renaming this article. The flight is a different, but related subject, both need articles. There should also be an article about rape and sexual violence during the conflict. Eventually there will be articles on the investigations/trials, reparations, etc, these should all be subarticles of a top level article on ethnic cleansing.  // Timothy :: talk  22:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the time since this discussion was created, two German members of PACE have been indicted for receiving bribes from Azerbaijan in exchange for voting in Baku’s favor at the Council of Europe. A reminder that PACE made a statement "reasonable suspicion that this can amount to ethnic cleansing", in favor of labelling ethnic cleansing in spite of the Azerbaijani money laundering and bribery. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KhndzorUtogh: You can't take a source that says "reasonable suspicion" and take that to 100%. If there's a fruit on the table, and some people say it could be a banana, but further investigation is required, but some people talk about it and don't call it a banana, are you going to title the Wikipedia article Banana on the table? I hope you realize that would be absurd. We can't take a currently disputed claim and enshrine it in the article title, but in your fervour of POV-pushing you seem to have lost sight of that. Calm down and try to be WP:PRAGMATIC here. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two individuals have not been members of PACE since 2018 and 2010 respectively. How is their activity relevant to this article? Parishan (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shows the unreliability of the organization and the laundromat involved a lot more politicians than these two. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh: Laundromat? Is that a spell-check or translation error? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: Azerbaijani laundromat, as the OCCRP source refers to. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. Sorry. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Wikipedia shouldn't use dance around the bush and should call it what it is, an ethnic cleansing of the Armenians from the region. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the rules, the article title should be based upon the common name for the event, and not on what we personally think is true or not. Grandmaster 10:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Death Editor 2: I invite you to read WP:VNT and refamiliarize yourself with how NPOV works. Wikipedia's titling policies do NOT revolve around your personal views on the matter. And we already have a lengthly section dealing with serious accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide. But we cannot enshrine a contested view in the article title because we think it is the truth. Verifiability, not truth. "Support" !voters need to understand this. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per the sources from international bodies that did not find evidence of ethnic cleansing, especially the U.N. An accusation of "ethnic cleansing" is a very serious one, and per WP:EXTRAORDINARY "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", and it seems many of the sources mentioned in the discussions above in favor of calling it "ethnic cleansing" are either not authoritative enough and/or detailed enough to put such a serious label on the event. My opinion: Armenians leaved the Internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan voluntarily because of fear that Azerbaijan will treat tham as they treat them during the first war. However, Azerbaijan even offered them citizenship if they do not leave. It is clear that they did not leave by force. And what about massacre of Palestinians in Gaza by Israelis? Not an ethnic cleansing?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has absolutely nothing to do with the war in Gaza and whether or not it is "a massacre" or "an ethnic cleansing". Bringing it up at random doesn't help your argument. JM (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia needs an article about "Ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh" during the first Nagorno-Karabakh war. I hope this is related.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JM2023: I think what is implied is similar to what I said in my comment further up: what if Wikipedia decides that, although this only has partial support from RSs (at best); Israel's invasion of Gaza is DEFINETELY a genocide and the articles should be titled such? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So voluntary escape and forceful Ethnic cleansing to leave the area are same to you?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I'm not airing my views on Gaza at all, this is a hypothetical situation. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am indicating the Flight of Nagorno Karabakh not the Gaza war.
    Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. Regardless, there is a difference between "voluntary escape" and ethnic cleansing. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and others above. I don't find the oppose arguments particularly compelling. I would also point out for those arguing on "truth" instead of on sourcing that the idea that the flight was voluntary is contested by the fact that Azerbaijan had prevented them from leaving for months while cutting off all supplies to exert political pressure, which was accompanied by a threat of genocide from the President's representative. In any case, these "truths" have nothing to do with whether or not RS use "ethnic cleansing". JM (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that we already have a large section in the article on allegations of ethnic cleansing and genocide. But to take "allegations" and enshrine them in the article title as facts goes against NPOV and V. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose "possible" or "allegations of" proposals. The creation of Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine has unfortunately led this kind of option to be regarded as generally viable in the eyes of many users. As a result we've gotten absolute POV trash like Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. This has not received as much legal, political and academic attention as the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza war. There's less we can use to substantiate such a renamed article compared to that of the other two conflicts. Furthermore these kinds of titles make the articles look unprofessional and unencyclopedic and are clearly inflammatory for many people, leaving aside whether the allegations are fair or not, and it has lead to conflicts between users. The current title is perfectly neutral and clearly describes the article's scope. We do not need to harm its informational value to address non-universal allegations that we are not obliged to address in the first place. Under these grounds I would also be tempted to oppose the original proposal. I do not see consensus among reliable sources to support it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am open to the suggestion of making a separate Ethnic cleansing article, but that does not solve the problem with this article that there was never any consensus to use the term "flight" or evidence of it being a common name, it is just the word that Chaotic Enby happened to pick when creating the article. The problem with the term is that it does not reflect that Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh were involuntarily forced to leave (and no, an Azeri official saying "welcome to apply for citizenship" does not prove otherwise, as multiple neutral experts have stated). A more appropriate title would be "Deportation of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh", which according to Reuters is a term used by "several international experts",[20] and is also the term used by Genocide Watch.[21] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That could absolutely work as a title, thanks for the proposal. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this proposal. I do not feel that strongly against using "ethnic cleansing" but I haven't seen "deportation" being used for this event before. Now, I am not an expert in this topic, but neither are most readers, and I feel like most of them have not seen this term used either, so this proposal could perhaps be true objectively but fail WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. I think most people would think of Azerbaijan having gotten the Armenians out by physically transporting them out of the country with "deportation". Looking up "Nagorno-Karabakh flight" (not with the quotes) on Google I get 1,410,000 results, 386,000 results with "Nagorno-Karabakh ethnic cleansing" and 277,000 with "Nagorno-Karabakh deportation". Though regular Google results are usually not useful for determining common practices I think they can help in giving a general idea. Previously I proposed "exodus" as an alternative, it might be useful to replace an unorthodox and possibly too "soft" word like "flight" while also be undisputedly objective and not possibly inflammatory like "ethnic cleansing", though I remember some users having expressed cons regarding this proposal before. I get 283,000 results with "Nagorno-Karabakh exodus" by the way. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking up "Nagorno-Karabakh flight" on Google I get a bunch of results about airlines, which is an unfortunate consequence of "to fly" and "to flee" being conjugated the same. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expulsion might be considered as well. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this proposal, I think expulsion is the best wording out of these options. A lot of sources say that Armenians were expelled from Nagorno-Karabakh and that establishes that this flight was not voluntary. TagaworShah (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They leave the area voluntary after the fall of illegal state artsakh in the land of internationally recognised Azerbaijani territory and it is the world standard information of the situation.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meet us halfway, will you? 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "expulsion" would be an appropriate title either. First, it is not a common name, second, it is not neutral and suggests that the Armenian population was violently expelled. There were 2 international fact-finding missions to Karabakh, one by the UN, and another by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. None found any evidence of violence, or forceful expulsion. The CoE commissioner stated that the Armenian population left because, quote: "Karabakh Armenians found themselves abandoned without any reliable security or protection guarantees by any party". So using the names such as "expulsion", "deportation", etc goes against NPOV and does not reflect how the majority of reliable sources refer to this event. Grandmaster 09:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I find flight to be the best word choice here, and I don't see it as being "soft" or as underselling the severity or nature of the events, as other editors here seem to, as it implies people were fleeing from something, presumably from something bad/harmful. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be a good idea, though I am not sure it is widespread among sources. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Expulsion" and "deportation" both imply physical removal, which is not what went down according to the sources. There seems to be consensus that the Armenian civilians left out of fear for their future in Azerbaijan rather than due to being ejected from or ordered out of their homes. I do not believe that even the harshest critics of Azerbaijan have so far suggested any physical meddling on the part of Azerbaijani authorities following the 20 September ceasefire. Parishan (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording makes it seem like their fears were unfounded. Actions of the Azerbaijani government and of Aliyev were crucial in their decision to leave. I would rather define expulsion as implying removal by coercion which is not only physical. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not qualified to evaluate whether the fears were unfounded or not. I am only relying on sources. The point is that the current title encompasses any possible interpretation. "Expulsion" presupposes physical ejection, and I do not think we can attach a special definition to that word for the purposes of this article only. Parishan (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal to close the discussion - it is clear that from comments above, a stronger argument has been made against moving the article, but that a new article along the lines of "allegations of ethnic cleansing" could be viable. However, this should not be a subject of discussion at an RM, as it has nothing to do with the specific name this article has. Additionally, much of the discussion has shifted around the wording of the title (like "flight"). This wasn't the original intent of the RM, and suggestions like "expulsion" are not WP:NPOV. Proposed closed of the RM with consensus of no move. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you to close the RM with consensus of no move.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 12:06, 5 February 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.
  • Amakuru, while this is my preferred outcome, I think a controversial move proposal like this one should have a more elaborate closing comment. Nothing spectacular, just more than a two-word sentence, in my opinion. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR about Docherty[edit]

I removed information about BP's activity in Azerbaijan, as it has nothing to do with this event, and no reliable source makes a connection between Docherty's statement (which, btw, is not much different from the US State Department statement about the same situation) and BP's activity in Azerbaijan. It is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, by using unrelated sourced material to imply that Docherty did not consider the exodus of Armenians from Karabakh an ethnic cleansing because of the UK's economic interests in the region. Such claims cannot be made unless supported by reliable sources, and preferably more than one. It is a serious allegation that requires serious sourcing. Grandmaster 05:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your only issue with the information you removed was that it was in the same paragraph as Docherty? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has no relation to this article, or Docherty's statement. As I wrote above, no reliable source makes a connection between Docherty's statement and BP and other issues. Grandmaster 06:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article and statement by Global Witness make a clear connection with the subject of the article, just not Docherty. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian reports the opinion of an NGO called Global Witness, but it makes no mention of Docherty and his position on this issue, so we cannot connect his statement with BP projects in Azerbaijan. That would clearly be a WP:OR and synthesis. Grandmaster 10:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask again, the only issue with the information you removed was that it was in the same paragraph as Docherty? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It has nothing to do with the flight of Armenians from Karabakh. This article has a specific topic, to which BP's activity Azerbaijan has no relation. It might be suitable for another article, but not this one. Grandmaster 09:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis by the NGO suggested that Azerbaijan’s economic reliance on BP, its largest foreign investor, had indirectly helped to fund Azerbaijan’s military aggression against ethnic Armenians in the contested region, which has forced more than 100,000 people to flee the territory since early September. It seems to have a lot to do with it. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an opinion of one NGO. Could be used elsewhere in the article, if the NGO is notable enough, but with no connection to Docherty, who is not mentioned. Grandmaster 08:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UN mission[edit]

The sources do not say that it was a UN in Azerbaijan that sent a mission to Karabakh. It was led by Vladanka Andreeva, UN Resident Coordinator in Azerbaijan, but also included representatives of various UN bodies, such as, quote: "Ramesh Rajasingham, the Director of the Coordination Division of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as well as representatives from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN Refugee Agency, UNICEF and the World Health Organization, as well as a technical team from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN Resident Coordinator’s Office and the UN Department of Safety and Security". All those UN bodies are not based in Azerbaijan, and Ramesh Rajasingham is not based in Baku either. It was clearly a general UN mission, reported by the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General too. [22] Just because it was led by the UN representative in Azerbaijan does not make it a mission by the UN office in Azerbaijan, when it clearly included representatives of the UN bodies from the general headquarters. Grandmaster 10:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply incorrect and a twisting of facts. The report was authored and published by the UN mission in Azerbaijan. In fact, it’s author is a national communications officer working for the UN resident coordinator’s office in Baku, who formerly worked for Azerbaijan’s state broadcaster, ATV. The report was published to azerbaijan.un.org, I was there the day it was published and was the first one to add it. Any subsequent mentions of the mission report are directly referencing the published material of the UN mission in Azerbaijan, that’s where the contents of the mission report originated from. There was consensus in the discussion above to include criticisms of this report in the article by reliable sources, it does not disprove any claims of ethnic cleansing, matter of fact it wasn’t even allowed into the majority of Nagorno-Karabakh and only arrived after the native population had vanished. Any more attempts to inflate this reports credibility or add it to places where it is not due in order to minimize valid criticism of ethnic cleansing is in direct violation of the consensus reached on this very talk page on how it should appear. TagaworShah (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for the claim that it was the UN mission in Azerbaijan that visited the region? The UN page says: "a UN team, led by Vladanka Andreeva, the Resident Coordinator for the United Nations in Azerbaijan, visited the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan yesterday". We can only repeat what the source says, and we cannot make any unfounded claims. We cannot engage in original research, and it does not say anywhere that it was a UN office in Azerbaijan. Plus, the fact that it included representatives of the UN bodies from outside of Azerbaijan shows that it was a UN wide mission. Grandmaster 22:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The press release itself literally comes directly from the UN in Azerbaijan.[23] It literally states “The UN in Azerbaijan plans to continue to regularly visit the region.” As I said above it was written by the national communications officer working for the UN resident coordinator’s office in Baku, who previously worked for state-sponsored Azerbaijani television. You are applying your own WP:OR interpretation that it was a UN wide mission because it included representatives not based in Azerbaijan. That’s simply not true, the press release itself admits it was the UN in Azerbaijan who conducted the mission and before they removed the authors name due to backlash, the author of the press release was clearly affiliated with the Azerbaijani government. TagaworShah (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reliable source about the report being written by someone "who previously worked for state-sponsored Azerbaijani television". Let's talk only about the facts that could be supported by reliable sources. Also, this same report was voiced by the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, which shows that the UN endorses this mission. The Spokesperson for the Secretary-General actually said something different, quote: The UN team plans to continue to regularly visit the region. [24] The UN main office does not say it was its office in Azerbaijan who conducted this mission. It does not make a fundamental difference, the UN is the UN, whether it is a mission in Azerbaijan or from the main headquarters. It is a top international organization not controlled by Azerbaijan or Armenia. Question is, should we go by the wording of the UN main office, or by the wording of the UN Baku office report? Main office is a higher authority. Grandmaster 11:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UN in Azerbaijan is the one who released the original press release, the subsequent mentions of it are citing that press release. In fact, your quote just proved my point, the UN team you’re describing in that quote is precisely described as the “UN in Azerbaijan” by the original press release. So if the UN is the UN, we will keep the original and more precise wording. TagaworShah (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General of the UN making no mention of the mission being carried out by the UN in Azerbaijan proves your point. But I'm not going to argue further over this minor issue, it really doesn't make much difference whether it was the UN in Azerbaijan or not. It was still a comprehensive UN mission with all the relevant UN bodies involved. Grandmaster 09:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we link to Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia?[edit]

Currently, under "Background", "displacement" links to Refugees in Azerbaijan. Would it be appropriate to change this to link to Deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia? It would seem that the deportation article is relevant context for the flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. Or would that be whataboutism? --Gerrit CUTEDH 16:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter article deals mostly with deportations in the Armenian SSR and the former one is mostly about the First Nagorno-Karabakh War and the displaced Azerbaijanis. They're not the same so it shouldn't be done. Refugees in Azerbaijan could perhaps be renamed though. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&oldid=1207249573"