Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

UNRA in lede

@Nemoralis: You recently moved the UNRA comment that 'no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move" to the lede, citing MOS:INTRO. However, INTRO says that we summarize the content in the rest of the article, and now that information only exists in the lede. In addition, this is WP:UNDUE emphasis; the statement is only covered in a press release and a obscure Russian news source.

It also isn't a statement that all sources agree with; for example, USAID stated that there were troubling reports of violence, and that they had begun gathering testimony. BilledMammal (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, also civilian reports published by Hetq, CTV News, and Bellingcat state instances where Armenian civilians where forced from their villages under direct threat of violence. This statement does not carry due weight especially in the lead, the official who made this claim was not in Karabakh and is only going based on their limited information which isn’t even being widely published. TagaworShah (talk) 13:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added the USAID source - was in the process of doing so when you moved the UNHRC content so got caught in an edit conflict. While the USAID content has greater prominence in reliable sources (Politico, SBS, Reuters, the Senior, The Telegraph, among others), I am not convinced it belongs in the lede either but believe that if we are including the UNHRA statement (and given the lack of reporting on it I am not convinced that doing so is appropriate) we should include the two together. BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a displacement. It is forced in instances, literally on gun point [1], [2]. Undue alleged safety assurances by Az for Arm population in lead shouldn't be left without challenging as they were doubted by multiple sources [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I also agree that USAID/UNHRC fits better in body.

I also think this change went too much detail in lead and I expanded on body instead. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nemoralis: I just realized you also reverted my clarification of UNHRA's statement about ethnic cleansing; currently the article says The UNHCR, having noted no incidents of mistreatment, viewed the flight as a refugee situation rather than ethnic cleansing, but this doesn't match the source, which says that they viewed this as a refugee situation and could not comment on whether it constituted ethnic cleansing. I assume that this part of the revert was accidental; could you self-revert? BilledMammal (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as we mention international assessment in the lead section, UNHCR should certainly be there as one of the top organizations and key points per MOS:INTRO. Brandmeister^talk 13:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was an accident, sorry about that. I noticed that Kevo327 reverted my change without waiting for a response from me. It is written in the lead that this exodus/flight described as crime by some international experts, as Brandmeister said. Why should the UNHRC statement be in the body and not in the title? Per WP:BALANCE and MOS:INTRO, we should mention it in the lead. Nemoralis (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s actually a Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE you’re proposing, the lead is meant to summarize major points of the article, not include quotes from a single individual, it doesn’t have due weight to be summarized in the lead, the quote has not been widely cited and there is no huge amounts of articles and governments confirming that point, the part about the war crime summarizes an entire section and has been repeated by multiple sources, a single quote is for the body, not the lead. TagaworShah (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

UN team completes mission to Karabakh

The UN's input and preliminary assessment of the situation in Karabakh might be relevant to add to the Article

https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh Midgetman433 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Who" tag in the lede:

referring to this edit; they are named in the article, that's how ledes work on wikipedia @Beshogur, be sure to read guidelines and the article itself before making such edits; can't revert it myself JM2023 (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@JM2023: Template:Who This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like.

What do you mean? Beshogur (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I checked the source, it doesn't give single name. Just because it is RS, it doesn't mean "experts" without giving a name is appropriate. Beshogur (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This was already mentioned in the above discussion by BilledMammal [8]. The experts are mentioned in the body "International legal experts, Priya Pillai and Melanie O'Brien, a visiting professor at the University of Minnesota and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars" so the tag is redundant. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If those are the "experts" alright. Beshogur (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Also verbatim mentioned in the source "several international legal experts believe the mass flight fits the legal definition of a war crime." – that's what the source says, not an OR by wikipedia editor to warrant that tag. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

It seems categorizing this as ethnic cleansing is overstretching. Firstly, an ethnic cleansing is forceful. Here the're leaving voluntarily and have an option to stay. Judging by news sources, this accusation comes solely from the Armenian side, has been rejected by Azerbaijan and is not corroborated by third-party sources, particularly Russian peacekeepers in the area. Per WP:REDFLAG, some robust evidence is needed to categorize this as ethnic cleansing. The situation is basically migration due to perceived unfavorable conditions, similar to ongoing African migration to Europe and elsewhere. Brandmeister^talk 09:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are fleeing because of fears of ethnic cleansing and genocide, fears that are supported by a variety of sources - and an high ranking Azerbaijani official. I don't think it is appropriate to characterize such flight as voluntary. BilledMammal (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, they didn't just wake up and decided to flee the area, they're forced to because of what happened. There have been fears of ethnic cleansing and genocide since the blockade of the region, this is vastly sourced both in the blockade and offensive articles. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Fears is something different from the happened event. This is not the same as events at Category:Ethnic cleansing in Asia or Category:Ethnic cleansing in Europe that are backed up by muliple sources as real events. Extraordinary claims require evidence and appropriate sourcing. Brandmeister^talk 09:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's such an extraordinary claim when it's something pertaining to a region which has had multiple genocides, pogroms, and ethnic cleansings, with a country that has the most anti-Armenianism in the world, which apparently advocates for ethnic cleansing even in COVID messaging, and when the office of the azeri president is stating to the media that Karabakh Armenians will face genocide if they don't give up... JM2023 (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

A decision of displacement, exile, or eviction by a state has not been issued; therefore, this does not constitute ethnic cleansing. When people leave their places due to fear or suspicion, it is referred to as "flight." It should be removed from the category of ethnic cleansing.

"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal, extermination, deportation, or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction."

Your perspective does not align directly with the definition of ethnic cleansing in the article. The Azerbaijani government declared an integration program, and they stated that Armenians living in the region could live as Azerbaijani citizens, which is why it cannot be referred to as ethnic cleansing. The concept of ethnic cleansing is entirely based on allegations that you hypothetically put forward. NotDeceived (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

the "concept of ethnic cleansing" is actually entirely based on RS presented neutrally, which is what occurs on Wikipedia. Many experts and figures characterize this as ethnic cleansing, as well as the previous blockade (which has also been called a genocide attempt). This is because Azerbaijan's blockade was intended as genocidal pressure on the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh according to some experts. Azerbaijan's declarations are not reliable because Azerbaijan is not a reliable source. Azerbaijan has a long history of persecuting, ethnically cleansing, and mass murdering Armenian people on the basis of their ethnicity alone. There is also evidence of Azeri soldiers forcing Armenians to leave Nagorno-Karabakh directly. JM2023 (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

we don't go by the Azeri government, it's not a reliable source. We don't go by the Turkish government for information on the Armenian genocide. And in light of Russia's recent actions and track record I wouldn't say that the Russian government is a reliable source either. Just because the Armenian gov says one thing and the Azeri one says another doesn't mean we strike a balance or write neither -- there are other factors involved. JM2023 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what sources say. The categories should be uncontroversial. Let's add information to the article itself in the meantime and once there is a critical mass then the categorisation can be updated. There is no deadline. Alaexis_¿question? 11:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue of trust or distrust in the Azerbaijani government is not relevant to this article. The purpose of the article is to provide information about the definition of "ethnic cleansing" and assess whether a specific event aligns with that definition. While it may not directly address matters of trust in government officials, it is important to make additions to the article based on official statements and sources. I understand that such a discussion may require further details and evidence. To make additions to the article, you may need to refer to official sources and statements. NotDeceived (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue of trust or distrust in the Azerbaijani government is not relevant to this article it is actually of utmost importance. Azeri gov statements cannot be taken at face value because they go against almost all other sources, and it is not a reliable source anyway. Wikipedia does not accept unreliable sources. Official sources and statements are not accepted if those sources are not reliable - the word "official" means nothing. Just because something comes from a government does not mean it is true. Azerbaijan also denies the Armenian genocides, which demonstrably occurred. Learn the basic policies on reliability and neutrality before making arguments because if not we will just have to continue going over the same policies again and again. JM2023 (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think everyone would appreciate it if Brandmeister refrained from using again analogies such as African inmigration to Europe to describe this event. I find it pretty disrespectful. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I made such analogy because both cases involve unfavorable conditions, either real or perceived ones. Particularly, migration due to war or armed hostilities has been a well-known issue and some areas, like Karabakh, Libya, Sudan or Syria are more prone to it than others. Brandmeister^talk 11:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The "unfavorable conditions" in this case being a decades-long ethnic conflict and aggressive discourse by the state hosting the target national minority. The "unfavorable conditions" are very real. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There's much more to it than merely "aggressive discourse by the state hosting the target national minority", including killing of thousands of Azerbaijanis during March Days, Armenian–Azerbaijani war (1918–1920), Khojaly Massacre, UN resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, etc. But I won't elaborate here as this is tangential to this thread. Brandmeister^talk 12:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a two-sided conflict, however this part of it is caused by the behaviour of one. Both should be blamed when due and in their respective articles. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

the least you could have done was bring up the Azerbaijani mass killing of Armenian civilians if you were going to bring up all those incidents. You're the one concerned with an imbalance you believe is present, yet you list off all those incidents without bringing up a single contextual incident of Azeris killing Armenians en masse and then just say "I won't elaborate". If you want us to portray "the wider context" as you say i.e., describing the wider conflict, then that includes Azeris killing and threatening Armenians for a hundred plus years, not just Armenians killing and threatening Azeris for a hundred plus years. JM2023 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Not an ethnic cleansing: This is clearly not an ethnic cleansing as Armanians leave the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan voluntarily because of fear. No proof of collateral damage or attacks on civilians after the offensive end along with the dissolution of self proclaimed "Republic of Artsakh" military let alone an ethnic cleansing. :Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, of course they have been attacked during 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh (one should check this page), and there was a lot of the "collateral damage". They are leaving "because of fear"? Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I said after the offensive and collateral damage is not an ethnic cleansing. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is the most anti-Armenian state in the world, historically has had multiple pogroms and ethnic cleansing perpetrated against Armenians, refers to Armenians as subhuman animals even in their education system to children, publishes images like this considered advocating for ethnic cleansing, and denies the Armenian genocide; their months-long blockade of Artsakh is considered an ethnic cleansing attempt and is the direct cause of the dissolution of Artsakh and the current exodus, and the office of Azeri president has threatened another genocide against Karabakh Armenians if they don't dissolve their nation-state... there is a strong case to be made that under these conditions it is an ethnic cleansing. "leave or be treated like this". JM2023 (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Non of those Armanian point of view is a prove that there is a onging ethnic cleansing. And you forgot ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis by the Armenians during the first war in the same region.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

You guys love whataboutism huh. One crime does not excuse another. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 04:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The article we are discussing has RS telling us it's an ethnic cleansing. It also tells us with RS that the blockade is also an ethnic cleansing and possibly a genocide. You have yet to cite a single reliable source (in fact you've only reported one source, that explicitly just reports an Azeri government statement) to back up any of your proposals or arguments to change the article or justify your views on it.

And we fail to see the relevance in bringing up crimes against Azeris; while it could show another Azeri motivation i.e., an attempt at "revenge", but that has no relevance to whether or not this is an ethnic cleansing. JM2023 (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think this is an appropriate category. The ethnically homogeneous population is leaving because of the currently ongoing and very recent violence (the war) and also under threat of future violence. This is very much obvious in the context of Armenian genocide and the previous much more recent ethnic cleansing during the AA conflict. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Support "ethnic cleansing" because the event fits the classic definition of the term [9], i.e. Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group. The force (during the military operation) and the intimidation/fear are clearly present. Why else 100,000+ people would be leaving in a matter of days? Some people have been arrested, etc.My very best wishes (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Categories should reflect the article, and currently all it says about ethnic cleansing is that Pashinyan and Haaretz consider this as such and that Armenians are leaving due to fears over genocide and ethnic cleansing. The article does not convincingly justify the presence of the category. For that, a more nuanced analysis from a variety of sources will need to be added in the article. This was achieved in the blockade's article where it is argued with many sources that one of its objectives was/is the ethnic cleansing of Armenians. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. For an ethnic cleansing per WP:REDFLAG there must be reliable evidence on the ground fitting the definition. The Russian peacekeeping force has been deployed particularly to prevent such issues and so far, AFAIK, it didn't present any evidence supporting the partisan allegations. If and when such third-party evidence emerges, we can reconsider, but presently categorizing this as ethnic cleansing contributes to article's NPOV issues. Brandmeister^talk 16:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    The Russians are definitely not “third party” evidence, they literally authorized the offensive in the first place, we have numerous western sources describing this as ethnic cleansing. TagaworShah (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Changing vote. Not sure if this shit is true but it's gross as hell [10]. Strong support ethnic cleansing category. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

really underlines how unreliable Azerbaijan is. "oh don't worry, you'll be treated as a normal integrated citizen now that we control NK". then one of the first things they do is that. Enver Pasha: he was one of the principal perpetrators of the Late Ottoman Genocides and thus is held responsible for the death of between 800,000 and 1,800,000 Armenians. it's like naming a street in Jerusalem "Heinrich Himmler Blvd". i wonder if any western sources will pick this up, would highlight why the Aliyev regime is not a reliable source. JM2023 (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• I read the best definition of ethnic cleansing I could find (actually two definitions, both by the UN), and I think it matches both quite neatly. In addition, when I simply google "ethnic cleansing" in google news, of course Karabakh comes up for the first few dozen hits, and about half either refer to Armenian govt fears of ethnic cleansing but the other half either call it that or say they fled from fear - and since the fear is quite justified given the history of the last 3 years - this past week being no exception, it meets I think all the criteria for calling it as such. Here are the two definitions in any case if you're interested: "A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”". So yeah these people didn't leave because they had grown bored of their home decor. They left out of fear due to 3 years of intimidation and attacks (they blasted Islamic calls to prayer loudly around the clock as psychological warfare against a couple of Armenian villages for example), as well as poor treatment of captured Armenian civilians and soldiers (see what they did near Jermuk for 2 horrific examples of human rights violations to military personnel), to put it mildly. Oh right, and they were all starved and deprived of freedom of movement for months and months before attacking the entire enclave, killing many soldiers and civilians. I mean, if that doesn't qualify as force and intimidation, I don't know what does. --RaffiKojian (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  exactly JM2023 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  it is important to clarify that there is no evidence or indication of ethnic cleansing taking place. The voluntary departure of individuals or communities from a region, driven by their own choices and motivations, is distinct from ethnic cleansing, which involves forced displacement or systematic violence against a particular ethnic, religious, or national group. In this situation, it appears that people are leaving the area of their own accord, which is fundamentally different from actions associated with ethnic cleansing. It is essential to differentiate between these scenarios to accurately address the situation and ensure the protection of individuals' rights and choices. NotDeceived (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I should probably ask you if you've read the very article you are discussing. you need to cite reliable sources to back up your claims. JM2023 (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I read the article. You want to reflect your own opinions in the article. First of all, it is obvious that the reason for using the Aghdam corridor is not because people are afraid but because it is a purely political move. Because if the Aghdam corridor had started to be used, you would have accepted that you are a region connected to Azerbaijan, not Armenia. Instead, you found it right to make propaganda of "they are starving us" by not using the Aghdam section. What you are doing now is a choice, just like your choice not to use the wax section. You chose to leave that region rather than live in a region affiliated with the territory of the Azerbaijani state. This is not ethnic cleansing. The definition of ethnic cleansing has been written many times in this speech section. NotDeceived (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I read the article then you know it is not my opinion, it is RS-verified. You want to reflect your own opinions in the article since you've read the article, you know it's been cited with RS consensus, so you know it's not my opinions. I haven't even edited the article a single time. using the Aghdam corridor there is no Aghdam corridor. you have yet to cite anything. not because people are afraid azerbaijan blockaded the whole country, prevented even food and medicine from entering, cut internet and power lines, then invaded. Azerbaijan is also the most anti-Armenian country in the world. a purely political move. that's not cited. however, what is cited is that Azerbaijan's intention was to take political control by causing a humanitarian crisis. you found it right to make propaganda as I said, it's RS consensus. calling it propaganda without citing a consensus is disruptive. they are starving us they were. people died of starvation. Aghdam section once again no one has ever heard of this. do you mean Lachin? It was the first thing that was blocked off by the Azeris. wax section no one knows what that is either. You chose to leave that region I am now the second person here you have assumed to be from Artsakh. I am not even from Eurasia. Why do you think we are Artsakhi? rather than live in a region affiliated with the territory of the Azerbaijani state you mean rather than live in the country that has persecuted, ethnically cleansed, pogromed, mass murdered, and genocided Armenians continuing to the present day. This is not ethnic cleansing once again you've not cited that one single time, and it goes against the RS in the article. The definition of ethnic cleansing has been written many times in this speech section your uncited definition alongside your own interpretation of the situation which is against the consensus here and in RS. stop disrupting. JM2023 (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  It was up to you whether to use the Aghdam corridor or not. You did not exercise the options for political reasons. It's the same as choosing whether to starve or not. Since we cannot talk about a complete blockade, the question of starvation or not seems invalid. This was a purely political choice and you chose not to use the Aghdam corridor and starve your people. NotDeceived (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  there is no adgdam corridor. there was the lachin corridor, which was blockaded. the blockade was so total that even humanitarian aid was forbidden from entering the country. so we can talk about a complete blockade. even internet and electric lines were being cut. and for some reason you're using the second-person "you" to refer to the government of Artsakh as if you're talking to it. and it was Azerbaijan's political choice to starve the people of Artsakh. your comment is off topic. you're debating the existence and motivation of a blockade instead of discussing improvements or criticisms of the article we are on. remember there are active sanctions on this page, the rules are more strict than normal. do not disrupt the project. JM2023 (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, you continue to make Armenian propaganda. It has been stated many times that the Aghdam corridor is open. It has been declared many times by government authorities that the aid sent can be delivered through the Aghdam corridor. Frankly, I think you are in this situation entirely because of the news sources in your own echo chamber. NotDeceived (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The definition of ethnic cleansing has been written many times in this speech section you're referring to the consensus of western sources as "armenian propaganda" without even bothering with a citation (which would go against consensus anyway). It has been stated many times that the Aghdam corridor is open what is this Aghdam corridor? and who has stated it is open? because the consensus of RS for months has been that the Lachin corridor, the only way in or out, was the first thing closed by Azerbaijan and remained closed the whole time. the aid sent can be delivered through the Aghdam corridor so why does RS say aid was not allowed in by Azerbaijan? who are you citing? you have not cited anything. I think you are in this situation entirely because of the news sources in your own echo chamber that's astounding to hear from someone who doesn't even cite a single word they say. if it's an echo chamber then it's the world's largest considering it contains all RS. while the only ones agreeing with you are...azeri gov sources. reminder that there are active sanctions here, rules are more strict. refrain from disruption. JM2023 (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Արցախի նախագահ Արայիկ Հարությունյանը գիշերն իր ելույթում պնդել էր՝ մթերք ստանալու ենք միայն Լաչինի միջանցքով: Նախագահի մամուլի խոսնակ Լուսինե Ավանեսյանն էլ, մեկնաբանելով Աղդամով մարդասիրական օգնություն ուղարկելու Բաքվի քայլը, հայտարարել է, մասնավորապես, որ «արցախյան կողմի հետ որեւէ պայմանավորվածություն չի եղել»: Երեկ էլ համացանցում տեսանյութ տարածվեց, թե ինչպես է զոհվածի քույրը պնդում, որ ոչ մի պարագայում Ադրբեջանից ալյուր Արցախ չի մտնելու:

  Շուշիի քաղաքապետ Արծվիկ Սարգսյանը, «Հրապարակի» հետ զրույցում անդրադառնալով իրավիճակին, նշում է, որ Աղդամով սնունդ մատակարարել Արցախին՝ նշանակում է ինտեգրացիա Ադրբեջանի կազմում: Սարգսյանը հավատում է, որ նախագահ Արայիկ Հարությունյանն իր խոսքին տեր կլինի եւ որեւէ պարագայում թույլ չի տա, որ Ադրբեջանից ուղարկված բեռը մտնի Արցախ։ «Աղդամով ալյուր բերել՝ նշանակում է Արցախի հանձնում: Եթե մեկ անգամ այդ ճանապարհով Արցախ սնունդ մտավ, արդեն կբացեն Լաչինի միջանցքը եւ կարճ ժամանակ անց նորից կփակեն ու աշխարհին կասեն` էս ա, իրենք մարդասեր են, ամեն ինչ արեցին, հումանիտար աղետ չկա: Դրանից հետո արդեն ինչ ուզեն, կանեն, Ստեփանակերտ կմտնեն, ինչպես առաջ էին փորձում անել: Հակարիի կամրջից ո՞նց են մարդկանց գողանում տանում, այդպես էլ գալու են՝ արդեն Ստեփանակերտից մարդկանց տանեն: Դրանք լրիվ նախապես մտածված ծրագրեր են, որոնք փորձում են կյանքի կոչել, բայց մենք պետք է դեմ լինենք այդ ամենին: Եթե այսքան ժամանակ դիմացել ենք, էլի պիտի դիմանանք: Ուղղակի աշխարհը պետք է ականջները բացի, ակնոցները հանի ու տեսնի, թե ինչ է կատարվում արցախահայության հետ»,- նշում է Սարգսյանը: Նրա խոսքով` Արայիկ Հարությունյանը եւս դեմ է Աղդամով սնունդ մատակարարելուն։ «Նախագահ Արայիկ Հարությունյանը երեկ հայտարարեց, որ ոչ մի պարագայում չեն թողնելու Աղդամով սնունդ մտնի Արցախ: Ադրբեջանցիները փաստացի լկտիացած՝ ինչ ուզում, անում են: Հիմա էլ ուզում են մուտք գործել Ստեփանակերտ: Հետո էլ Ստեփանակերտից են մարդկանց գողանալու, 90-ականներին էլ էին այդպես անում: Սովոր են դրանք: Մարդկանց գալիս, տներից հանում տանում էին: Նույն բանը հիմա են ուզում անել

  Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այս հասցեով՝ : https://hraparak.am/post/689e375098dbbbbd84781a3f090ebd6e

  © 2008 - 2021 «Հրապարակ օրաթերթ»

  I don't think you need to use translate. But people who want to understand the subject can use it and learn what I'm talking about. NotDeceived (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think you need to use translate why is it you are so insistent on me being Armenian or speaking Armenian? even after I've said I'm not? why don't you beleive me? JM2023 (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  i've translated the text and discovered this mysterious "Aghdam" is apparently something Azerbaijan is trying to set up that requires NK becoming controlled by Azerbaijan. So you're saying NK is making a political choice of their own to make themselves suffer by refusing to become part of Azerbaijan? Why say that instead of that Azerbaijan is making a political choice of its own to force NK to suffer by refusing to give aid without taking control of the country? Your POV seems to be that "an ethnicity [at risk of racial persecution, ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide, and pogroms] must either submit itself to Azeris [who call them animals and commit crimes against humanity against them] to get food, and if they don't, it's their choice and their fault". This is called victim blaming. it's already been gone over on this talk page before. i invite you to reverse the roles and consider your position if Armenia began doing this to Azeris. JM2023 (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is where you are wrong. Blockade of the region. Only the Lachin corridor on the Armenian border was closed. "A blockading power can seek to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country; although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade.NotDeceived (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)" In 1992 there was a real ethnic cleansing. 500 thousand Azerbaijani citizens were deported from the region. Azerbaijani lands were occupied and a de facto state was established. Azerbaijan did not recognize this de facto state established on its territory. Likewise, the United Nations did not recognize this de facto situation. At the end of 30 years, when the Azerbaijani state took control of its lands again. Armenians who did not want to live as Azerbaijani citizens did not choose to stay, they chose to emigrate. NotDeceived (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Only the Lachin corridor on the Armenian border was closed a corridor is a corridor, if one end is closed then it is closed. A blockading power can seek to cut off all maritime transport from and to the blockaded country; although stopping all land transport to and from an area may also be considered a blockade this is irrelevant to whether the blockade is illegal or a genocide or not. In 1992 there was a real ethnic cleansing. 500 thousand Azerbaijani citizens were deported from the region. unsourced. also, it's inflammatory to say this is a real ethnic cleansing implying this one is not real. You also didn't show that Azeris leaving Armenia and occupied territories was forced. the Azerbaijani state took control of its lands again lands lived on by Armenians for thousands of years, they had their own ASSR within the Azeri SSR. Now they have to flee ethnic persecution by Azeris, leaving behind their homes. Armenians who did not want to live as Azerbaijani citizens did not choose to stay, they chose to emigrate. you're leaving out the part where azerbaijan has been committing ethnic pograms and discrimination and dehumanization of armenians for decades. and not exactly an emigration when its, as i said, their country has vanished and has been taken over by people who want to hurt them. Experts have called this "ethnic cleansing" so it will remain in the article. JM2023 (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  https://www.azatutyun.am/a/32569287.html

  https://www.azatutyun.am/a/32569766.html

  It is clear that the rulers of the de facto state in the region did not accept the aid coming from the Aghdam road for political reasons. In short, they made a "choice". Currently, it is a "choice" for Armenians to leave the region. This is not ethnic cleansing. Trying to portray the Azerbaijani government as an unreliable source clearly shows that your views are biased. NotDeceived (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I can't read that language. the azerbaijani government is an unreliable source according to the article you are on the talk page of. they even deny the armenian genocides. no one has seen RS saying what you claim about whatever "Aghdam" is, RS say that Azerbaijan blockaded the whole country. "leave or suffer" is not a free choice. RS in the article make that clear. "15 June — Azerbaijani forces crossed the Hakari bridge and attempted to raise an Azerbaijani flag but were repelled by the Armenian border guards who opened fire. After the incident, Azerbaijan blocked all passage through the Lachin corridor, including humanitarian convoys from the Red Cross and Russian peacekeepers. Video footage showed Azerbaijani forces placing concrete road blocks on the bridge. 26 July — Azerbaijan blocked an emergency food convoy of 19 trucks (400 tons) sent to Artsakh and called it a "provocation."" and this whole section. perhaps you are confusing Artsakh blocking with Azeri blocking? Really if anyone's showing their bias it's the person going against the consensus of the talk page and the article itself and calling everything except for what agrees with the Azeri POV "propaganda". JM2023 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The President of Artsakh, Araik Harutyunyan, in his speech at night, insisted that we will get food only through the Lachin corridor. President's spokesperson Lusine Avanesyan, commenting on Baku's move to send humanitarian aid through Aghdam, stated, in particular, that "there was no agreement with the Artsakh side". Yesterday, a video was spread on the Internet, how the victim's sister claims that under no circumstances will flour from Azerbaijan enter Artsakh.

  Shushi Mayor Artsvik Sargsyan, "Hraparaki"referring to the situation in a conversation with, he notes that supplying food to Artsakh through Aghdam means integration into Azerbaijan. Sargsyan believes that President Arayik Harutyunyan will keep his word and will not allow the cargo sent from Azerbaijan to enter Artsakh under any circumstances. "Bringing flour with Aghdam means handing over Artsakh. If once food entered Artsakh through that route, they will open the Lachin Corridor and after a short time will close it again and tell the world that this is it, they are humanitarians, they did everything, there is no humanitarian disaster. After that, they will do whatever they want, they will enter Stepanakert, as they tried to do before. How are they stealing people from Hakari bridge? They are going to take people from Stepanakert. They are completely preconceived plans that they are trying to implement, but we should be against all of that. If we've lasted this long we will have to endure. "The world should open its ears, take off its glasses and see what is happening to the Armenians of Artsakh," says Sargsyan. According to him, Araik Harutyunyan is also against supplying food through Aghdam. "President Arayik Harutyunyan announced yesterday that under no circumstances will they allow food to enter Artsakh via Aghdam. The Azerbaijanis are actually insolent and do whatever they want. Now they want to enter Stepanakert. Then they will steal people from Stepanakert, they did that in the 90s. Are they used to it? They used to come and take people out of their homes. They want to do the same now," he said. According to him, Araik Harutyunyan is also against supplying food through Aghdam. "President Arayik Harutyunyan announced yesterday that under no circumstances will they allow food to enter Artsakh via Aghdam.

  Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այս հասցեով՝ : https://hraparak.am/post/689e375098dbbbbd84781a3f090ebd6e

  © 2008 - 2021 «Հրապարակ օրաթերթ»

  Then let me make it easier for you. I made an English google translation. If you don't believe the translation, you can go to the website and translate it yourself. NotDeceived (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've already responded above by translating it myself. no need to continue on two separate chains. JM2023 (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  In the news I sent, did you learn who the people who did not allow food aid from the Aghdam corridor were? NotDeceived (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  the government of artsakh who did not want their people to succumb to azeri domination which they know would almost certainly mean ethnic persecution. azerbaijan has a long and famous history of discriminating against and dehumanizing and murdering Armenians. that's why they've all left now that lachin's been opened again. Don't you think if Armenia surrounded Nakchivan and cut off all supplies for months to put humanitarian crises on Nachkivan Azeris, that it would be a bad and unjustified thing? JM2023 (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Azerbaijan can close or open a border belonging to its own state as it wishes. States can sometimes do this. I advise you to look at the true meaning of the blockade. We do not want Azerbaijani flour here. We want Armenian flour. It has policy. And it is clearly evident in the news who made the Armenians in that region starve for their own policies. NotDeceived (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Azerbaijan can close or open a border belonging to its own state as it wishes. and by closing that border it lays siege and intends to pressure with suffering an entire ethnicity. textbook ethnic persecution. against international law. crime against humanity. this is all explained in the article you are supposed to be discussing. i wonder what else could you just dismiss by simply stating "oh they have a right to cut off parts of their own country from the rest of the world"? you're also ignoring words in the article you are quoting: he doesn't just say "no azerbaijani flour", he says the condition for azeri supplies is azeri domination and this is unacceptable because everyone knows Azerbaijan is the most anti-Armenian country in the world, it has a whole article i've cited numerous times here. JM2023 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  What you don't understand is that the arguments you make are not "ethnic cleansing" arguments. It is the de facto Armenian government that does not accept aid from the Aghdam corridor. This is a political choice. But you cannot tell the Azerbaijanis that you are starving people because they did not open the Lachin corridor. Azerbaijan wants to destroy the structure of the illegal de facto state established on its territory. The aim here is to destroy this illegal state. They are sending humanitarian aid through the Aghdam corridor so that the people in the region do not go hungry. They say you can provide humanitarian aid using this corridor. Moreover, the news source I sent you is not a statement from the Azerbaijani government, which you do not trust. These are the statements of the president and spokesman of the illegal de facto state in the region. I don't know what country you are from, but your government would do the same thing to a state illegally established within its borders. States protect their borders. Citizens pay taxes for this. Azerbaijani citizens who were deported by the de facto state in 1992 will now be able to return to their lands. The Azerbaijani state did this because it now has the power to do this. NotDeceived (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  It is the de facto Armenian government that does not accept aid from the Aghdam corridor because they have to accept Azeri ethnic persecution if they accept aid. This is exensively outlined in RS in the article: living under Azerbaijan means a life of hell because of their ethnicity. This is a political choice. why do you keep blaming it on armenians when we know that Azerbaijan is the one who is doing the blockade? The aim here is to destroy this illegal state we all know from RS that there is an underlying goal to destroy the Armenian people. We all know Aliyev keeps calling Armenia "western Azerbaijan". they are sending humanitarian aid through the Aghdam corridor so that the people in the region do not go hungry, man, read the article. they are blockading the entire country and forbidding entry of all supplies unless they submit to an anti-Armenian regime. the news source I sent you is not a statement from the Azerbaijani government i know, i read it, we all know what it says. your government would do the same thing to a state illegally established within its borders I don't know whether it would or not, but if it did, why do you think i would agree with the action? and how is that relevant to the article? Azerbaijani citizens who were deported by the de facto state in 1992 will now be able to return to their lands and Armenians will now have to stay out of their ancient homeland because it's now controlled by an anti-Armenian regime which refers to them as subhumans. The Azerbaijani state did this because it now has the power to do this this is called "might makes right" and it is not mutually exclusive with ethnic cleansing. Since RS have described this as ethnic cleansing, the article will keep that wording. JM2023 (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I hope one day you will not be killed and exiled from the house you live in by those who say we have been living here for 1000 years. The ancient land debate is a complete fascist perspective. This fascism exiled 500 thousand people to extinction in 1992 and murdered many of them. You even ignore the decisions taken by the United Nations. The only reason for closing the Lachin corridor is the virtual destruction of the state. The Aghdam corridor was opened to prevent people from going hungry. Despite this, the de facto Armenian government, which you try to portray as an angel of goodness, closed this humanitarian aid corridor in order not to be dependent on the Azerbaijani government. Frankly, I'm writing again. De facto, the Armenian government has closed the humanitarian aid corridor simply because of its own political preferences. IF IT CONTROLS THE BORDER OF A STATE, IT IS A STATE. I realize you understand this. I think he is openly making propaganda. Because you are still trying to make a state's defense of its sovereignty look bad, and you are trying to portray those who expel the people of that state and occupy its lands as angels. Because the WORLD knew that this was not the case, the United Nations took prohibitive decisions on behalf of this defacto country. EVEN ARMENIA did not recognize this illegal country. NotDeceived (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)NotDeceived (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  those who say we have been living here for 1000 years well they have been, and they're being killed and exiled from their houses by azeris who say theyve been there for 1000 years (even though they're turks, who came from central asia long after the kingdom of armenia was established there which was in roman republic times 2000 years ago). The ancient land debate is a complete fascist perspective so Aliyev must be fascist since he claims Armenia as Azeri ancient land and wants to take it over. This fascism exiled 500 thousand people to extinction in 1992 and murdered many of them you keep bringing that up without sourcing it and ignore the two armenian genocides plus the ethnic cleansings of armenians from azeri territory in the 90s alongside pograms even in Baku itself. You even ignore the decisions taken by the United Nations the UN has not told Azerbaijan it is allowed to starve out a whole people. closing the Lachin corridor is the virtual destruction of the state closing the lachin corridor means no supplies, meaning destruction of the population i.e. genocide. The Aghdam corridor was opened to prevent people from going hungry on the condition of azeri racial hegemony and the deprivation of human rights and self-determination. which you try to portray as an angel of goodness you'll have to take it up with the RS, not me. you're acting like i'm singlehandedly responsible for writing the article and like I'm making all this up. the Armenian government has closed the humanitarian aid corridor simply because of its own political preferences but you just admitted yourself that Azerbaijan closed the lachin corridor simply because of its own political preferences. and reminder that aid was dependent on azeri hegemony and loss of rights. IF IT CONTROLS THE BORDER OF A STATE, IT IS A STATE what? I think he is openly making propaganda who is? who's he? Because you are still trying to make a state's defense of its sovereignty look bad are you not trying to convince me that artsakh's sovereignty is bad? defense of its sovereignty you mean extermination of an ethnicity it doesn't like being there? you are trying to portray those who expel the people of that state and occupy its lands as angels uhh, what? Azerbaijan just expelled the people of that state and occupied its lands and you're portraying them as angels, against RS. the United Nations took prohibitive decisions on behalf of this defacto country the UN condemned the Armenian occupation of surrounding territories, not of NK's existence itself. and again it's not sourced. but its in the article so i know what it says. EVEN ARMENIA did not recognize this illegal country and does this give Azerbaijan the right to attempt to destroy its people and then force them out under pressure of subhuman treatment? Regardless of the answer its a moral question irrelevant to RS. JM2023 (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  @JM2023: You don't need to waste your time with this person, they will never listen. Just ignore them and move on. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  sometimes i like to think of it as a form of mental exercise, but it does get tiring, so i'll take your advice. JM2023 (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Even on Reddit, people make fun of the arguments when you come forward. The Armenian diaspora, which promotes ethnic cleansing and especially genocide, has been discredited all over the world with the recent events. Also, don't forget to let us know that you can bring your own items to Wikipedia. I will file a dispute lawsuit soon and I guarantee that Armenians will not be able to block humanitarian aid on news sites, and that these details can somehow be expanded with evidence obtained from Armenian sources. Detailed explanations that find it normal for a country to invade another country's territory have been completed. You tried to defend a similar legitimacy in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "I will show Pashinya's calls for unification with Armenia and all similar evidence from the past, citing especially Armenian sources." Then I will ask you to state your claim that our ancient lands can sustain fascism.NotDeceived (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• It does not matter whether or not anyone here thinks that the article subject fits whatever definition they have of the term "ethnic cleansing". Wikipedia includes what most RS say about a topic and does not permit Wikipedia:Original research. If we have enough experts in reliable sources calling it "ethnic cleansing" like in the Operation Storm article, then we could put this article in the ethnic cleansing categories. However, I would say that the 2023 offensive article should be put in them instead of this article. StellarHalo (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)