Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Enver Pasha Street

Hello, I find these reports of Azerbaijan having renamed one of Stepanakert/Khankendi's streets to "Enver Pasha Street" as clear evidence of ill intentions by Azerbaijan. I would like users here to be aware of these reports [1] [2] [3] [4]. Also it probably should be included in this article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. How will the Azeri pov-pushers explain this? The Armenians clearly fled "voluntarily" lol. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
"BuT iTs AzerBaiJAn'S teRRitOry!" they screech, heedless of the fact that despite their stupid lines on a map the land has been in Armenian hands for as long as we have records. George Mucus (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
That would belong to Stepanakert article rather than here per WP:TOPIC, if reliable sources criticized such naming decision. Brandmeistertalk 10:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Probably there and/or at the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh article (and that kind of stuff is the reason why I'm pushing for a separate "aftermath" article about the takeover) ChaotıċEnby(talk) 13:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming amount of sources making the obvious connection putting the renaming in the context of the recent event, I think it's much more clear that it should be at all of these articles, including this one. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [Edit: Added it to the other two articles. 14:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)]
agreed JM2023 (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually Armanians renamed those cities and streets 30 years ago when they occupied internationally recognized territory of Azerbaizan illegally. What's wrong if Azerbaizani government renamed those cities and streets again of their own country?Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This is such a WP:FORUM like inflammatory comment: firstly, Armenians were majority in Stepanakert since early censuses [5]. And therefore I assume most streets had Armenian names unless you can prove otherwise - even if this isn't true which you haven't shown evidence for, the fact that you're comparing it to a specific renaming in this case, such as renaming streets after a genocide perpetrator, is simply baffling and perhaps raises concerns of your lack of competence in this topic area. - Kevo327 (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
What's wrong if Azerbaizani government renamed those cities and streets again of their own country? "Enver Pasha Street" is one step away from "Heil Hitler Street". That's what's wrong. Like Kevo327 I also question your hability to work in this topic area from this comment alone. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Kevo and Super Dromaeosaurus. You have cited nothing that says Armenians renamed any streets when Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians declared the independence of their already-autonomous region to escape Azeri persecution and murder (it was not as you say a simple occupied internationally recognized territory of Azerbaizan illegally. And even if you did, you have cited nothing that shows that this street was named Enver Pasha St before NK independence. An "Enver Pasha St" in Stepanakert is like a "Heinrich Himmler St" in a formerly Jewish area. Like the other two editors, I too question your competence. Maybe a good starting point to measure competence here is whether editors can recognize the Armenian genocide and Enver Pasha's role in it? JM2023 (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the worst take I've seen about this. "What's wrong if the government renamed the streets after a genocide perpetrator?" Everything. Everything is wrong with that. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
None of these churnalist websites are reliable. Axar.az says their source is "Khankendi" page on Twitter and Bakupost says "According to social media". Nemoralis (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
These are better: Le Monde, Al Monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I've added it to the article with those two sources. BilledMammal (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@BilledMammal Great, as the sources make the contrast between the renaming and the Azerbaijani claims about the recent events, it seems very much WP:DUE to add it in this case. Thanks a lot! ChaotıċEnby(talk) 01:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Although the streets are named by decision of local government, it is interesting where these sources get this information. If we consider that there is no local government in Stepanakert yet, this is not confirmed. I think this news is based on an unofficial map shared by the "Khankendi" page on Twitter, as I said above for Azerbaijani churnalist websites Nemoralis (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Some government agencies said they were unaware of the street name change and assumed it was created by someone's own initiative. We can remove the sentence now. Nemoralis (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, "someone assumes that" is not a valid reason to remove material. Government agencies aren't instantly aware of every decision at every level, and a single report of this certainly doesn't justify material. Also, I don't think loaded terms like "churnalist" have their place in this kind of discussion, especially about such a sensitive topic. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
"I think this news is based on" is not a valid reason to remove a claim that is well-reported in secondary sources. Our role is not to guess what was in the reporters' minds or how they got their information. Also, there's nothing about Azerbaijan in the article you link, and "it works like this in most countries" certainly doesn't translate to a recent warzone. It's way too deep into original research and unsubstantiated inferences to be mentioned, let alone to justify removing well-sourced material. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 22:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, read Article 9.8 and 5.1 They are not random government agencies, on the contrary, agencies that have authority directly related to this. First one is State Service on Property Issues, and second one is State Committee for City Building and Architecture. We cannot write that "Azerbaijan officials renamed street" which Azerbaijan officials clearly rejected it. It doesn't seem logical. They say it is someone's own initiative/opinion. We cannot write opinions as facts Nemoralis (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
The added sources by BilledMammal are better and reliable, I'd rather we use that than engage in wiki editor OR analysis. - Kevo327 (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
You don't understand. That sources says Azerbaijan changed street's name while Azerbaijan say no we didn't. This is not same with ethnic cleansing or genocide allegements. Nemoralis (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been digging around that, particularly for some official Azerbaijani sources, and also have strong doubts. In addition to what Nemoralis wrote above, I couldn't find any Azerbaijani government source confirming this, such as Trend News Agency or Azerbaijani Press Agency - whether in English, Azeri or Russian. So this is most likely a bogus non-story. Brandmeistertalk 10:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
That has been reported on by reliable sources. We follow the sources, not our personal opinion; are there any sources which rebut it? (Two of the sources shared by Nermoralis are dead links, but my understanding of them is that they don't directly rebut this, which the third only says that they were unaware of it, not that it didn't happen) BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
To quote the aforementioned source:

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

So looks like that claim comes from discussions on social networks rather than official Azerbaijani sources. Brandmeistertalk 11:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
That source says that the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture is not aware of the renaming, and that determining place names is not their responsibility. It certainly isn't a denial; to me it suggests that it did happen, but that a local administrator did it on their own initiative. Regardless, at the moment we have reliable sources saying it did happen, and no sources - reliable or otherwise - saying it did not. BilledMammal (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
So now, when I receive a news post based on a social media post and the news says "a street in Yerevan was named Hitler Street", we will not remove it until the Yerevan government denies this claim by citing the source. Is this what you're talking about?.
Now stop making fun of people. 31.223.61.157 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
If RS says there is a street in Yerevan renamed Hitler St then it's included in the relevant article per NPOV. But of course you only raise the hypothetical for disruptive purposes because like anyone you should be capable of reading the relevant policies, and we are talking about RS reporting Azerbaijan naming a street Enver Pasha St. JM2023 (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't look like denial, they're just saying they weren't aware of renaming. But regardless, we have what reliable sources report and wikipedia is written based on reliable sources. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
They have not confirmed that either. Per WP:V lack of confirmation, particularly from official sources, means we should err on the side of caution. Mere verifiability itself does not guarantee inclusion per WP:VNOT. Brandmeistertalk 11:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
If it ends up being disproved, then we can remove it. Otherwise there's no reason why we shouldn't display it. This is not a BLP, nobody is being defamed by this info. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 11:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Such news would typically originate from decisions taken officially in Azerbaijan. And there's a long-standing news practice to quote some official source when reporting new information. But here note that none of the sources reporting the alleged naming (including Le Monde) does not quote any official Azerbaijani source. Brandmeistertalk 11:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
They "quote" an official map. Regardless, we have reliable sources saying this happened, and no sources saying it didn't. Until that changes any speculation here is neither productive nor relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
What map? There is no official map Nemoralis (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Two weeks after the surrender of Nagorno-Karabakh following a lightning-fast military offensive, on Tuesday, October 3, Azerbaijan re-issued a map of the capital of the former Armenian separatist enclave (Stepanakert in Armenian, Khankendi in Azerbaijani), with street names in Azerbaijani. One of these streets is named after Turkish military officer Enver Pasha, one of the main instigators of the Armenian genocide of 1915. The map was first published in August 2021. BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
It neither says official map nor refers to official statement. Nemoralis (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I would call a map issued by a country "official", but you may disagree. Regardless, unless we have reliable sources rebutting this claim this discussion isn't productive, so I am going to back out of it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
You don't understand. No one issued a map, except unofficial patriotic Khankendi page on Twitter. These reliable sources neither refer to any official statement made by [local] government, nor share that "official map". Just because they mentioned this doesn't mean we should add this to article(s). Not all verifiable information must be included. Nemoralis (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Azerbaijan re-issued a map really seems like it means Azerbaijan re-issued a map, not a random Twitter account. And thats what RS say, so it's "verified"; and one of my favourite Wikipedia guidelines is WP:VNT i.e., even if OR finds that something that is verified is actually untrue, OR is inadmissible anyway. Should we include it or not? Well, it seems significant. JM2023 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that the Gomap.az app that Chaotic Enby posted, which includes a street named Enver Pasha, has an info page on the site that reads "The Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan",[6] while the bottom of the page reads "Azərbaycan Respublikası Mədəniyyət və Turizm Nazirliyi" as the copyright holder of the map. The app of the map is owned by a company whose main client is the Azerbaijani government. Combined with the secondary reliable sources reporting the street name change, this is very well referenced. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Yes. Before a street map with that name can be published, there must be an official renaming decision which has not been confirmed by local officials upon request from the Haqqin source. Brandmeistertalk 14:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
They do not deny that such a street name exists, some authorities say they weren't informed of the change, which happened at the local level. It's not the same thing at all. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Also, gomap.az also includes the change. So it wasn't just a random Twitter post. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
How do we even know that such name exists? It was never officially announced, and there is no such street sign. I don't think we can present this claim as a fact until it is officially announced. The map posted on the internet is not official. It is not known who created it. We can only report what some sources claim, and what Azerbaijani officials say, with proper attribution. Grandmaster 14:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
@Grandmaster: You've misrepresented that source; the Azerbaijani officials don't dispute that the street was renamed, they say they weren't aware of it - and say that they wouldn't be aware of it because it is the responsibility of other people. Further, there is no basis to say "some sources"; all independent and reliable sources that have commented on this story have said that it has happened, while some sources implies that it is disputed. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, what kind of editing is this? And just to reiterate, gomap.az actually confirms that there in fact is a street named Enver Pasha in Stepanakert (Khankendi in Azeri) [8], gomap is owned by SİNAM. From the Azeri language Wikipedia it is stated that “SINAM company actively participates in the electronic government project. The company's clients include the State Customs Committee, the Ministry of Education, the Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Institute of Cybernetics and a large number of other public and private institutions.” Gomap confirmation has to be added, if it’s not already, in the article, and it’s connection with the Azerbaijani government too. It confirms that the street in fact exists and it would be doubtful such an info from a company who’s main client appears to be the Azerbaijani government would just make such a mistake. - Kevo327 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Gomap has an editing option on the left panel (named Add object) and as such is WP:SELFPUB - anyone can add anything to the map. Such sources are usually discouraged. I'd also recommend to refrain from further reverts per WP:ONUS - "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". Brandmeistertalk 08:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm unable to add anything or change street names, and Gomap isn't just some random website as I explained already. I doubt they allow random people to change street names if that's even possible (the topic we're discussing). The fact that the street name change also appears in Gomap presumably for days now further confirms it happened, that was my point. And in addition to what reliable sources already reported. In contrast, this kind of misleading edits are what's wrong here and it should be reverted. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
As long as it was never officially confirmed that Enver Pasha street exists, we cannot claim it as a fact. Plus, no one saw a street sign either. And I see no reason why Azerbaijani official position on this should not be presented. If Azerbaijan does not officially confirm this, the reports of some sources should be attributed to those sources. I.e. some sources say, but it was never officially confirmed. It could be slightly reworded to say that "Azerbaijani officials stated that they were not aware of such a street name, and it is presumed to be someone's private initiative". And gomap is not official governmental source either. It is a company that works with some governmental entities, but does not represent the official position. Grandmaster 08:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
You repeat the same thing again but it was already explained above: the Azerbaijani officials don't dispute that the street was renamed, they say they weren't aware of it, therefore your edit is misleading (and also squeezing unsourced expressions of doubt like "some sources" when all the RS reporting this have said it happened). And we have reliable sources reporting that the street was changed and a map confirmation as well by a company with close connections to Azerbaijani government. Please self-revert yourself, there are several issues with that edit. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I reworded to be closer to the wording of the source. Until it was not officially confirmed, we cannot claim as a fact that such a street name change took place. Grandmaster 09:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources explicitly say that it happened. Why should we be more sceptical than our sources are? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 09:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources have confirmed it. Unless you have reliable sources disputing it - and you don't even have official sources disputing it - then your personal lack of belief in it is irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Because if some sources say that something happened, but officials do not confirm, we present both positions. It is not my personal belief, we must present official reaction to this claim as well. Grandmaster 09:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
But officials haven't denied it; they've just said that they are unaware and that naming locations is not their responsibility (and thus it is not surprising that they are unaware) - there are not two positions on this story, there is one position. Until you can find an actual second position, putting "some sources" as if there is doubt about the story is WP:UNDUE, as is putting the fact that some Azerbaijan officials were unaware of the change. BilledMammal (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Reports on rename do not refer to any official source. Therefore those are unconfirmed claims. Those reports do not make clear who exactly made the decision on rename, which shows that those are nothing but unverified claims. We report them, but we also provide the official reaction of the Azerbaijani authorities to those reports. Azerbaijani official reaction must be presented as well, per WP:NPOV. Grandmaster 09:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
To ask one simple question: Do you have any reliable sources saying that this renaming didn't happen? If you don't, we present it as fact. If you do, please share them. (And no, the source you have provided doesn't say that; it says that some officials, whose job doesn't involve renaming streets, weren't aware of the renaming. It's a statement that says nothing, and shouldn't be included in the article) BilledMammal (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem here is that some reliable sources claim that Azerbaijan changed the name of the street, but neither Azerbaijan has officially confirmed this, nor these sources cite official statement or unofficial map service. How these sources claim that Azerbaijan changed street's name? You can't say Azerbaijani officials changed street's name without official statement. This is not the same with genocide or ethnic cleansing allegations, which the government is probably deny it. Another fact here is there is no local government in Stepanakert to change streets' name, so it is not clear where these sources get this information from. Nemoralis (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not our position to speculate or conduct original research; we follow the sources. Unless sources emerge disputing this then just say that Azerbaijan reissued a map renaming the street. BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. And I don't understand the meaning behind tags like these [9], [10], [11] when there still hasn't been a single RS disputing what's being said, so OR speculations hardly constitute as a 'dispute' to warrant such tags. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

But this street is located in a town that until a few days ago had an Armenian majority, and Armenians overwhelmingly remember Enver Pasha as a genocidal piece of shit. Even if the renaming isn't meant as a deliberate mockery, it still shows an incredible lack of respect. If you don't see how this is problematic, then you shouldn't even be allowed to edit Wikipedia. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Spot on. Enver pasha is known as one of and main perpetrator of Armenian genocide, and importantly, RS that reported the street name change also describe him for what he is, a genocide perpetrator. The comment by WP:GS/AA user is OR and baffling insensitive justification at that, which should be ignored - I'd question their competence if they continue with this line of 'argumentation'. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Trilletrollet, I agree with your comment about "lack of respect", the current change is extremely provocative. My comment was about the phrase "ill intentions by Azerbaijan" written in the first comment under the title. Just because the name change is disrespectful does not indicate that it carries genocidal intent. Kyzagan (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
To rename a street in a recently Armenian-inhabited town with the name of the perpetrator of the murder of the largest part of the Armenian people has crystal clear intentions. We don't ask for a lot for editing Wikipedia, one of the things is common sense just asked for in fancier words, but to appear to fail to grasp something as clear as this is indicative of a lack of precisely that. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I read through this thread. The information should absolutely be attributed. It is a very contentious claim and it lacks official confirmation. If the rename did happen we should get more RS in the future anyway. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
    The thing is that it's only contentious according to editors here; no reliable sources have disputed it, and several have confirmed it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    Sources did dispute it. Not a single Azerbaijani official is aware of such rename, which means that such rename is highly unlikely to take place. It was never officially unannounced, there is no street sign either. Yet the reaction of Azerbaijani officials is being persistently deleted from the article, in violation of WP:NPOV. [12] Grandmaster 08:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    Not being aware of it is not the same thing as disputing it. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
    It pretty much is. It is inconceivable that not a single official in Azerbaijan is aware of such a rename decision. Who exactly made this decision? Which body, agency, ministry, department? If we cannot answer this simple question, we cannot claim the rename as a fact. Le Monde writes: "On October 3, Azerbaijan re-issued a map of the capital" ... which "was first published in August 2021". Who is Azerbaijan? The whole country? Impossible. Then who exactly? Le Monde provides no answer to this. Al Monitor article states: "Azerbaijan ... named a street in Stepanakert on Tuesday after Enver Pasha". Again, it refers to the country of Azerbaijan with no indication of who exactly in Azerbaijan did the rename. None of those 2 articles refer to any sources either. From what I understand, the only source for this claim is an anonymous map that has been circulating on Twitter since 2021. This appears to be an example of lazy journalism when the reporters pick up a sensational story on Twitter and run with it. Grandmaster 15:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
    In addition to the fact that there is no reason to take anything any Azeri official says for granted, you have not interviewed every single Azeri official so cannot possibly say that not a single one knows. Also, verifiability, not truth; your OR cannot dispute RS no matter how "truthful" the OR is. JM2023 (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no reason to think that is a reference to the genocide Azerbaijani persecution has just caused all but 50-1000 people in Artsakh (probably all Armenians) to flee their own country. The first thing Azeris do after entering the territory they have just ethnically cleansed and attempted genocide against, is to rename a street in the now-deserted capital city the equivalent of "Chief Armenian Genocidaire Street".
Enver Pasha is seen as a savior against Russian occupation in Azerbaijan due to the Caucasus campaign. Isn't it obvious that the naming is a reference to this? Enver Pasha is also seen as the chief genocidaire of the Armenian people, a people the Azeris just so happen to hate with a passion, and a people they have just so happened to have just ethnically cleansed and attempted genocide against. Isn't it obvious that the renaming of a street in an ethnically-cleansed area to honour the person responsible for the biggest genocide against them a reference to this?
The article also states that almost the entire Armenian population emigrated from the region. because they were experiencing severe shortages that were killing them because the Azeris blockaded their entire country because they didn't accept their right to self-determination against a persecutory and extremely racist regime.
I still cannot understand why you are trying to convince people that Azerbaijan has genocidal intent maybe because many sources have stated the blockade was an attempted genocide and the pressure that forced them out was tantamount to ethnic cleansing, and also because the Azeri president's rep said "genocide may happen" on camera in plain english unprompted. JM2023 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
"This is a genocide" it's true, you are very funny. We welcome you to the Gaza blockade article. 31.223.61.157 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
There are some differences between Gaza and Artsakh -- namely that Gaza is actually a giant antisemitic terrorist training camp for Hamas run by Hamas for the purpose of committing genocide against Israelis including the burning, beheading, torturing, publicly executing, and otherwise slaughtering Israeli children for simply existing as Israelis in the Israeli homeland, whereas Artsakh was an autonomous fortification designed to prevent the persecution and ethnic cleansing and genocide of Artsakh Armenians by Azerbaijan; and also that Gaza shares a border with Egypt and therefore is not an enclave of Israel and therefore it is not a total blockade to my knowledge -- but regardless I fail to see the relevance of your comment to this article about the exodus of Artsakh Armenians. Stick to discussing improvements for this article, do not disrupt and break rules. Also who are you quoting, not me because I never said that in my comment. JM2023 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
None of those biased opinions about Gaza are relevant to this article either. Both of you, please ensure you're adhering to WP:CIVIL & WP:GF and stay on topic. This is not a forum. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see why those are considered "biased opinions"; per our own articles and RS, Gaza Strip is under total control of Hamas, which is recognized as a terrorist organization by most of the West, and it was just used as a base to launch the second-largest terrorist attack in history, in which they have tortured, burned, and beheaded Israeli children and also kidnapped Israeli children and threatened to execute them live on camera for being "settler colonialist oppressors" despite Israelis being in Palestine before Palestinians; and Gaza does in fact have a border with Egypt, meaning there is no total blockade, unlike in Artsakh;
I also fail to see why it's irrelevant or that it's forum-like, when it's relevant to explaining to the other editor why Artsakh is not the same as Gaza per RS in the article and so should not be insubstantially alleged to be such on the talk page to allege partiality or hypocriticality;
And I also fail to see why my explanatory comment was uncivil or assuming bad faith (especially considering you called out nothing in specific);
But for the sake of productivity and avoiding conflict I can desist from that path of argumentation (while also calling out that it's unwarranted to call the RS facts on Gaza my "biased opinions" and considering your allegations against me to themselves be against WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF). JM2023 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
"Artsakh" is quite literally a state created on the ethnic cleansing of between 500-700,000 ethnic Azerbaijanis from the Karabakh region (including 40,000 from the former NKAO territories).
"Artsakh" had quite literally done everything it could for the past 30 years when it came to preventing Azerbaijanis from returning to Karabakh and indoctrinating it's population that living with Azerbaijanis was not possible (aswell as constantly reiterating military threats of blowing up the largest reservoir in Azerbaijan to drown the entire country and or March to Baku).
Therefore you clearly have a biased opinion, and be at best not well enough informed on the conflict or at worst dishonest. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I have another source to add to that list, Rauf Azimov of openDemocracy, who confirms the street was renamed and the connection between Enver and the genocide.[13] It seems there is no longer reason to doubt the street was renamed. Azimov also doubts Azerbaijan's desire for Armenians to stay and details the obvious ethnic cleansing intentions. This could be expanded upon in the article's section. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece. Cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia, other than to illustrate Azimov's personal views. And why the reaction of Azerbaijani officials was removed? It is a very important information that must be reflected in the article. So far the claim on rename appears to be a hoax picked up by some unscrupulous journalists. There is no factual evidence that such rename actually happened. I think we should take this to some dispute resolution, maybe ask wider Wikipedia community. What is your preferred option? Grandmaster 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Rauf Azimov's article looks like opinion piece, not RS. Without official confirmation and given how contentious the claim is, I would wait for more RS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Since Azerbaijan's deputy foreign minister officially denied that such rename took place, the information should either be removed, or updated to present Azerbaijan's rejection of the claim. Grandmaster 08:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
We should include that Azerbaijan disputes this, but we can't assume that Azerbaijan is telling the truth; we still have reliable sources saying that it was renamed, and Azerbaijan does have motive to lie.
Perhaps Sources reported that Azerbaijan had reissued a map renaming a street in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, after one of the main instigators of the Armenian genocide Enver Pasha. Azerbaijan disputed this during a case at the International Court of Justice, saying the "No streets in Khankandi have been renamed". BilledMammal (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
It seems that the only Azerbaijani evidence on which sources may rely is Gomap, other than that they do not mention any specific official decision, a street sign, etc. In that situation, amid Azerbaijan's refutation, we can't give preference to foreign sources. It was the responsibility of official Azerbaijan to reject or confirm the claim which has been done. Brandmeistertalk 11:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
We can't give preference to non-independent and biased sources. In my proposed text we don't give preference to either; we say what reliable and independent sources have reported, and we say that Azerbaijan denies it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
See WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Being biased or an involved party does not automatically mean that party is lying in a given case. Brandmeistertalk 12:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
No, but we also don't assume it's telling the truth. What we need to do is give the same weight to the reliable and independent sources making this claim as we do to Azerbaijan's denial. BilledMammal (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Both views are currently presented per WP:BALANCE, I don't think there's a need for rewording. Brandmeistertalk 12:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Azerbaijani Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Elnur Mammadov, also officially refuted earlier reports, according to which a street in Stepanakert, the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, had been named after Enver Pasha, one of the main instigators of the Armenian genocide. - that isn't presenting both views. Presenting both views would be what I said. Further, "refuted" means to disprove the claims; that is too strong a word, we need to be using "disputed" or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Azerbaijan does not just dispute, but it actually rejects it. It says no such thing ever happened. Disputing and rejecting are not the same thing. I suggest we use "rejected". Grandmaster 08:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Rejecting and disputing are almost the same things here. I recommend the word "dispute" based on its less POV-esque wording. While "Reject" and "Dispute" are almost synonymous here, "Reject" gives authoritative weight to an unreliable source (Azeri government). The best thing would be to use the word used in the source, unless the source is unreliable. JM2023 (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a better wording. - Kevo327 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC on UN mission report

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to include the proposed statement in the article body (Option 2). A UN mission to Nagorno-Karabakh reported that "they did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." This discussion concerns the presence and prominence of the content, rather than its wording. There is a strong consensus (12 to 5) for inclusion, raising that a United Nations report is notable. However, multiple participants raised concerns about a lack of context in the proposed text, including some supporting the proposal. Therefore, the closure of this discussion encourages and does not prevent improving the wording of the text, and for providing further context. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A UN mission to Nagorno-Karabakh reported that "they did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." [14]

Which of the following is the best way to deal with this information:

  • Option 1 - Mention this statement in the body and the lead of the article with proper attribution.
  • Option 2 - Mention this statement in the body of the article with proper attribution.
  • Option 3 - Make no mention at all.

Please enter Option 1, Option 2 or Option 3, followed by a brief statement, in the Survey. Do not reply to other users in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section. Grandmaster 19:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 1. The UN is the most important international organization, and the only one that actually carried out an inspection on the ground. Therefore the UN mission findings on reports of violence is important to mention, both in the lead and the body of the article. Option 2 is second preferred. Grandmaster 19:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 This quote in specific is WP:UNDUE for the article, while the presence of the UN mission itself is notable, this specific quote is nothing more than Word of mouth. The UN in Azerbaijan did not claim to do any investigation or independently verify anything, there was no investigation they just asked around in a ghost city. This mission has been criticized by a variety of reliable sources and experts for arriving after virtually the entire Armenian population already fled and not having any access to rural areas[15][16][17], that’s why majority of reliable sources aren’t reporting about this quote specifically is because it doesn’t say anything, they didn’t come across any reports but the vast majority of the population already left. Furthermore as pointed out by Armenia’s branch of RFE/RL, about this quote specifically: “It did not clarify whether the UN officials conducted those interviews in the presence of Azerbaijani officials.”[18] Other experts have also pointed out that the author of the report is a “a national communications officer working for the UN resident coordinator’s office in Baku, [and] formerly worked for Azerbaijan’s state broadcaster, ATV” and that the report “may as well have been written by the Azerbaijani government officials who had laid out the terms of the visit.”[19] When there has been no claims of independent verification by the UN and they’re essentially just parroting the position of Azerbaijani officials who controlled their every move and wrote the report, that’s a clear violation of WP:NPOV, the UN did not claim to have independently verified this claim and we cannot place word of mouth in this article as if this is an official UN position from an investigation. TagaworShah (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (Summoned by bot) the report text would be UNDUE and misleading without context in the - very short - lead. In the body the contents of the report and critical/contradictory accounts of it and its limitations given context both by their criticism of the report and their own accounts. Pincrete (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per above. It's important to have proper context for the UN report, which wouldn't really fit into the lead. The UN report definitely ought to be mentioned because it's important, along with the criticisms of it. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. This aspect of the report would be WP:UNDUE to include, as it has received virtually no coverage in reliable sources and the little coverage it has received has been highly critical of it, pointing out that interviewing the local population after the local population had already fled wasn't an effective way to determine whether violence had occurred. BilledMammal (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as per Sawyer-mcdonell and Tagasworshah. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Negative statements about what *didn't* happen are important if others claim the opposite. In this case the lede doesn't say that there *was* violence, so no point in adding this. Alaexis¿question? 21:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. There is criticism, but most of it is not directed at the report. Senorangel (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 The report of the Azerbaijani UN Office is admittedly anecdotal from only the areas it visited and the report also confesses that they were restricted from entering certain areas. Combined with other sources verifying civilian deaths and Blankspot even reporting torture and massacre of civilians,[20] this UN source is just undue. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per BilledMammal, undue segment by UN office in Azerbaijan and very little if any coverage in reliable sources. Vanezi (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as an important source with a note on its criticism. Yeoutie (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 the lead of the article is misleading. It talks about war crimes allegations by some individuals on the lead. And doesn't not mention the biggest organization - UN's contrary statement. In that case the reader unintentionally have wrong view about the event. Let's agree on that an average readers are lazy enough to read the entire article. If we are going to keep the war crime allegation, we need to add PM Pashinyan's statement ("There's no direct threat to civilians") as well as UN statement.
    Perhaps we can remove the allegations and contrary statements from the lead and put them into body. Aredoros87 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 It is reasonable to include the UN mission's findings in the body of the article, accompanied by proper attribution. This approach allows for a more detailed exploration of the report and its context, addressing criticisms and limitations without overwhelming the lead with specific details. — Toghrul R (t) 07:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 The UN is the largest international organization and the only one that sent a convoy to inspect the situation in place. It is key to include the report in both the lead and the body of the article. Option 2 at a minimum, I think.KHE'O (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per BilledMammal. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC) non-EC editors may not participate in RFCs in this topic area. Grandmaster 18:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Removing all mentions of the UN mission is unreasonable. The UN is not some third-rate organisation whose on-site report can just be disregarded, especially in favour of reports from news agencies which never formally investigated the issue. Parishan (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 For anybody who didn’t fully read the article, this report by UN office in Azerbaijan is already included in the article, which outside of its primary source, is mostly criticised in secondary reliable sources or not reported at all, so very low coverage in media. Hence I don’t agree with adding an undue and controversial bit of a not so independent report which comes from the attacking country’s office of the organization, and a report which was largely criticised in reliable sources. So I don’t see why we should add this undue detail from a criticised report that is already in the article. Nocturnal781 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Of course the UN report should be mentioned, but it should be given proper context and have its criticism be mentioned, something which can't be easily summarized for a lead. And, if the UN report has been mostly negatively criticized, that is how it should be presented. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 03:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The quote from the UN report and its criticism by Hasmik Egian can both be included in the body. The other sources are not directly about the report. Senorangel (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The other sources all directly mention criticisms of the mission from which the report summarizes the finding of said mission, plus many of them directly question the conclusions and methods of the mission and the report itself, they’re all directly related. Specifically, the Guardian and RFE’s Armenia service both make specific reference to the report and it’s findings while Tom Stevenson for LRB and OC Media criticize the mission from which the report originates from for coming after virtually the entire population has already fled. TagaworShah (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The article in The Guardian that is used in the article to support the claim of criticism of the UN mission actually supports its findings. The Guardian says: Most Armenians have left because they do not believe that Azerbaijani authorities will treat them fairly and humanely or guarantee them their language, religion and culture. That does not contradict the UN report that there was no physical violence against the local Armenians. The criticism of the UN mission is not made in The Guardian voice, but is the opinion of some local Armenians who believed that it came "too late". I think The Guardian article should be quoted accurately in the article. RFE/RL cites criticism by Armenian officials, which could be used with proper attribution to the persons who made the critical comments. LRB appears to be an opinion piece. Also, the UNHCR representative in Armenia, who spoke with Karabakh Armenians in Armenia, also said that "There were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move". [21] Grandmaster 09:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The Guardian quote that you provided has nothing to do with the quote you are trying to insert, “not treating them humanely” includes violence against civilians, it’s original research to interpret that as saying no violence occurred against civilians and that it was all in their heads, all of these reports come directly from what they hear from the civilians so the criticism is valid and can be attributed to the local population. RFE/RL does cite Armenian officials but the specific criticism that I pointed out is made in RFE/RL’s voice and is not attributed to an official, it is brought up by the journalist themself. Opinion pieces by experts like Tom Stevenson and Hasmik Egian are appropriate, opinion pieces are judged on reliability based on their authors. UNHCR’s separate quote from a completely different day is also irrelevant here and constitutes synthesis, USAID did make claims that they heard reports about violence towards civilians but again these are already reflected in the article and have nothing to do with this current quote’s inclusion. TagaworShah (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
They criticize different aspects of the mission. Do they directly criticize the report? Many write in detail about the general situation, but make only mentions of the report, if at all. Senorangel (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The report is summarizing the findings of the mission, they are inseparable to one another. Also the Lemkin institute of Genocide Prevention just issued a statement regarding the mission and report criticizing it for all the above flaws and more: https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-october-1-un-mission-to-artsakh%2Fnagorno-karabakh
I think the fact that almost all the sources that directly mention the report as opposed to just the mission itself are criticizing it should be even more evidence that this is Wikipedia:UNDUE for the article. TagaworShah (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Lemkin institute is a little known small NGO. They are nothing like well-established HRW or Amnesty, and they clearly take the side of Armenia in this conflict. And Reuters, AFP and others reported on UN mission report without criticizing it. US State Department welcomed the UN mission. [22] No criticism from them. Grandmaster 09:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The welcomed the idea of a UN mission not the findings of the mission or their methodology, which has been widely criticized not just by Armenians but by many international observers, and just because Lemkin institute is newer and not as famous doesn’t mean it’s not reliable, it was created by specialist academics in the field of genocide studies. TagaworShah (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Pincrete, User:Parishan, please do not reply to other users or discuss in the survey section. Feel free to do it here instead, so the survey itself can be more easily readable. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 03:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving the discussion here, where it could be continued without taking space in the Survey section. I hope it is OK with everybody. Grandmaster 09:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Also warning @KhndzorUtogh for the same. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The UN is not some third-rate organisation whose on-site report can just be disregarded, the criticisms of the UN report - as I understand them - are that the investigators arrived too late, the investigation was extremely cursory, and may have been compiled by people who were not truly independent. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    It may have been delayed and/or cursory but it is the only one at hand and was conducted by the highest existing international authority that cannot be randomly accused of doing a sloppy job. In any case, a staff journalist who has never carried out a proper investigation nor set foot in the region does not seem authoritative enough to put forward such claims. The third accusation sounds a bit too speculative as well. Claiming the UN had reasons to "like" Azerbaijan better than Armenia needs serious arguments, otherwise it is not much different from a conspiracy theory. Parishan (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the criticism needs to be attributed. The 3 sources mentioned in the article reflect only the criticism from the Armenian locals and officials. For example, the CO Media report says: The mission has been met with derision in Armenia. [23] Grandmaster 09:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: The UN report is already mentioned, the issue is if the undue part should be in the lead because it is undue, controversial, and partisan. The report has been heavily criticized by secondary reliable sources and received minimal coverage in mainstream sources. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not just about the lead. The article makes no mention of the UN mission report finding that there was no violence against civilians after the latest ceasefire. The options for the RFC are whether to mention that in the lead, in the body of the article or not make any mention. Grandmaster 14:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
No violence against civilians in the areas the mission was allowed to visit, which makes the significance of the report very negligible. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
That is not what the document says. It actually says that the mission "did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire." Grandmaster 08:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More neutral wording in the name of the article, instead of "flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" a better name would be "Exodus of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians".

The page should be changed to exodus of Armenians of Armenians from Karabakh, it is the most neutral term to use. The current name of the article is way too biased. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. also read WP:Neutral Point of View, neutrality on Wikipedia is a specific policy that does not always mean the same thing as "neutrality" used colloquially Cannolis (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Which is why there should be a name change to" Exodus of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians".
As I stated in my followup reply to my request, which I can copy paste:
"Especially with the other threads here: the street name change turning out to be false, there being no actual statement of Elchin Amirbeyov, the representative of the Azerbaijani president actually saying they're open to commit genocide etc. And overall more clarity of the situation (UN finding reports) and numerous interviews of Armenian locals claiming they left for various factors mainly social, political aswell as economic rather than immediate dangers or threats (the latter being the association with the term flight).
The name change to Exodus is therefore more neutral. "
It would be more fair and a less biased representation of the wiki article if the name gets changed to "Exodus of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" rather than stay as "Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians", the NPOV concept (which all wiki pages must adhere to) is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia afterall.
Took me a while to write this, Wikipedia isn't so easy for me to work with on the phone. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to hear what other editors think, and if we can come to a consensus. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Especially with the other threads here: the street name change turning out to be false, there being no actual no actual statement of Elchin Amirbeyov, the representative of the Azerbaijani president actually saying they're open to commit genocide etc. And overall more clarity on the situation (UN finding reports) and numerous interviews of Armenian Karabakh locals claiming they left for various factors mainly social, political aswell as economic rather than immediate dangers or threats (the rather being the association with the term flight).
The name change to Exodus is therefore more neutral. Mrsecurity39 392 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
There was a statement from Amirbeyov, and if you look in the archives for the discussion of that, theres a link to a Deutche Welle interview where he plainly says it in English. JM (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Haven't we tried changing the title around a bunch of times already? ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 23:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians/Archive_5&oldid=1205076965"