Talk:Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians/Archive 3

UN report
, concerning this, how a UN report on the ground amid allegations of war crime or crime against humanity is WP:UNDUE exactly? I understand the desire to present a certain viewpoint, but not at the expense of MOS:LEAD which calls for a neutral point of view. Alternatively, it's possible to move the entire assessment down to relevant section. Brandmeistertalk  21:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUE, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. At the moment, the report does not appear to have got any traction in reliable sources, and so by putting it in the lede we are giving it prominence beyond what is proportional.
 * In addition, it appears the report is from "United Nations Azerbaijan", not one of the international committees that we would expect to be more neutral; this wasn't made clear in your addition, and if the report is to be added - and I don't think we should add it anywhere until it has been reported on by reliable sources - this needs to be made clear.
 * I understand the desire to present a certain viewpoint Sorry, can you clarify what you are referring to here? BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The UN report has been widely criticized by a number of sources, for arriving after the region had been entirely depopulated of Armenians:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/02/nagorno-karabakh-ghost-town-un-ethnic-armenians-azerbaijan
 * https://oc-media.org/un-mission-arrives-to-empty-streets-in-nagorno-karabakh/
 * Who exactly did they interview? The dogs on the street? Of course they didn’t encounter any instances of violence against civilians when there was no civilians to be violent towards. There are numerous civilian reports of the refugees in Armenia describing violence against them, this quote belongs with all the other quotes like USAID and the refugee agency, they’re not independently verifying any claims, just repeating what they hear, this is not an official investigation of fact nor do they claim it was one, they just said they talked to “locals” but Stepanakert is a Ghost Town.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, actually reliable sources picked it up: Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera, etc. Al Jazeera noted that for the first time in 30 years there's a UN team in Karabakh. And frankly, if there are international experts' allegations of war crime or crime against humanity in the lead, then the relevant UN report on the ground should not be ignored there. Otherwise we end up with a partisan presentation and a WP:NPOV violation. As for the desire to present a certain viewpoint, I mean the viewpoint of Armenian side of the conflict. Brandmeistertalk  22:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The mission was picked up, not the report. And as TagaworShah points out, reliable sources have noted the issue with a UN mission that arrived after the people had already fled.
 * I mean the viewpoint of Armenian side of the conflict. Please WP:AGF; claiming that users are trying to present a certain viewpoint, rather than the NPOV viewpoint, is against that. My purpose is to neutrally present the situation, and while I agree that the result of such efforts are more favorable to the Armenians than the Azerbaijani's, that is to be expected given the nature of the situation and the position of reliable sources, just like the results of efforts to present the Ukrainian-Russian war in a neutral manner are more favorable towards the Ukrainians than the Russians. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, there was no official investigation or finding of fact that supported that claim, they were not able to independently verify or deny claims of violence against civilians, they just said that from the “locals” and officials they interviewed they didn’t find any, which is to be expected when they come after all the Armenians already left, which is what the majority of the articles are emphasizing, none of the articles you showed even mention the point you’re trying to add. Who did they interview if they arrived to a ghost town? That’s why this is undue weight, and the UN mission has been criticized and that should be mentioned in the body.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The UN report explicitly says that they interviewed the local population and some interlocutors. On the other hand, it could be equally claimed that those international experts alleging a war crime or crime against humanity in the lead were not on the ground to assess the situation. And that they are less prominent and recognizable than the UN. See, we're bogging down in unhelpful nitpicking by now instead of improving the article. Let's drop it and follow the policy of neutrality without WP:cherrypicking. Brandmeistertalk   22:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The report also points out there less than 1% of the population remained, and reliable sources criticised the mission for arriving after the population had fled.
 * When reliable sources report on the report, we can add details about it based on how those sources perceive it. Until then, it doesn’t belong in the article and definitely not in the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What local population did they interview, the stray dogs in the square? International experts assessing the situation from a legal perspective based on findings of fact is different from the UN representatives Azerbaijan appointed for this mission that did not even visit majority of the area and came after virtually the entire population left, saying they didn’t hear about any instances, not that they didn’t find any instances in an investigation, just that they didn’t hear about it, because there’s literally nobody left and they were barred from most of Karabakh where damage occurred.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Guardian, for example, cover both the mission and the report. And frankly, separating the mission from the report is pointless, sources may use different wording while covering it. As for the rest of arguments, I'd rather spare my time. Seriously, folks? Personally, I don't want to slap a NPOV tag again on the article. Brandmeistertalk  22:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right; I overlooked that. However, the article provides no coverage of the aspect you highlighted; based on the Guardian article, I think it would be appropriate to include the following in the "Flight" section: "A United Nations mission to the region at the start of October found that only between 50 and 1000 ethnic Armenians were left in the region".
 * And it would be inappropriate to add such a tag; we are presenting viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, as required by WP:NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is ridiculous bias here, they are try to find any which way to throw out the UN report b/c it doesn't match up with the editorial viewpoint they wan to project. Some guy calling it "United Nations Azerbaijan" to somehow imply the UN is biased or lying. The UN does all its works via its missions in the different countries. Kavita Belani, United Nations Refugee Agency UNHCR Representative in Armenia said something similar about how "There were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people" The Spokesperson for the UN in New York Stephane Dujarric stood by the report and said it was led by a senior U.N. aid official. But they dismiss all this.
 * Then there is the matter where he claims that it wasn't widely covered, which is also untrue, its been covered by many prominent outlets, including several western outlets, thought they chose to mention some parts of the report and ignore other parts of the report, I guess to match their own editorial line. You see how much scrutiny they apply to the United Nations and yet Ocampo's word is taken as the gospel, like its irrefutable, despite the guy never having stepped in the country, he isn't even a researcher who collected info from being on the ground, all his info is from 3rd parties, his report was criticized for its flaws by some international law experts, he was commissioned for the report by Harutyunyan, and has no record of commenting on this conflict until recently, and has a record of receiving payment from foreign actors to write and lobby on their behalf for example with Khalifa Haftar, the libyan warlord accused of atrocities. All these "nuetral"/"objective" people want to tell a story, but they insist that anything that contradicts the preconceived be thrown out and whatever works in their favor be treated as the gospel. Midgetman433 (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree: Some editors only want to add those information and references which only supports the pro-Armenian views. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * its been covered by many prominent outlets, including several western outlets Can you link those reports? As for the rest, please remember WP:AGF and WP:PA, and strike the bits which are incompatible with those policies. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple, Would Reuters and the Guardian suffice? They are western publication(i.e. the only ones seen as legitimate here on wikipdia), there are several other western publications that referenced the report, though coincidentally(or not so coincidentally) they only reference the parts of the report that match the editorial line, and leave out the rest. Reuters was more neutral and mentioned other parts. There are other nonwestern publications that mentioned the UN report, but I left them out.
 * https://www.reuters.com/world/un-team-nagorno-karabakh-did-not-see-any-damage-hospitals-schools-2023-10-02/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/02/nagorno-karabakh-ghost-town-un-ethnic-armenians-azerbaijan Midgetman433 (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They've just been over this yesterday up above this chain. The "UN Mission" was a bunch of people appointed by Azerbaijan, arrived after literally 99% of the population fled, didn't visit the damaged areas or indeed the vast majority of the country... and then claimed they didnt see any violence or ethnic cleasning. well of course they didn't see any violence, they arrived after the fact and after every victim had fled the whole country. and RS are ripping it for that. So if people want to put it in the article then make sure you put the RS criticism. JM2023 (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide source of the claim that its a bunch of people appointed by Azerbaijan? most specifically Vladanka Andreeva, the lady who led the mission.
 * To My knowledge she is not Azeri and she was appointed by UN Secretary-General António Guterres
 * Here are my sources.
 * https://az.linkedin.com/in/vladanka-andreeva-96150614
 * https://press.un.org/en/2021/sga2047.doc.htm
 * Secondly the UN talked to ARMENIANS still in Karabakh, those 50-1000 that they mentioned in the report? those are the ones that made their statements to the UN, plus the ICRC personnel that were interviewed. Did you read the report? Midgetman433 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * from a comment above: international experts assessing the situation from a legal perspective based on findings of fact is different from the UN representatives Azerbaijan appointed for this mission you'll have to ask them where they got it. your second article shows she was appointed july 1 2021, so she wasnt appointed for this mission anyway; she was appointed to be the UN chief for AZ. secondly your personal opinion doesnt matter on the report. RS matter. JM2023 (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "your second article shows she was appointed july 1 2021, so she wasnt appointed for this mission anyway"
 * As if that changes anything, you said she was appointed by Azerbaijan, implying she wasn't credible. Whether you are appointed in 2021 or 2023, it changes nothing, b/c she isn't working for the Azeri govt, she is working for the UN and under the mandate of the UN.
 * "secondly your personal opinion doesnt matter on the report."
 * Yeah only your personal opinion matters. You are the pope, and whatever you arbitrarily decide, you will allow or not allow in the editorial line. lol Midgetman433 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah only your personal opinion matters. You are the pope, and whatever you arbitrarily decide, you will allow or not allow in the editorial line. lol you should probably strike that. Also it's not my personal opinion, it's RS, it's been cited by me and others. I'm echoing what others are saying, I'm saying put the RS criticism next to the report in the article. JM2023 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They are western publication(i.e. the only ones seen as legitimate here on wikipdia), there are several other western publications that referenced the report, though coincidentally(or not so coincidentally) they only reference the parts of the report that match the editorial line, and leave out the rest. If there are several reliable sources discussing the report then we should include it, but we need to reflect the focus of reliable sources - if Reuters is the only one that mentions the aspect that the mission found no reports of violence, then it would be WP:UNDUE to include it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the UN report should absolutely be mentioned. Not that I agree with their methods of arriving after everyone already fled, but that is my personal opinion on the report and shouldn't influence what gets in the article. It is still well-reported in many secondary sources, and definitely should be in the article.
 * However, if legitimate criticism of the report exists (as @JM2023 claims) and is mentioned in analysis from secondary sources, then it should also be added along with it. ChaotıċEnby ( talk ) 16:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I got it from @TagaworShah above.
 * JM2023 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * US State Department also refrains from calling this "ethnic cleansing":, , Nemoralis (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * US Federal Government also funds and aids Azerbaijan's military and gives them money for "humanitarian aid" so I don't know how much water their opinion holds. It's kind of like asking Russia what they think of Niger's military junta. JM2023 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * US govt's aid to Azerbaijan are mine sweeping equipment, Idk how that disqualifies them from being objective. Ironically since the conflict the US Congress has only sanctioned Azerbaijan with section 907 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_907?useskin=vector, and no sanctions on Armenia over occupation, yet somehow you you have us think that the US is pro Azeri or anti Armenia.
 * Yet somehow Cyprus which has a strategic diplomatic relationship with Armenia, plus a generally hostile relationship with Azerbaijan and Turkey is somehow not seen as biased, and their opinions of the matter are included. Very interesting reasoning to include one and not the other. lol Midgetman433 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On October 24, 2001, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Act that would provide the President with the ability to waiver Section 907.They have done so since then. so Azerbaijan hasn't been sanctioned for 21 years now as far as i can tell. especially since the SD website i cited outright states they fund Azerbaijan. also your minesweeping claim is unsourced. and i didnt say US was anti-Armenia. It wasnt the same reasoning to include cyprus but not US because i am not the one who included cyprus. i have not edited the article one single time. JM2023 (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They said they are waiting for an investigation, no major world power can make such bold claims without proper investigation, heck it took them over 100 years to recognize the Armenian genocide, give it time, they have not confirmed nor denied such events, neither has the UN.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. One's own personal objections are irrelevant here, Wikipedia is not the medium for opinions. It could be equally said and not just by me that legal experts' opinions of war crime in the article don't hold much water either because of presumption of innocence - a trial is required for such bold claims, let alone for lesser offences like stealing or fraud. Brandmeistertalk  15:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where do you see an opinion? The UN nor the US department of State has either independently confirmed nor denied claims of ethnic cleansing that have been brought up by Armenia and other parties like Cyprus. That’s a fact not an opinion, the UN report simply said they did not encounter such reports, which reliable sources rightfully pointed out that there was no access to rural areas and almost the entire Armenian population left. Any claim that the US or UN has denied these claims or supported Azerbaijan’s position that no ethnic cleansing took place is Original research.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was replying to JM2023's last comment above. I think enough has been said for the cause of neutrality here, sapienti sat. Brandmeistertalk  16:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you actually weren't replying to me. you mean you meant to reply to me? Regardless, discussing what counts as a reliable source, directly relevant to the article, is not WP:FORUM. JM2023 (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @JM2023 At this point it feels we should all go to WP:RSN again, although I still don't really get the case of not including the report despite it being in multiple RS. Like, of course the report has been criticized, but that means we should add both in context, not neither? ChaotıċEnby ( talk ) 02:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * above i've said put the RS criticism next to the report in the article, its not an insignificant report, its by the UN of course, but its also been criticized by non-fringe, reliable sources. JM2023 (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with this solution, this should be the most neutral way of reflecting RS viewpoints. ChaotıċEnby ( talk ) 13:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is now at neutraility noticeboard. Brandmeistertalk  07:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is now at neutraility noticeboard. Brandmeistertalk  07:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Remaining population
Not sure if anyone knows but the last count into Armenia seems to be a little over 100000. There were ~120000 people in the region, which from Demographics of the Republic of Artsakh were almost exclusively Armenians. Both the UN report former officials are talking about a remaining population in the hundreds. Does anyone have a source on where the 20000 went or who got their numbers wrong? Inteloff (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 120,000 was just an estimate, there hadn’t been an official census since before the first war. Keep in mind many people left after 2020 or died during the blockade/offensive/oil explosion. It’s likely the population was around 102,000 before the offensive, but we just have estimates so until there is a new estimate used by reliable sources I guess we’re sticking to 120,000.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also seen this from the BBC:
 * so yes seems like the true number was significantly less than 120,000 if that statement is true. Perhaps better numbers will come out in retrospect. JM2023 (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Since another report said only 50-1000 remain, and HRW saying nearly the entire current population of NK has fled, I think it should be updated. I added the HRW source. - Kevo3 2 7  (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The UN Karabakh mission says there are between 50 and 1,000 ethnic Armenians remaining in the Karabakh. Nemoralis (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * this should be put into the article if it is not already there JM2023 (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Already included it on the International response section. Not sure if those vaguer statements belong in the lede. Inteloff (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * i suppose once (if) we get some secondary sources reporting this and they'll say something like "only 50-1000 left, more than 95% of the population has fled", then that could be used to update the lede (right now it says 80% fled and 100,500/120,000) JM2023 (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the flight still going on?
The UN mission encountered no civilian vehicles on the Lachin road to the border crossing used by the refugees. It was also reported to the team that between only 50 and 1,000 ethnic Armenians remain in the region. The duration of the date (24 September 2023 – present) needs to be fixed.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The international Red Cross is still evacuating people who couldn’t get out due to age or illness, they just posted yesterday about yelling at homes and trying to find people left behind, they sent a women to Armenia yesterday so still ongoing but obviously has slowed down.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Please also Create an Exodus of Azeris from Karabakh page as well.
Its important to cover both sides of this conflict. Midgetman433 (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about first war? Refugees in Azerbaijan Nemoralis (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, one explicitly for the 700K Refugees from Nagorno Karabakh in the first war. If apparently 120K people can get a whole detailed page, surely 700K Azeris can get an equivalent, rather than 2 paragraphs buried in a subsection on another page, surely the impartial and objective people at wikipedia would not object. Midgetman433 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If apparently 120K people can get a whole detailed page, surely the impartial and objective people at wikipedia would not object why would you use this inflamatory tone in such a sensitive article? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * i've added the info with the interlink as context to the lede of this article. if someone has the time to create/rewrite/rename the article specifically about the azeri refugees from Karabakh fleeing from armenians in the 90-s - feel free to do so Daikido (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * lol, they threw your edit out. Midgetman433 (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't directly relevant to this event, so it has been moved out of the lead, although it is still mentioned in the body of the article and hasn't been thrown out. I'd argue that a specific article for Azerbaijani refugees of the first war should be created, and I absolutely invite you to do so. There isn't a specific group of people at wikipedia with such responsibilities, and, being extended-confirmed, you are just in your right to create such an article as anyone else. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am joining the others in finding this comment needlessly inflammatory. The exodus of Azeris from Nagorno Karabagh happenned in the early 90s, almost a decade before Wikipedia's creation, whereas this event is currently in the news as we speak, when Wikipedia is more famous than ever. If you see other Wikipedia pages about current events, you would see how much larger they are compared to events that happenned a long time ago and haven't been as studied/aren't as popular with the general public (see for exemple the war in Ukraine, compared to the first Nagorno Karabagh war as a whole). As such, there are many reasons why a dedicated page was not made before, and there is no need to call out the "impartial and objective people at Wikipedia" as if it was on a malicious/biased intent.
 * With that said, I also join the others in saying such a page would benefit Wikipedia as a whole, and if you are able to you are very much free to make an independant page about it. Evo1726 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t see any inflammation. The user is just saying that 700k is way more than 120k. My elementary math manual says he’s right. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's inflammatory because it's asking what about these greater numbers of people who fled their lands 30 years ago and why they apparently don't have a specific page, when that's totally irrelevant to this page about the 120K fleeing in response to threats happening at this very moment. It's inflammatory because this isn't the place to discuss creating new unrelated articles. And it's inflammatory because it opens the course to more whataboutism, like the two Armenian genocides that occurred in the 1890s and 1910s-1920s. JM2023 (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are creams for your inflammation. People’s free speech donesn’t cause inflammation. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * we all know what type of inflammatory we are talking about, we're not talking about the type that needs creams, you know it, we know it, we weren't born yesterday. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for free speech. Free speech causes inflammation every day, that's why whenever someone draws Muhammad we get global protests. JM2023 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "One explicitly for the 700K Refugees from Nagorno Karabakh in the first war. If apparently 120K people can get a whole detailed page, surely 700K Azeris can get an equivalent"
 * In that case there should be a page about the following:
 * - Deportation & Massacres of Armenians from Nakhichevan
 * - Deportation & Massacres of Armenians from Azeribaijan (Including Baku, Sumgait, Kirovabad) DrVrej (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "If apparently 120K people can get a whole detailed page, surely 700K Azeris can get an equivalent," This reads as you comparing the number of victims to suggest that the ethnic cleansing happening today is less bad than or justified by the ethnic cleansing of the late 20th century, and that I find disgusting. I am going to be charitable here and say that's not your intent, but as Super Dromaeosaurus said, you are using a highly inflammatory and insensitive tone on a very sensitive and touchy article about a current ongoing human tragedy and I ask that you be more careful with your wording going forward.
 * I agree that the article about refugees in Azerbaijan should be expanded - ask at that article's talk page or do it yourself. Doing it here gives off the impression that you believe it's biased that we are even covering the exodus happening right now. This does not read as a sincere request for the article Refugees in Azerbaijan to be expanded or copyedited.
 *  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 22:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it has no relevancy to this article and no relation as it happened in 20th century during a compeltely different war and no RS connects it to this, it is covered and mentioned in other Nagorno Karabakh relevant articles. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Its 30 years(very odd to frame its as "20th century" implying its from a bygone era, when many victims are not even middle aged, "20th century" is about as arbitrary as trying to separate 1999 from 2001 as if they were from different eras)) apart in the exact same place, and arguably the same war and its continuation. Midgetman433 (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The first war refugees from 30 yrs ago are mentioned in many relevant Karabakh articles where RS makes the connection. What reliable sources tie that to this? Completely irrelevant to this article until then. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "The first war refugees from 30 yrs ago are mentioned in many relevant Karabakh articles where RS makes the connection."
 * Ok, and yet there was never a specific page created(btw I'm not against the idea), and if we go by the logic of it being mentioned in other articles so not worth creating, technically this exodus was mentioned 2023 clashes article, so why create a new page then? Midgetman433 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, a page exists already Refugees in Azerbaijan. Secondly, nothing you said means this page shouldn't exist, it's a notable event covered by many RS. And third, you're shifting the discussion now.
 * And as I said, not only there are no RS connecting first war refugees of 30yrs ago to the current influx of refugees from Nagorno Karabakh, the first war refugees were mostly from adjacent territories to NK, not NK itself. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Secondly, nothing you said means this page shouldn't exist, it's a notable event covered by many RS."
 * I didn't say it shouldn't exist, I asked for someone to create one for the Azeri Exodus, the impartial and objective volunteers here don't seem too interested though, that was all I intended to highlight.
 * "And as I said, not only there are no RS connecting first war refugees of 30yrs ago to the current influx of refugees from Nagorno Karabakh, the first war refugees were mostly from adjacent territories to NK, not NK itself."
 * "Artsakh" considers the surrounding districts as part of its territory, and passed a resolution to push for the "liberation" of "Akna(Aghdam). furthermore there were 40,000 Azeris from Inside Nagorno Karabakh oblast itself that were displaced. Thats not at all an insignificant amount. Midgetman433 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * is your use of quotes around artsakh, which i have not seen any other editor do, an indication of negative attitudes towards the existence of that country (i.e., implying it is "so-called")? if so, you would have a conflict of interest and should refrain from participating here JM2023 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would use "quotes" for any separatist unrecognized entity, the same way I would refer to the "Donetsk People's Republic", or the "Luhansk People's Republic" or the "Republic of Abkhazia" or the "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic" or the "Republic of Serbian Krajina"(which arguably is its closest comparison), how can it be a "country" when even Armenia refused to recognize it in its entire existence. You show your own biases and conflicts of interests in not acknowledging basic facts around how every state has rejected recognition for the entity. I would also refer you to the reactions to the "so called presidential elections"(term used by the EU, Council of Europe, US, UK, neighboring Georgia, and other post soviets states like Ukraine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Artsakhian_presidential_election?useskin=vector#International_reactions Midgetman433 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The existence of a state is not dependent on the recognition of that state; de facto states are real states. Putting quotes around such countries is called using scare quotes and it's against MOS:SCAREQUOTES and maybe WP:INDCRIT. No one else does that, no articles do that. So obviously that doesn't show my alleged bias or COI. Not that it could show COI in any case. On the other hand, it's something that you uniquely do.
 * Regardless, I have no COI; I live on a different continent, I speak a different language, I have different ancestry, my country is not allied to Armenia or Azerbaijan, and I'm an atheist so I have no religious interest. What about you? JM2023 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say my french friend. :), I'm sure there is no cryptic "clash of civilizations" outlook underneath, like all my other "neutral" french friends. lol I haven't made any edits on this page btw, only in the talk page, requesting a creation of an equivalent page(that for some reason all my "neutral" and "objective" friends here have no real enthusiasm about. Midgetman433 (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not French and I don't know where you got that idea. What makes you say I'm French? What anywhere has ever even implied that I'm French? I don't even live in Europe let alone France. I am also only on the talk page and have made no edits to the article proper yet you also continue to question my supposed conflicts of interest. and you're still using scare quotes despite it being pointed out to you that it's against guidelines, this time to dismiss my claims to have no COI. You're not assuming good faith (and you're apparently saying all the French editors you know who claim to be neutral are secretly not neutral? that's definitely not AGF and I could probably find some other guidelines it violates).
 * You continue to question my impartiality and allege conflicts of interest yet refuse to speak on yourself to confirm or deny what ones you may or may not have. Reminder that if anyone has any COI they are supposed to disclose them even when only participating on the talk page as I outlined and cited in a specific section. I've only asked you specifically because you're claiming I have COI.
 * We are interested in this article because the event is ongoing whereas the event you're interested in happened ten years before Wikipedia's foundation. i'll point out that you haven't created it either despite being the most interested, so you have no grounds to criticize anyone else for not creating it. You're not assuming good faith. JM2023 (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm the French person so that's probably where the confusion came from? Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 17:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "i'll point out that you haven't created it either despite being the most interested, so you have no grounds to criticize anyone else for not creating it."
 * Well I haven't created it, b/c it will get deleted, so i don't bother anymore. This place considers itself the pinnacle of neutrality, but in my experience in the past, It has felt otherwise. So I just use the talk sections and bring things up of significance for discussion. Atleast those elements don't get reverted or deleted. Midgetman433 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Logically that deletion would apply to anyone who creates the article, unless you mean there is a cabal against you specifically and not against the creation of the article. So your own explanation for why you haven't created it also applies to why anyone else hasn't created it. Anyway I'm still wondering why I was wrongly called French disparagingly out of nowhere JM2023 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objections for the page existing, what I want equal treatment, people here are far less enthusiastic about covering Azeri matters, when wikipedia itself portrays itself as "balanced" "objective" and "neutral" IMO. I came to the discussion section here to discuss matters first, b/c If I created a page or section, It will undoubtably be deleted, so I started a discussion in hopes that people here "higher up" can create the page. If I'm being honest I think a lot of edits even on this page, mentioning the recent agreement signed by Samvel Shahramanyan with regards to right of return has not been mentioned. for reference: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7F7XLIWsAA8CS9?format=jpg&name=large Other elements which I added regarding interviews from people traveling to Armenia saying that they are planning on returning after the situation is less in flux were also reverted. I get the feeling there is a certain editorial line and anything that doesn't fit into the editorial line is removed. Midgetman433 (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of having such an article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Repeating what I already said: A specific article for Azerbaijani refugees of the first war should be created, and I absolutely invite you to do so. There isn't a specific group of people at wikipedia with such responsibilities, and, being extended-confirmed, you are just in your right to create such an article as anyone else. We aren't people "higher up" than you, and, provided at least a few sources are given (even just links inside tags should suffice), I don't think anyone would delete the article.
 * If you want to be sure there is no issue, you can create it at Draft:Exodus of Azerbaijanis during the First Karabakh War, so you have time to work on it, and look at Articles for creation for any support you need. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are people on wikipedia that are more "higher up" than me, I have created articles before that have been deleted, and sourced edits that that have been previously deleted, de jure we might be on equal standing but from my experiences its been a very different murky picture, I don't want to step on toes, and I don't like getting into edit wars with partisans, so I don't create articles and do edits anymore without building consensus first in the talk pages on politically charged events. I would greatly appreciate it if others here did create the page, I would be more inclined to add materials to the page, if that is ok. Midgetman433 (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and if that happened without justification you can report them at WP:ANI. Going through the WP:Articles for creation process will allow you to create the page as a draft while discussing it and building consensus before it being published. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 16:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well they always claim justification, something arbitrary, sometimes it feels like there are usually a group with certain sympathies one way and they try to delete anything that doesn't follow their editorial line, even if its with citations. Idk I just don't bother with edits on contentious issues anymore, I don't want edit wars, so I just only write in comment sections and bring up topics and maybe if the people think ok this is reasonable, someone will add it after consensus. Alteast in talk pages, no one deletes your comments and input suggestions and things are there for the public record. Like right now I want to add the UN statements about their recent mission to Karabakh. https://twitter.com/UNinAzerbaijan/status/1708875427807121906 https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh maybe some people here might find that relevant to add to the article. Midgetman433 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve already updated the article with it.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t say or read like that. You’re trying to put words into other people’s mouths. You should stop assuming people mean what they didn’t say. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will expand that article once I finish Stalin's repressions in Azerbaijan Nemoralis (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "Stalinist" be a better title than "Stalin's"? Stalinist repressions in Mongolia uses it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Mongolia was never an SSR of the Soviet Union, whereas Azerbaijan was an SSR of the Soviet Union for its entirety and was even (re-)created during Stalin's rule. Thus Stalin directly ruled Azerbaijan as an internal territory of the USSR, so they were his repressions; while in Mongolia, presumably, they were repressions in the vein of Stalin and hence Stalinist but not Stalin himself. So there is at least some reason to have the inconsistency (but that doesn't mean it is or isn't necessary). JM2023 (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the page Stalinist repressions lists events occuring in the Soviet Union itself, with the Mongolia repressions only under "See also". Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2023
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for the proposed title  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians → Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh – In the same style of Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Exodus of Sarajevo Serbs, Exodus of Iranian Jews. This was the title for the longest time of the existence of this article. "Flight" is not used by any other article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment My interpretation of "flight" is that implies a greater sense of urgency than "exodus"; this aligns with the three examples you gave, which took place over years, months, and decades respectively, while this event is taking place over just a couple of weeks. BilledMammal (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Flight or Flight (disambiguation) do not mention anything related to this. I think it is a rather informal term for this event. Exodus does not have an article either but does feature several similar cases. I would argue "exodus" is already the established term in Wikipedia for cases of this kind. Dictionary definitions of "exodus" do not conflict with this article's scope . I think WP:CONSISTENT applies here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See here and here; when used as a noun in relation to escape it means "(an act or example of) escape, running away, or avoiding something: They lost all their possessions during their flight from the invading army." It's not the primary meaning of the word, but my feeling is that it is appropriate here. BilledMammal (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose this was the original title and just because it isn't used by other articles with completely different context (as noted by BilledMammal), doesn't mean this article shouldn't use it. 'fleeing' or 'fled' is used by many RS, it describes the situation best as Armenians of NK didn't just decide to leave out of blue, they're fleeing urgently because of Azerbaijani offensive and developing takeover of the region. And multiple human rights groups and the NK residents themselves do not believe that Armenians can safely live under Aliyev's regime, despite his alleged safety guarantees to the population.,, , so they're fleeing their homes. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Exodus" perfectly describes this situation, and is also used by sources    . I also don't believe this article is exceptional regarding context. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 'fleeing' or 'fled' are used by many RS, , , , . It's more appropriate than 'exodus' given the context and residents rapidly fleeing. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as "flight" corresponds better to an immediate evacuation of the region. It has also been used in article titles, like Flight of Poles from the USSR. Also, the argument that this was the title for the longest time of the existence of this article doesn't hold too much weight when the article's title changed 4 times in 48 hours. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 12:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dw.com/en/ethnic-armenian-exodus-from-nagorno-karabakh-swells/video-66934290 https://www.reuters.com/world/azerbaijan-says-it-does-not-want-exodus-nagorno-karabakh-urges-armenians-stay-2023-09-28/
 * I strongly agree: "Exodus" is already using by the mainstream news media. Such as: https://apnews.com/article/nagorno-karabakh-armenia-azerbaijan-separatists-3a89f27726439e89569af1b77ccef325
 * Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think both versions are OK. As someone said above, "flight" is an immediate escape, while the exodus is a more permanent process, but it does happen. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The "exodus" is becoming more common, e.g. . My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think flight describes what's happening better, and as has been pointed out is widely used by the media as well. These people are fleeing. This is a flight. Exodus to me can be slower, and it implies some permanence. Here, it is fast and may be reversed if an international peacekeeping force is deployed as is being reported. --RaffiKojian (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The discussion around this event is being framed as Christian vs. Muslims and Exodus is just another attempt by some media organizations to continue that framing. We can simply use the neutral and accurate verb "flee" instead of the religiously resonating biblical framing of "Exodus."Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Snowclose per WP:SNOW JM2023 (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am not informed enough to form an opinion one way or the other about this move request, but I would like to point out that there are some articles that use "flight" rather than "exodus". Case in point: 1944–50 flight and expulsion of Germans, Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II, Flight of Poles from the USSR, and probably more. Some or all of those might need to be changed at some later date per WP:CONSISTENT, but that is besides the point of this move request. - 87.58.35.105 (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Also relevant: there was a very long discussion about the move of "1948 Palestinian Exodus" to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. See this move discussion and prior ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#Requested_move_6_January_2023
 * Those in favor argued that "Exodus" was not NPOV to refer to that event and that it was euphemistic. They also showed that the words "flight" and/or "expulsion" were more commonly used in sources than "exodus". Those opposed to the move argued that "expulsion and flight" was not NPOV, and that "Palestinian Exodus" was the common name. The closer found that "Expulsion and flight" was neutral with a wide variety of sources referring to it that way, gave some weight to those arguing that "Exodus" was not NPOV, and did not give weight to the common name argument because NPOV had to be decided first. :Jsfigura (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The original commenter doesn't make any policy-based argument for "Exodus" being a better name than "Flight." And he/she is not correct that "Flight" is used in no other article. If someone wants to make a WP:NPOV or WP:COMMONNAME argument for using exodus, sure, but to me the current title is both common and neutral. Both of the articles linked by supporters also use "flight" or "flee" to describe the population movement. Jsfigura (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don’t really have a preference WRT flight vs. exodus, but Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians sounds awkward to me, so I’d prefer Flight/Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * definitely sounds better. there is a clarity basis for it as well: Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians fleeing are not necessarily fleeing from Nagorno-Karabakh. JM2023 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also agree that sounds better Jsfigura (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually there seems to be some usage of "Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" in RS e.g. but this might be a little clearer. Mellk (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Another option would be "Artsakhtsi exodus" or "Artsakhtsi flight". BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Artsakhtsi" seems to be seldom used in English-language sources. Mellk (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as WP:COMMONNAME controls here, and it seems as exodus is more widely used than flight in sources. Yeoutie (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ether way the move goes, the title should be "Exodus/Flight of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh" for grammatical and consistency's sake. Yeoutie (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I prefer the wording "Exodus/Flight of [ethnic] Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh" over "Exodus/Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" (for instance, in reference to the biblical exodus, we would say "Exodus of Jews/Israelites from Egypt" instead of "Exodus of Egypt Jews/Israelites"). Bfoshizzle1 (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose change to "Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh"; the current title, while a little awkward, better conveys the fact that these Armenians are native to the region. BilledMammal (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Flight" is a more neutral term than "exodus." Coretheapple (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A Google search shows more sources are using "exodus" than "flight". "Exodus" is still a neutral term and better descriptive term to describe the situation than "flight". Dash9Z (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support "Exodus" sounds much better and makes more sense than "Flight". DementiaGaming (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Makes more sense, however I would prefer "Armenian exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh" but the suggested name change is better than what we have. Completely Random Guy (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Strongly oppose changing “Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians” to Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh, it’s passive voice and implies that these are Armenian citizens that moved there instead of the actual reality which is that they have been in the region since before Armenia was established and their ethnicity identity is Karabakh Armenian, they are not just any Armenians. Also, I see flight and exodus used about the same in reliable sources, but flight is more accurate in describing how fast these events took place and the hurry associated with it.  Tagawor  Shah  (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination Nemoralis (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is perfectly fine, and I don't see how any of the proposals would be improvements. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 10:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - This is a more concise title. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support & comment: "exodus" become the more common term in coverage of the event. However, I do agree with @TagaworShah that Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians are their own subgroup of Armenians indigenous to NK and it may be better to change the title to "Exodus of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" rather than "Armenians from NK." I think there's a decent argument for both, however. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)