Talk:Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh

Ethnic cleansing

No, no. I just stumbled on this article and I was impressed by the sources and their placement. It is done in a way that does not distract from the reading. Impressive article so far.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.167.196.62 (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie

Thanks for your feedback on my user page.

I agree that there is citation overkill. Part of that was from a structural edit, but also because a lot of articles in the Armenia/Azerbaijan topics are subject to contentious editing so generally if anything isn't cited it's often removed.

Let's start with definitions regarding your edit where you added "(alleged)" to one of the goals of the blockade.

Ethnic cleansing

Although "ethnic cleansing" does not have a strict legal definition, it usually includes intentional forced migration (either direct or indirect) through coercion, intimidation, and/or genocide. These characteristics are mentioned by United Nations entities, including the UNSC. Two other characteristics listed by the UNSC include "arbitrary arrest and detention ... confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas."

Genocide

The intentional destruction of a people based on their perceived membership in a group. Also some genocide scholars and advocacy groups criticize the distinction, many media and scholars consider genocide to be a form of ethnic cleansing but not all ethnic cleansing is genocide.

In the context of the blockade

Numerous reliable sources describe the blockade as aimed at ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

Numerous reliable sources also characterize the blockade as a form of "intimidation", "coercion," and state that there is "intention" to "expel" or cause an "outflow" of the Armenian population.

Given this, I'm struggling to see why you added "alleged" to the infobox. Looking forward to hearing you feedback on this!

• The founding prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, describes the blockade as a genocide, under Article II, (c) of the Genocide Convention: "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction," adding that "... President Aliyev has Genocidal intentions: he has knowingly, willingly and voluntarily blockaded the Lachin Corridor even after having been placed on notice regarding the consequences of his actions by the ICJ’s [International Court of Justice] provisional orders."
• Another group of genocide scholars at the 2022 Global Forum Against the Crime of Genocide declared: "we believe that the actions of the Azerbaijani government pose a threat of genocide to Armenians in the region."

• "Khachatryan’s detention confirms the fears of many Karabakh Armenians that, if Azerbaijan assumes control over Karabakh, it will detain (and torture) them arbitrarily, using their participation in one or more of the wars as justification. This criteria extends to nearly every male resident of the small enclave."
• The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect issued an "atrocity alert" in which it says Azerbaijan's "intentional and unlawful denial of humanitarian assistance may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity."
• The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention: "These events are not isolated events; they are, instead, being committed within a larger genocidal pattern against Armenia and Armenians by the Azerbaijani regime." The group also wrote "The genocidal intent of Baku has never been clearer and the actions carried out up to the moment highly predict this outcome."The group wrote Azerbaijan's "intentions are clear: to wipe out all traces of Armenian life and of an Armenian presence in this region. Azerbaijani President, Ilham Aliyev, has consistently and repeatedly stated that he intends to eradicate the indigenous Armenians dwelling in Artsakh."
• International Association of Genocide Scholars – condemned the blockade and Azerbaijan's "deliberate attacks on ... [Artsakh's] ...critical infrastructure." The group noted "significant genocide risk factors exist in the Nagorno-Karabakh situation concerning the Armenian population." The government of Azerbaijan...has issued repeated threats to empty the region of its indigenous Armenian population."

• Genocide Watch – issued an alert stating "Due to its unprovoked attacks and genocidal rhetoric against ethnic Armenians, Genocide Watch considers Azerbaijan's assault on Armenia and Artsakh to be at Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 7: Preparation, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 10: Denial." The group described the blockade as "a clear attempt by the Azerbaijani government to starve, freeze, and ultimately expel Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh."

• "The humanitarian catastrophe we are now witnessing—or, more accurately, the world is refusing to witness—is a textbook enactment of ethnic cleansing. More than a dozen nongovernmental organisations, including Genocide Watch, have issued a stark warning that Azerbaijan’s blockade is “designed to, in the words of the Genocide Convention, deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the end of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part. All 14 risk factors for atrocity crimes identified by the UN Secretary-General’s Office on Genocide Prevention are now present.”
• "This tactic is meant to bring about an outflow of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh through the creation of a humanitarian crisis."
• "Here, a deadly brew of armed aggression and ethnic cleansing against the majority population of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh"
• "The blockade...has as its aim the takeover of historic Armenian lands in the Republic of Artsakh and in the Republic of Armenia along with the forced displacement (“ethnic cleansing”) of the Armenian populations in Azeri-acquired territory."
• "This time, Armenians are being ethnically cleansed by Azerbaijan..."

R.Lemkin (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Lemkin Institute,It is an institution founded in 2017 that works as a complete Armenian propaganda device. does not have an impartial perspective. 31.223.59.158 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

References

@R.Lemkin: TL;DR. Learn to be WP:CONCISE, please. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

As stated above, reliable sources are present in the article and everything is fairly sourced. Random removal of sourced content with extremely vague "POV" rationale isn't helpful and isn't productive at all, for example: supposed "scare quotes" that were recently removed are literally added in the source itself [1], and alot of the content that was removed/reworded was sourced or already discussed if you check the archives [2], [3]. None of these recent changes make sense as they're unhelpful, in contrary to sources, and extremely vaguely rationalized. I reverted to the stable edit and am asking for editor(s) to show their SPECIFIC well rationalized concerns on the talk page FIRST before making edits (minor maintenance edits were also undone unfortunately, but they were collateral and because it was part of overall recent edits, it can be restored anytime). - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I have left a message on your talk page, Kevo327. Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie Replied to you there, comment further here please if you have anything to say, for convenience purposes. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie

Forgive me for my lengthy reply, I thought you would appreciate it given that in your edit summary you wrote "This [listing ethnic cleansing as a goal] is a serious accusation, and citing it as a goal must be supported by more than speculation."

There are many reliable sources (see above) that describe the blockade as "ethnic cleansing," including many of the criteria (intention, outflow/expelling of a population, arbitrary detention of people, genocide). Many of these same sources also describe the population of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh as "indigenous" in contrast to your removal of the term with the edit summary "this is not the right word" [we can discuss that later, but let's keep the topic to "ethnic cleansing" first]. Please take a look at the sources that do support this in the article or above in the Talk. I agree with user Kevo327 that if there any specific issue, it should be discussed and replied first (if you have a good rationale) and please be specific without vagueness, like I am with my comments, so I can answer more if need be.

thanks!! R.Lemkin (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it still ongoing?

As seen in the Aftermath section of the Azerbaijani offensive article, supplies are now pouring into Nagorno-Karabakh, from the Russians, the Red Cross, and, according to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan. It doesn't appear that Azerbaijan is restricting the movement of humanitarian supplies at this point, nor does it appear that it's trying to block deliveries of supplies or evacuations of Armenians - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 14:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's still blockaded with public utilities disrupted. [4] - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Lemkin Institute, I see that you are very interested in this subject. What is your opinion? 31.223.59.158 (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

And now? Beshogur (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

After the flight of almost the entire Armenian population and the takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan by early October, the blockade dissipated. Multituberculata (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word indigenous

Kevo327; I understand that you are an Armenian, but it's important to put our biases aside here. You've constantly been reverting what I've been doing which improves this (and other) articles related to this topic, and it's starting to feel like you just want to control every edit made here. There's no ownership of this page, please remember that.
Next, the usage of the word indigenous. It's inaccurate, since it implies that Armenians are the absolute first and only native inhabitants of the region, while there have been other civilizations in the area across milleniums. Many groups are native to the region and to describe Armenians as the only indigenous from Nagorno-Karabakh is not acknowledging NPOV. Additionally, I could only find R.Lemkin, a now-blocked user (and probably biased too), promoting the usage of this word on this article. It doesn't even seem to have a widespread usage across Wikipedia, but just here.
Ethnic Armenians is a perfectly respectable and neutral way to refer to the (now-departed) Armenian population of the region/breakaway state. It doesn't remove from the understanding of the understanding of the article. In fact, it adds to the understanding of the goals of the blockade, since many Armenians who are not originally from Nagorno-Karabakh but who moved from Armenia into NKR were also ethnically cleansed from the region. If it was just a campaign against "indigenous" Armenians, then the non-indigenous ones would surely have not been targeted, right? It doesn't add up. Ethnic Armenians is perfectly respectable and follows WP:NPOV. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that the word "indigenous" isn't mentioned once on Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. It's really a localized, POINTy inclusion by former editor R.Lemkin. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I will add that it is completely irrelevant to add the word "indigenous" in the infobox & whatnot. This is because "ethnic Armenians" is a term in itself to refer to people who are ethnically Armenian. "Indigenous Armenians" is a term hyperfixated on the fact that they are from there, while the true purpose of including the word "ethnic" should be to specify that they are ethnically Armenian (in contrary to simply the word Armenian, of which people don't have to be ethnically Armenian, just have citizenship of the country.) Essentially, the point is that according to the article, Azerbaijan has ethnically cleansed the region of ethnic Armenians, which is a single noun. Indigenous is not needed here-- it's like outside information at this point. Ethnic Armenians is written to specify that it is specifically ethnic Armenians who are the subject of ethnic cleansing. That they are indigenous or not is irrelevant to this part of the article. I hope that makes sense. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Sorry for being so angry at you. The last few weeks have been a mental trainwreck for me (and many others), and I just felt a need to vent somehow. You seem like a nice person, so you don't deserve to have accusations of denialism thrown at you. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Trilletrollet: Hello, I appreciate the message. Sorry for getting worked up on your talk page as well. Happy editing! Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I suggest you avoid and strike your personal attacks such as the first sentence of your statment; comment on content not the contributor.

Secondly, Armenians are indigenous to Nagorno-Karabakh / Artsakh. The word "indigenous" has been used in various reputable sources that discuss the Armenians that are affected by the blockade. The sources that discuss this are in peer-reviewed academic journals as well (see the one on Genocide Studies International). Nowhere in the Wikipedia article does it imply or state that Armenians are the only indigenous people of the region. However, worth mentioning that Artsakh’s indigenous population has been overwhelmingly Armenian for millennia and the Armenian population has had de facto autonomy from Azerbaijan up until now. This source specifically mentions that Artsakh's indigenous population has predominantly been Armenian for millennia. This suggests that mentioning other indigenous peoples of Artsakh is WP:UNDUE.

You cannot change what multiple sources say based on your own WP:OR 'analysis', again please avoid doing this. I'll present the sources:

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention

International Association of Genocide Scholars [5]

Genocide Studies International: Nagorno-Karabakh and the Lachin Corridor Crisis

Rolling Stone Magazine

The Progressive Magazine

The Markaz Review

Time.com

Modern Diplomacy

AEI

Geopolitical Monitor -- opinion piece

Newsweek.com -- opinion

I repeat once again, do not modify sourced content, your behavior is becoming increasingly disruptive - you may be sanctioned if it continues this way. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I've just had enough with these antics. "Ethnic" is the proper word, period. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You would think Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians would reference the word "indigenous", right? It's not mentioned on the page once. Instead, over there, the proper wording "ethnic Armenians" is correctly used. It's irrelevant to put "indigenous" in the infobox on this article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The word "ethnic" provides actual value. Mentioning "indigenous" is outside information. "Ethnic Armenians" is a single term. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want to start citing sources, it's best worth mentioning that "indigenous Armenians" is not even the majority usage of the term. "Ethnic Armenians" is way more widespread. But that's beside what I'm saying. I'm saying that "ethnic Armenians" is quite simply the proper term to refer to inhabitants of NKR who are Armenian. We call them ethnic Armenians. We don't call them indigenous Armenians. That's because we're talking about their ethnicity when saying that, not their history. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

History is relevant in this case. If you look at the sources above, you will see they mention specifically that the Azerbaijani government has launched a campaign of disinformation (historical falsification/revisionism/denialism) that denies the indigeneity of the Armenian population [6], [7]. As such, "indigenous" is not only 1) how reliable sources describe NKR's population, but 2) is relevant to the topic.

Wikipedia articles, themselves, cannot be used as reliable sources. They are used as examples of editorial style and for consistency but not as sources to adjudicate the content itself. But you can see that the very Wikipedia article you shared on Indigenous peoples lists Armenian people as indigenous to the region under the subsection "West Asia." - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article should describe Armenians as indigenous to the region, because it's a well-documented truth. I don't really see any reason why the term wouldn't be NPOV, since the only people denying Armenian indigenousness are Azeri ultranationalists and their (admittedly numerous) supporters. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There just seems to be some kind of inability to understand each other on this topic (which I have my beliefs as to why), so I will just abandon for now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing event

I updated that this event is not ongoing anymore. Since September 2023, there is practically no movement on this road, as the majority of the Armenian population left the region. To my knowledge, there are no recent reports on any blockade on this road in the international media. Grandmaster 11:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. This event is no longer ongoing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

"Scare" quotes

@Paul Vaurie: Wasn't the reasoning behind adding the quotes because multiple reliable sources do so? By not using quotes, a lot of undue weight is put on the environmentalist claim. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh: Thanks for your concern. My reasoning is that it already says "claims". I don't think quotes are necessary on top of that to express that they were simply claims of environmental activism, and not actual activism. Also, quotes just don't seem right in section titles (my opinion). Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: There is nothing in MOS:SECTIONS that is opposed to quotes in section titles. And not including them gives the impression the environmentalist claim is possibly true, which is very undue. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I say just leave it as I changed it. Do you really want to get into a lengthy unnecessary discussion about this? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what this page is for, if it benefits the article. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Are you still opposed to including the quotation marks? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they're necessary in that article place of the article. The word "claims" already portrays doubt. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Claims without the quotations only portrays a little doubt; 'maybe, maybe not', the odds of it being true or not could be 50/50. This does not accurately represent the heavy due weight that these are not environmentalists. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to contest it for now, but these are clearly scare quotes in my view. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Why was this removed again [8] months later? I thought this discussion ended a long time ago, and as I said in my last comment, claims without the quotations only portrays a little doubt; 'maybe, maybe not', the odds of it being true or not could be 50/50. This does not accurately represent the heavy due weight that these are not environmentalists, so the quotations should stay. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I'll restore it. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)