Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 5

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

RFC on infobox information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC has been open more than 30 days, discussion has largely abated, and a request for closing has been registered at WP:CR. I am here to bring your closure.
By straight headcounting, eight (8) editors !voted No and five (5) editors !voted Yes. This is a quality headcount, by which I mean there were no WP:VAGUEWAVEs.
The "no side" cited WP:NPOV for their position, hinged to what they contended was a lack of widespread use of the term "ethnic cleansing" by WP:RS. The "yes side" also argued NPOV, stating that all major positions needed to be equally reflected, and pointing to a number of their own sources that established an ethnic cleansing did occur. They went on to note that no sources say an ethnic cleansing didn't occur.
Grandmaster essentially offered a pseudo-WP:NOTNEWSPAPER rebuttal in which they said that, given how recent the conflict was, it would be impossible for a scholarly consensus of reliable sources to form that would allow an easy label like "ethnic cleansing" to be applied or not applied. This, again, prompted the observation, in surrebuttal, that no sources say an ethnic cleansing didn't occur and, because some at least said it did, it would be fine to add that to the infobox. For reasons communicated in an unnecssarily long-winded fashion by the "no side" this was unconvincing; if the planet Mars didn't spontaneously dematerialize yesterday, we can't use the absence of RS stating "Mars didn't dematerialize yesterday" as proof that Mars did dematerialize.
The "no" camp also cited the Manual of Style for the idea that value-laden labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources". And, while the "yes" camp was able to provide reliable sources that used "ethnic cleansing", as repeatedly noted by the "no" side, the volume of such sources did not have a character of universality to it (though universality is probably an unnecessarily high standard).
Finally, some editors called for termination of the RfC, stating it was premature, however, no consensus emerged to do so.
Per WP:DETCON "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." The three ways this could close is: (a) consensus for Option 1, (b) consensus for Option 2, (c) no consensus. While both sides advanced quality, policy-based arguments, the "no" camp offered more substantial unrebutted arguments. Therefore, in my opinion, there is a consensus not to include "Ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" in the infobox.
I will now provide several explanatory addendums:

  • Per WP:CCC, consensus can change and it would not be unreasonable to revisit this RfC in the near future, perhaps even again in 2024. Even the Option 2 camp accepted that — over time — sources may more widely coalesce around the idea of an ethnic cleansing.
  • The question in the RfC applied specifically to the infobox. The result of the RfC, therefore, should not be assumed to apply to the body of the article.

Please register your complaints about this close on my Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the infobox contain "Ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" as the result of the offensive?

  • Option 1 - Yes
  • Option 2 - No

Please enter Option 1 or Option 2, 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 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option 2. We have recently had a discussion about renaming Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to ethnic cleansing [1], and the Wikipedia community did not agree that there was a consensus among the reliable sources to call the event in question an ethnic cleansing. No international court or international organization established that an ethnic cleansing took place. There were 2 international missions to the region, one by the UN, and another by the CoE, and neither came to the conclusion that there was an ethnic cleansing. Most third party sources use terms such as flight, exodus, displacement, etc. Even if some authors and researches use the term "ethic cleansing", it is still a minority opinion that cannot be presented as a statement of fact in wiki voice in the infobox. Grandmaster 13:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1, speedy close. RFC is usually used as a last resort when the related discussion has gone on for too long and reached a stalemate. Clearly, this is not the case here, the nominator (Grandmaster) has abandoned the related discussion and instead opened this RFC after two editors opposed his/her revert. This isn’t how RFCs are supposed to be conducted.
When it comes to the vote, I’m not sure if I should vote in this premature and rushed RFC, but I’ll repeat what was said in the related discussion – Ethnic cleansing occurred: most subject-matter experts call this "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide": the International Association for Genocide Scholars, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Luis Moreno OCampo (former ICC chief prosecutor), and Genocide Watch, as well as Laurence Broers, the Economist, the Conversation and many more. Reliable sources also state there is consensus among the subject-matter experts.[7][6][8]
  • "Dr Bagheri [states] ‘the exact criteria for an act to be considered ethnic cleansing is not met in the case of [Nagorno-Karabakh]”’ On this, he stands largely, if not completely, alone among international legal experts…":[7]
The nominator continues to misrepresent the other article’s requested Move, even after he was told this by two different editors. The consensus in that Move was about the article’s title rather than the event. Despite what the nominator has said, ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law, and even if we go down that route, the EU Parliament, the French Parliament, and the Parliamentary Council of Europe – a supranational governing body of 46 countries – stated that ethnic cleansing occurred. Phantomette (chat) 23:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC) - sock account of the banned user. Grandmaster 16:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, for the same reasons as in the previous discussion. The article Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians was not renamed certainly not because "Ethnic cleansing" did not look nice in the title but because there is no consensus regarding the exodus qualifying as ethnic cleansing. Most sources that are convinced of the applicability of this term are either partisan (Lemkin Institute), marginal (Ocampo, who went as far as calling it "genocide") or fail WP:NOTNEWS (The Economist). There have been two independent international missions sent to the region since and neither has resorted to using such a term. Before employing sensitive language (and having a discussion over the same thing once every three weeks), I suggest waiting for at least one credible finding, such as a court ruling or a human rights practice report. Parishan (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1, speedy close. Per the sources brought forth by Phantomette and myself in the discussion above. RFC should be the last resort after extensive discussion, there has barely been any discussion. Moreover, there are a multitude of reliable scholarly sources such as Arsene Saparov in the peer reviewed Ab Imperio journal published by John Hopkins University, Harvard Mashtots professor of Armenian studies Christina Maranci in TIME, South Caucasus expert Laurence Broers in the Associated Press, and the two articles in the Journal of Genocide studies has shown a widespread scholarly use of this term in reference to what happened to the Armenians of Karabakh in 2023. This is NOT the same as the flight/exodus, which was only a part of the ethnic cleansing, as many of these scholars who specialize in this domain point out, the cultural erasure aspects following the flight and the rhetoric/actions from the Azerbaijani government all form part of this ethnic cleansing definition as well. Wikipedia is built on secondary scholarly sources from subject-matter experts that are published reliably, not the opinions of international geopolitical organizations. Opposing editors have failed to provide any justification from reliable secondary sources that dispute that ethnic cleansing was a consequence of this event. TagaworShah (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1, this is a long-lasting effect of the offensive and a direct result of it. So yes, the infobox should contain the information about the ethnic cleansing. --Governor Sheng (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, I feel that there is not enough consensus among sources that covered the situation to frame the flight of Armenians as ethnic cleansing, especially considering the gravity of the accusation. This is especially evident given that the most reputable sources on the ground that covered the situation, namely the UN representative bodies, did not find evidence of violence against the civilians. To quote, a UN mission that visited Nagorno-Karabakh on 1 October 2023 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". While the editors on the opposing side of the argument provided sources from individuals and organizations claiming that the event can be categorized as ethnic cleansing, it seems to me personally that the report from the UN representatives that actually witnessed the situation first-hand on the ground rather than sources far removed from the situation has more validity. The requests for sources that specifically argue against the categorization of the events as ethnic cleansing also seems too hurried, as the events are relatively recent, and I imagine it would take some time for secondary sources to come up that fully asses all the information and make that judgement. - Creffel(talk) 02:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1, speedy close - The nominator is prematurely initializing an RFC when the relevant discussion is unripe. Realistically, this should be speedy closed.
Moreover, multiple experts in law and genocide studies consider the situation “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide,” in addition to governments. This Reuters article and statement from the EU Parliament support exactly what the authors in the 2023 Genocide Studies International issue concluded – that both the blockade and the subsequent military offensive were part of the same process of “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide”:
  1. “O'Brien President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars believes the blockade … was in effect the start of a genocide because it was implemented with the aim of "deliberately inflicting conditions of life designed to bring about the physical destruction of the targeted group"
  2. The EU Parliament “…this attack follows months of organised starvation and isolation of the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh through the blockade…; is seriously concerned about the consequences on the civilian population which amount to de-facto ethnic cleansing.” source
The absence of commentary from a few sources (UN office in Azerbaijan, HRW, Amnesty) does not negate, contradict, or dispute the statements made by many other sources. That is poor epistemology. The absence of using a term does not imply a position, that’s WP:OR. What matters is the credibility and reliability of the many sources that use the term.
Multiple independent experts use “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide,” including Laurence Broers and David Scheffer. There are also secondary sources in peer-reviewed publications that state what happened to be “ethnic cleansing”. (Naira E. Sahakyan in Central Asian Survey, Arsène Saparov, Stefan Meister / Laure Delcour). Vanezi (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - No consensus among sources to call it ethnic cleansing.--Nicat49 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Infoboxes should only include data at the purest and the most neutral form, as it summarizes the article in a few parameters. If there's no concensus to refer to the issue as ethnic cleansing, then it shouldn't be included in the template. — Toghrul R (t) 18:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Most sources, including international organizations, do not call it ethnic cleansing, and making such non-neutral statements in the infobox is against the WP:NPOV rule.Qızılbaş (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - I believe that it is more important to rely on the opinion of international organizations. International organizations conducted monitoring in areas inhabited by Armenians and did not find anything related to ethnic cleansing. Moreover, there were no Azerbaijani soldiers in the places where they lived. Azerbaijani soldiers were only at the Lachin border checkpoint. There, their activities were broadcast live by both local and international television channels. Both in the footage filmed in Lachin and in the video filmed by the Armenians in Gorus, we see a sufficient number of Armenians thanking the Azerbaijani soldiers for their kind attitude. In addition, Armenians who fled their places of residence were also asked to remain in their homes. They mentioned that they left here voluntarily. I can show dozens of videos related to the facts I have presented. Based on these facts, how can this be called ethnic cleansing?--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Numerous genocide scholars, regional experts, and peer-reviewed secondary sources all confirm that ethnic cleansing occurred, which means including ethnic cleansing "fairly represent[s] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" (WP:NPOV). If there were WP:CONFLICTING sources, then we could attribute the statement as an opinion but there are no reliable sources that challenge this. According to WP:WEIGHT, viewpoints should be included if it is "easy to name prominent adherents" or "east to substantiate with references to commonly accepted reference texts". Prominent adherents for ethnic cleansing include Laurence Broers (Caucasus expert with Chatham House), Genocide Watch, Luis Moreno Ocampo (former lead prosecutor to the ICC), Melanie O'Brien (head of the International Association for Genocide Studies), the EU Parliament, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. There are also many others. The EU Parliament just recently issued a motion for a resolution reaffirming that ethnic cleansing occurred. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 1 There is no disagreement over ethnic cleansing. It should appear on infobox. Orientls (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option 2, I'm not seeing consensus that ethnic cleansing happenned, and it's a very serious accusation to make. If consensus flips, then this can be discussed again.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • Comment (summoned by bot). Infoboxes work best when they contain uncontroversial information that can be consumed at-a-glance, without needing explanation or nuance (because there isn’t room for elaboration). Anybody wishing to add a value-laden or contentious label to an infobox should be prepared to demonstrate that it is universally or near-universally used by independent reliable sources. If the matter is not settled amongst the sources, the infobox is not the place to try to settle it. I add this as a comment rather than a vote, because I haven’t looked at the sources myself. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just to add that it's been just 5 months since the offensive, and it is impossible to claim a scholarly consensus within such a short period of time. It usually takes a few years for such consensus to be formed. European parliament is the only international organization to use the term, but its resolutions are not binding on the European Commission, and the Commission, the EU Council President and other officials do not use the term. [2] PACE resolution mentions "allegations" of ethnic cleansing, but allegations are not the same as the established fact. Ocampo is the person who uses terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" quite easily, without any field investigation. For example, he accuses Israel of genocide too: [3], and he also made statements accusing Hamas of genocide. Lemkin Institute is a little known small NGO that exists for about a couple of years. Well established and respected HRW [4] and Amnesty International [5] make no mention of ethnic cleansing, but use terms such as "exodus", "flight" and "displacement". In addition, as is mentioned by HRW and Amnesty, there was a much larger displacement of ethnic Azerbaijani population from Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh, but we don't use the term "ethnic cleansing" for that situation, even though sources such as aforementioned Broers use it. [6] And mainstream international media also does not mostly use the term. Grandmaster 00:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    Are there any sources that explicitly disaffirm that ethnic cleansing has occurred, as opposed to being silent on the matter or using some other term? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    No, because the claims of ethnic cleansing were not upheld on any important international forum, like the UN. If something is not widely accepted, no one feels the need to question it. Armenia actually brought up the claims of ethnic cleansing to ICJ, but the court did not accept them. [7] [8] The final verdict only instructs Azerbaijan to ensure the safety of people who want to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. The problem is that since the term is not widely used in the mainstream media, and most international organizations and states do not use it either, it is a minority opinion. It is only used by some authors and a few minor NGOs, but the top ones like HRW and Amnesty refrain from using such terms. UN and Council of Europe sent special missions to the region to inspect the situation, and neither used the term "ethnic cleansing". And those are top international organizations. We simply cannot present some personal opinions as facts in a wiki voice, that would be against WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If we look at Israel–Hamas war, same Ocampo and Lemkin Institute mentioned here accuse Israel of genocide, but the infobox does not say that there was genocide or ethnic cleansing, it only mentions population displacement. I think that is a neutral way of presenting the facts. Grandmaster 22:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    I would agree that Lemkin at least is a problematic source as they seem to take a very broad (dare I say fringe) definition of what counts as genocide. I’m pretty sure almost every major conflict would qualify as one of their “patterns of genocide”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    I guess the challenge is: how do we know that the UN, HRW, Amnesty and the Council of Europe are the gold-standard authorities on what is an ethnic cleansing and what isn’t? And do they publish lists of ethnic cleansings on which this one is conspicuously absent? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    To my knowledge, such lists do not exist. But the fact is that such terminology is not used by major international organizations. Neither did the International Court of Justice created by the UN agree to use that term which was proposed by Armenia. So if the highest international court does not support it, there is no legally established fact of the ethnic cleansing. How can we claim ethnic cleansing as a fact when it was not established on the international level? Many of the sources using the term are quite problematic, for example Ocampo and Lemkin use it for other conflicts too. But should the Gaza conflict be labelled as genocide and ethnic cleansing, because these sources call it so? And if the UN, HRW, Amnesty and the Council of Europe don't use the term, why should we go with less authoritative sources that do use it? If we have to choose between HRW and Lemkin, HRW is a lot more serious and well respected organization than little known Lemkin. Grandmaster 14:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    Another question is, during the 30 years of its history, this conflict resulted in displacement of large groups of population on both sides. Is it only an ethnic cleansing if one group is displaced, or it is the same for all people? For example, Laurence Broers cited here as a source considers displacement of much larger Azerbaijani population (over 650,000) from Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to be an ethnic cleansing too: [9] Should we include "ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijani population" in the infoboxes of the articles about the First Nagorno-Karabakh War? Grandmaster 14:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    It’s possible that both incidents were ethnic cleansing, but each needs strong sourcing to say so in the infobox. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    There are sources, but as you wrote above, the question is if the term is universally or near-universally used by independent reliable sources. Grandmaster 16:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    As multiple editors have pointed out, there is a difference between A) staying silent on something and B) refutation. Which reputable sources dispute the consensus that ethnic cleansing occurred? Given that there are multiple reliable sources that characterize this as "ethnic cleansing" the onus is the nominator to find better sources that explicitly dispute them.
    Ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law, so the ICJ or the ICC will not use the term.
    Moreover, multiple genocide scholars - including both Genocide Watch and the Lemkin Institute -- prefer to not use the term "ethnic cleansing" because they consider it a euphemism for genocidal behavior.[1][2]
    Even Genocide Watch - which makes an institutional decision explicitly against using the term "ethnic cleansing"[3], essentially covers it under their 10-stage model of Genocide. Stage 8 called "Persecution" refers to when victims are subject to "forced displacement" and "confined to a famine-struck region and starved". These are both things which were well documented. Phantomette (chat) 17:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    I will respond only here, because there is no need to have 2 discussions at the same page. This source, Genocide Studies International, is from 2021. How it could have any relevance to something that happened in 2023? And I have shown that the term is not generally accepted by the international community when referring to this event. Neither it is used by the top human rights organizations, such as HRW and Amnesty. Lemkin and Genocide Watch are lesser known ones that label every conflict and displacement as genocide or ethnic cleansing (same as Ocampo). For example, they call the hostilities in Gaza genocide too: [10] [11] Should we go with Lemkin or GW with claims of genocide, or with much more authoritative HRW or Amnesty, who talk of displacement? Lori Khatchadourian is an Archaeologist, not an expert on this subject. And the reason why no one refutes the claims of ethnic cleansing is that there has never been any serious discussion of it at any authoritative forum. Marginal views tend to be largely ignored. And as I wrote, claims of scholarly consensus within just a few months of the event are too premature. If 2 lawyers claim consensus, it does not mean that it is necessarily so, because there has not been a really wide discussion on the subject. It will take time. We saw that ICJ did not uphold claims of ethnic cleansing presented by Armenia, and that is a higher authority than a couple of individual lawyers. And if as you say "ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law", then how can lawyers have a consensus on that? Grandmaster 20:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    That must be a typographical error on their website Genocide Studies International If you look at the citations for each article individually you can see that the articles were released in 2023. The first article' and second article's titles reveal this. The blockade of the Lachin Corridor happened in 2022 so these articles are quite clearly about the blockade between 2022-2023.
  • You have still not provided any reliable sources that explicitly dispute this. Phantomette (chat) 21:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    The articles from Genocide Studies are still from before September 2023. And HRW and Amnesty are not beside the point, same as the UN, CoE, ICJ, etc. Since these important entities do not share the claim of ethnic cleansing, it shows that there is no consensus to use this term for the event. No one has to explicitly dispute a certain claim to demonstrate no consensus. If the majority of independent reliable sources do not use that term, it means that the term is not universally accepted with regards to this event. And when it comes to the legal side of things, there was no legally established fact of ethnic cleansing in a court of law, or by any international organization that conducted its own investigation. The only place where the claim of ethnic cleansing was brought to, the ICJ, did not accept it in its ruling. Grandmaster 21:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    Ethnic cleansing is not defined in international criminal law so the UN, ICJ, and ICC won't mention it. The silence of a few sources does not dispute the statements of other reliable sources.
    The flight of Karabakh Armenians reached its peak on September 19, 2023 but was a process which began as early as December 22, 2022 when Azerbaijan launched a blockade of the region and sabotaged critical public infrastructure (gas, electricity, Internet). This is why four out of six peer-reviewed articles in this Genocide Studies Studies issue described the crisis as "ethnic cleansing."
    There is consensus among subject-matter experts and others (the Economist, Laurence Broers, etc) as articulated in the following:
    Why would these quotations exist if there was no consensus? Please answer this question. Phantomette (chat) 22:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    It is not about silence. You claim that there is a consensus to call this event an ethnic cleansing. In that case, most independent sources must call it so, but that is not happening. These are top international organizations/human rights defenders that do not use the term "ethnic cleansing", but use terms such as "exodus, flight, displacement":
  • These organizations have much higher importance and weight than anyone who calls this event an ethnic cleansing. Also the governments of USA, UK and Russia declined to qualify this event an ethnic cleansing too. If those important sources do not use the term "ethnic cleansing", how can we claim consensus, especially considering that the top international organizations such the UN and the CoE actually sent missions to the region to inspect the situation? Regarding the claims of consensus among the lawyers, Sheila Paylan, one of the persons who makes the claim is certainly not a neutral source. She was part of the The Republic of Armenia’s legal team at ICJ, i.e. she represented one of the parties to the conflict, and her legal team failed to convince the ICJ that there was an ethnic cleansing. And also, you contradict yourself when you say that there is no legal definition of ethnic cleansing, but the lawyers have a consensus that it happened. How can lawyers have a consensus on something that has no legal definition? If there is no legal definition, then it is not lawyers competence to opine on it. Regarding Genocide studies, this Wikipedia article is about a particular event that took place in September 2023. Anything prior to that cannot apply here, even if it was about the related events, because per WP:CRYSTAL we do not write about predictions. We cannot say there was a consensus to call the event something before it happened. And lastly, the inews.co.uk is not a well-known source when it comes to the world affairs, and it refers to the same Ocampo, Lemkin and a couple of others to make its claim. But the article is poorly written, refers to twitter posts by unknown individuals such as Злой Мамед (?), etc. It reads more like yellow press than a serious news report. Grandmaster 08:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
    Let's keep this simple.
    Multiple reliable sources with PhDs in genocide-studies, international relations, law, and sociology have stated that "ethnic cleansing" and/or "genocide" occurred. Numerous reliable publications (the Economist, the Conversation, Globe and Mail, etc) also state this. 'Ethnic cleansing' is not a concept defined in international criminal law, but the acts that comprise it are. Therefore, the phrase will not officially be used by a UN court (ICC, ICJ) or by a lawyer Paylan (despite what you claim) at an international court.
    The silence of a few sources does not dispute the many statements of other reliable sources. That's not how WP:VERIFY works.
    Therefore, it is irrelevant that the HRW, Amnesty, the UN, and ICJ have not used the phrase "ethnic cleansing" when many other reliable sources state this.
    You have yet to provide reliable sources that dispute the consensus that ethnic cleansing occurred. Phantomette (chat) 17:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, Paylan is not a neutral and independent source, as she legally represents one of the sides to the conflict. We need third party sources, which she is not. And then again, you say that lawyers have a consensus that there was an ethnic cleansing, but ethnic cleansing is not a legally defined concept. If it so, what relevance does the lawyers opinion have? Genocide studies are from before September 2023, so not applicable here either. Regarding news reports, during the recent RM other users provided statistics of the use of various terms in mass media, including "ethic cleansing", and there was no consensus that the latter was the predominant one. In fact, there are very few reliable non-partisan sources using the term "ethic cleansing", while those that use the terms such as "flight", "exodus", "displacement", etc, are of much higher quality and authority. Minority views rarely get criticism, and the fact that no one contests claims of ethnic cleansing does not mean that the term is generally accepted to refer to this event. The fact that those top sources that I provided do not mention any ethnic cleansing shows that the term is not universally accepted. There were 2 missions from the top international organizations to the region (the UN and CoE) that made no mention of any ethnic cleansing. That already shows that the term has no general acceptance by the international community. Another example, G7 states also talk of "displacement", not "ethnic cleansing": [12] As other users have mentioned above, to claim something as a fact in the infobox, it should be demonstrated that the fact is universally or near-universally used by independent reliable sources. We don't see that happening, as the most reliable third party sources that covered the topic do not use the term of ethnic cleansing. This actually is becoming a circular argument, so better let other users weigh in. Grandmaster 09:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment：There have been more than 5 months for subject-matter experts to reach a consensus. The flight of Karabakh Armenians reached its peak on September 19, 2023 but was a process which began as early as December 22, 2022 when Azerbaijan launched a blockade of the region and sabotaged critical public infrastructure (gas, electricity, Internet). This is why Genocide Studies International – a peer-reviewed journal specializing in genocide studies – published an entire special issue on the crisis long before Azerbaijan’s offensive in September 2023. Four out of six peer-reviewed articles in this special issue described the crisis – blockade, intimidation of civilians, sabotage of public infrastructure – as "ethnic cleansing." Multiple reliable sources described the blockade itself as a form of “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide” long before the military offensive and state that there is consensus among subject-matter experts:
    • "While this [genocide] alert was dismissed by some Azeri websites, it is significant that the Lemkin Institute is not alone in warning that the serious situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is in danger of descending into genocide. In September 2022, Genocide Watch also issued a Genocide Warning, noting that…"
    • "There is no doubt in the minds of experts in genocide prevention – at the Lemkin Institute, but also at Genocide Watch, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and among legal experts such as former ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo – that what Armenians are facing from Azerbaijan is genocide."
    • "Genocide experts believe that Azeri policies including the nine-month blockade and attacks on civilian population centres amount to ethnic cleansing and genocide." Phantomette (chat) 20:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    That's a minority opinion. As I mentioned above, the most authoritative human rights organizations HRW and Amnesty do not say that there was an ethnic cleansing, so we cannot take those minor entities's opinions over the more respected ones. Also, genocide warning is not the same as the established fact of ethnic cleansing. Clearly, there is no consensus among the reliable sources to call this event an ethnic cleansing. It is just an opinion of some, but not all, or most. Grandmaster 08:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    It is not a minority opinion among subject-matter experts: “genocide experts believe that…”, "Dr Bagheri [states] ‘the exact criteria for an act to be considered ethnic cleansing is not met in the case of [Nagorno-Karabakh]”’ On this, he stands largely, if not completely, alone among international legal experts…"
    Subject-matter experts that characterize the situation as “ethnic cleansing”
    • Genocide Watch,
    • The International Association for Genocide Scholars,
    • Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention,
    • Luis Moreno OCampo [former founding ICC Prosecutor], [& second report]
    • Sheila Paylan [international human rights lawyer and former legal advisor to the United Nations] and Agnieszka Klonowiecka-Milart [former member of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal & international judge of the Supreme Court of the ECCC and Kosovo]
    • Laurence Broers [Caucasus expert, a Research Associate, with the London-based think tank Chatham House, and at the Centre of Contemporary Central Asia & the Caucasus, School of Oriental and African Studies]
    • David J. Scheffer - [Professor and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), with a focus on international law and international criminal justice, former UN Secretary-General’s Special Expert on UN Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials, and he was the Tom A. Bernstein Genocide Prevention Fellow]
    • Hasmik Egian [former chief of staff in the UN Special Envoy for Syria and director of the UN’s Security Council Affairs Department]
    • Genocide Studies International (the special edition in which four out of six articles described the crisis as ethnic cleansing]
    • Lori Khatchadourian [founder of Cornell University’s Caucasus Heritage Watch]
    I could provide more sources from journalists and academics but I’ve limited the list to those whose credentials are focused on the region or genocide/international law
    Multiple governments characterize the crisis as ethnic cleansing:
    • EU Parliament "supports the ongoing peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which have been seriously hampered by the recent military operation against Nagorno-Karabakh and the de facto ethnic cleansing;"
    • PACE: "the massive exodus of almost the entire Armenian population from this region, has led to allegations and reasonable suspicions that this amounts to ethnic cleansing" and "notes the strong statements by Azerbaijan refuting such allegations and suspicions and calls upon the authorities to spare no effort in proving, through deeds and words, that this is not the case."
    • French Parliament: “the forced exodus of Karabakh’s ethnic Armenian population caused by the offensive amounted to ethnic cleansing.”
    Phantomette (chat) 17:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    Still a minority. UN and CoE missions to the region do not say there was an ethnic cleansing. HRW and Amnesty do not say that either. Major states such as USA, UK and Russia, plus pretty much every other state in the world, except France, do not say there was an ethnic cleansing. So no recognition at the international level whatsoever (except the EU parliament that is not supported by the EU commission, the higher authority). PACE resolution that you quoted does not say that there was an ethnic cleansing, it says that there were allegations. We cannot claim allegations as facts. The vast majority of media reports do not use the term either. That leaves us with a few opinions that do not represent the general consensus. Hasmik Egian was sanctioned for misconduct by the UN: [13] and left the organization, so she has a conflict of interest there. Lemkin is accusing Israel of genocide too: [14], but we do not see the articles about the Israel-Palestine conflict going by Lemkin Institute opinion. And as I said above, scholarly consensus takes years to form, not just a few months or even a year. Grandmaster 22:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
    If I may just chip in with my opinion, I feel like for every source you cite that covers the 2023 Karabakh offensive that calls the flight of Karabakh Armenians an "ethnic cleansing" there is at least one more source that does not call it that. Just take the U.N. mission for example that says "they did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire."
    It seems like an issue of taking the opinions of a select groups of people and organizations, and presenting it as the consensus opinion – which I don't think it is. - Creffel (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    There is consensus among subject-matter experts indicated by multiple sources above and articulated in the following: “genocide experts believe that…” and "Dr Bagheri [states] ‘the exact criteria for an act to be considered ethnic cleansing is not met in the case of [Nagorno-Karabakh]”’ On this, he stands largely, if not completely, alone among international legal experts…"
    We must defer to the consensus among subject-matter experts on this, virtually all of which describe this as ethnic cleansing (see above).
    Hasmik was found guilty of “creating a hostile work environment” for “comments about the gender composition of the senior management team.” This has no bearing on this person’s conclusions about ethnic cleansing and is an ad hominem attack.
    As multiple editors have pointed out, there is a difference between A) staying silent on something and B) refutation. Which reputable sources dispute the consensus that ethnic cleansing occurred?
    You still have not provided any sources that explicitly dispute the contention that “ethnic cleansing” occurred. Phantomette (chat) 17:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is NOT a legal category and does not have an official definition... there is no "exact criteria" for being ethnic cleansing, especially given disputes regarding the definition of the concept (see the sources cited in the ethnic cleansing article—although I believe this event would qualify by most definitions). (t · c) buidhe 04:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with regard to there being no such legal category. The question is, as was pointed above by another user, if it is universally or near-universally accepted by independent reliable sources to call this an ethnic cleansing. Grandmaster 16:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I rolled back the edits by the sock account in the infobox, per WP:BANREVERT. I think the content of the infobox should not be changed until this RFC is closed. Grandmaster 16:52, 21 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive_5&oldid=1221534220"