Talk:Zangezur corridor

Wishes vs facts

Everybody who is going to edit this article. Take a good look at the actual text of the ceasefire agreement - it says neither "Zangezur" nor "corridor". "Zangezur corridor" is a propaganda term used exclusively by Azerbaijani state and the media it sponsors, trying to make it equivalent to Lachin corridor without the agreement saying anything like that. Do not post wishes and POVs of Azerbaijani government as facts, please. Stick to the facts published in reliable non partisan sources. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed the speedy, this is not a blatant case. WP:G3, it should probably got to WP:AFD for a discussion. Jeepday (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for advice, created AfD discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zangezur_corridor --Armatura (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverting

Hello @Alalch Emis, kindly explain your rationale for this revision [1]. Also in general, I would suggest you slow down on you edits with WP:OR info, which you did these couple of days. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi ZaniGiovanni. The rationale is as follows: the blockade is included and sourced in the body. You removed the blockade from the lead citing an OR rationale, but left the blockade in the body. From a purely formal standpoint, according to MOS:LEAD, under which the lead is a summary of the body, your removal of the blockade from the lead only, simply weakens the lead without changing the substance of the article, and therefore, even if you're right about OR, your actual edit doesn't reflect the OR rationale. Therefore it couldn't have made the article better and I reverted it. If you have a disagreement with the treatment of the blockade in the article, it needs to be approached systematically. Regards — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would highly encourage you to read the First Nagorno-Karabakh War article, and to see who blockaded whom. I would also encourage you to not selectively cite sources that resonate with your point of view, to keep the text WP:NPOV. And self-made long synthetic historical discourses in the lead are undue. The lead should state what it is, without too much background justification for the existence of the subject of the article - it feels like that currently.

There is a lot of filling material in the text replicating what's already written in other NKR-related articles, no need for that - they can just be wikilinked - the war, the agreement, the border crisis, etc. This article, if it stays at all, should be a balanced part of other AA articles ecosystem, not a compilation of texts from here and there from those articles. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Most people need a little background information presented in an "organic" way, or the article won't be readable for them. Including content already covered in other articles to this extent has just been a matter of style. There is no deeper meaning behind, say, describing the 1994-2020 period in a few sentences as opposed to a terse wikilink. It's necessary filler. On the lead: the lead derives from the body. Copy-pasted excerpts from news org texts aren't a legitimate approach to crafting the lead, even in the most controversial articles. Body comes first (meaning: scope and structure come first), lead comes second. On the blockade: I don't have to read that article. I don't understand based on what you say how the blockade should be explained - do you have a proposal?— Alalch Emis (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"is a name for"

@Armatura: I'm initiating this discussion about your revert (diff), by responding to your rationale in the edit summary as follows: A non-normative random excerpt from a project page (a how-to guide which is not encyclopedic in nature) does not trump a policy norm that is WP:ISATERMFOR. I'm eager to hear your reply. Regards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. At this point the ‘corridor’ neither exists nor shows any signs of imminently becoming a reality, hence more cautious language should be used when referring to a hypothetical concept that is heavily promoted by one side of the conflict but heavily rejected by the other side, and not supported by any legal document. It is a name for a concept that is not even even defined beyond the use of that name. It’s more neutral in this extremely sensitive topic, in which I am marinating for 14 years. Not sure whether Wikipedia has a policy for common sense, but regardless, it’s usually worth relying on. Regards --Armatura (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Per the cited policy, the first sentence simply can't contain "is a name for". This is a very cogent and widely accepted norm that is applied on completely formal grounds. The only time the first sentence can contain "is a name for" is when the WP:WORDISSUBJECT. But here the word is not the subject. Both the proposed thing and the controversy surrounding it are the subject, not the name for this proposed thing - that's also important but is not the primary subject and is an aspect of the controversy. It is a fact of nature that two points on a map can be connected with a transport corridor, it is a fact of economics that there are proposed solutions to economic blockades, and a fact of politics that different parties want different implementations of this, and ultimately a fact of discourse that different groups will invent different names to best fit their interpretations. The subject is multilayered, but the subject is not a word. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I followed that argument. As I pointed out above, nobody cancelled common sense (or the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules rule). Caution is really advised here, so that something non-existing and vague and controversial in real life is not served to a casual Wiki reader as something that is clear-cut defined and consensus-reached. This also applies to multiple edits you made over last 72 hours in this article - some of them required quite an effort to convert into WP:NPOV and WP:NOR encyclopedic text. I appreciate you are being WP:BOLD and it's usually okay in most articles, but on the other hand extreme sensitivity is warranted in this highly politicised topic - thousands got killed recently and currently there is a high-risk standoff between two sides, keeping a low-key attitude and not running ahead of the events would be the common-sense strategy here. I warn against editing here to prove a point, the facts in this topic are not as hard as the facts you described in your reasoning, they are more of a soft mess presently. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Descriptive name

Since Zangezur corridor is potentially not a WP:COMMONNAME (I'm currently not taking a concrete position that it is or isn't), and is controversial (this is certainly the case, and is explained in the article), maybe a descriptive name should be used alongside it in the lead and/or the article could perhaps benefit from a descriptive title. Looking at WP:CRITERIA, something that comes to mind is Azerbaijan–Nakhchivan transport corridor. Edit: other options: Azerbaijan–Armenia–Nakhchivan transport corridor; Azerbaijan–Armenia–Nakhchivan corridor. This is not an RM, just a preliminary discussion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no need for using names that are not used by sources. We are not here to invent names - WP:OR. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Zangezur corridor clearly has become the most common name, be it because of Aliyev or be it because of this Wikipedia article... Super Ψ Dro 11:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your appreciation that the name used in Wikipedia may influence journalists so they use that very name as the most "accepted" one - the partisan / non-professional ones won't dig deep enough to see that is not a consensus name, and won't be honest enough to say that is not a consensus name even if they dig that deep. This article already made some damage in the real world, Super Dromaeosaurus, and honoring your confession that when starting this article you were influence by pro-Azeri media to much, I would be grateful if you could now collaborate with Alalch Emis and me in choosing more neutral name. --Armatura (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am not opposed to a name change, and now that I think of it better and with the comment made below I only see benefits by getting a better name, so sure. Super Ψ Dro 18:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: "the most common name" as it appears to you or me, may easily not be the "single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by (a) /significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources/". When there is no such name, "editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering /WP:CRITERIA/ directly". Also, "when there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." 'Zangezur corridor' could be the most common name, but there are both other non-descriptive names (which may or may not be less problematic), and a consensus-informed descriptive name. Perhaps you have a few follow-up thoughts on the matter when I lay it out like this. Moving to a potentially better name will also solve the WP:ISATERMFOR deficiency that currently eludes consensus. Edit: simply put, "the most common name" is, in general, very possibly not the COMMONNAME, per policy. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Now that you laid it out like that, Alalch Emis, I actually have some follow-up thoughts. I'd be very able to follow that logic if we skip the unilaterally promoted propaganda "corridor" definition altogether and name the article what it really is about, is agreed per ceasefire and is on the table - Armenia–Azerbaijan transport connections, or Armenia–Azerbaijan transport links - these terms would describe the subject with NPOV language and with legitimate terms. Going even further, as there is currently not much in this article to qualify for an article on its own rights, I would propose to merge it with ceasefire agreement (as 'implementation' or 'aftermath' ) or make it a section of a larger article (yet to be written) - Transport connections in South Caucasus or Transport in South Caucasus (like Transport in Europe), which will involve similar sections for Armenia-Goergia transport connections and Azerbaijan-Georgia transport connections. I already made some of these proposals in the (vaguely closed) AfD discussion. Regards --Armatura (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the word "corridor" could still be used if we exclude "Zangezur" from the title, although I am not saying it has to, but I regard "Azerbaijan–Armenia–Nakhchivan transport corridor" (maybe we can remove "transport") as a good option. I am seeking for title ideas at Category:Transport corridors and I believe most possible options wouldn't be too different from this proposal. Are there any other articles on Wikipedia of similar concepts using the words "connection" or "link"? For the latter I only found Deutsches Eck (transport link) and "transport link" is used as a disambiguator.

I think this article has enough information as to be merged into the 2020 ceasefire agreement, but I am not opposed to expanding the scope of the article, although I don't see it as completely necessary. Super Ψ Dro 18:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for flexible approach, Super Dromaeosaurus The more I think about this the more I think that a merger will really solve the issue with the current article. The "corridor" term is the single point of friction, heavily contested by one side of the conflict, and aggressively promoted the other side, why would we want to keep such a non-neutral title that is not even derived from the cited agreement? Whereas having everything that has been done after the agreement to give life to the agreed points in the ceasefire agreement as subsection with neutral name in the agreement article would make perfect sense to a neutral reader, would you agree? Regards, --Armatura (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC) The alternative could be Transport in South Caucasus (it's all about unblocking regional transport connections, isn't?) or Armenia-Azerbaijan relations (transport connections are organic part of those relations, aren't they?) or perhaps a third option that has not been thought of yet. Will depend on the size of the host article of course. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to any of the current ones, but although the merger is a possible fast solution, it perhaps is not completely necessary. The ceasefire article could perhaps not be able to receive all the information in this article without it being given WP:UNDUE attention. We could start a RfC or RM to get more approaches and points of view, someone could give arguments that convince us to follow one of the existing options or a new one. Super Ψ Dro 19:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Tags

Are the tags still relevant? Are there still NPOV issues, or WP:OR issues here? Grandmaster 09:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I have taken the liberty to remove the OR tag now that text was collectively improved by adding secondary sources since the tag was placed (thanks all who participated!). NPOV issue will ultimately be fixed by rename/merger (see below the discussions), so an article about the options of unblocking the regional connections is no longer named by a unilaterally promoted Turanist/Gobleist/Aliyevist term. --Armatura (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't mind renaming, but so far the present name appears to be the most popular one. However if there are better ideas, we can always look into them. Grandmaster 16:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for being flexible. I was thinking of an RfC, or is there a better tool for having a large number of uninvolved editors making / supporting suggestions? You have been here longer in WP than than anybody else participating in this article editing I think, your expertise is valued. --Armatura (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe RFC is the best way. But we need to come up with a couple of alternative names to discuss. I cannot think of any at the moment. Meghri corridor is more often used in Armenia, but in terms of popularity the present name is the most popular. But in a few months there might be other names. I understand that there is a general consensus that communications in the region must open. Russia actively pushes for it. It needs a direct land access to the Middle East via Turkey. The USA and the EU are generally in favor. And both the Armenian leadership and opposition are in favor of it too, they only argue whether it should be called a corridor or something else. I think there will be more clarity after the elections in Armenia. And once there is an actual progress with implementation of the project, they may come up with a name that is acceptable for everyone. Normally the name of such project would be something like Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway or Transcaucasus Railway. Together with motorways it would be a transport corridor, something like the International North–South Transport Corridor, or even a section of it. But it may take a while until they decide on something. Grandmaster 21:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Question, is the NPOV tag still here because of the article's title? Super Ψ Dro 20:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

About whitewashing dictators

@Grandmaster, kindly explain your edit here [1]. Your same style additions on multiple other articles seem nothing but a whitewash attempt of Aliev’s clear territorial claims over Armenia [2], [3]. The latter’s description is just something: “This is a personal interpretation, and original research. Saying that the territory is historically yours does not mean that you claim it now. Plus, in later he speeches he clarified that he meant no claims to territory”.

Guys guys listen, I understand, it’s not a “territorial claim” as Grandmaster wants everyone to believe, and it’s not like Aliev made similar irredentist claims over Armenia many times over the years, did he? [4] [5] [6]

Btw, Grandmaster also wants a specific source saying that this claim by Aliev is "irredentist" otherwise he just "mentioned" it according to them. [4]

I think it's pretty safe to say that Aliev's claims over Armenia's territory are in fact, irredentist. Again, given his history of those repeated claims, and how every time he mentions "historical Azerbaijani lands" when claiming Armenia's territory. No amount of recent whitewash by you or press secretary commentary afterwards [5] can change it. No amount of wording replaced from "claimed” to "mentioned" can change that too [6], when even the source says "claimed" |10.

You can't go around and add this sentence to every unhinged Aliev irredentist claims: "In a later speech Aliyev said: "We will remember our history, but we have no territorial claims to any country, including Armenia". Again, when someone has a clear history of claiming a sovereign country's territory, this addition just seems like a whitewash attempt, with all the minor details like changing "claimed" to "mentioned", or changing "by force" to "compel" like here [7], after yet another of his threats to Armenia's territory. The latter you were claiming was a "wrong translation", and which I had to cite you, a native Azerbaijani speaker, Aliev's exact quote in Azeri language |12. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We do not add our personal interpretations. We only quote what reliable sources say, according to the rules. We cannot make our own interpretations, and decide, what is irredentism, and what is not. You need a reliable source to claim that something is irredentism. Aliyev clearly said that Azerbaijani has no territorial claims to Armenia. And Aliyev did clarify his remarks when he was asked about them by international academics. We cannot quote speeches selectively. He explained that when he said that Azerbaijani people would return to Armenia, he meant a peaceful return, i.e. return of refugees. [8] His spokesman said the same thing. I see no reason why we should not include those statements too. In general, the rules advise not to make personal interpretations of primary sources, but to find reliable secondary sources to make such interpretations. Also, please mind WP:AGF and remember to comment on content, and not the contributor. Claims of whitewashing, etc, are certainly not in line with AGF rules. Thank you. Grandmaster 14:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

But, Grandmaster, let's put our hands on our hearts and agree that the meaning that a sentence delivers will depend a lot on the words used outside the direct citation, right? No source might have called it irrendist (I have not searched myself), but equally what he said about "our historical lands" is at best tendentious, don't you agree? As what Aliyev said (and a lot of what Azerbaijani history textbook say) contradicts with the mainstream history, and if one doesn't make that controversy clear (by the fact of having downplayed it to "mentioned", instead of, for example, "claimed" as a medium between hard "irrendist" and formalist "mentioned"), then we are not, in fact, staying neutral, but presenting what he said under a better light than the lighting in reality was and giving some things that he said more weight than those statements actually deserve. If Aliyev said a few unacceptable things then one more politically correct thing he still said those unacceptable things and a healthy weight balance should me maintained, but false balance equalising them is not appropriate. It's a soft issue, but still - an issue. Apologetics, I believe, is the word - it is more scientific and politically correct then whitewashing. I have seen a lot of soft apologetics from Armenian editors, for example, in Khojaly massacre article, and I equally dislike it. We should avoid apologetics in Wikipedia, would you agree? --Armatura (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Aliyev's statements are deliberately ambiguous. When he says that Erivan was historically Azerbaijani, and mentions an undeniable fact that the city had 80% Turkic population before it was conquered by the Russian empire, [9] it does not follow that he claims Erivan as part of Azerbaijan. He just refers to a well-known historical fact of the past ethnic composition of the city. When he says that Azerbaijani people will return to Zangezur or Yerevan, he only talks about people, and not the troops or Azerbaijani administration. In Armenia his words cause panic, and politicians use them for their propaganda, but in my understanding he just shows Armenian leaders what it feels like when someone talks about your country as someone else's historical land. It is quite a normal thing in Armenia to talk about Azerbaijani territories as historical Armenian lands, and Armenian public does not get alarmed when its politicians make claims to part or whole of Azerbaijan. But Aliyev shows them that this is a game that could be played together, while avoiding making any direct territorial claim. He only talks about history and return of people. In any case, "irredentist" or whatever is a label that we cannot slap on something because we find it appropriate. That would be an original research. In case of Aliyev, he clearly said more than once that Azerbaijan has no territorial claims to Armenia, and that any return of Azerbaijani people to Armenia would be peaceful, and not "on a tank". That clearly contradicts the idea of irredentism. If we quote someone, we should not do it selectively, but present the entire context of what he said on a particular topic, and he said different things. But better yet, we should avoid making our own assumptions and cherry-picking, and find a reliable third party source that would provide a good analysis. And it is not whitewashing or apologetics when you present accurately everything that was said, and not just a select part of it, it is objectivity. Grandmaster 15:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I linked you specific examples to which you haven't answered. I'll ask again in a more detailed fashion: Kindly explain one of your same sentence style addition here [10]. Quote:

Following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Azerbaijan's president Ilham Aliyev stated that Armenia's capital Yerevan, Zangezur (Syunik), and Sevan (Gegharkunik) were the "historical lands" of Azerbaijan. "We will remember our history, but we have no territorial claims to any country, including Armenia," Aliyev said in his speech at a conference in Baku.. I highlighted your addition, now kindly answer this:

How does your addition relate to the statement before about Aliev's "historic Az" land claims when

a) It's not a "clarification" on anything, at least not how your added source described it ("We do not add our personal interpretations" btw);

b) The quote in question that you added in multiple instances precisely after Aliev's land claims, is from 13 April 2021, meanwhile the statment in question here after which its added, quote: "Following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Azerbaijan's president Ilham Aliyev stated that Armenia's capital Yerevan, Zangezur (Syunik), and Sevan (Gegharkunik) were the "historical lands" of Azerbaijan.", is from December 2020.

You were not even hesitant to add the supposed "clarification" in your words, when even your source from 4 months later doesn't make any connection to the initial statement and doesn't mention anything about "clarification".

And now you're here, lecturing your fellow editors how "Wikipedia operates" and about "personal interpretations"? I'm going to actually assume good faith and wait for your thorough explanation of this situation. Otherwise, you leave me no choice but to bring this to ANI's attention. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

To begin with, what those statements of Aliyev have to do with border crisis? What reliable source establishes a connection between those statements and the border demarcation issues? It was an OR to include them in the first place. And second, I just provided a source above [11], and here is the original full text, [12] where professor Michael Reynolds from Princeton uni asked Aliyev to clarify his statements about historical Azerbaijani lands in Armenia, and Aliyev said that he never meant that Azerbaijani people would return on tanks. As you can see, those statements are directly related, as the last one was a clarification for previous statements. And you are free to take content disputes anywhere you like, but content disputes have already been taken to ANI a number of times, and each time it was advised to follow standard dispute resolution procedures. So it is entirely up to you, I'm always ready to cooperate with admins to resolve any problems. Grandmaster 16:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, Grandmaster, but looking at some edits of yours highlighted above, and not only the highlighted ones, I have to I ask a blunt question - what are your personal views on Aliyev? Multiple good sources call him a dictator and multiple good sources confirm the crude disregard for human rights, press freedom and free speech in the country he has been dominating for over a decade. I am asking this as the answer may explain why when you write sentences featuring Aliyev they may look to others as if you actually like him and support him in what's he's doing. That personal liking of him may result in presenting his speeches and actions under a slightly better light after passing through a personal prism. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Our personal preferences do not matter. It could also be said that someone's disliking Aliyev may affect their editing. I think that we should present information in a neutral and objective manner, in accordance with the rules, regardless of our personal views. For instance, it is of no concern to me what you or anyone else think of Pashinyan or Kocharyan, it has no relevance to Wikipedia. I may agree or disagree with certain actions or statements of Aliyev, but it is of no importance here. You rarely see me editing articles about any officials, I take very little interest in individual political personalities. But the issue of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is a topic of interest for me, and I do my best to make the articles comply with wiki rules. Grandmaster 18:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster how would you call what Aliyev did here - "explained"? or maybe "claryfied"?

[BBC] - Well, let me tell you President Aliyev, for our own BBC colleagues have seen that this is not hearsay, this is what was filmed, this was what experienced by BBC colleagues. They were in Stepanakert, in Nagorno-Karabakh on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of October. They witnessed random shelling of the town, including at an Emergency Service Center, an apartment block destroyed. As people tried to flee there was a drone overhead. Shortly afterwards more shelling nearby. They characterized it as indiscriminate shelling of a town without clear military targets. Now this is not hearsay, this was witnessed and filmed by the BBC.
[Aliyev] -I doubt this witnessing. I doubt it.
[BBC]-Well, they were there President Aliyev.
[Aliyev]-So what, they were there. It doesn’t mean anything. That can be fake news. We had military…
[BBC]-And why would that be fake news? Why would any journalist go in there to sight to broadcast fake news?
[Aliyev]-Because of the biased approach to the conflict. Because of this black propaganda against Azerbaijan in international media.

Regards, --Armatura (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what does it have to do with this particular article? Grandmaster 18:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster A question about your general ability to write Aliyev's statements in NPOV style has been raised, based on your edits in this article (and similar edits in similar places in other articles), that's the relevance. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That is already a personal comment. Please let's keep it to the topic. Grandmaster 19:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Grandmaster, no probs, where do you think it is worth discussing this general concern (that goes beyond this topic)? Would your talk page be suitable? Or would your recommend a third place? I would go with your suggestions. --Armatura (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

My talk page is good. Please feel free to take it there. Grandmaster 20:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Grandmaster, I'm so very afraid, but you're not following what I said, again. I linked to you very specific examples of the one-liner Aliev's "we have no territorial claims" quote additions by you in places where they don't belong. No sources you linked make the connection between your addition and the sentences before that, about Yerevan, Zangezur and Sevan being "historic Azerbaijani lands" [13] [14], or the connection between "the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangezur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago" claim [15].

Neither they say that Aliev "clarified" his exact statements from December, which you word for word claimed here [16].

Your newly linked source, which has nothing to do with your previous edits, doesn't state the clarification of his 2020 December land claims either, unless you can kindly provide the exact quote.

Wikipedia is not an assumption or personal interpretation place as you said yourself, Aliev either clarified his statements from December or not. Also, a kind reminder for you to read or re-read WP:SYNTHESIS.

Moreover, I see that your first question, which isn't related to anything I said here to begin with, was already answered by @Jr8825 [|5], to which I fully agree.

For the last time, please kindly explain your rationale for those unnecessary and what seem like apologia one-liner additions in different articles, and your WP:OR modifications to what is written in the exact sources you linked. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I already explained that there is a direct connection, as Aliyev was asked by Dr. Reynolds to clarify his statements about historical lands, and he did, stating that Azerbaijan has no territorial claims to Armenia. TASS refers to that exact same interview of Aliyev of 13 aprel 2021, which you can find here: [17] Grandmaster 17:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Btw, I found the text in English, and this is the answer of the president to the question of historical lands:

I understand that you in a very diplomatic way are saying that some Azerbaijanis claim that part of Armenia is an ancient Azerbaijani territory you mean me, of course, I understand. Thank you. Thank you for being so polite. Thank you for this question, because it’s also a part of manipulation in Armenia that I have territorial claims. No, I don’t. I can tell it publicly but at the same time we need to know the history. .... So, when I say that Zangazur is an ancient Azerbaijani land, this is truth. Zangazur was given to Armenia in 1920-101 years ago. Before that it belonged to us. When I say that Goyche, which they call Sevan now, is the lake where Azerbaijanis lived, it is also the truth. It’s enough to look at the map of beginning of the 20th century and you will not find Sevan there, you will see Goyche. The same with Yerevan. They destroyed the historical part of Yerevan. It is an obvious fact. Azerbaijanis lived there, including my ancestors. So, this is the fact, but it does not mean that we have territorial claims. Yes, I can tell you even more, maybe you know but don’t want to mention, maybe you don’t know. I even said that we will return there. Yes, I said that. But I didn’t say we will return there on tanks. I said that we will return. It means that why not. If we are returning to Zangazur corridor, if we are using the road, why should not we return to Yerevan? I think that the time will come and we will do it. So, once again, thank you for this question. It allowed me to make clarification and also to present my position we will remember our history, but we don’t have any territorial claims against any country including Armenia. Thank you.

Grandmaster 17:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear Grandmaster, this doesn't change anything and the quote was already available in your newly linked website [16] (you just had to switch to english). Aliev made several territorial claims over Armenia citing "historic lands" or "ancient Azerbaijani lands", starting from 2010 to present day [4] [5] [6] [7].

How was your addition related to the exact Aliev's remarks from December, you still haven't answered, neither it is specified in this newly mentioned quote. You're starting to repeat yourself I'm afraid. Please make the connection to his exact claims from December 2020, after which you added the one-liner quote in several articles. That addition gives the false impression that Aliev doesn't "actually" claim any Armenian land, which he did in the past mutliple times and still does, and again, nothing from this quote is exactly shown to be in relation to the following comments by Aliev:

a) that the capital of Armenia, Yerevan, as well as Zangezur and Sevan are the the ‘historical lands’ of Azerbaijan.

b) "the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangezur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago".

Yet you've added the "We will remember our history, but we have no territorial claims to any country, including Armenia" quote after all of those sentences [1] [2], including in this article [3].

I'm really trying to cooperate with you, but you still haven't made the connection to his exact quotes from December, and why exactly you added this much later "clarification" in the diffs I linked, assuming that it was in relation to his quote and still saying the same thing. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is all right there. Aliyev was asked to explain these exact statements, and he did. You might ask for third opinion, if you wish. Grandmaster 19:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear Grandmaster, you know that we can't just say stuff out of thin air, "I think it is all right there" isn't an answer to my question I'm afraid. I actually went through your newly linked source and found the closest thing asked about Armenian territories by Michael Reynolds.

Are we gonna guess what he actually asked, or assume that "Aliyev was asked to explain these exact statements, and he did" like you just said?

Well, here is the part of the question regarding territories, by Michael Reynolds:

During the recent war some Azerbaijanis made reference to Yerevan and other parts of territory of today’s Republic of Armenia as being Azerbaijani lands.[1] [2]

Turns out, Aliev wasn't asked to "explain these exact statements", he wasn't asked to explain his December land claims at all. Michael Reynolds specifically said "some Azerbaijanis" when talking about Az land claims over Armenia.

So let me get this straight: Nothing was asked about exact Aleiv's quotes, not even anything specific to the December land claims (among many others previously), after which you added the one-liner "We will remember our history, but we have no territorial claims to any country, including Armenia" quote. And just recently, you've edited the article again, adding "when asked to comment on his previous statements" to that quote. [3]

Now please be kind enough and revert your recent change in this page regarding supposedly "commenting on his statement", and while you're at it, you should also remove the one-liner quote that you've misplacely added on different articles, including here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read Aliyev's response. Reynolds in a polite way was asking Aliyev to clarify his statements, and he did. This is a quote from Aliyev's response: I understand that you in a very diplomatic way are saying that some Azerbaijanis claim that part of Armenia is an ancient Azerbaijani territory you mean me, of course, I understand. Thank you. Thank you for being so polite. Thank you for this question, because it’s also a part of manipulation in Armenia that I have territorial claims. No, I don’t. I can tell it publicly but at the same time we need to know the history. Grandmaster 13:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Aliyev was asked to explain these exact statements, and he did. This is your response to me and once again, no he wasn't. Your now provided quote is Aliev's interpretation of whom the question was referred to, the exact question about territories and whom it was referred was the following, again:

During the recent war some Azerbaijanis made reference to Yerevan and other parts of territory of today’s Republic of Armenia as being Azerbaijani lands.

@Grandmaster, I'm asking you one last time to revert yourself in this page, and in the similar articles with the same quote addition.

You're showing signs of incapability to remain WP:NPOV when it comes to Aliev and his claims. And again, I'm doing my best to resolve the situation without bringing this to ANI, but your persistent POV defense will leave me no choice. Kindly revert yourself on the articles, and spare us all from these endless talks. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be best to ask for a third opinion at this point. You have your opinion, with which I disagree. And please stop bringing up WP:ANI. That forum is not for content disputes. There are ways to resolve content disputes, so we should follow the usual WP:DR procedures. Grandmaster 13:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think what many of us are forgetting is that Wikipedia is not a forum. We are not here to analyse what this or that statement can mean. As editors, our task is to contribute content regarding what has been said and not what it could mean, even if as people we all may have our own judgement or opinion about what this or that statement could potentially stand for. Unless there is a third-party reliable source claiming that country A is laying claims on the territory of country B, we are not authorised to make that conclusion, even if synthesising sources seems like an obvious thing to do. Wikipedia articles are not analytical pieces or blog entries. There are other platforms for that. Parishan (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree. We cannot just drop a line like "the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangezur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago", without demonstrating the relevance of this information to the proposed transport corridor. I do not see any reliable source making such a connection. Grandmaster 15:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wise words, Parishan. Are they applicable to Grandmaster's synthesis in the sentences containing Aliyev citations that this talk section is dedicated to? And does that reflective "many of us" include yourself and Grandmaster? Or is it a case of Azerbaijani editors being deemed objective and POV-free unlike the Armenian ones? Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It is an attempt to remind everyone that editing Wikipedia is a community effort and not a battleground between "Azerbaijani editors and Armenian editors" as you, very unfortunately, prefer seeing it. The no-synthesis rule applies to anything featuring on Wikipedia, as does the rule that exceptional claims require exceptional sources; and a country laying claims on the territory of another country is an exceptional claim, for which we are yet to see a secondary source (and not an opinion piece from a fellow editor). Parishan (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat my questions Parishan, does what you say apply to Grandmaster's synthesis in the sentences containing Aliyev citations that this talk section is dedicated to? And does that "many of us" include yourself and Grandmaster? Stay focused on the topic and do not divert from the question, please. --Armatura (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What I say applies to everyone who is participating in this discussion and resorting to synthesis, and I have developed my message below in response to ZaniGiovanni's clearly formulated content-related question. I see no point in responding to battleground authoritative demands to comment on things. Parishan (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Parishan I'm afraid you have to be specific. You chimed in into this discussion talking very vague, without providing any specific examples. And you're now citing WP:BATTLEGROUND, about which probably most people here are aware. You understand that is why we're having this prolonged discussion right?

Secondly, because you haven't provided any examples, I'm going to assume you're talking about this article (since your comment is in its talk page), and that supposedly there are "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" here. The only thing I could find related to your comments is this "adding that "the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangezur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago"".

The sentence is cited by the official website of the Azerbaijan's president [1], and here is Aliev's exact quote from that website:

"We are implementing the Zangazur corridor, whether Armenia likes it or not. If they do, it will be easier for us to implement, if not, we will enforce it. Just as before and during the war, I said that they must get out of our lands or we will expel them by force. And so it happened. The same will apply to the Zangazur corridor.

Our primary rival is time because the construction of a railway and a highway takes time. Therefore, all resources have been mobilized to implement this project. Thus, the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangazur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago."

Seems to me his quotes are fairy represented here, so I don't see what exactly are you complaining about. Next time, please be kind enough and provide specific examples of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I brought up WP:BATTLEGROUND because someone else has tried to profile this discussion as a debate between "Azerbaijani editors and Armenian editors", which is belligerent behaviour and should be avoided on Wikipedia. As for your question, the quotes are indeed fairly well represented. Could you please quote specifically the part where Aliyev talks about annexing part of Armenia's territory or, better yet, a secondary source that would interpret the above quotes as Aliyev advancing a territorial claim (and a territorial claim coming from a head of state is an exceptional one)? Given the wide representation of Aliyev's quotes, this should not be difficult. Parishan (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The specifics are already quoted by Aliev himself, and provided here in this article (as shown by the quote above), nothing more nothing less. It's written exactly how Aliev said it and how it's presented in the official president's website. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That was not my question. The discussion is about whether or not Aliyev called for irredentism or made territorial claims. You mentioned above that you "think it's pretty safe to say that Aliev's claims over Armenia's territory are in fact, irredentist". Could you please quote the part stating that? I cannot find the words "territorial claim" or "irredentism" anywhere in the article your are citing. Parishan (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion's main point wasn't about " irredentism " but this diff in question and whether it was misplaced or not [1]. The discussion also has long diverted from your briefly mentioned point. Please stay on the actual topic we're discussing now. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the question is not about whether the statement is a clarification or not (we can spend weeks discussing whether or not Aliyev stating "[by saying] some Azerbaijanis claim that part of Armenia is an ancient Azerbaijani territory you mean me" and proceeding to talk about Zangezur counts for a "clarification" but we are missing the point). Why can this not be worded as "Later, when asked to comment on insinuations that the territory of the current Republic of Armenia was historically Azerbaijani and Azerbaijan might one day wish to take that territory (I am quoting directly from the article), Aliyev stated: (quote)"? Parishan (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That would work too. If everybody else is Ok with it. Grandmaster 17:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Show me the direct connection between any of the quote additions here (every singe one of them added after Aliev's land claims), and his supposed "clarification" [1] [2] [3], then we can keep those additions. Otherwise, the question in that conference wasn't even asked as if he was the one claiming Armenian lands. And his perception that it was so is of no relevance to how information is presented on wikipedia. When the source clearly asks one thing, one cannot present it as another, and synthesize it to multiple quotes as a "response" or "clarification". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The quote does not necessarily have to be a direct answer, clarification or whatever. It could be totally unrelated to his first statement. What's important is that it is related to the topic of Zangezur corridor, and therefore it is relevant to this article. I provided full quote where Aliyev talks about absence of territorial claims in the context of his statements about Azerbaijani people using Zangezur corridor and returning to Armenia. Regarding other articles, they should be discussed on their respective talk pages, not here. In any case, I have requested a third opinion from a person who was previously involved with AA topics. Feel free to ask for more third opinions. That is the only way to resolve this. Grandmaster 20:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I already laid what I think of the addition here and on other articles. Third opinion seems to be the last resort. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is it so important in what context the question was asked? This article is not about Aliyev's claims, it is about the Zangezur corridor, and in both cases, Aliyev makes references to the corridor. In my proposal, I tried to remove everything that could suggest a link between the two interviews. Is there a reason why we are still on the issue of whether it is a "clarification" or not? Parishan (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Aliev made several land claims over Armenia from 2010 to present day. This has been already discussed. And his newly claims are relevant to the article as they are directly about "implementing the Zangezur corridor" and “returning to Zangezur”, and fit in the 2021 controversy subcategory. But when it comes to including random conference talk where he thinks the question was including him as the land claimer, and then he proceeds to actually tell that he has “no territorial claims” over Armenia, is something I’m not sure that needs to be included after his every land claim that hints at irredentism. Especially given his various land claims over the years, and how it can possibly give the false impression to the reader. In any case, a third opinion has been requested. I would also suggest for you to wait what they say, as everything has already been discussed in much detail and no conclusion was reached. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to reach some sort of a compromise to resolve this dispute. How about we remove the following lines: adding that "the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangezur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago". In a later speech, when asked to comment on his previous statements, Aliyev said: "We will remember our history, but we have no territorial claims to any country, including Armenia". I do not see any relevance of Azerbaijani people returning to Zangezur to the issue of a transport corridor. This is more of a transportation related article, rather than an article about territorial disputes. And then clarification on what Aliyev meant when talking about returning to Zangenzur would be redundant. Grandmaster 15:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Who could've guessed that I have foreseeing powers :) Already explained above. Aliev himself says the relevance in his quote dear Grandmaster, please take a look. And I'm going to remind you again that the second part about "later speech" is your addition, which yes, actually isn't in relevance to the article or the quote. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Later speech has a direct relevance. Even the corridor is mentioned. I quote once again: I even said that we will return there. Yes, I said that. But I didn’t say we will return there on tanks. I said that we will return. It means that why not. If we are returning to Zangazur corridor, if we are using the road, why should not we return to Yerevan? I think that the time will come and we will do it. So, once again, thank you for this question. It allowed me to make clarification and also to present my position we will remember our history, but we don’t have any territorial claims against any country including Armenia. This quote has as much relevance to the article as any other. Grandmaster 15:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@User:ZaniGiovanni, here's your Eurasianet source calling Aliyev's statements by their name - irredentism [18]. And another source from 2014, where he's making more explicit territorial claim on Armenia [19]. Noonewiki (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Eurasianet uses very careful language, "hinting at irredentist ambitions there". It does not call it explicitly irredentism. The question here is why do we dedicate so much attention to those statements? This article is about a transport link. Grandmaster 17:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Response to outside opinion request

I've received a request on my talk page from Grandmaster and ZaniGiovanni to provide an opinion/try to mediate here. I'll first state an abbreviated understanding of the situation below, and I'll place some recommendations below a horizontal line. At least one of these recommendations proposes something that wasn't discussed above, so I'd appreciate if you could give feedback regarding if it would be an acceptable compromise in the aptly named section.

Some points from the discussion

An edit was made by Grandmaster in which Grandmaster added a quote (sourced from an April 2021 TASS report) in which Ilham Aliyev stated that Azerbaijan will both "remember its history" and does not claim land within any country as its own.

A few hours later, ZaniGiovanni began this discussion, taking issue with the edits made by Grandmaster on this page and other pages, saying that they seem nothing but a whitewash attempt of Aliyev’s clear territorial claims over Armenia. The editor provided sources that reported that Aliyev's comments about Armenia being "historic lands" of Azerbaijan. One of the sources, a 2014 news report from the Armenian branch of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, opens with Azerabijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has again publicly described modern-day Armenia as “historic Azerbaijani lands,” saying that his countrymen will eventually regain them in addition to Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenian-controlled territories surrounding it. Two sources additionally provided are each from Asbarez; one was published in 2013 and one was published in 2016. Another source provided was a 2018 news report from Eurasianet.

Discussion continued, with the content-related portions analyzing what the sources themselves stated rather than what one could infer from the reporting. A few other sources were presented for consideration on the facts, one was a late 2020 report from JAM News, and one was an April 2021 report from Caspian News. Armatura also pointed towards a November 2020 interview that Aliyev had conducted with the BBC, though this appears to not be related to the topic in question and as a result was moved to the talk page of Grandmaster.

Later on June 12, Grandmaster added a second citation to the article itself, which was from an April 2021 Azerbaijani state media report that described this statement.

On June 13, Parishan joined the discussion, reminded editors that wikipedia is not a forum and argued that the laying of territorial claims on Armenia by Azerbaijan constitutes an extraordinary claim that would require an extraordinary source. Discussion continued, though a consensus was clearly not reached.

Generally, there was a lot of sparring regarding source interpretation, whether or not the edits (or the clame of irredentism) would violate WP:SYNTH.

---

Analysis and Recommendations

There seems to be some implication in the arguments made by ZaniGiovanni that the date on which the statements in the article by Aliyev (and the reports on the statements) were made would be relevant in a WP:SYNTH context when weighted against comments from 2021. And, it appears that the user is right in this respect—it would be a bit odd for a clarification on a statement made in 2021 to also be interpreted to apply to the intended meaning of other similar statements issued in 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2018. But it would be simultaneously just as strange to use statements from 2013, 2014, 2016, and 2018 (some of which don't so much as contain the corridor's name) to reflect upon a 2021 controversy; WP:SYNTH would certainly apply in this case.

The scope of this article appears to be a proposal for a proposed railway network connecting Azerbaijan's two pieces together. In this context, it would make sense to only consider sources that apply to the proposed rail system itself and to place general disputes over the land (including claims on the land) in the article for the region itself and/or the article on Armenia–Azerbaijan relations (or other related pages). Prior statements by Aliyev that were reported as staking claims on land are maybe WP:DUE in the background section of the article inasmuch as those claims relate to the purpose of the railway (which is to connect Azerbaijan), but they almost certainly don't belong in a subsection related to the (apparently ongoing) 2021 controversy.

On the flip side, the coverage of Aliyev's second quote publicly denying that Azerbaijan has land claims on Armenia is probably worthy to include in the section. I would avoid stringing it together with some of the linking phrases that have been proposed, since it's not clear that Aliyev was asked to clarify his comments for that particular speech. It's also clearly not the case that Aliyev clarified his April 20, 2021 comments on April 13, 2021; that's just not logically possible. In short, the April 13 sources are WP:DUE, but they should not be presented as if they occurred after the events discussed in the April 20 sources.

My first recommendation would be to engage in a reorganization of the contested subsection to be chronological in nature. In its current format, the Azerbaijani speeches are included in one paragraph, and the Armenian responses in another. In particular, presenting the information in chronological order might be better able to show the flow of the political situation within the controversy; currently the section lumps together quotes from several different months and doesn't do much to show how the controversy developed beyond attributing quotes to Azerbaijan's leader; Armenia's response appears to have differed over time, and the reporting that genocide allegations are now flying both ways in May appears to be (based off the sources I am seeing on the page and in this discussion) different than the discussion in February regarding the transport link. If we're seeing a change in coverage over time, especially if it's a rapid change over time, then it's probably not a good idea to lump things. It would also avoid the issues of trying to synthesize connections between events; simply stating the events that happened in order avoids the issue of having us try to come up with ways to group the responses that aren't reflected in the (relatively limited) reporting from reliable sources on this.

My second recommendation would be to heavily use attribution, owing to bias and/or quality issues with many of the sources present. Many of the sources being used appear to be biased towards Armenia or Azerbaijan, and it's generally a good practice to attribute biased sources when they are used in-text, especially when the only other citation to back up a particular wikivoice statement is a primary source. And the reasons to attribute aren't limited to Armenian and Azeri sources; TASS is yellow on WP:RSP owing to deficiencies in the reliability of Tass's reporting when it isn't reporting on the Russian Government's own statements, and we should probably use in-text attributions for it as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

My third recommendation would be to use reliable sources presented in this discussion to improve other articles. As I mentioned above, there were a lot of sources discussed that weren't in the scope of this article, but they nonetheless contain valuable information regarding an aspect of the land dispute between the two countries.

---

Feedback

Thank you to the editors who have been participating for their long conversation. I understand that this is a tense topic that brings up strong emotions in a lot of editors, and I'd ask that you all continue to treat each other civilly and act in good faith. I've tried my best to craft something here, and I know the recommendation of totally rewriting the section to go in chronological order is something that wasn't touched upon in discussion, but I think it would resolve the dispute going on above. If you'd be willing to give feedback and/or if you would like to propose tweaks, then I'd welcome it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was very helpful. Just one observation. I don't see that Aliyev ever said that Azerbaijan would regain territories in Armenia. What he actually said was that Yerevan and Zangezur were historical Azerbaijani territories, where Azerbaijani people used to live, and that Azerbaijani people would return there. It is not the same as saying "we will take those lands by force". My understanding of these statements is that he was talking about return of refugees. In any case, it is not our business here to give personal interpretations, we just need to accurately present the facts in order for the reader to make his own judgement. And you are right about April 13 and April 21 statements. After Aliyev said April 13 that Azerbaijan has no territorial claims, responding to a question from an American academic, he said on April 21 that Azerbaijani people would return to Zangezur. But note that he was talking only about people, even though Turan agency put Azerbaijan in the header. I would rather use the official text from president's website, than the text from Turan. And I agree that different statements need to be presented in a chronological order. Grandmaster 09:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We already had this discussion Grandmaster Talk:2021 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis#Question. And Turan agency is quoting president's website, which I also showed you in the discussion.

We are implementing the Zangazur corridor, whether Armenia likes it or not. If they do, it will be easier for us to implement, if not, we will enforce it. Just as before and during the war, I said that they must get out of our lands or we will expel them by force. And so it happened. The same will apply to the Zangazur corridor.

Our primary rival is time because the construction of a railway and a highway takes time. Therefore, all resources have been mobilized to implement this project. Thus, the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangazur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago.

Again, he clearly talks about how he'll "enforce" the corridor if Armenia doesn't want it. Please, don't bring already discussed topics in an attempt to change something. You were also asking about the inclusion of this quote in 2021 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis to another editor, which they also advised you to in fact, be included User talk:Jr8825#Another feedback request. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Jr8825 advised to include quotes from Aliyev, which I do not object to. The question is, which exactly quotes should be included. Should it be only the one where he said about forcing Armenia to open the corridor (and there are different ways of forcing), or his other statements too? Because when Aliyev said about having no territorial claims, he made that statement in the context of his previous statements about Azerbaijani people returning to Zangezur (which he repeated later), and using the corridor. It was not an isolated statement, even though it may look like that in the article. Quote: I even said that we will return there. Yes, I said that. But I didn’t say we will return there on tanks. I said that we will return. It means that why not. If we are returning to Zangazur corridor, if we are using the road, why should not we return to Yerevan? I think that the time will come and we will do it. So, once again, thank you for this question. It allowed me to make clarification and also to present my position we will remember our history, but we don’t have any territorial claims against any country including Armenia. As you can see, it is not an unrelated statement, it was made in the context of creating the transport corridor, and return of refugees, but with no territorial claims. That is why I think it is relevant to the topic of this article. Grandmaster 16:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I'm afraid that after all this talk, you just don't want to listen to the other side. Ever heard of the phrase "actions speak louder than words"? It's one thing what Aliev said once in a PR press conference, it's absolutely another what he said multiple times during all these years including in 2020 and 2021, and what he actually does. Do you think cherry picking and putting that quote after his every "historical land" or "ancient land" claim (and I'm quoting the sources), shows the actual reality of the situation to the article reader, and what Aliev does in reality after his press conferences and "clarifications"?

There are already Azerbaijani troops in Armenian territory, which I'm sure you're aware of Lake Sev#2021 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis, and you think we should argue whether Aliev's random PR quote has any relevance to his land claims, when in reality he did the actual opposite of what he said this one time (surprise surprise btw, no one saw that coming [4] [5] [6] [7] [8])? Are you being serious right now, even after all the talks and explanations? And please, don't ever repeat the "refugees" line, for god's sake Grandmaster, this isn't Aliev's PR website. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a general consensus among reliable sources to connect Zangezur corridor with border issues. The parties use different maps, which is why there is some tension. But there are plans to create a commission on demarcation, with Russian mediation, which apparently will start work after the elections in Armenia. But that is a different topic, for another article. And please don't tell me what to say, and what not. That is something I decide myself. Please keep your comments on content, not the contributor. Thank you. Grandmaster 21:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10 thank you for your thorough analysis. For the record, I'm not proposing to include any of these claims [4] [5] [6] [7] by Aliev from the past, I was just showing a continual chronic behavior from Aliev. My problem is as you said with the inclusion of him "not having a land claims over Armenia" after sentences it is misplacely added and synthesized. And my second problem is, that it would give the false impression to the reader that Aliev *actually* has no land claims over Armenia, meanwhile Azerbaijan already infiltrated parts of Armenia, most recent example Lake Sev#2021 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis.

Hope my position is more clear now. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of timeline, I see that comments of Aliyev from April are out of order, but comments from the Armenian side, except for one, are all from May and June. If we mix them in chronological order, one comment from Armenian side of February should go directly after the first quote statement of Aliyev, but the rest will probably go after. Do I get the chronology right? Grandmaster 21:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I think quotes take too much space, it is better to summarize them in a concise manner. This is my brief summary of Aliyev's statements: Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stated in February 2021 that the ceasefire agreement contained a special provision on the establishment of the Nakhichevan corridor. On 13 April, Aliyev declared that Azerbaijani people would return to Armenia (Yerevan and Zangezur), but his country had no territorial claims, and on 21 April he stated that if Armenia would not agree to provide the corridor, Azerbaijan would enforce it (or force it). Is this a correct summary? Grandmaster 21:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A few things regarding how to summarize the April 20 quote, in particular:

The relevant quote, as translated on Aliyev's Presidential website post from April 20 is The creation of the Zangazur corridor fully corresponds to our future national and historical interests. We are implementing the Zangazur corridor, whether Armenia likes it or not. If they do, it will be easier for us to implement, if not, we will enforce it. Just as before and during the war, I said that they must get out of our lands or we will expel them by force. And so it happened. The same will apply to the Zangazur corridor. Our primary rival is time because the construction of a railway and a highway takes time. Therefore, all resources have been mobilized to implement this project. Thus, the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangazur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago.

The relevant quote, as translated by Turan appears to be The creation of the Zangezur corridor fully meets our national, historical and future interests. We are implementing the Zangezur Corridor, whether Armenia wants it or not. If she wants, we will solve this issue easier, if she does not want, we will solve it by force,.. Just as before and during the war, I said that they must free themselves from our lands, or we will expel them by force. And so it happened. The same will be the fate of the Zangezur corridor. ... Our main rival is time, because the construction of a railway and a highway takes time. Therefore, all forces have been mobilized to implement this project. Thus, the Azerbaijani people will return to Zangezur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago.

The original language source appears to be Zəngəzur dəhlizinin yaradılması bizim milli, tarixi və gələcək maraqlarımıza tam cavab verir. Biz Zəngəzur dəhlizini icra edəcəyik, Ermənistan bunu istəsə də, istəməsə də. İstəsə, daha asan həll edəcəyik, istəməsə də zorla həll edəcəyik. Necə ki, mən müharibədən əvvəl və müharibə dövründə demişdim ki, bizim torpağımızdan öz xoşunuzla rədd olun, yoxsa sizi zorla çıxaracağıq. Belə də oldu. Zəngəzur dəhlizinin taleyi də eyni olacaq.

I am relying on a machine translation to pick the relevant part of the sentence here, so an editor who can speak Azerbaijani might be useful in determining what that phrase actually means. The two diverge a bit; the President's website seems to flow a lot more like natural English, while it appears to be the case that Turan is providing a more literal translation, as far as I can tell. (Though, as I do not speak the language, I could well be wrong here). Other secondary sources referencing the speech (Asbarez, ARKA, TASS, JAM News, Open Caucasus Media (OC Media), [Chatam House] referencing OC Media, etc.) seem to translate it as containing the phrase "by force" rather than "enforce", and they tend to frame it (generally) as a threat. Since this appears to be how media generally have reported it (including both Azeri and Armenian media), it seems that this probably the way to go. In this case, my recommendation would be:

In February 2021, a dispute arose around the meaning of a clause in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement that says that "[a]ll economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked." Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said in February 2021 that the ceasefire agreement contained a special provision on the establishment of the Nakhichevan corridor. Armenia responding by contesting this, saying that the ceasefire agreement does not contain any provisions for the establishment of any such corridors.

On 13 April, Aliyev said that Azerbaijani people would return to what he described as Azerbaijan's "historic lands" within the borders of Armenia, but that Azerbaijan does not have territorial claims in any foreign country.

On 21 April, Aliyev said that Azerbaijan would establish the Zangezur corridor through the use of force if Armenia would not accede to the creation of the corridor. The Armenian foreign ministry responded to stating that Armenia would "take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity."

There also appear to have been developments in May that I am not an expert on here; they probably could be made into their own paragraph. And, obviously, the above lacks citations but they can easily be pulled in from the links on this talk page and/or the article itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Zor means force in Azerbaijani. So enforce it or force it are both correct. But I think we should go with the official source, which is president's website, because direct quotation is always more accurate than interpretations. So it should be "we will enforce it". Otherwise, you summary of events is accurate, and I agree with it. Grandmaster 14:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Zor indeed means both, and president's website also uses mechanical translation. In that case, if it means both, we should use the one which is mostly reported. I agree with the initial assessment of @Mikehawk10, using "by force" or "through the use of force". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to the size of the summary, I'm still not sure. Will think about it and reply later. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Normally we should stick to the official source. But I hope Mikehawk10 will help us decide which translation to use. Grandmaster 13:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I expressed my opinion regarding mechanical translations, and to use what’s mostly reported (as it means both). MikeHawk already suggested their version of the text. I have some suggestions regarding the summary, but I’m quite busy IRL. Will reply here as soon as the time allows. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to have an external assessment (many thanks Mikehawk10!) but I disagree with the timeline suggestions - there is not much that would not fit in a single summary paragraph for statements from each side. Extensive Aliyev's statements about NK and Armenia can go to the appropriate place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilham_Aliyev#Statements_about_Armenia_and_Nagorno-Karabakh. --Armatura (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

He actually did not say much, if we summarize to keep the essence, it is just a couple of lines. That is why I propose to make a short summary, rather than get the article bloated with miscellaneous quotes. The same could be done about the Armenian position. Grandmaster 21:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If direct speech - > indirect speech conversion is not going to change the meaning then I would not mind in indirect narrative of what they said. When Aliyev's (or Pashinyan or whoever) says something that is not true or is only partially true (comparing to original source they refer to), then it should be highlighted to the reader's eye by using "claimed" or "alleged" instead of just stated / said. Nakhchivan corridor should be inside "" marks as it's not a universally accepted or understood concept, the contradiction between contradicting political statements (like the ones Aliyev made 1 weeks apart from each other) should be also made visible by using whereas or however transition words, so it's clear that he's changed his tone, and so on. --Armatura (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Versions for corridor controversy

Here are my two cents and as the thread above is TLTR I took the liberty of collecting all suggested versions in one place. The corridor is in quote marks as it is a so-called corridor not an established term. As Armenian's PM rating is shattered after the war and elections are being held in a few days to see whether he can still represent Armenian peoples internationally, I included that opposition is also against the "corridor" logic. I think it's important to include that Armenia is against that logic but not to unblocking transport connections - it wants free movement of cargo but does not want to lose it's sovereignty (which is threatened by Turanist/Gobleist concept of "corridor": it is not a coincidence that Aliyev keeps using "corridor" instead of following the ceasefire agreement wording. I also included a sentence on 11 January trilateral meeting as it formed the joint committees actually implementing the agreement points - and they discussed no corridor, to show that the "corridor fever" started after January 2021. It's useful to scale the timeline by months, rather than days, just showing the distance in between if it's something within a month, to have some sense of editorial instead of a chain of precisely dated news reports. As for the force threat, the presidential website says "we will enforce it" "they must get out of our lands" or "we will expel them by force" and that the same applies to the Zangazur corridor - it appears there is consensus in secondary sources that he indeed threatened by use of force so I it is okay to say "use of force" I think - he was quite unequivocal in that aggressive statement, deviating from his usually ambiguous style. --Armatura (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Armatura's version

In January 2021 trilateral meeting of Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders, Russian President Vladimir Putin emphasized the issue of opening economic, commercial and transportation links and borders, announcing that a joint working group under the chairmanship of the deputy prime ministers of these countries is formed to work on it 1. In February 2021, a dispute arose around the meaning of a clause in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement that says that "all economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked." Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev declared that the ceasefire agreement contained a special provision on the establishment of the “Nakhichevan corridor”. Armenian government and opposition rejected this claim emphasizing that the ceasefire agreement did not contain any provisions for establishing such “corridor”. In April 2021, Aliyev announced that Azerbaijani people would return to what he described as Azerbaijan's "historic lands" within the borders of Armenia, but that Azerbaijan does not have territorial claims to any foreign country. However, a week later, he warned that Azerbaijan would establish the "Zangezur corridor" through the use of force if Armenia would not accede to the creation of the corridor. The Armenian foreign ministry responded that the country would "take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity." In May 2021, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said that while Armenia is not willing to discuss 'corridor logic’, it is keen on opening transport links as it means direct railway communication with Iran and Russia.

Grandmaster's version

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stated in February 2021 that the ceasefire agreement contained a special provision on the establishment of the Nakhichevan corridor. On 13 April, Aliyev declared that Azerbaijani people would return to Armenia (Yerevan and Zangezur), but his country had no territorial claims, and on 21 April he stated that if Armenia would not agree to provide the corridor, Azerbaijan would enforce it (or force it).

Mikehawk10's version

In February 2021, a dispute arose around the meaning of a clause in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement that says that "[a]ll economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked." Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said in February 2021 that the ceasefire agreement contained a special provision on the establishment of the Nakhichevan corridor. Armenia responding by contesting this, saying that the ceasefire agreement does not contain any provisions for the establishment of any such corridors. On 13 April, Aliyev said that Azerbaijani people would return to what he described as Azerbaijan's "historic lands" within the borders of Armenia, but that Azerbaijan does not have territorial claims in any foreign country. On 21 April, Aliyev said that Azerbaijan would establish the Zangezur corridor through the use of force if Armenia would not accede to the creation of the corridor. The Armenian foreign ministry responded to stating that Armenia would "take all necessary measures to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity."

What is a "corridor logic"? I think we should not engage in original research and talk about logic, etc. Corridor is a technical term for rail and motor transportation routes between the states. A good example is International North–South Transport Corridor. The use of the term "corridor" does not imply loss of sovereignty over a territory. But it is another thing that some in Armenia understand "corridor" as being something that violates Armenia's territorial integrity. In that case, we need to explain, who promotes such views, and attribute the statements to them. But generally, there is no such thing as "corridor logic". Grandmaster 14:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's a direct quote of Armenian PM's speech (re-affirmed also today), not sure how you label it as "OR". When you say there is no such thing as "corridor logic" and "corridor" does not imply loss of sovereignty over a territory", these are your own opinions, and WP is not a place for editors' opinions. When you say Corridor is a technical term for rail and motor transportation routes between the states, it is your own interpretation, but not what others (Turanists, Goble) envisaged - a landbridge between Turkey and Azerbaijan resulting in the formation of a union between two states, with loss of Armenia's border with Iran. Again, the sovereignty concerns are what Armenia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Anna Naghdalyan and the opposition leader Robert Kocharyan and PM Pashinyan said, you can check 12, 3. The the "corridor logic" is already attributed to Pashinyan (the same way as the "corridor" is attributed to Aliyev) as you can see above in my version. Regards, --Armatura (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no objections to your version, Armatura, and it's superior to mine. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, Mikehawk10, it’s mostly expanding your version with slightly contextualised language, borrowing ideas from Grandmaster’s proposals and ZanniGiovanni’s arguments, so if they have no strong objections or enhancements (after my clarification re: OR), then I’ll be happy to incorporate it into the text with relevant references. Regards --Armatura (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to suggest some tweaks like the inclusion of Pashinyan’s reply which already has been suggested in Armatura’s version, and overall, I agree with Mike and have no objections as well. Only a minor tweak like capitalizing ‘Armenian Foreign Ministry’. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Need not include "'all economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked'". The controversy did not arise only based on that, but the article 9 and the sentence following it (which by the way should also be included in 2020 ceasefire agreement section) Dian Nikolow (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I generally support Armatura's summary. If "corridor logic" is attributed to Pashinyan, then it is Ok. But Dian Nikolow also made a good point. The controversy indeed concerns not the statement that "'all economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked'", but rather the part that says The Republic of Armenia shall guarantee the security of transport connections between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. What is the best way to reflect that? Grandmaster 14:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Grandmaster. We can 1) accept that that’s the main message of the ceasefire agreement article 9 and quote it, leaving the reader to see the following sub-statements in the ceasefire agreement article itself (I favour this as it still delivers the overarching statement in the appropriate context while keeping the section short enough to be readable) 2) remove the quotation of the agreement altogether (the section meaning will suffer though) 3) quote the whole agreement article 9 (though the readibility will suffer and we’ll be simply copy-pasting a chunk of text that is already wikilinked for those who want to read it all). 4) other options that I didn’t think of but others may come up with. Regards --Armatura (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think option 2 seems good, related text from the agreement is already in section "Current status of transport links : 2020 ceasefire agreement". Need to add "As agreed by the Parties, new transport links shall be built to connect the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and the western regions of Azerbaijan." to that, because it's in the agreement and is highly related. Dian Nikolow (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It could be either option 2, or we could add a line "In February 2021, a dispute arose around the meaning of a clause in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement that provided for Armenia guaranteeing security of transport connections between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic". That would explain what exactly was the reason for the dispute. Grandmaster 19:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I support option 1, I would tentatively agree to option 2 if there was a consensus for it. Also, Dian Nikolow has done very few edits outside the talk pages of Zangezur corridor and Zangezur disambig, hence sorry if we don’t prioritize their concern. And not including the longer paragraph of article 9 was actually a third party editor’s suggestion, whom Grandmaster himself asked for opinion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you concerned about how many edits have I done? Is it because I make sense? I am not stricly against option 1, but more inclined to option 2 because in option 1 we repeat what is already mentioned from the agreement. I think with Grandmaster's modification option1 is better. Also need to include "As agreed by the Parties, new transport links shall be built to connect the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and the western regions of Azerbaijan." to the section "Current status of transport links / 2020 ceasefire agreement". How is this not relevant to this article? Dian Nikolow (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m not concerned about how many edits you did or how “active” you are. In fact, I explicitly mentioned few edits outside of this page and in Zangezur disambiguation, which leans me to believe of one purpose account. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am a real person with one account only, and participate/edit/discuss the topics I am interested in. Which so far happened to be mostly those you mentioned. Best Regards. Dian Nikolow (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please, stop attributing things to editors that never claimed them. I didn’t say you aren’t a “real person”. You might wanna take a look at WP:SPA. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that you did. I have other edits/interests in wikipedia. Thanks for the useful link anyway. Best Regards. Dian Nikolow (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Even more strange that you felt the need to mention that you’re a “real person” with “one account only”. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't feel the need to anything, and it seems you have no intention to put an end to this diverted-from-the-main-topic meaningless discussion in here, but I do, from my side at least. Here it is. Best Regards. Dian Nikolow (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a meaningless discussion with strange and unrelated claims. So far, I was just addressing them, as you’re not owning up to your own words. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of how active an editor was, we are discussing ideas, not their contributors. It is just that I don't think there is any dispute regarding unblocking communications in general, the dispute concerns the actual route from mainland Azerbaijan to NAR. Otherwise, all political forces both in Armenia and Azerbaijan generally support the idea of unblocking communications. So if clarifying what part of the ceasefire agreement causes disputes is not acceptable, let's go with option 2. Other than that, Armatura's proposal is fine with me. Grandmaster 09:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

How about the following wording: In February 2021, a dispute arose around a clause in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement that provided for unblocking all economic and transport connections in the region, including that between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic? Grandmaster 09:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster, I don't mind adding including that between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic but that's I think is the maximum the readers eyes will tolerate. I am going to be busy next week or two, could you add that phrase to my version and post, please, otherwise this discussion is again becoming TLTR and deviating from the topic. --Armatura (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It sounds ok. Grandmaster, how about adding "As agreed by the Parties, new transport links shall be built to connect the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and the western regions of Azerbaijan." to the section "Current status of transport links / 2020 ceasefire agreement"? Best Regards. Dian Nikolow (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Strong objection, no need to copy paste chunks of text from another article and it'd be particularly problematic as long as this article is misnamed Zangezur corridor. Any equalisation of Aliyev's views of "Zangezur corridor" with the ceasefire agreement text will be objected in similar fashion. --Armatura (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, let's please settle on what has already been agreed. I believe that the final version would be the best solution for this dispute. Thanks everyone for cooperation, and Mikehawk10 for mediation. Grandmaster 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I introduced the agreed version into the article. Please check if I got everything right, including all the references. Grandmaster 19:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Grandmaster, for taking the task of implanting the agreed version back into the article. Thanks Mikehawk10 for putting efforts into resolving another convoluted AA dispute. Thanks ZaniGiovanni and Dian Nikolow for your input, may I ask you to check the cited links to make sure we have not missed / displaced any in the process of polishing the text? Apologies if I forgot to thank anyone who contributed to the re-writing of the controversy section. --Armatura (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who participated, and especially Mikehawk10 for helping to reach consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for this civil discussion! I'm happy we could get this resolved. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Does this article give the topic a valid WP:WORDISSUBJECT-type coverage? — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Over time the article has been worked on and extensively discussed, and has stabilized as a worthy example of WORDISSUBJECT-type coverage of a controversial topic. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• No. So called “Zangezur corridor” is not controversial term, it’s pure propaganda term actively promoted by Azerbaijani government on media, including Wikipedia. This article in its current state serves no other purpose other than giving a inexperienced journalists and lame readers who start their research from Wikipedia a wrong impression that it is a valid / accepted / realistic concept. It has little to do with ceasefire-agreed transport connection unblocking. The opener of this RfC is also apparently emotionally very attached to that concept to the point of knowing no limits - disruptive editing without seeking consensus in this and 2020 agreement article, forking the article content there and opening an RfC here while constructive merger discussion is going on. Unbelievable example of WP:STONEWALLING. --Armatura (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment.(Summoned by bot) I'm not sure I fully understand why the question has been asked, nor why the article SHOULD treat the corridor as 'WORDISSUBJECT', but it plainly doesn't AFAI can see. It largely treats the corridor as a concrete proposal by Azerbaijan, which is contested, (though why it is contested isn't made very clear) not primarily as a word. Whether that is apt or not is not something I am able to comment on. Why should it be a word? Don't Azerbaijan want it to be an 'actual' passage. Pincrete (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I'm trying to form consensus that the article is fundamentally, on subject-level, not WP:POV because it describes something real, not in the physical realm, but in the realm of discourse. Opponents consider the article WP:POV, on a fundamental level, and want to remove it from Wikipedia via AfD and by faux-merging it (redirecting without copying). — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

An RfC is not going to settle whether it should be deleted. Pincrete (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It isn't meant to settle that, but to help define the subject: is the subject here a proposal, a dispute, a series of events, an unbuilt transport corridor? I believe consensus should form around the core subject being a certain interpretation, belonging to one side, a concept through which another topic (Azerbaijani-Armenian relations, implementation of the ceasefire agreement and unblocking of transport communications) is seen. This would mean that the subject is literally a POV, a real world POV, instead of the article not having a WP:NPOV. An RfC can settle this once and for all. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• ?: It it a little unclear what this RfC is asking; it appears to have been clarified later as to whether the article should be limited to a "WORDISSUBJECT" article, but I'm not seeing any explanation for why it should be limited to that.

Having looked into this topic, I do, however, have a counter-proposal; expand the scope of this article from the corridor proposal to Azerbaijani claims to Zangezur. I note that there is not currently an article on that topic, and this proposal would be well suited to sit as a sub-topic under that. It would also neatly solve the question of the title, as I note that most reliable & independent English-language sources use the phrase "Zangezur corridor" in quotes, or avoiding directly referencing it, which suggests to me that the title as it stands is a little problematic and might not meet our standards. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural close. The correct venue to make this argument is WP:AFD, where editors evaluate whether a topic is worthy of having an article. This appears to be an argument that attempts to address the latter part of the following:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
   — Wikipedia:Notability (emphasis added)

If we're going to have a discussion about what Wikipedia is not, let's have it at the appropriate venue, so that it can be actionable. After all, Wikipedia is not a forum—our discussions on talk pages should be guided towards some actionable end. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about retaining or not. This presupposes that the article is retained, but goes to develop clearer consensus on what the subject of the article is, now that it is retained. The question is very clear: is the core subject of this article a word or phrase itself? Actionable implications abound. For example, if the consensus is that it is not, certainly the first sentence can't be worded as "X is a concept of Y". — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I second Mikehawk10, close seems logical. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: There was an AFD, and the result was to keep. Now contrary to the result of the AFD, it is proposed to merge this into another article. Grandmaster 12:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Hello Armatura, why has the NPOV tag been added again? Super Ψ Dro 07:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, nice to hear from you, thanks for your message. I did not notice how/when you removed it otherwise would have re-added it earlier. As I mentioned in earlier discussions, the fundamental problem of this articles remains mixing speculative Azerbaijani propaganda (pumped in partly before the 2020 war and renewed after the war 2020) with ceasefire-agreement-sanctioned things. One might think that if that status quo is maintained for long enough it may become a new reality but it's not how Wikipedia should work. As long as this article is not depicting things neutrally to a lame reader, the tag should remain. It is also a generally good tradition for the creator of the article to leave the task of removing the neutrality tag to others. Hope this answers your question. BW --Armatura (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the article depicting things neutrally to a lame reader now? — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

French ambassador

This is what the ambassador said:

“I think the expression 'corridor' should be removed. The ‘corridors’ have left a very bad memory in the history of diplomacy, such as the Danzig corridor. We believe that we should work on the basis of the trilateral statement of January 11, signed between Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, which envisages the restoration of regional channels of communication between the countries of the region and their neighbors. France is fully prepared to work with the countries of the region to launch the region’s transport infrastructure”.

Nowhere does he compare "Azerbaijan's use of the "Zangezur corridor" to the Polish Danzig corridor. Quotes must be accurate, with no personal interpretation. Grandmaster 13:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Using Zangezur uyezd map for "Zangezur corridor"

Super Dromaeosaurus there is no reliable source linking Zangezur Uyezd (a historical division of Russian Empire) to hypothetical "Zangezur corridor" hence tying the first's map to the latter's text violates WP:SYNTH. Yet, right after I deleted it, you reinstate the image immediately, commenting that "Azerbaijanis named this after Zangezur, so it is worth having an image showing what Zangezur is, there's no need for any source". I appreciate you want the image to remain, but simply reverting a justified delete without citing a WP policy that would prove the contrary is not the way to go. As you chose reverting me (an action usually reserved for fixing vandalism), instead of opening a talk and discussing things, I have asked third party editors to make a neutral judgement, to avoid edit warring. You are welcome to elaborate here meanwhile. Best wishes. --Armatura (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Armatura, the image is not about the Zangezur Uyezd, it's about the Zangezur region. "Uyezd" is not mentioned anywhere on the file. And if you wish to, we could switch the image to one of the Syunik Province. I don't see why should we leave this article without images, it'd be ideal to have one that lets readers know more or less about what place are we talking about. By the way, I apologize if I acted impulsive, but I don't see necessary to ask for other editors to intervene here, it is not a really important issue. I only want the article to have an image. Super Ψ Dro 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, apology is accepted, Super Dromaeosaurus, no hard feelings, but disagreement (and the need for WP:3O) stays. You are saying "Uyezd" is not mentioned anywhere on the file yet it is specifically the map of Zangezur Uyezd, Google the image if you do not believe me. Beyond the historical uyezd which had clear boundaries, the use of "Zangezur" as a topographical term unavoidably comes with expansionist Azerbaijani views with claims on Republic of Armenia's lands, as explained in this excellent review. Citing the relevant fragment below:

"Last week, when Azerbaijan rolled out what it presented as a technical reorganization of the country’s regional economic zones, one of the new zones had an intriguing name: East Zangezur, on the far western edge of Azerbaijan. The name implies the existence of a “West Zangezur” – across the border in Armenia, in what Armenians now call Syunik – and the idea that East Zangezur may thus be incomplete. It didn’t take long for the other shoe to drop, as Aliyev this week went straight to the point. “West Zangazur is our historical land,” he said in a July 14 speech opening a new housing complex for families of soldiers killed in last year’s war. He argued that the territory is rightfully Azerbaijani and that Azerbaijanis have the right to “return” there – without specifying what exactly “return” entails. "

Switching to Armenia's Syunik Province map would be even more problematic, for the same reason. The reality is, the chief propagandists of "Zangezur corridor" Aliyev and Erdogan have left the geographical definition of their propaganda deliberately vague. Once this is understood, understanding why giving topographic concreteness to a vague hypothetical concept without a reliable source is against Wikipedia rules. I understand you want an image for something that does not exist and is not defined, but Wikipedia does not create virtual reality, Wikipedia documents reality. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article is about what I think that can be called an irredentist concept anyway. It can be briefly mentioned on the caption that Zangezur is an Azerbaijani irredentist concept (although I see Zangezur has a page in Armenian Wikipedia and is not presented as such on the lead, I thought it is common for both and neutral). And I see Zangezur Uyezd is the same as the map on the article, so sorry for that as well. Perhaps the caption could be changed to "Map of the Zangezur region, after which the Zangezur corridor is named. Zangezur is an Azerbaijani irredentist term used to refer to southern Armenia", with a source somewhere. This issue can be fixed in many ways. Is there any image that would be correct for you to use? Super Ψ Dro 16:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I am sure you have good intentions and that you simply want visuals for articles you create. But image is not mandatory and caution is required when the image you provide gives geolocation / boundaries to arbitrary something that does not have any of these. Even in Armenian Wikipedia it is unclear what constitutes "Zangezur region" and even if it was, putting the map of Zangezur region in the "Zangezur corridor" is still synthetic without good sources that make that connection outside Wikipedia. Hence I believe the current image has to be deleted from the article and we should wait until (if ever) the map of Zangezur corridor is published. Precision is required in contentious topics to avoid mess. We cannot use the photo of Baldwin family to describe Alec Baldwin in his article, it has to be Alec Baldwin's photo. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Very well, I don't 100% agree with your point, but I understand it. As a last suggestion, I tried to find a map in Commons of Armenia and Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan highlighted, but I couldn't find any, so how about we use a simple map of Armenia and Azerbaijan? We could this one for example [20] and add as caption "Map of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Zangezur corridor is a concept that proposes to connect mainland Azerbaijan with its western exclave of Nakhchivan, marked as "Azer." in the map, through Armenia." or something like that. My intention is that readers can at least have an idea of where is all of this happening, and I believe this proposal is not too controversial (maybe the caption can be rewritten). We could also use a map of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (such as this one [21]) since it is related to the appearence of this concept, but it might not be necessary. Super Ψ Dro 23:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess we could use this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_ceasefire_map.svg, which does not reflect what ceasefire agreement said about unblocking transport connections but reflects what the corridor propagandists want. Say, with a caption "Azerbaijan and Turkey want a corridor through Armenia's southern territory, to connect Azerbaijan to Nakhijevan and Turkey to the rest of the Turkic. It is what they openly vocalise, after all. --Armatura (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Then we'd just go back to the original image of this article when it was created. Kind of strange, but done. The caption might be a bit too long but I think it is close to a satisfactory solution. Any of the participants here is welcome to edit it. Super Ψ Dro 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Readers want to know what "Zangezur" means and where this name comes from. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Good, but without synthesis and relating the unrelated, like the historical Russian Uyezd to what 21st century Azerbaijan pushes for outside the legal trilateral process.--Armatura (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be explained that Zangezur is the historical name of the region that was used in the Ottoman, Persian and Russian empires, and in the Russian imperial times Zangezur was the official name of the district. It is not like the name of Zangezur came out of nowhere. Grandmaster 12:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you create "Zangezur" article in English Wikipedia if that is what you think is missing, then? No need for synthesis here, though. --Armatura (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't it exist already? I noticed the existance of the page Zangezur (historical province) yesterday. It was created on 4 November. Super Ψ Dro 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it does, and already 3 days as you pointed out, have not noticed it before. Even better then, all the discourses what Zangezur means should go into that article.--Armatura (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

According to Thomas de Waal:

Azerbaijani officials have termed the route to Nakhchivan the Zangezur Corridor. (The name Zangezur is the preferred Azerbaijani term for the region. It is also used by Armenians, although they mostly now refer to the region by its administrative name, Syunik.)

This could be used in the article. Grandmaster 22:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A lot could be used from that source, especially how it describes the Armenian perspective. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Armatura and Super Dromaeosaurus: I am here in response to a third opinion request. The above discussion appears to involve more than just two editors, though it's unclear if Alalch Emis and Grandmaster have weighed in specifically about the use of File:Karabakh-Map-Zangezur.svg. Are there any lingering disputes here that have only two participants? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not a party to this particular dispute. My comment concerned general use of the name Zangezur. Maybe I posted in the wrong place. Grandmaster 08:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's solved. I didn't think it was necessary anyway. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions

Do you have any thoughts on making the caption more consistent with the style guideline, which doesn't really recognize a possibility of a caption being this long -- MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

quasi-irredentist claim

Neil Hauer is an extremely biased author, but most importantly, according to the rules, opinion pieces cannot be used for statements of fact, so to call the idea of a corridor quasi-irredentist on the basis of one opinion piece in not a very reputable publication is against the rules. To present something as a fact, you need to demonstrate that it is generally accepted to consider it quasi-irredentist, and one or two sources are not sufficient. Grandmaster 22:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

We can't just call it quasi-irredentist in own voice in the first sentence, that's certainly true. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I just removed the phrase saying that the Zangezur corridor has “different, overlapping, meanings”, the meaning is pretty clear, it is a corridor crossing through Armenia connecting AZ to Nakhchivan.Marzbans (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Map legend

The arrow location on the map is user-made, based on no source, it cannot be "the potential location of Zangezur corridor", as Grandmaster put it. NPOV language for a propaganda concept is not neutralising it to the point when it looks like as if the propaganda is becoming a reality at any moment. I reverted the map legend to previous version therefore, it was stable and NPOV enough not to disputed for months as far as I remember. --Armatura (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is NPOV to claim that it is something promoted only by Azerbaijan and Turkey, considering that Armenia also starts implementing the railway works on this route. I think it should be kept simple and short, i.e. potential location of the proposed corridor. Grandmaster 11:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is NPOV to claim that it is something promoted only by Azerbaijan and Turkey, considering that Armenia also starts implementing the railway works on this route. - Do we really need to explain the difference at this point? Railway, road, etc., isn't the same as "corridor", those are entirely two different things. "Zangezur corridor" is an irredentist propaganda that has nothing to do with the ceasefire agreement and wasn't mentioned in it either. Only Aliev and his media claim it was part of the agreement. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A corridor is a transport route. For example, South - North corridor is nothing but a transportation route, running through a number of countries. And Armenia is going to benefit from Zangezur corridor too, by connecting its railways to Iran via Julfa, and to Russia via mainland Azerbaijan. And if some believe that it is an irredentist concept or something, it is still an opinion of some, and not a fact. We cannot present opinions as facts. Therefore the legend needs to be concise and neutral. Grandmaster 10:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A "corridor" is what Aliev and his media claim it is. There isn't such a thing, it wasn't in the ceasefire agreement either. It's a railway route and described as such, that's not the same as "corridor". Lachin corridor is a corridor for example. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a transport corridor. I suggest you check what a transport corridor is. For example, International North–South Transport Corridor is another corridor running across the territory of several countries. Grandmaster 17:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That's the location of railway routes not a 'corridor', we write what DUE majority RS and ceasefire agreement state. And the recent developments are in regard to a railway route (surprise) not a corridor. Wikipedia editors ought to not synthesize stuff either. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you do not use present tense when speaking about so-called "Zangezur corridor", Grandmaster. It is not "is" but "Aliyev and Erdogan wants it to be" and Armenia has NOT done a single step towards "corridor". I suggest you check other examples of "corridor", like Danzig Corridor, to understand why what you are saying is undue. It is irrendist Azeri/Turkish concept which has never been agreed by Armenia or the rest of the world, and which is being illegally forced on Armenia by Azerbaijan and Turkey. While Azeri newspapers claim "The foundation of the Zangezur Corridor was laid down", when Turkish newspapers parrot Azerbaijan's dictator Aliyev Zangezur, Lachin corridors must have same legal structure" and while the military forums of the ally of the two - Pakistan, eagerly embrace opportunities The Zangezur Economic Corridor:" offers, the story ends there. Being able to differentiate political agenda from everything else is a crucial WP:COMPETENCE, Wikipedia is not a platform for WP:PROMOTION. Finally when you hold a belief that you see the community does not support, be kind to drop it early please, instead of another WP:BLUDGEON. --Armatura (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As I noted before, this concept is not actually new. E.g. Requiem for a Would-be Republic: The Rise and Demise of the Former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan: a Personal Account of the Years 1991-1993: "the train slow-chugged through Zangezur corridor dividing Nakhjivan from Azerbaijan". This suggests arrow representation is basically correct. Perhaps there are more clues about exact starting and ending points. Brandmeister^talk 09:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Cherry-picking UNDUE source which mentions "corridor" and supports your POV, while ignoring majority RS and the ceasefire agreement itself which clearly states "railway route", one would clearly benefit from reading WP:CHERRY, and especially WP:UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not what WP:CHERRYPICK means. It is selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says. As for WP:UNDUE, hardly a one or two-sentence mention of the article subject in the 1990s publications constitutes it. UNDUE is explicitly more about the views of tiny minorities, like flat Earth, rather than earlier mentions of the article's subject. I hope it is clear now. The map and its caption could be discussed further, I'm open to suggestions. Brandmeister^talk 12:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia). I like how it doesn't bother you that we actually have DUE majority RS and the ceasefire agreement itself clearly stating "railway route/communications", but somehow, it's acceptable for you to present this single passing mention from 90s to support an UNDUE view of yours, in contradiction to majority RS and ceasefire agreement itself? Definition of UNDUE POV pushing. You should also take a look at WP:CRUSH. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no "viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority" here to begin with. This is about earlier mentions of the article subject. Either the entire concept of Zangezur corridor is WP:UNDUE and non-notable or it is not. The deletion discussion was closed with "keep", meaning it is not undue/fringe. So the inclusion of earlier mentions is helpful for understanding historical context. Brandmeister^talk 12:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Do not generalise, please, Brandmeister, the AfD about the article does not give one card blanche for making it to look like Aliyev/Erdogan would like to see it - - "an ancient master plan by glorious ancestors, supported by American political genius which has now has finally come true by virtue of our Iron fist". The map of the earlier proposal for Meghri for Lachin is already included, based on RS, it has never come off the paper. Now, if you / others do not make "Zangezur corridor" as something that is legit / going to happen / is agreed on / has academic consensus for, it may have a right to stay for many years in NPOV language. If it becomes another advocacy piece, of which there are many examples on Wikipedia, it will get deleted, as the others did, sooner or later. Imagine Britannica publishing Zangezur corridor and putting legend that you and Grandmaster are defending "potential location... blah blah blah". I hope you understand why Britannica would never do that. And if you do understand that, please understand why it is unde to ask for it here in Wikipedia. --Armatura (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

What I propose firstly now is the inclusion of outside, Western sources that precede the recent war. No government propaganda. When it comes to map caption, it should simply say where the corridor is supposed to be, succinctly and neutrally. Perhaps a better map can be placed. Brandmeister^talk 20:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Brandmeister I don't see talk consensus for your edit as you claim. Please revert yourself. That's just a passing mention and UNDUE, it doesn't mean "Zangezur corridor use in the West since 1990s". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree. The article rather incorrectly presents it as a recent invention when in fact this concept has been explicitly mentioned by name since at least 1990s. There should be a caveat for the reader in this regard. Brandmeister^talk 20:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you need consensus for adding controversial edits in case of opposition to them, and you don't have one. Per WP:ONUS it's on you to gain consensus. And secondly, even an admin told you it's just a passing mention [22] in the context of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, see WP:UNDUE. Your claim that it's used in West or mentioned in West since 90s is UNDUE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That was his own opinion in a deletion discussion that resulted in the keep outcome. Back to our thread, I hoped this would be resolved here, but looks like at this point yet another RfC is warranted. Brandmeister^talk 22:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think everything needs an RfC especially in undue cases like that edit. But if you still want to run an RfC that's fine I guess. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent Revert.

@ZaniGiovanni, please explain your revert where you removed sourced content from the Historical context section. I am asking you to explain because your comment the pre 2020 “corridor” talks do not have direct relation to post 2020 corridor which this article is about does not make any sense to me. Article is about the Zangezur corridor, which is not a newly invented thing, and the sourced material you removed is historical context about it. Based on what you judge that renewed talks about Zangezur corridor in 2020 is not related to the same talks from the past?

More, if you reverted me because you believe that these are two unrelated topics, why then you did not remove whole historical context? For example this one In 2002, Azerbaijan unsuccessfully proposed to Armenia to formally take over Lachin corridor, that is, the strip of land around city of Lachin which linked southern Armenia to Artsakh?? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

My revert reason is pretty clear; the pre 2020 “corridor” talks do not have direct relation to post 2020 corridor which this article is about, meaning unless there are sources connecting the 2020 concept corridor (which what this article is) to the "double-corridor" talks you added about, it would be WP:OR to add it in this article.

Regarding your second question, I don't have a problem with removing other info if sources aren't connecting it to this article, i.e 2020 concept corridor. My edit was only a revert of yours. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Mate, it is more likely that your reasoning is WP:OR . The material you removed is properly cited with reliable sources and directly related to the article it is clearly not OR. I did not add something new, but expanded Historical context already existing in the article. The article is about the Zangezur corridor, not the 2020 Zangezur corridor Nowhere is it specified that article is about a separate one, and no source states that these corridors are unrelated .

Zangezur / Mehgri corridor existed since the historical Zangezur (now Syunik) province was granted to Armenia and the autonomous Nakhchivan territory came under Azerbaijani protection under the Treaty of Kars (1921). Even sources provided in the article talks about REOPENING the Zangezur corridor, while others clearly link the history of previous Zangezur corridor talks to the current one.

So please consider self-revert here. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This was your edit. None of the sources you added connect the information to this article. And this article is about the "Zangezur corridor" circulated post 2020 war. The only reason this article exists is because of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and Azerbaijan's false claims that there was a provision about a "corridor" in the ceasefire agreement, when the ceasefire agreement only mentions "unblocking transport connections". So this article is about the post 2020 "Zangezur corridor", how are you even debating this is baffling to me. There would be no such article if it wasn't for the 2020 Karabakh war, the only seeming notability of this nonexistent corridor comes from its relation to the war and supposedly the ceasefire agreement, so this article is about the "Zangezur corridor" circulated after the war.

Secondly, if you have WP:RS which connect your addition to this article about the unimplemented concept corridor, then cite it here and we'll discuss. If no WP:RS connect your added material to this article (which again none of your sources did), then we already have our answer; it's irrelevant to this article and it would be original research to claim it is. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am not interested in your thoughts why article exists and it is unrelated to the out discussion, so I wont add up on that.
• This was your edit. None of the sources you added connect the information to this article. - Sources I provided are supporting cited historical information. Expecting that those sources will provide reference to the future events would be nonsense. Also,I already provided you with reliable sources linking previous Zangezur corridor to the current Zangezur corridor talks.

Here is the source talking about history of Zangezur corridor and linking all together:

For Azerbaijan, the reopening of the corridor has geostrategic significance in multiple domains. This route was the most direct land passage between mainland Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave soon after World War I, when the historical Zangezur (now Syunik) province was granted to Armenia and the autonomous Nakhchivan territory came under Azerbaijani protection under the Treaty of Kars (1921). The termination of the Zangezur land route connection with Nakhchivan following the breakout of the First Karabakh War of the early 1990s, however, seriously isolated the Azerbaijani exclave.

Here is another reliable source linking all together (Page 117). Same source also talks about dual-corridor initiative and controversial territories swap, which "occupied the most crucial part in the direct talks between Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents Robert Kocharian and Heyday Aliyev" (Page 112).

Here is another source talking about transport corridors in South Caucasus "In the 1990s Tehran opposed an American proposition for the two warring sides to trade corridors: Armenia obtaining a corridor to Nagorno-Karabakh; Azerbaijan the one to Nakhchivan", and linking it to the Zangezur corridor on page 171.

Here is another soruce linking all together:

this condition implied the opening of the so-called “Zangezur corridor” – a 43-kilometre stretch of land along Armenia’s border with Iran. In Soviet times, this area used to provide a road and railway connection between Nakhchivan and mainland Azerbaijan. However, these routes were blocked after a war over Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding regions erupted in the early 1990s.

Here is another one:

During the 1930s and 1940s, the Soviet Union built a railway connection from Baku to Nakhchivan across Armenia’s Meghri region (the same territory across which Azerbaijan wants to develop the Zangezur corridor). But after the First Karabakh War, the regions of Fuzuli, Jabrayil and Zangilan came under Armenian control, and the railway between Nakhchivan and mainland Azerbaijan was severed. Although the November 2020 ceasefire statement raised expectations that the three-decades-long deadlock on regional transport redevelopment, especially railways, would be resolved, Armenian objections and considerations regarding the Zangezur corridor have so far deflated hopes for quick progress.

• So this article is about the 2020 "Zangezur corridor", how are you even debating this is baffling to me. - Nor article neither any source state that previous Zangezur corridor talks are not related to today's Zangezur corridor talks. It is just your personal believe. Do you have any source to support your POV? Because so far we have your POV against number of sources opposing it.

A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 23:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this should be restored. The article clearly is not exclusively about the "post 2020 corridor", as the edit summary says. There's an entire subsection "Soviet period and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" from which the relevant content has been removed with an odd explanation. Having historical background is standard practice in our articles. Brandmeister^talk 13:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Aliyev agreed and admitted

@KhndzorUtogh, The direct quote of what Azerbaijan's President stated is considered a primary source of information. Editors shall not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source; instead, they shall refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. In our instance, by rewriting some of Aliyev's statement, while omitting the rest of them, you imply a quite different story than the source.

What Armenia agreed to is the text of the trilateral agreement, no point in mentioning Aliyev - There is a number of points. First, it was answer to the question. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether or not to reference only half of an answer. Second, if there was no point, the source would not fully quote Aliyev's answer; if the source quotes it entirely, there is a purpose. In addition, citing merely the first lines of Aliyev's response implies a completely different story.

Long story short - I think we should not analyze primary source and use direct quotes, and we definitely SHALL include the HOWEVER part. Please self-revert this edit. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 20:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re confusing what primary and secondary sources are. Radio Liberty / Radio Free Europe is secondary source, and that’s what I used. Editors in Wikipedia are allowed, and in fact - encouraged to paraphrase, rather than copy-paste what the source says. Aliyev has said / admitted that he introduced the term, as simple as that. That bit is in separate paragraph, which is self sufficient - one doesn’t have to follow with the full article text - who wants to read it can follow the link and read. I’m sorry but I find the request of self-reverting unsubstantiated. Ask a third party editor if you’re still in doubt. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m afraid you’re confusing what primary and secondary sources are - A direct quotation of someones speech written in a secondary source and not supported by any analysis is still considered primary information because no research or analysis was conducted on it. Wikipedia policies are clear about use of primary sources - WP:PRIMARY:

*Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

*Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

That bit is in separate paragraph, which is self sufficient - As previously stated, the next sentence in Aliyev's response, which begins with "however," is a significant continuation of his response. That's why he used the adverb "however". In grammar, word "however" is used to contradict the sentence that comes before the word. You cannot take primary information and remove an important portion of it simply because you choose to. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry but I see elements of Wiki-lawyering here, stemming from misunderstanding of Wikipedia primary and secondary sources, please discuss with third party editors as I fail to see your arguments as persuasive. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I filled request for third opinion. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Zangezur corridor and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I think the fuller version of the quote is the stronger addition to the article. I don't agree with Abrvagl that KhndzorUtogh's version is impermissible analysis/interpretation of a primary source; both versions do not include the full text of Aliyev's statement, so we couldn't reasonably say that absolutely full quotation of the secondary source is required. That said, I do think inclusion of the longer quote is worth the few extra words. It's the difference between "I made it all up" and "I made up a name for it, but the thing itself is real". If KU wanted to change my mind, citing multiple reliable sources that only quote the "I added that term" part would be the argument most likely to be successful. As a disclaimer, I'm accessing the source via machine translation. If you think I'm missing something relevant, please let me know. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Thank you very much for third opinion. Here are some sources written in English that focus on the key idea:

https://radar.am/en/news/politics-2547910873/

[Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan] "Recently, the president of Azerbaijan admitted that he introduced the term "Zangezur Corridor" to the international agenda and threatened to open it sooner or later, regardless of whether Armenia wants it. And he said that he introduced this term after the signing of the Trilateral Declaration on November 9"

https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1101553.html

[Journalist ] "Once again speaking about the so-called "Zangezur Corridor", the president of Azerbaijan admitted that there is no such term in the trilateral declaration of November 9. At the same time, he threatened that "there will be a corridor, regardless of whether Armenia wants it or not."

[spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry of Armenia Vahan Hunanyan] "It is welcome that the leadership of Azerbaijan finally frankly states that the claims made about the so-called corridor have nothing to do with the trilateral declaration of November 9. In the declaration, there is only one mentioning about a corridor, and that is the Lachin Corridor, which has been illegally blocked by Azerbaijan for more than a month." KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi KU, and you're welcome. Both those sources are reporting the view of the Armenian government. Are there more independent sources available? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, it is natural for the Armenian Foreign Office to first react to Aliyev's admitting that he introduced the term himself, some more time is probably needed until it will be commented upon more widely.

The fact the that it is Azerbaijan promoting the term and trying to create a discursive reality by doing that is quite clear from independent analyses, and even before January 2023, like from this 2021 Georgia-based analysis (Georgia has neutral position and good relations with both Azerbaijan and Armenia):

“Apparently, Baku was not able to incorporate the term “corridor” into Clause 9. This said, it also does not put up with the omission of it, either. Therefore, Baku now seeks to shape a discursive reality in which the notional Zangezur corridor is equalized with the de-facto Lachin corridor. Subsequently, it will seek to materialize the discursive reality by establishing the transport communication or the quasi-corridor to Nakhchivan. For that purpose, Baku pro-actively promotes the Zangezur corridor domestically and internationally. Azerbaijan and Turkey signed the Shusha Declaration on Allied Relations on June 15. The declaration mentioned the Zangezur Corridor, although within brackets.7 Still, it was hailed by the Azerbaijani government and the related media as successful international recognition. The Zangezur corridor has also become part and parcel of Baku’s strategic communication. President Aliyev said that the term Zangezur corridor “has already been included in the international lexicon". [23] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for joining discussion. I believe that best way to portray answer of Aliyev, while avoiding potential misinterpretation, is to use quotes. Also, I do not see any DUE arguments to dismiss “however” part. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Almost no day passes with Aliyev not promoting the concept that he himself introduced, trying to blur the Nov 9 agreement text, what is the value of including them again and again and making this unduly long article longer and longer? This article is not Aliyev's personal blog, is it? What is the value of the word "however" and text that follows and how do these contradict the fact that he introduced the term? The logic of "lets include as much text as possible" is neither a generally good editorial practice nor beneficial for this article. My logic is that we add what is new (Aliyev's admission that he introduced the term), we have heard the rest of his lectures countless times, they are already reflected in the article. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Just looking at §2021 "corridor" dispute, Aliyev's statement that the 2020 ceasefire agreement included a provision for the "Zangezur corridor" is mentioned twice. I think it would be reasonable to cut the second mention:

−

On 15 December 2021, in Brussels, during a press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Aliyev expressed a view that the "Zangezur corridor" should function as the Lachin corridor. During this, he said that the opening of the Zangezur corridor "is provisioned in the 10 November 2020 ceasefire agreement", adding that just as Azerbaijan assures security and entry to Lachin corridor, Armenia should provide the same unhampered entrance to the Zangezur corridor, without customs enforcement, and threatening that "if Armenia insists on customs points to control the movement of goods and people over the Zangezur Corridor, then [Azerbaijan] will insist on the same conditions in the Lachin corridor".

+

On 15 December 2021, in Brussels, during a press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Aliyev expressed a view that the "Zangezur corridor" should function as the Lachin corridor. He added that just as Azerbaijan assures security and entry to Lachin corridor, Armenia should provide the same unhampered entrance to the Zangezur corridor, without customs enforcement, and threatening that "if Armenia insists on customs points to control the movement of goods and people over the Zangezur Corridor, then [Azerbaijan] will insist on the same conditions in the Lachin corridor".

That said, this is the first time in the section that we hear Aliyev's view that the agreement had a provision for a "transport connection", albeit one that isn't called "Zangezur corridor". Leaving this out makes it too easy for readers to think that totally withdrawn his position on the agreement, as opposed to just abandoning his prior statements on what it was called. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly worth keeping two kinds of Aliyev statements:

1. when he tries to present “Zangezur corridor” as something provisioned by November 9 agreement

2. when he admits he introduced the term “Zangezur corridor” KhndzorUtogh (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, you are absolutely right, If we provide Aliyev's response to the question, we must do so completely; otherwise, as you point out, readers may conclude that he has abandoned his position on the agreement. If we need to cut other section for that - lets go for it. I have no objections.

@KhndzorUtogh, when he admits he introduced the term “Zangezur corridor” - He admits that he introduced the term “Zangezur corridor”, however, he says that "it is clearly written there that a transport connection should be established between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the autonomous republic of Nakhichevan, and Armenia should provide it.". As a consequence, it is quite distinct from what you want to convey in the article based on your personal preferences. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I already said I do not see the value of adding yet another Aliyev lecture on what Armenia agreed to - he frequently lectures on this subject advancing a false narrative, this is not his blog. I asked you to explain what contradiction / value do you see in the second part of his statement starting with "however" and all I see is bold text here and there (as if bold font adds special meaning) and speculations about what I want to convey. This leaves me slightly gaslighted, to be honest. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You asked and you were explained, and not only by me, but also by @Firefangledfeathers. Here are the explanations given to you:

1. That said, I do think inclusion of the longer quote is worth the few extra words. It's the difference between "I made it all up" and "I made up a name for it, but the thing itself is real".
2. Leaving this out makes it too easy for readers to think that totally withdrawn his position on the agreement,
3. If we provide Aliyev's response to the question, we must do so completely; otherwise, as you point out, readers may conclude that he has abandoned his position on the agreement.

I don't know how else to describe it to you. You requested me to consult with third-party editors, but now you refuse to accept their point of view. I believe it is time for you to drop the stick. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: A couple of points. The November 9 agreement talks about transport connections in plural (“All economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked. The Republic of Armenia shall guarantee the security of transport connections…”) hence the difference is not between "I made it all up" and "I made up a name for it, but the thing itself is real”.

1. It (the corridor) is not real - it only exists in Aliyev’s mind to this day

2. It is not just the name that Aliyev invented, but he tries to change the concept from “unblocking all transport communications” (which is what was agreed) to a single geopolitical “corridor”, with allusion to Lachin corridor, so that he then could bargain “eye for eye”.

3. What he carried on saying (that “Armenia has been trying to ditch the responsibilities it took when signing the agreement”) is false - Armenia did offer a couple of transport communication routes, to the point of having checkpoints ready, it is Azerbaijan who rejected these, as they were looking for an illegal “corridor” instead.

Now, the current article already has passages about Aliyev pushing false narrative about notional corridor, why should this false extension be added? And as you mentioned, the full paragraph of Aliyev’s speech is even longer, what’s the logic of adding the “however” part then? When you review my comment, I would appreciate your thoughts. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

9. All economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked. The Republic of Armenia shall guarantee the security of transport connections between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in order to arrange unobstructed movement of persons, vehicles and cargo in both directions. The Border Guard Service of the Russian Federal Security Service shall be responsible for overseeing the transport connections.Subject to agreement between the Parties, the construction of new transport communications to link the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic with the western regions of Azerbaijan will be ensured.

@KhndzorUtogh, The agreement signed on November 9 contains a literal description of the transportation corridor, but this is not the point. As previously explained, the point here is that you cannot cut Aliyev's response to the question based on your interpretation of the facts, because it will make readers to think that Aliyev totally withdrawn his position on the agreement, which is not true. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 11:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What you describe as "literally a description of corridor" is a narrative which Azerbaijani government is pushing and which editors who want to abide WP:CPUSH should avoid pushing. Per Broers, it is maximalist interpretation of the agreement text, which only refers to Armenian guarantees for secure Azerbaijani transit. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/blockade-in-the-southern-caucasus-there-is-every-reason-to-expect-more-violence-this-year-a-639a972e-cc4e-477d-99f2-766beb2fcbea KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

KU, however well founded, these points appear to be based on your interpretation of the facts. If there are independent, secondary sources that lay out the facts in the way you've described, we should cite and summarize them. If there are primary statements of opinion that match yours that are given weight in secondary sources, we should attribute and summarize or quote those. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, here is one such analysis from an international expert of South Caucasus, published by Spiegel: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/blockade-in-the-southern-caucasus-there-is-every-reason-to-expect-more-violence-this-year-a-639a972e-cc4e-477d-99f2-766beb2fcbea DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Broers, what is Baku seeking to achieve by blocking the Lachin corridor? Broers: There are multiple objectives here... Second, Ilham Aliyev is exerting pressure on Armenia to make concessions on the transit route across southern Armenia, which Azerbaijan refers to as the Zangezur corridor. This corridor is supposed to connect Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhchivan, and Baku defines it as a virtually extraterritorial transportation route through Armenian territory. Azerbaijan cites the 2020 ceasefire agreement as the basis for this corridor, although this is a maximalist interpretation of the agreement text, which only refers to Armenian guarantees for secure Azerbaijani transit. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This is to show that Armenia did offer opening transport communications with checkpoints (as Armenia has with Georgia and Iran), but it was labelled as "a trick to disrupt the Zangezur corridor project" in Azerbaijan. https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/380588/ KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Another analysis by Kucera at Eurasianet. The article subhead lined "Azerbaijan's blockade of the Lachin Corridor comes as it accuses Armenia of dragging its feet over the fate of another critical route, the would-be Zangezur Corridor." says "That scaling up of [Azerbaijan] came on December 12, when a group of Azerbaijani government-backed protesters began a demonstration on the Lachin Corridor, the road in and out of Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijani officials have consistently drawn parallels between that road and the would-be Zangezur Corridor." https://eurasianet.org/armenia-and-azerbaijan-stalled-in-negotiations-over-corridor KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Of the three, I think the first is the most usable, and I'd support a short summary in the Analyses section. Generally, I find the analyses paragraphs are too long, so maybe it could be bundled in a paragraph with Michael Rubin's analysis. Ideally, de Waal's paragraph would be shortened also. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh @Firefangledfeathers, KhndzorUtogh, I appreciate the opinion pieces you shared. They can be used for the short attributed summary in the Analyses section, as Firefangledfeathers recommended. They are, however, irrelevant to the fact that you chose to cherry-pick Aliyev's statement, which, as result, incorrectly implies to the readers that Aliyev has completely withdrawn his position. Hence we have 2 options. We either completely remove that information or we portray Aliyev's reply to the question as it is. Which one you choose? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 05:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A couple of points for your attention, to be able to keep the discussion constructive.

1) you asked me to self-revert, saying something about primary vs secondary sources I was unable to grasp, as if my edit was something impermissible - the 3rd party opinion says there was not anything impermissible in my edit.

2) you accused me of selectively choosing text from referenced article forgetting that it is what Wiki editors do every day - choosing the most important parts from articles as building bricks for Wikipedia articles - your version did not include the full text of Aliyev's statement either, as 3rd party opinion pointed out.

3) phrases "you chose to cherry pick" do not help to persuade the editor you are having a discussion with but heat the argument unnecessarily, same as "drop the stick already".

4) your ultimatum "we either do A or B" is not a logical choice offer - what would the logical argument be for removing Aliyev's admission of him introducing the term - probably the single most important sentence of the article, can you please elaborate? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, if we want to help the reader not to be mislead by Aliyev's vague second sentence, we could then keep it with interim explanation like this: At the same time, he indicated that he has not totally withdrawn his position on the agreement, adding that "However, it is explicitly stated there that there should be a transport connection between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, and Armenia should provide it." @Firefangledfeathers: KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, Abrvagl would like the content to look like this:

On 10 January 2023, in reference to the arguments that the term "Zangezur corridor" does not exist in the 2020 November 9 tripartite agreement, Aliyev said: “Yes, I added that term to the geopolitical vocabulary later. However, it is clearly written there that a transport connection should be established between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the autonomous republic of Nakhichevan, and Armenia should provide it.”

I think you are suggesting something like this:

On 10 January 2023, in reference to the arguments that the term "Zangezur corridor" does not exist in the 2020 November 9 tripartite agreement, Aliyev agreed and admitted that the term was introduced by him to the geopolitical lexicon. At the same time, he indicated that he has not totally withdrawn his position on the agreement, adding that "However, it is explicitly stated there that there should be a transport connection between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, and Armenia should provide it."

Is that right? If so, I prefer Arbvagl's shorter version. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, if you think it’s better for keeping it short, then I don’t mind. I do personally think that, if we are keeping the extended version, then it would be better to at least explain the reader the value of that second sentence, but if two out of three discussants want to keep as it was so be it. Abrvagl you can reinstate your edit (I’m unable currently as my edit count at the moment is less than the required minimum of 500), and I’ll add the additions discussed here a bit later. @Firefangledfeathers: @Abrvagl: KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Good. Also, I think it would be beneficial if you move discussions about additions to the separate section and continue them there. A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 19:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

History of "Zangezur" name

How the name of the territory was created 188.253.236.160 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The wording "Yelizavetpol governorate, covering an area including what is today the southern part of Armenia" is misleading. Yelizavetpol iş Ganja city of Azerbaijan and it would be clear if we write "Yelizavetpol governorate in Azerbaijan....". 188.253.236.160 (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

the wording "Zangezur was the name of a district created by the Russian Empire" looks like the Russian empire utilized the name of Zangezur the first time ever. However, this name was used in Seljuk Empire in 11 century and reaffirmed by Timur's order in Mongol empire. The word come from the concept of 🔔 bells as a fire on top of the mountains for warnings 188.253.236.160 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Needs more on Iran point of view

For example I don't understand how it would cut off Iran from Armenia as that route could go by tunnel or bridge over or under such a corridor. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Because to date there has been no official mention of a tunnel or bridge? 88.212.181.21 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the means of bypass, IR's point of view is quite simple - unhindered access between AZ and Nakhchivan via AM would rob it of the leverage it currently holds over AZ, ie AZ has no choice but to use Iranian territory for access.

Of course, if left with no choice IR would prefer a form of transport which does not run the risk of being used by TR/AZ as a means of blocking trade between AM and IR, but it opposes unhindered access of any kind.

I'm surprised there's no mention of Iran in this article. They are a focal point in this ongoing problem. 88.212.181.21 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Azeri statements in 2024 on the Lachin Corridor

Some of the information on this spage is outdated, relying on statements from before the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, the dynamics in the demands regarding Zangezur have changed since then with the Lachin issue no longer in play. Initially Azerbaijan demanded the equivalent arrangement/customs regime that the Lachin corridor had, and it was the breakdown of those negotiations(as noted by several observers like Onnik Krikorian and others) that prompted disagreements over Lachin. After the offensive and with the Lachin issue being moot, the outlook if different. Now there are negotiations taking place with Iran for an alternative corridor. I have some articles with statements from Azeri officials that might be worth noting and updating, regarding their outlook and intent. A few choice quotes from the articles.

https://aze.media/hikmet-hajiyev-we-are-ready-to-consider-models-like-the-kaliningrad-one/

Hikmet Hajiyev: ‘We are ready to consider models like the Kaliningrad one.’

Kaliningrad for reference is the Post Soviet-Union rail and road links through Lithuania and Belarus to Russia proper from the now-detached Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

a few other quotes from the interview

We do not see the transportation through Armenian territory as a threat to both Armenian sovereignty and Armenian-Iranian connectivity. This is because a transportation link from Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan – through the far south of Armenia – will not affect the trade route between Armenia and Iran. The two routes intersect without blocking each other. It is always possible to find acceptable modalities if there is the political will to do so. The term “corridor” should not frighten Armenia, as it is widely used in the context of transport routes. This transportation link will not deprive Armenia from its border with Iran. This route will not cut Armenia into two pieces either. Regretfully, here we see the widespread slander campaign against my country, especially in some Western media.

another article

https://aze.media/representative-of-aliyev-about-zangezur-iran-and-the-fsb/

statement by Elchin Amirbayov, the representative of the President of Azerbaijan for special assignments, in an interview with Estonian Public Television (ERR)

In response to the question of what will happen if Armenia does not want to give Azerbaijan this transport corridor, Elchin Amirbayov answered that Azerbaijan had been waiting for about three years for “a clear message from Armenia about whether they want to restore this communication at all. During this time, we did not receive any clear assurances from them. We cannot wait indefinitely and at the same time, we cannot impose on Armenia something they do not want. Thus, we had to think about an alternative plan that would allow us to achieve our goal – to ensure the unhindered movement of our citizens from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan. Negotiations with Iran on creating such a communication path have already gone quite far. The Iranian side is also interested in this project. Therefore, if we do not see in practice the willingness of the Armenian side to fulfill the promises they made, we will have to, without wasting more time, implement this project with Iran.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/armenia-says-pashinyan-aliyev-talks-cancelled-after-baku-pulled-out-tass-2023-10-25/

Azerbaijan drops Armenian land corridor plan, looks to Iran - Aliyev adviser

"Azerbaijan had no plans to seize Zangezur," Hikmet Hajiyev, a top foreign policy adviser to Iliyev, told Reuters, referring to the putative corridor that would link Azerbaijan proper to its enclave of Nakhichevan bordering Turkey, Baku's close ally.

"After the two sides failed to agree on its opening, the project has lost its attractiveness for us — we can do this with Iran instead," he said. Midgetman433 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)