Jump to content

Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of 'Transport connections and "corridor" dispute'

[edit]

I'm contesting the removal of this relevant sourced content by Armatura. It doesn't seem reasonable at all, or to have been done in good faith. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just mention that reverting a revert is not a good tone but a recipe for sparking an edit war. This article is about the official agreement which has NO mentioning or room for any "corridors", and merging text on transport connections from another article (without pushing any unwarranted "corridor" agenda in) is under discussion as mentioned in the top of this and source article. Hence I removed it, while the discussion is ongoing. With this in mind, can you please self-revert, participate in the discussion above and wait to see what others are saying? And WP:AGF, please, and if you cannot - provide reasons. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the addition of this section not an improvement to the article? You yourself said "the implementation of that point should be in the Aftermath (it isn't at the moment)". This concerns the implementation of point 9 -- the Azerbaijani side calls the implementation "Zangezur corridor". The current content reflects that. It's a part of the aftermath of the signing of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. I don't understand why this should be removed, and how the merge discussion affects it. I have to reiterate that your removal did not seem consistent with your earlier comment, so it did not appear to have been done in good faith meaning that I still feel justified in reverting and maintaining this pertinent addition. Regards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When something is being discussed on talk page, it is a generally a good tone to make your proposal, and wait to see what others say, and discuss again, to come up with consensus, instead of rushing with controversial additions. No, my proposal is far from legalizing the purely Azerbaijan-Turkey-promoted "corridor" concept under the Aftermath (to the point of making it a subheader or a synonym of transport connections), but rather moving the NPOV transport connections text under agreement Aftermath and then in NPOV (not Azerbaijani POV) language explain who promotes what. You talk about WP:CONTENTFORKING, yet you started populatiing your controversial addition with what Mirzoyan said, which is WP:CONTENTFORKING. You have not provided valid reasons for assuming bad faith, against WP:AOBF. --Armatura (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Zangezur corridor probably should be mentioned somewhere here, but does it have to be through exact copied text from its article, having to add unnecessary several tags on both articles instead of just slightly rewriting the copied text? Super Ψ Dro 20:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The transclusion has been done per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SYNC. Lead transclusion as a summary is a highly formal and optimized way to add to one article what has already been covered in another article, and starts from a premise that the lead (per MOS:LEAD) should be a summary of the body. If there is unnecessary detail in the lead it is either the case that the lead should be trimmed (highly likely in general), or that using transclusion refinement the transclusion can be appropriately adjusted to match the intended purpose. "Slight rewriting" is often problematic leading to WP:CONTENTFORKING especially in controversial matters, especially in WP:WORDISSUBJECT matters. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: regardless of what I said in the above comment, do you want to try out your "slightly rewriting" solution for including the missing information? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would that get the <noinclude></noinclude> tags removed? To be honest I am not sure why were they added, I assumed it was some kind of attribution tag or something like that. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus: You can see what <noinclude> does by reading WP:PARTRANS. Keep in mind that WP:SYNC is a guideline. Rewriting would get rid of those, but "getting rid of those" is not a good in itself. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: First of all, don't talk to me like that, in an emotive and threatening tone or you will see what will happen. Second, why are you disputing the addition? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear, I'm disinterested in this issue. My only involvement was correcting the cite error caused by adding note without a noteslist. 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ty IP, your fix was needed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the merger proposal is not about mechanistic moving of the disputed “corridor”, but incorporating the text about transport connections – these are different things. While it is being discussed, it is better to wait for consensus. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I think the Armenians who lost the war in Karabakh think that they will win with wikipedia special forces.Wikipedia armenian army.. Armenians are chasing a dream again. On many pages on Wikipedia, I see only articles created with Armenian sources. This is really funny. It's obvious that wikipedia will soon be edited. All your propaganda efforts will be in vain. It is a war indemnity given by Armenia for losing the Zangezur Corridor at the end of the 44-day war. You should get used to it by now.Fullstackdev (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article 9 implementation

[edit]

I suppose the title of this section is not "wiki-friendly". Wouldn't it be better to rename it to "Unblock of transport communications"? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

agree, Article 9 is not self explanatory or notable enough to be self sufficient as a subheading, but “unblocking transport communications” would do perhaps, not sure whether there is a noun “unblock”. --Armatura (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is much better. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Zangezur Corridor into Aftermath of the agreement [re-opened, bumped]

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was a rough consensus against the merge.
Before discussing the rationale for the close I will first outline various important principles. Firstly, per WP:NOTAVOTE my close was not a tally of which side gained more numerical support but rather was based on the strength of the arguments presented by either side. Secondly, per WP:FORUMSHOP raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. This same topic was discussed in an AfD about 8 months ago. I did not take comments made in that AfD into account nor did the topic being raised again affect my close (WP:CCC), but I note here that repeatedly raising contentious issues for discussion without a single year (at bare minimum) passing is highly unlikely to lead to a collaborative environment that benefits our ability to cover this topic area in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Thirdly, accusations against other editors, forecasting, and vague claims of government propaganda are not particularly good support or oppose rationales. Nationalistic advocacy in editing is an understandable concern, but editors are reminded not to engage in battleground behaviour and to assume good faith in those they disagree with.
Both sides made arguments claiming that one or another result would be in the interests or advance the agenda of countries and alliances. This argument was not taken into account during the close, as little to no PAGs were cited supporting how we as editors must respond to such interests here nor do I believe any are applicable in this case. Supporters of the merge claimed that the corridor's notability and coverage fell mostly or exclusively under the scope of the ceasefire agreement article. Oppose supporters provided examples of sources discussing the corridor before the war, weakening this claim. Additionally, oppose supporters argued that the corridor had enough on-going coverage both in connection to and outside the ceasefire agreement that merging would either give it WP:UNDUE weight or lead to inadequate coverage on wiki of the corridor. Supporters did not effectively counter-argue the arguments of oppose voters. Therefore, in light of the applicable policies and guidelines I see a rough consensus against the merge as the closure most appropriate in this case.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should Zangezur corridor be merged into 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement (this page)? See filer's original question for details. El_C 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion re-opened, invovled close overturned. El_C 14:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. Brandmeistertalk 21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Zangezur corridor into 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. I think the content in Zangezur corridor can easily be explained in the Transport connections subsection of Aftermath section of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. Thanks for your thoughts. --Armatura (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, merger does NOT necessarily mean copying ALL the content. Citing WP policy: 

A merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying SOME or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page.

The 2020 agreement contains a point about unblocking transport connections, and the implementation of that point should be in the Aftermath (it isn't at the moment) and which is happening (like today Azeri civil flight has conducted over Armenian air) and Zangezur Corridor article contains content about transport connections, although spiced with unilaterally promoted "Zangezur Corridor" speculative concept which remains contested per WP:CRYSTAL. --Armatura (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The Zangezur Corridor article is currently formulated as a WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Controversial WORDISSUBJECTs are very inopportune to be combined with regular subjects, they are difficult to cover properly and require a particularly sensitive treatment. This is why a separate article is absolutely warranted. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE inclusion here would be great, but not merger. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In reference to this comment (diff) in an underlying section, and other comments by advocates of merging -- it is apparent that the merge side wants to negate the subject of the Zangezur corridor, as it is currently formulated based on an arduous (but ultimately relatively constructive) process of collaboration and discussion, involving mediation, and wants to select certain elements that they define as "transport connections" while avoiding this term. They don't want Wikipedia to cover "Zangezur corridor" as a notable term under WP:WORDISSUBJECT -- they want this subject (a term) not to be covered (or for it to be merely mentioned in passing). But they are unable to establish that the term isn't notable and not worthy of the usually comprehensive encyclopedic coverage. Based on this, I conclude that this merge initiative is a relitigation of the May AfD. The merger as advocated here would result in the subject of Zangezur corridor not being covered on Wikipedia.
If this merger is supposed to happen, some major fault would have to be found in the Zangezur corridor article. But no such fault can be found, because the article passed AfD, was subsequently collaborated on fairly intensely, and is built on solid references.
It is with this in mind, and having also in mind that this topic has historically involved canvassing and is within a DS area, I'm pinging an administrator to get his thoughts on this discussion possibly requiring wider participation, or some specific action, to be properly resolved (having in mind that RfC can't be used for merge discussions). Basically I'm afraid of canvassing taking place leading to a superficial appearance of consensus to merge, which would result in something that is equivalent to censorship (removal of a controversial, but notable, term). Pinging @Joe Roe:, and also earlier mediator @Mikehawk10: (who is not an admin) — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis The topic, the neutrality of which is disputed, has not "passed AfD" in flying colours as you may remember, and it was specifically about deletion, that decision is not written on the stone and does not apply to other suggestions (like merger). Time actually made it clear that the agenda of "corridor" is almost exclusively pushed forward by Azerbaijani and Turkish government related sources, and the fact that Azerbaijan and Turkey have such isolationist agenda instead of following the legal 2020 agreement can be perfectly explained in the aftermath of the 2020 agreement article in neutral language, as their view (which no other country shares) on what should happen after the war. Also, WP:ASPERSIONS prohibits casting accusations without evidence; whom exactly do you direct your accusation of canvassing and with what evidence? WP:AGF prohibits accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs - it can be seen as inflammatory, aggravate a dispute, and cause accusation of bad faith on your part; what is the evidence for claiming bad motives in others? What made you to selectively ping those two particular senior editors, was it by chance getting the answer you want? And why convert a polite discussion that has a chance of becoming something constructive into a drama board which is going make others demotivated in participating? --Armatura (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura: When I say canvassing I'm using it like the closer of the AfD did -- not directed at any editor or (ostensible) group of editors, but as a general impression of the goings-on when this topic is concerned.
I didn't ping involved editors in the Zangezur corridor content disputes and deletion discussion, but uninvolved editors, asking them about what they think about a need for wider participation. I did this per WP:CONSENSUS. This is because I think that editors who frequent this area are emotionally or ideologically invested in winning an argument. I deduce this from various comments, such as yours when you say that covering the concept/term "Zangezur corridor" means legalizing this notion, and another merge proponent's that as a concept, but not a reality, this subject should not be comprehensively covered in a separate page (see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive and WP:WORDISSUBJECT). Forgive me, but this does not appear rational. How can encyclopedic coverage of a fact of discourse legalize it? Nothing is legalized on Wikipedia. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, but it can't make the world neutral or more accordant to norms of international law... The world is rife with conflict, crazy biases, manipulations of discourse. We give these things encyclopedic coverage. The readers (such as when they search for "Zangezur corridor", a very visible term) want this from us, and it is our mission to provide them with relevant answers to their queries. The term "Zangezur corridor" however imperfect the AfD was, was found to be a viable subject, and has been given due encyclopedic coverage, based on reliable sources. The article is pretty good. You yourself contributed a bulk of it, providing a clearer outline and better context. But now and the other merge advocates are negating this progress, retrograding to the ditches of the May AfD, using the same arguments. This is an inconsistency. It coincides with you mentioning how Azerbaijan is now flying civilian flights over Armenian territory (which is happening roughly in the area in which a transport corridor would hypothetically form), as if this is causing the "Zangezur corridor" to gradually transform from a concept to a reality. It looks like you are trying to marginalize the usage of the "Zangezur corridor" by redirecting the separate Wikipedia article in order to right a great wrong through censorship.
So, I have grave doubts about your proposal's constructiveness. I see the proposal as potentially (i.e. certainly if implemented) destructive. Merging two articles concerns the subjects of both articles. Per WP:MERGEREASON, merging is done in cases labelled as "Duplicate", "Overlap", "Short text", "Context".
Here we clearly don't have a duplicate; we don't have a large overlap of the subjects because Zangezur corridor concerns itself with a term/concept (per WP:WORDISSUBJECT), that relates to only one aspect of the the agreement, and one side's rhetoric and interpretations (and responses thereof), and this article concerns itself with the "ground truth" -- the term is not neutral, but coverage of the topic is neutral when the term is identified for what it is (just like gay agenda is a non-neutral [hateful] term, but the article is neutral when this concept is clearly identified as a disparaging term -- your proposal is just like proposing to merge Gay agenda with LGBT movements); "short text" is likewise is not the case; this is not a short article that needs to be contextualized -- aside from neither article being short, the context for the agreement (war, etc.), is already present, and the term "Zangezur corridor" has it's own historical context (that significantly predates the agreements).
So when you stress that merger does NOT necessarily mean copying ALL the content it appears that you want to induce a pseudodeletion via redirect of the Zangezur corridor article, instead of a real merger. Really, according to the merge proponents here, the encyclopedic subject of the contested "Zangezur corridor" term would be lost on Wikipedia, and the term would only be mentioned in passing. It doesn't look like anything would be merged in reality. It only looks like the Zangezur corridor article would be blanked, and a wholly new section would be written, perhaps reusing a few references. This is not merger, it is (pseudo-)deletion. This is why I called it a relitigation of the May AfD. Wider participation is needed for this to resolve. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch Emis, WP:WALLOFTEXT with excess use of policies just to defend a point of view, sorry. --Armatura (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Zangezur corridor (or "Nakhchivan corridor") doesn't exist in reality, and guessing if it may or may not one day is WP:CRYSTAL. At best, it should be merged with the ceasefire agreement article, as according to Aliev and Azerbaijani media (who are the main pushing force for this non-existent corridor), it's the extension of said agreement. Quote: "Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev declared that the ceasefire agreement contained a special provision on the establishment of the "Nakhichevan corridor" [1]. The term has been increasingly used by Azerbaijani authorities since the end of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, while Armenia has steadily objected to it, asserting that “corridor logic” deviates from the ceasefire statement trilaterally signed at the end of that war. So if anything, this non-existing corridor only should exist on Wikipedia as a part of the agreement page, as Azerbaijani authorities and media claim it is. It doesn't warrant a standalone article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to cover all the information currently on that article here would give it WP:UNDUE weight, and I don't think it is anyone's goal to lose information for no reason. If I remember correctly, the failed AfD of the article concluded the Zangezur corridor is notable enough as to have a page. If a concept is notable, there's no reason as to merge it into another article. Super Ψ Dro 13:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd mention that you are the creator of this article, Super Dromaeosaurus, that you were not opposed to its deletion (admitting being under influence of one-sided Azerbaijani resources when creating it) and that the RfC did not have strong consensus, for full transparency. And this discussion is not about notability but the content - most of the content is about unblocking transport connections which can easily go to aftermath of the agreement which envisaged that unblocking, and what is left can be mentioned as Azerbaijani position in a sentence or two, with another sentence or two about reactions to it. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Originally yes, you are right, but the article has been substantially improved ever since. My opinion has changed, and I believe the article can stay separate. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose facts are painful. Do not try to remove this corridor, which was given as war compensation, on wikipedia. This would damage the credibility of wikipedia. The article you want to remove cannot be called a simple way of transportation because it is mentioned in many sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullstackdev (talk • contribs) 12:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC) <---blocked indefinitely hours after [2] [3].[reply]
  • Support. There is no need for a separate article, since the topic began to spread widely in the Azerbaijani media immediately after the signing of the 2020 ceasefire agreement. This point of view of the Azerbaijani side on unblocking transport communications between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be succinctly explained in the section directly related to this article. A separate article gives a distorted impression that the "corridor" exists and was agreed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which is incorrect. (See WP:SYNTH, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR). Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTALBALL - a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. --Armatura (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not applicable. The article does not contain personal opinions, only verifiable info. And second, AFD results cannot be undone by voting here. Nominate again, if you do not agree with the article's existence. Grandmaster 18:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to the rules, any controversial mergers should be nominated at WP:PM. So this vote here is invalid, unless you follow the procedure. Please nominate at the proper venue for the larger wiki community to evaluate your proposal. Grandmaster 18:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion and merger are two very different animals, and decision about one does not apply to the other. The merger's quite straightforward, actually, nothing controversial about it - there is unilaterally promoted by Aliyev-Erdoghan tandem "corridor" concept pursuing geopolitical ambitions, a there is the trilateral statement followed by trilateral negotiations about restoring connections which has no word about "corridor". As long as cabbages are divided from cucumbers rather than served a soup, things should be fine. In fact, the process is already started in 2020 agreement article (not by myself), hence keeping this article in its current form can be viewed as WP:content forking. --Armatura (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, according to the rules, you must take it to WP:PM. There is a procedure for mergers that needs to be followed. Also, the result of AFD was to keep, not to merge into something. Grandmaster 23:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took it to WP:PM myself. Grandmaster 23:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Grandmaster, I was going to propose that. I am personally not opposed to the merge if the consensus says so, but I don't think it's fair that only users from Armenia and Azerbaijan comment in the proposal. I don't like implying this kind of stuff nor is it accepted by Wikipedia policy, but all (if I remember correctly) Armenian editors who participated here or in the AfD voted to delete/merge while all (again, if I remember correctly) Azerbaijani editors here or in the AfD voted keep/opposed the merge. I am worried that neutrality might not be fullfilled unless we have users from other countries here as well. Super Ψ Dro 14:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right. I might be wrong, but this gives the impression of another way to get the article deleted, even though the AFD result was to keep. I don't see any new arguments against the existence of Zangezur corridor as a separate article. I think issues like this should not be decided by Azerbaijani and Armenian editors only. We need wider Wikipedia community to decide on contentious issues like this. I think that we may also take this to RFC and ask uninvolved editors to join the discussion. The more outside opinions we get is the better. Grandmaster 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grandmaster, Super Dromaeosaurus, I don't mind wider participation in pure principle, but I would warn against simplifying people's comments here based on their national sympathies ("Azerbaijan for corridor" vs "Armenia against corridor") in disregard of the content and strength of those arguments. Wider participation does not mean you get rid of the ethnic bias you are concerned about automatically: one may find people casting pro-Azerbaijani-view opinions ("votes") mostly come from brotherly Turkey and countries of Islamic Cooperation, understandably outnumbering everybody else, we had such a situation in 2020 war related discussions before, and that has to be taken into account in wider discussion takes place. BW --Armatura (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally against such divisions, we are all here to build encyclopedia, but we do have our biases, and let's be honest, we can see where delete or merge votes come from until now. So I would prefer if uninvolved editors decided this, or provided their opinions. Regarding the arguments for deletion/merge, we saw them before, and they were dismissed when closing the AFD. Eventually, this will be decided not by the number of votes, but by the strength of the arguments, like it was done for the AFD. Grandmaster 18:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another interesting analytical article: [4] It refers to Zangezur corridor by a different name, calling it Araxes Rail Link. But the general idea is the same. It makes no sense to merge Zangezur corridor into another article, when the idea is being seriously discussed by politicians and the expert community, with potential involvement in development works of the EU and other international organizations. The facts from this article could be use to update Zangezur corridor, in particular the estimates of potential freight transportation volumes, etc. Grandmaster 09:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is called "Araxes Rail Link", it focuses on rail specifically and it is careful enough not to mention any "Zangezur Corridor" at all, and yet your conclusion is that "it refers to Zangezur corridor" and that "the facts from this article could be use to update Zangezur corridor"?? With that logic one may say that Silk Road is alternative name for "Zangezur Corridor". Sorry, but what you are suggesting is against WP:SYNTH and WP:OR policies --Armatura (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except that those pre-2020-war sources have nothing to do with the post-2020-war situation or the agreement on transport connections, or the current article - a case of WP:SYNTH. --Armatura (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. Why they should have anything to do with them in the first place? Naturally, any pre-2020 source will not mention "the post-2020-war situation or the agreement on transport connections", because it preceded those events. Brandmeistertalk 19:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adhere to WP:CIVIL, please, if you really expect answers to your question, unless throwing emotional rhetoric is the primary goal. I did not use epithets in regard to your reasoning. --Armatura (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The ceasefire agreement doesn't mention a "corridor", and assuming whether it will or will not exist is indeed WP:CRYSTAL. Unblocking communications doesn't mean a "corridor", and even if communications will be unblocked, it's still going to pass through Armenia's territory, and it doesn't mean what Az government wants it to be. Logically then, it's only reasonable to merge this non-existing and concept "corridor" to the ceasefire agreement page, when even the Azeri authorities say it's an extension from. --Steverci (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was already explained that whether something does or does not exist is not a reason to delete an article. We have articles about imaginary things or political concepts. The main criteria for article's existence is WP:notability, i.e. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Is the topic notable enough for an article? It certainly is because it it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Grandmaster 18:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is also explained in WP:ADVOCACY policy that raising the visibility or credibility of a specific topic, term or viewpoint leading to disproportionate coverage, false balance and reference spamming, installing a favored content are not appropriate. The article's content in its current form is a mix of things that are objective and not questioned (trilateral agreements on unblocking communications, pre-existing connections) and questionable promo content of "Zangezur Corridor" - a narrow POV of governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey, defended by editors from those / interest in those countries, it is far from being invisible. "significant coverage in reliable sources" is an overstatement, the sources predominantly mention that Azerbaijan and Turkey badly want that so called "Zangezur Corridor" (yes, in quote marks) " to become a reality, even though it is not even clear what is meant by "corridor" and what agenda Azerbaijan with Turkey pursuing with promoting that specific term. A merger with an objective content of 2020 NK agreement is very important for putting an end to low-key advocacy battle here and avoiding giving undue weight to POVs of certain governments . --Armatura (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the coverage disproportionate? It is based on what's reported in media. And it is widely reported, and even if it is "a narrow POV of governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey", that is not a reason for deletion of the article. It is still a notable topic. Please check again WP:notability. Your arguments have already been dismissed at AFD. Zangezur corridor passes the notability threshold, as it is being discussed almost daily in various media and analytical papers, and Wikepidia readers need to know what it is. Also, it is quite interesting that yesterday Vladimir Putin seemed to be speaking in favor of the corridor, or transport communications from mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan: [5] Grandmaster 09:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I warn against repetitive promotion of a propaganda term here. Putin did NOT say "he is in favor of Zangezur corridor", he only said "Азербайджан заинтересован в том, чтобы нормально осуществлялась связь с Нахичеванью, чтобы разморозить коммуникации" (Azerbaijan interested in unblocking communications between Azerbaijan and Nakhijevan), it is the strange conclusion / wishful thinking of Azerbaijan media, and your habit of using the term "Zangezur Corridor" as synonym to "unblocking transport connections". I understand you may do that under the influence of (nearly 100% government-controlled) Azerbaijani media, but WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:ADVOCACY still apply - something Wikipedia readers may not realise if we don't make it clear in this discussion. --Armatura (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a high chance that in a few days Zangezur corridor will become a reality: [6] While not officially confirmed, we know by experience that such rumors eventually turn out to be true. So as you can see it is not just what Azerbaijani media writes. This is reported in the Armenian media. And it is reported in the official Russian media too: [7] [8] Grandmaster 13:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't rely on personal forecasts in Wikipedia, Wiki it is not a cristall ball or a collection of hunches. --Armatura (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicat49, with all due respect, you provided no arguments, and this is not a vote. --Armatura (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. She did NOT say “Zangezur corridor”, as one can see from direct citation of her speech, she talks about “unblocking transport connections in the region”. Why Russian government related TASS agency decided to twist it and present it as “Zangezur corridor dispute” - we can go and ask to people working in TASS for Azerbaijan… could I please ask you to check your sources carefully and to add your further comments to your “vote” instead of making a new first level bulleted opinion each time? Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second this. There have been quite a few pseudo arguments of "unblocking transport connections in the region = Zangezur corridor". One is what the actual ceasefire agreement says, the other is Aliev's propaganda claiming that there is a provision in the agreement regarding a "corridor". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
people working in TASS for Azerbaijan? How so? TASS is Russian state agency. If they use this terminology, then it certainly is not something only Azerbaijan and Turkey claim. Grandmaster 09:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The brightest example is Saadat Kadirova - a head of department in TASS and an Azerbaijani by ethnicity who in public debate announced that “the Armenian terrorists must be drowned in piss in their church!”. http://misra.ru/vot-pochemu-armyanskih-terroristov-nado-mochit-i-v-sortire-i-v-hrame/ I am sure you are aware of this individual. I am sorry to say you cannot bring an apparently manipulated and mis-cited statement from of a Kremlin-controlled and Kadirova-edited newspaper as an argument. If anyone wants to push this twisted TASS article further with Aliyev-style “so what if” arguments, I may escalate this as advancing a partisan POV . --Armatura (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, I see no evidence that this article is written by Kadyrova. Second, apparently you do not speak Russian. That is not what she said. She just repeated words of Putin about terrorists. He said that we must destroy terrorists wherever we find them, even if they hide in a toilet. Also, TASS employs many Armenians, so what? Grandmaster 14:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My language competencies are available on my page, I lived and worked in Moscow for years. Мочить / Замочить is a profanity slang with many translations, each uglier than the next. Here’s an English source for the outrageous xenophobic speech by Azerbaijani departmental head of TASS - “ Kadyrova Saadat, the political scientist from Azerbaijan, within transfer of "Nightingales of LIVE", justified blows to Christ Vsespasitel's temple in Shusha, having quoted as Vladimir Putin according to which terrorists need "to be wasted in the outhouse" https://news.myseldon.com/en/news/index/238794590 The article you are pushing as reliable source is apparently (and intentionally) misrepresenting the words of Zakharova - any third party editor could see that but you don’t or won’t. You may not have realised this but constant stonewalling to frustrate the discussion opener and oppose the suggest change is discouraged in Wikipedia per WP:FRUSTRATE . I respectfully ask you to stop that. --Armatura (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, I see no relevance of Kadyrova to this particular report of TASS. And second, please mind WP:AGF. How providing sources is stonewalling or frustrating? This thread here was started by you commenting on the source that I provided. Grandmaster 11:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
constantly throwing newer and newer bulleted comments with POV references, thus making the whole discussion too long to read resulting in irritation of others, discouragement of others and keeping the status quo - this is the definition of stonewalling. Assumption of good faith is default and a stonewalling can be in good faith too but it doesn’t make stonewalling less irritating. --Armatura (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I only did it once, citing a source that I considered important. How is that "constantly"? You are the one making this discussion long with unrelated comments and bad faith assumptions. I suggest we stop this discussion now, it is not going anywhere good. Grandmaster 19:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody has a right to consider some things more important than others and have a point of view that differs from others, I am not questioning that right. But there is always an option of gracefully stepping back at the right time by saying something like "yeah, on second read it does not really say what I initially thought it was saying" instead of defending the initial position indefinitely. Challenging / critically analysing the sources you provided [ in this case - 1) Arax Rail Link and 2) Zakharova speech, none of which had a single mentioning of the word "corridor" in their body text) is any editor's right and should not ascribe "bad faith" and "unrelated comments" to the challenger and thus discourage them. This said, I agree this dialogue has been going nowhere pleasant for some time already, hence taking your suggestion to stop here. Best wishes. --Armatura (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no logic in merging since neither side claims the corridor's immediate relevance to the conflict now, and the concept as currently addressed is becoming more and more detached from the 2020 war. The Armenian leadership insists border issues have nothing to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and the Azerbaijani leadership believes the conflict to be over. Since the merger proposal was submitted, the term has only further widened in use and has been picked up by independent sources that seem to use it well beyond the context of representing Azerbaijan's point of view, including just this month The National Interest [10] and the IWPR [11] (so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here). Note that the term is also currently used by Armenian media, albeit consistently placed in quotation marks. This just goes to show that the concept is of current relevance, relatively wide scope of use and is referred to as such for lack of a better term. Parishan (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Involved close overturned, discussion re-opened

[edit]

information Administrator note: Brandmeister, you should pretty much never close a structured discussion you're party to. That's such a basic thing on the project (uninvolved closes) that, frankly, it raises concerns as to your competence (WP:CIR), especially in an area covered by WP:ACDS like WP:AA2.

Now, as to the structure, Armatura: did you list it at WP:PROPMERGE? Doesn't matter. I'm re-opening and bumping this merge discussion, even though it's from Oct, so may normally be seen as stale. I'm puzzled so few people raised the matter of this involved close (the optics alone are terrible). Weird. Anyway, use WP:ANRFC to get an uninvolved closer if one doesn't come along. Obviously, doing so in-house is a big no-no. Sorry, I'm not really around, so please ping or contact me only if it's urgent. Good luck everyone! El_C 14:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, El_C, I raised the involved close issue with Brandmeister on his talk page, only to meet resistance... And thank you for listing at Wikipedia:PROPMERGE yourself, I don't have a lot of experience in complex mergers, and "Zangezur corridor" was my first attempt, will know what to do next time. --Armatura (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I acted in accordance with WP:MERGECLOSE because in my view no clear consensus for merging emerged: Any user, including the user who first proposed the merger, may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed. [...] Closing of merger discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings by involved users are allowed. Admins are not needed. But I don't mind asking a neutral closer anyway. Brandmeistertalk 21:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brandmeister, right, I forgot about that weirdness, but now I'm remembering — that extra-allowance is just about giving involved users the leeway to merge / close merge discussions that are obvious or otherwise uncontroversial (to help with the backlog). That isn't the same as deciding on fraught ones (usually the case for ACDS topics) that they are a party to. That is out of step with WP:NACINV and WP:BADNAC. When controversial, you, as an involved participant don't get to evaluate the strength of the arguments so as to arrive at a no consensus outcome. That's just not done. BTW, there was no requirement to close the discussion. You really didn't have to do anything anyway. El_C 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
El C btw, I was wrong to access that the merger was a tie. I can count 6 Support and 5 Oppose votes, given the Merge vote by the proposer. This just gets stranger, I didn't even notice that it was striked down by a now indeffed user back in October. I swear I've seen many established editors vote "as a proposer" or "as a nominator", and it's always accepted. But for some reason, it wasn't counted here. Given also how inappropriate it was for someone so involved to judge the strength of the arguments and close the merger based on it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ZaniGiovanni, WP:NOTAVOTE, not urgent. Anyway, I presume this susceptibility for involved abuse of the merge procedure is partly to do with it not requiring admin intervention for any potential close, like XFD, RM, etc. It also seems relatively obscure. Folks usually go for an RfC for such proposals (i.e. when controversial), where this kind of nonsense would never be tolerated for months and months.
I understand the reasoning (backlog) to allow for limited involved merge closes, but it also opens the door for involved users to unliterally shut down fraught discussions, which is grossly inappropriate. And then said user can claim that they didn't realize involved closes for merges are not for that (and they have cherry-picked excerpts from WP:PROPMERGE to prove it). This way, the likelihood they'd face consequences for the abuse remains low either way. Needless to say, I don't like it. But it is what it is. El_C 13:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course El C, I understand the WP:NOTAVOTE, that's why I said someone uninvolved should have judged the strength of the sides at the end. My vote count was actually regarding the closer comment "no consensus", when clearly there was rough consensus, even tho again the strength of the arguments should've been judged separately and by an uninvolved user. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you keep pinging me here. What urgent matter do you require assistance with? El_C 14:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was on auto mode lol completely missed that part, apologies. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an RFC then, with the larger wiki community involvement. It will get resolved quicker, and will not be decided by the usual contributors only. Grandmaster 15:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I'm not sure what's the reason for this "suggestion" other than WP:JDLI. This is how merger proposals are done, and we already have rough consensus. Now we only need an admin or a qualified third party editor to evaluate the strength of the arguments. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it does not look like rough consensus at all, but of course it would be good if this merge discussion would be closed the proper way, based on the strength of the arguments. Grandmaster 15:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"To me" is irrelevant here. Reminder that this vote was closed as "no consensus", while 6 v 5 votes is the definition of rough consensus. But again, strength of the arguments matters most, and it's not up to me or you to decide it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The merge proposal can be converted to an WP:RFC if the filer is so inclined (Armatura), just not a new one (retaining past contribs). I would recommend this. Also, this hasn't happened yet, but I should probably be preventative with the following instruction to everyone: no mass pings, please. And, in general, please don't test the boundaries of WP:CANVASS. Anyway, ping me if going with an RfC is preferred and I'll do the things.
Note that an RfC will take longer to resolve than the WP:MERGEPROP procedure likely would (normally one week or more). An RfC usually lasts for about 30 days (by convention, as the duration for Legobot's delisting). I've closed a few normal (i.e. non-WP:SNOW, etc.) RFCs as low as the 20-day mark, but not many. And that's about as low as I go (again, rarely). Far, far more often, however, the RfC will take longer than 30 days to close. Months are not uncommon, so it'd be prudent to remain patient as WP:ANRFC often ebbs and flows idiosyncratically. El_C 15:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support the RFC. It is always good to have broader community involvement. Zangezur corridor article has already survived the RFD, so it makes sense if the wider community passes decision on this too. Grandmaster 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not like this wasn’t posted in the Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers#NEW REQUESTS just yesterday if “broader involvement” is what concerns you. We can wait for other users’ inputs from Proposed Article Mergers, or run an RfC, which I don’t think differs much or will have significant change. Either way, if it’s up for nominator to decide, I have no say here just opinion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not just one user, we can all make the decision to convert this discussion into an RFC, since El_C recommends doing it. After all, anyone can start an RFC. Merge discussions do not generate much interest, as is evident from this discussion. We did not get any outside opinions whatsoever after all this time. Grandmaster 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this is my dilemma. I don't want to have a mini-RFC about whether the MERGEPROP should be converted to an RfC, nor do I want to do so by fiat. Leaving it up to the filer is my pragmatic solution. But, indeed, I do recommend it since it's a bit under a cloud now, after the already soft-XFD thing that is MERGEPROP, got turned into mush. I think the extra-hardening afforded by the full weight of an RfC would be better (to remove any remnants of that cloud) than just MERGEPROP re-do. But, personally, I'm fine either way. El_C 17:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking the issue forward, El_C, these things are beyond my experience, I am happy to be guided by your experience. Could you please convert it to RfC, as you suggested above? Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Grandmaster, wanted to ask you, if you are that concerned about getting wider and neutral participation to form a consensus, why (as somebody who is quick to react to any important events in AA topic) did you not react to Brandmeister's problematic involved closure? --Armatura (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding previous closure, I was not sure about the rules, since they are a bit ambiguous in this regard, as was discussed above. As for the RFC, since you have no objections, I would appreciate if El_C could kindly assist us with arranging it. Grandmaster 19:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Staying silent may leave an impression that one is happy to keep the status quo (and the article) that way, be careful, mate. When one is not sure, one asks a question, as simple as that, regardless of which outcome one favors. --Armatura (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Armatura, there is a right to silence and it should rarely if ever be used to criticize someone. El_C 22:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that and respect WP:NOTCOMPULSORY in 99.9% cases, El_C. But it is the high selectiveness of his/her silence (when it suits the interest) that I am increasingly concerned about, this is not the first time. --Armatura (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Armatura, if it is that 0.1 percent somehow, then the WP:EXTRAORDINARY maxim would apply. To that: I don't understand what that one diff is meant to illustrate, but regardless, you can't compel someone to speak, or hold it against them when they don't. So it probably would be best to just move on. El_C 22:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Grateful for your kind advice, El_C, as always. I'd be happy to move on from that, if it was just that, but there is a lot more to it. I am not talking one-off event, I am talking behavioural pattern. Will discuss the details in ANI. --Armatura (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC launched

[edit]

I converted the MERGEPROP to an RfC. I'm also leaving all MERGE tags/notices in place for now. Hopefully, it'll bring more folks to the discussion. El_C 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, El_C, the more and the more diverse the better! --Armatura (talk)
El_C, thanks a lot for your kind assistance. Grandmaster 23:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Armatura and Grandmaster: for sure. Glad I was able to help. El_C 23:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RFCNOT - merges are explicitly not appropriate for RfCs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64, it's a logged WP:ACDS action for reasons which I have elaborated on above, even if that information page says otherwise. Which, granted, I wasn't cognizant of at the time, but it's still better in this instance to extend and expand in this respect. El_C 00:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The president of the self-declared

[edit]

The president of the self-declared Republic of Artsakh, Arayik Harutyunyan, also agreed to an end of hostilities.[3] - This statement, which based on the Facebook post of the Arayik, should not be included into the article as per WP:WEIGHT. Arayik did have any role in the ceasefire agreement. No contacts or negotiations done with Arayik. Ceasefire was signed between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia. No one even asked Arayik's opinion or agreement, he just wrote post on the facebook, where he claimed that "he agreed". No other evidences or proves that someone asked Arayik's agreement. Any solid objections? --Abrvagl (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported by Ria Novosti and he's still the president. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed as of 2023

[edit]

In lieu of the follow-up war earlier this year, and the fact that the terms of the ceasefire agreement were not respect (such as, for example, through the Lachin blockade), this page should be edited in its aftermath section and even in the initial starting summary to reflect this. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_ceasefire_agreement&oldid=1267151203"