Talk:Zangezur corridor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)