Talk:Zangezur corridor/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Zangezur corridor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 [1] 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 [2]) 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)

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:
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

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)

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 [3] 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". [4] 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:

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:

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".
Leaving this out makes it too easy for readers to think that totally withdrawn his position on the agreement,
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)

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)