Talk:Lachin: Difference between revisions

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Armenia Start‑class Low‑importance Lachin is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project page for further information.ArtsakhWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsakhTemplate:WikiProject ArtsakhArtsakh articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cities Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Should this page not be called Berdzor, as this is the common name now used to refer to the town? I would suggest the same for Khojavend/Martuni and Kalbajar/Karvachar but rather than make a post on every talk page I thought I would post here. The road connecting the town to Karabakh is still known as the Lachin corridor in Armenia (I believe) but the town is called Berdzor. Nathan868 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being part of the corridor, it is going to be handed to Azerbaijan.[1] FYI. Beshogur (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source mentions the

(T·C) 16:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

https://news.am/rus/news/615744.html According to Armenian sources it will be handed over to Azerbaijan, one thing is certain Armenian administration will not remain in the town 80.76.168.114 (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the Lachin district has been scheduled for transfer to Azerbaijan on December 1st as part of the ceasefire agreement, the Lachin corridor (Lachin, Sus, Zabux) is to be secured by Russian peacekeepers and its status remains a bit more unclear. The town of Lachin has not been handed over to Azerbaijan, residents and the mayor remain in Lachin/Berdzor, however, authorities have changed their announcements to residents recently regarding the possibility of staying in the town: [2] [3] [4] AntonSamuel (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS. Beshogur (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:ONUS is on the editor that wishes to make controversial additions to the article - to provide reliable sources supporting them. However, the sources that were provided did not substantiate the claim regarding the town's handover - only the surrounding Lachin district. I simply provided sources here which disputes the claim of the town being handed over. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

No city will be in Azerbaijan. Today president Aliyev read the signed agreement of 10 November. And he mentioned that new road will be constructed to bypass the city to be the corridor. So Lachin city is completely in Azerbaijjan. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydan B-va: As I can see from Liveuamap - this was a new proposal by Aliyev - not a part of the ceasefire deal. [5] You need to provide sources that substantiate that the town has been handed over to Azerbaijan. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot even access to the link of liveumap, oh what a credible source! You should provide a credible source indicating the city is in Artsakh, can you even provide a source for Fictitious Artsakh?! Aliyev read the agreeement, so the source is the agreement. If it was a lie, other leaders would comment on that. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

civil, as I mentioned above, those that wish to make controversial changes have the responsibility for providing reliable sources that substantiate the additions on Wikipedia. Here is a direct source for the Aliyev statement: [6], here is another report from an Armenian news service regarding the town most likely staying under Artsakh civil administration, protected by Russian peacekeepers - at least for the next couple of years: [7] AntonSamuel (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You see he says ‘the deadline is indicated here’. I have watched the video, he was indicating the agreement. Armenian news services can say many things. ‘Most likely’ is not credible either. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Armenian left there, which kind of civils they will administrate. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RS. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@AntonSamuel: AFP journalists saw soldiers raising the Azerbaijani flag over an administrative building in the town of Lachin in the early hours. Beshogur (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: Yes, this was reported on Liveuamap as well: [8] They apparently passed through Lachin/Berdzor and Zabux/Aghavno, hoisted flags and then they left. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AntonSamuel: They apparently passed through Lachin/Berdzor and Zabux/Aghavno, hoisted flags and then they left. come on man, really? Beshogur (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean @Beshogur provides a link here. You say it is just a flag. I think you should think about what you are even writing. The flag means a lot, it means that there cannot be Fictitious Artsakh there. So change the article, or bring here normal 3d party that can solve the issue. You’re not objective. Aydan B-va (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydan B-va: apparently the journalists taking those picture is saying that. Beshogur (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: Yeah, that's what the Liveuamap report said. However, if there is cause to think that there has been some unexpected turn of events that conflict with the reports I've linked to so far, this can be discussed. However, until the situation clears up a bit more and we get confirmation from third-party sources that the town indeed has been handed over and the Armenian population and administration has been fully evacuated, it's prudent to refrain from altering the article to indicate that it has been handed over to Azerbaijan. AntonSamuel (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not prudent to write that it is de facto under control of ‘artsakh’. No source can prove that. It is handed over Azerbaijan. Since there’re russian peace keepers, we don’t touch that information in the article. So this article misinforms others. Aydan B-va (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That the town of Lachin/Berdzor was under the de facto control of Armenian forces/the Republic of Artsakh before the ceasefire is not controversial - what needs to be proven is that the town and the Lachin corridor would have been turned over to Azeri control - and as far as I have seen with regard to all the sources that have been provided - it hasn't been. AntonSamuel (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then look at the video provided by Ministry of Defence of Azerbaijan. The soldiers say that the flag of Azerbaijan is in the town of Lachin. It seems really funny. The journalists also say that. There is no dispute here. But you cannot cite single source for it being under ‘artsakh’ control. Aydan B-va (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydan B-va: Again, reliable and neutral third-party sources are needed. So far they have not been provided. I believe that I've explained enough at this point. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put Disputed tag there then. You don’t have a right to misinform others. Aydan B-va (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Lachin is neither de facto nor legally controlled by Armenians. Currently, Russian peacekeepers control the city and the territory of the Lachin corridor.--Qolcomaq (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Samuel What we need to discuss is that everything is known, whether de facto or juridical.Qolcomaq (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[9] This link also shows that the Azerbaijani flag is raised over administrative building in Lachin town. AFP journalists confirm that which make them 3rd party already. Aydan B-va (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Al Jazeera article you've linked [10] repeats the same reported uncertainty regarding the status of the corridor that other reports I've linked before also convey:

"Under the agreement, some 2,000 Russian peacekeepers deployed between the two sides and along the Lachin corridor, a 60km (37-mile) route through the district that connects Karabakh’s main city Stepanakert to Armenia."

"Russian military vehicles accompanied Azerbaijani trucks driving along the corridor overnight and were deployed at the main crossroads in Lachin."

"Olesya Vartanyan of the International Crisis Group told AFP that while the handover of the last district signalled that the peace deal was “working”, the new status quo remains “unclear”."

"The Moscow-brokered agreement is very precise when it comes to the territories’ handover, but is ambiguous on a number of aspects such as the mandate of Russian peacekeepers and how the life of the local population, both Armenian and Azerbaijani, will be organised"

AntonSamuel (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The city is certainly not controlled by Armenians. Armenian flags are removed, and Azerbaijani flag was raised over the city administration building. That certainly proves that the city is not controlled by Armenians, and moreover, that it is under at least nominal Azerbaijani control. [11] Grandmaster 22:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the reports from AFP about Azerbaijani troops passing through Lachin and doing a photo-op with flags, featured on Liveuamap as well: [12], about the Artsakh mayor and hundreds of Armenian residents staying in the village as well as the Russians ordering all flags (Armenian and Azerbaijani) to be lowered [13] which casts the claim into doubt about joint Azerbaijani-Russian control of the Lachin corridor. Aliyev made a speech stating that Lachin city is not currently under Azerbaijani control, that his position was that another corridor should be built around the city in the upcoming years [14]. If we can find neutral and reliable third-party sources clearly stating that the Azerbaijanis have control of the Lachin corridor - that is another matter. However, unless there is clear confirmation that Azerbaijan has assumed control over the Lachin corridor and Lachin town in some manner - the status quo should remain. The burden of proof is on those that want to make controversial additions/changes to the article, not the other way around. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that Lachin is under de-facto Armenian control? On what basis do you make such an assumption? What is your source for that info? I wrote that Lachin is under control of Russian peacekeepers (supported even by sources that you quote), and you changed it to Armenian control. Please explain your edit. Grandmaster 22:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source: [15] If the Armenian flag is removed, as your own source confirms, how the place could be under Armenian control? That defies logic. Grandmaster 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the burden of proof is on those that want to make controversial additions/changes to the article, not the other way around. That the town of Lachin was under the de facto control of Armenian forces/the Republic of Artsakh before the ceasefire is not controversial - what needs to be proven is that the town and the Lachin corridor would have been turned over to Azeri control - and as far as I have seen with regard to all the sources that have been provided - it hasn't been. What I reverted was the edits on the Lachin corridor articles that removed the mention of Artsakh de facto control and a indicated a handover to Azerbaijan without proper neutral and reliable sources. AFP is certainly a reliable source, and is listed as such here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources AntonSamuel (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on anyone supporting certain information in the article. If you claim Armenian control, please provide your source. If you don't have a source for that claim, it should go. Grandmaster 22:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never disputed that the situation remains unclear at the moment - if you wish to add further clarification of the ambiguity that exists right now regarding what the exact state of affairs is with regard to the de facto civil/military administration, go ahead. Regarding sources for the mayor and residents staying behind, I've given one Armenian news source [16], here is another [17], this French news source [18] also discusses the matter of the lack of clarity regarding borders in NK/Artsakh in general at the moment. I will continue to look for information as the situation develops further. AntonSamuel (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is unclear, how can you claim that it is under Armenian control? Where's logic? And where's you source for Armenian control? If Armenian mayor stayed there, it does not mean that he has powers, he is just a private person now. The only thing that is certain is that the town is under the control of Russian peacekeepers, and that is the only info that should be in the article. Grandmaster 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The logic: I have not seen any reports of a Russian or Azerbaijani takeover of the civilian administration of Lachin, Sus and Zabux. Therefore, even if flags have been lowered at the municipality building in Lachin - if any civilian governmental services are provided within the Lachin corridor region for the population that remains - they are most likely provided by Artsakh/Armenia, since at least some of their administration remains. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly does not mean control, because it is not even known if that mayor provides any services. And since you have no source for Armenian control, that info cannot remain. The only thing that we can confirm with reliable sources is that Russian peacekeepers patrol the road in the town. And that is the only thing that we can include with the reference to reliable sources. Any personal assumptions as to who has de-facto control cannot be included. Grandmaster 23:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of the clearest summaries of situation and the lack of clarity that exists right now: [19] “The [ceasefire] agreement makes clear that they can live here indefinitely,” Alaverdian told RFE/RL’s Armenaian Service. “There are no questions about the civilian population. There is a little uncertainty about local government bodies but I think that will be cleared up in the coming days.” "Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said, meanwhile, that Baku intends to regain control of the town as well and will therefore seek the construction of a new Armenia-Karabakh road section bypassing it."AntonSamuel (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article in Armenian [20] with a clip with the head of the Kashatagh Province, Mushegh Alaverdian in Lachin: [21] with Azeri military vehicles being escorted through the town, as well as scenes of the civilian population. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not say anything about Armenian control. Quite the contrary, that person has no idea what's gonna happen. How could that be used to support a claim for Armenian de-facto control? Grandmaster 23:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It shows continued operation and presence of the Artsakh civilian government in the Lachin corridor to some extent. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. It just shows one confused guy hanging around and having no idea who he is now. Grandmaster 00:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly do not agree with that assessment, from what I've seen so far it seems that the probable state of affairs currently is that the Artsakh administration continues to operate to at least to some degree. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Putin's spokesman Peskov has just said that there's "no one in charge" in Karabakh, and Russia coordinates its actions with Azerbaijan and Armenia. That pretty much means that so called "NKR" is gone. Moreover, he said that the status of NK is determined by UN SC resolutions, and as you know they say that NK is part of Azerbaijan.

Говоря о том, с кем свои действия согласовывают российские миротворцы в Карабахе, Песков сказал, что там «нет главного», а есть две конфликтующие стороны — Армения и Азербайджан. «Это стороны, которые вместе с российской стороной подписали известное заявление — Путина–Алиева–Пашиняна, и во исполнение положения этого заявления российские военные, а также российская гуманитарная миссия, которая состоит не только из военных, координируют свои действия и с азербайджанцами, и с армянами», — заключил пресс-секретарь. 22 ноября Путин заявил, что Армения не признала независимость непризнанной Нагорно-Карабахской Республики (НКР) и с точки зрения международного права земли принадлежат Азербайджану. [22]

Grandmaster 15:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's definitely a stretch - the Artsakh administration continues to function, both its civilian and its military branches. Artsakh authorities are also conducting regular meetings with Russian representatives. Some examples here: [23] [24] Russia's and the international community's official position stays the same with regard to the territorial integrity of states, that NK is de jure part of Azerbaijan. However, politicians like Putin might take the diplomatic "high road" with regard to official statements, but in reality, the policies they pursue and the actions they take may be quite different. For example, Russia and the US also both cooperate intensely with the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, while neither recognizes it as a de jure autonomous region or state officially. AntonSamuel (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added new link from MoD of Azerbaijan which they released yesterday. It is the video from Lachin city or town. So we are still disputing it. It is highly controversial to keep it like de facto Artsakh. For this reason, I put disputed inline there which directs here. And a user delete it. What is the purpose of dispute tag then? I see there is too much pro-armenian propaganda here rather than informing readers. Aydan B-va (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that video showing Azerbaijani soldiers doing a photo-op on their way through Lachin with a Russian escort [25] before, it's also been mentioned in this thread. An AFP journalist present at the time stated that "Azerbaijani soldiers make a quick stop in Lachin to take a few pics, then leave." [26] You can see that it's the same location, with the same billboards. That the Azerbaijani soliders passed through with a Russian escort was also reported by France24: [27] AntonSamuel (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source. It was not a photo op, Azerbaijani soldiers do not leave after they raised the flag, even though Armenian government claimed that. Wherever Azerbaijani flag was raised it still flies. France24 does not say that Azerbaijani troops left Lachin. Have you noticed that you are the only one claiming de-facto Armenian control, while there are at least 5 other editors who disagree with you? At this point what you do is a violation of

WP:CON. Grandmaster 23:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe that the articles regarding the Lachin corridor should be based on certain facts. To use a relevant example: In the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, some parts along the border with Turkey have been under full Russian/SAA military control since the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria and there have also been regular Turkish-Russian patrols in this area. However, the Kurdish civilian administration remains and continues to operate, including their own armed police force. It is therefore incorrect to remove any mention of it when discussing issues such as de facto and de jure, if there isn't clear evidence that it has been dismantled and replaced, and when there is proof, or at least strong indication in the strictest sense, of its continued activity. If there is a persistent lack of clarity or ambiguity with regard to control - then that should be described in the article to provide the readers with the full picture of the situation.

I've reverted edits to the Lachin corridor articles which I considered to be problematic in that regard and have discussed it with the editors on their talk pages and here. The role of Wikipedia is to convey the situation on the ground, I've argued why I consider it to be likely from the information that is available that the town is to some degree still under civil Artsakh control/administration.

If there is clear confirmation available which states that the town is under Russian/joint Russian-Azeri/Azeri civil and/or military control or that the Artsakh administration has been dismantled, I'm more than willing to review it. Regarding

AntonSamuel (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recent article from an Armenian news outlet, with an interview of the Artsakh mayor of Lachin/Berdzor: [28], with him stating that the administration of the town is Armenian, he (the mayor) and the head of the regional administration are present in the town, hundreds of residents remain, Russian peacekeepers are guarding the corridor, Azerbaijani soldiers pass through the corridor, escorted by the Russians. I'm sure third-party sources will turn up as well before long, either confirming or denying this description of the situation on the ground. AntonSamuel (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another source: According to the terms of the trilateral agreement, the Lachin Corridor is an area 5 kilometers wide, the Azerbaijani army is not allowed to enter the area and it should remain under the control of the Russian peacekeeping forces. [29] The same source says that despite that Azerbaijani army entered the town, and Armenian flag was removed. Here it says that the corridor is controlled by Russian peacekeepers: But the question of the settlements located along the Lachin corridor controlled by Russian peacekeepers remains open. [30] Grandmaster 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this is an official statement from Russian MOD spokesman Igor Konashenkov: Российскими миротворцами контролируется Лачинский коридор шириной пять километров. The 5-kilometer-wide Lachin corridor is under the control of Russian peacekeepers. [31] It is quite obvious that the corridor and the town are under the control of the Russian peacekeepers. Grandmaster 01:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate third party input into discussion about who actually controls the town of Lachin at the moment. There's a discussion about that right above this section. Grandmaster 20:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if the most relevant sources presented at various points above are collected here for ease of reference in this RfC. Given there was just a war, one would expect it's a bit in flux at the moment. CMD (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that situation is fluid, but one thing that is not going to change is that Lachin corridor (which includes the town of Lachin, thus the name) will remain under the control of Russian peacekeepers, since that was a part of the ceasefire agreement. There's a vast amount of sources to support this information, please see below just a few:

According to the terms of the trilateral agreement, the Lachin Corridor is an area 5 kilometers wide, the Azerbaijani army is not allowed to enter the area and it should remain under the control of the Russian peacekeeping forces. [32] The same source says that despite that Azerbaijani army entered the town, and Armenian flag was removed. Here it says that the corridor is controlled by Russian peacekeepers: But the question of the settlements located along the Lachin corridor controlled by Russian peacekeepers remains open. [33]

And this is an official statement from the Russian MOD spokesman general Igor Konashenkov: Российскими миротворцами контролируется Лачинский коридор шириной пять километров. The 5-kilometer-wide Lachin corridor is under the control of Russian peacekeepers. [34]

Another source, AFP: Under the agreement, some 2,000 Russian peacekeepers deployed between the two sides and along the Lachin corridor, a 60-kilometre (35-mile) route through the district that connects Karabakh's main city Stepanakert to Armenia. [35]

This is an easily verifiable info from multiple sources, and yet AntonSamuel (talk · contribs) reverts my edit about the corridor being under the control of Russian peacekeepers while failing to provide a single reliable source attesting to the contrary. [36] He claims that Lachin corridor and the town of Lachin are under de-facto control of separatist regime, even though not a single reliable third party source confirms that. In the discussion above 5 different editors told him that he was wrong, and another one said so here: [37], yet we are still having this discussion. Thank you for your help. Grandmaster 09:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can summarize what I've argued so far regarding the situation and I welcome input from administrators and other editors regarding this issue. I've stated that I consider it likely that more information will come to light in the coming days, which will clear things up much more about the situation on the ground in the Lachin corridor, if there is need for further clarification of the ambiguity that exists right now regarding what the exact state of affairs is with regard to the de facto civil/military administration, that's fine with me.

Generally about the issue, a relevant comparison: I believe that the articles regarding the Lachin corridor should be based on certain facts. I've used a relevant example for comparison: In the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, some parts along the border with Turkey have been under full Russian/SAA military control since the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria and there have also been regular Turkish-Russian patrols in this area. However, the Kurdish civilian administration remains and continues to operate, including their own armed police force. It is therefore incorrect to remove any mention of it when describing the de facto situation in the area, if there isn't clear evidence that it has been dismantled and replaced, and when there is proof, or at least strong indication, of its continued activity. If there is ambiguity with regard to control - then that should be described in the article to provide the readers with the full picture of the situation.

I've reverted edits to the Lachin corridor articles which I considered to be problematic in that regard, that they've removed the mention of the de facto control by the breakaway Republic of Artsakh without sufficient justification, and I've discussed it with the editors on their talk pages and here. I've argued why I consider it to be likely from the information that is available that the town is to some degree still under civil Artsakh control/administration.

Azerbaijani soldiers passing through Lachin: There was a report from AFP about Azerbaijani troops passing through Lachin with a Russian escort and doing a photo-op with flags that was featured on Liveuamap, with an AFP journalist present at the time stated that "Azerbaijani soldiers make a quick stop in Lachin to take a few pics, then leave.": [38] The video released by the Azerbaijani military [39] is at the the same location, with the same billboards. That the Azerbaijani soldiers passed through Lachin with a Russian escort was also reported by France24: [40] The Russians have ordered all flags to be lowered in the corridor, while some Russian flags are present [41] which casts the claim about joint Azerbaijani-Russian control of the Lachin corridor into doubt. Grandmaster argued that Azerbaijani soldiers raised their flag in Lachin and did not leave: "Azerbaijani soldiers do not leave after they raised the flag, even though Armenian government claimed that. Wherever Azerbaijani flag was raised it still flies.". Ilham Aliyev, the Azerbaijani president made a speech stating that Lachin city is not currently under Azerbaijani control, that his position is that another corridor should be built around the city in the upcoming years [42].

The status of the Lachin corridor: The

The Armenian branch of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty provided a good summary of the lack of clarity that exists right now: [49] “The [ceasefire] agreement makes clear that they can live here indefinitely,” Alaverdian told RFE/RL’s Armenaian Service. “There are no questions about the civilian population. There is a little uncertainty about local government bodies but I think that will be cleared up in the coming days.” "Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said, meanwhile, that Baku intends to regain control of the town as well and will therefore seek the construction of a new Armenia-Karabakh road section bypassing it."

Grandmaster also argued that the Republic of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has ceased to be: "Putin's spokesman Peskov has just said that there's "no one in charge" in Karabakh, and Russia coordinates its actions with Azerbaijan and Armenia. That pretty much means that so called "NKR" is gone" - I argued that this is quite unfounded in that the Artsakh administration continues to function, both its civilian and its military branches. Artsakh authorities are also conducting regular meetings with Russian representatives. Some examples here: [50] [51]

In a recent article with an Armenian news outlet, the Artsakh mayor of Lachin/Berdzor, Narek Alexanyan, was inteviewed: [52], with him stating that the administration of the town is Armenian, he (the mayor) and the head of the regional administration (Kashatagh Province), Mushegh Alaverdyan, are present in the town, hundreds of residents remain, Russian peacekeepers are guarding the corridor and that Azerbaijani soldiers pass through the corridor, escorted by the Russians.

I'm sure more reports from third-party sources will turn up in the coming days which will further clarify the situation on the ground.

AntonSamuel (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Perhaps people are talking past each other due to different meanings of the word control. In general peacekeepers do not take on administrative functions, so there are distinctions to be made. On those sources, the JAM news article seems to provide a reasonable overview of the situation as it stands, suggesting the issue is not that clear but that most if not all of the civilian population of the corridor has been evacuated. Leads can be tricky to write in the best of times, and we're literally within a week of the Lachin handover, so I think it might help in the mean time if relevant information is added to the article body as information comes in from reliable sources. Is the discussion entirely about that one revert? CMD (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It pretty much is about that revert. We can say that Armenian or Azerbaijani presence in Lachin could be a subject for discussion, but the presence of the Russian peacekeepers in Lachin is an undeniable fact, confirmed by multiple sources and even video evidence. All news channels show Russian troops patrolling Lachin. However there's no evidence to suggest that Lachin is "de facto under the occupation of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh since 1992 as part of its Kashatagh Province". First of, there was no legally recognized Kashatagh, but leaving that aside, even if we assume that it was, it is no more, because all parts of it are taken over by Azerbaijani army, except for Lachin corridor, taken over by the Russians. I believe an encyclopedia should provide an accurate information, and the way that it is presented now is very misleading. And as you suggested, all that info is already in the main body of the article, it just remains to summarize it in the lead. Again, there's not a single source to support that there's a de-facto Armenian control in the town, no matter how we interpret the meaning of "control". But Russian control is supported by almost every source reporting on the conflict. Grandmaster 13:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While the district itself is under Azerbaijani control now, the news footage I've seen recently shows the town under peacekeeprs' control only, with no Azerbaijani troops. Also, had Azerbaijani troops actually entered the town, it would have been in the news. My understanding of the agreement in that regard is that the town forms the part of the Lachin corridor and as such remains under peacekeepers' exclusive control (but this may change in the near future). Brandmeister^talk 16:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This is all very premature There is a rush to judgement. There is insufficient information. The situation is too fluid. The eagerness of Azeri/Turkish editors to indulge in prurient triumphalism is quite unseemly. There is no need to make definitive pronouncements at this point in time. Wait another month until things settle down. Until then, let @AntonSamuel: and his neutral edits stay. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Highly agree with this. Why all this trouble when we we'll get a more clear answer in a month or two. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If Russian peacekeepers control is reported in every source, then how it could be premature? You can say that Azerbaijani or Armenian control is unclear, but Russian control is an undisputed fact. Therefore it should be mentioned in the lead, and everything else should be removed. Unless of course you can provide a source to question Russian control. Grandmaster 19:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Why wait a month or two to state an undisputed fact? Quite the contrary, we must keep the article up to date. Grandmaster 19:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A useful interim measure may be to put the contested sentence into the past tense. If it turns out to still be true, it can be changed back, but there's no doubt that at the very least the war will have reshaped the Artsakh provincial structure. At the same time I'd switch the first and second sentences, per current significance. CMD (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, that would make sense. But I did not understand what you mean by first and second sentences. Could you please post here your proposed version of the text? Grandmaster 16:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The simplest switch keeping the most existing text: "Lachin...is a town within the strategic Lachin corridor, which connects Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, and is under the supervision of the Russian peacekeeping force following the ceasefire agreement, ending the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war. The de jure centre of the Lachin District of Azerbaijan, is was de facto under the occupation of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh from 1992 to 2020 as part of its Kashatagh Province." I'd reword to remove latin terms, replace Nagorno-Karabakh with Artsakh, and replace "centre" too, but those are separate points. CMD (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nagorno-Karabakh can't be replaced with Artsakh since they're 2 different things. The corridor was a thing before the 2020 war when Artsakh controlled Kalbajar road to Armenia too, so it wasn't the only connection of Armenia and Artsakh. While Lachin corridor's whole point is the fact that it connects the enclave of

  (T·C) 16:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I personally have similar feelings regarding the term Nagorno-Karabakh, but Wikipedia has a Nagorno-Karabakh article which covers it as a region with multiple meanings. CMD (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is Ok the way you proposed, but I would keep Nagorno-Karabakh. It is internationally accepted name for the region, used by all international organizations. Grandmaster 20:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Shall we go ahead and implement the changes as discusses? Grandmaster 23:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I amended the intro as discussed above. Grandmaster 20:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following diffs are disputed: [08:45, Nov 5][02:47, Oct 31][10:06, Oct 30][05:32, Oct 30][08:34, Oct 29][02:24, Oct 29] --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci and ZaniGiovanni, please explain removal of the following texts:

Those texts are supported by reliable sources, which you removed. In particular, you deleted reference to this article, claiming that you cannot find information about this journalist. Could show me a rule that requires availability of information about every journalist whose work is used as a reference? I don't want to waste community time by taking this to

This is a very obvious case of

WP:SOAPBOX not relevant to the overall subject of the article. The looting is already mentioned and does not need to go into explicit detail, especially from journalists speaking in a sensationalist tone. Brock's article is quite poorly written; he briefly summarizes the war starting when "Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenians finally rose up" and makes no mention of the Askeran clash and Sumgait pogrom. --Steverci (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see why looting and burning cannot be described in more detail. It is not sensationalist details, the journalists described what they saw, and you remove multiple reliable sources. And I don't see how Brock's article is poorly written. It is a report from a war zone, he does not have to report every event that happened in the past. Not a reason for removal of a third party source. Grandmaster 09:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's undue and not encyclopedic to include every single known

WP:PRIMARY source. Brock writes for Maclean's, a Canadian pop culture magazine meant to "entertain but also inspire its readers". And the fact there is no other information about him, not even another Maclean's webpage, is further indication he is not very credible. --Steverci (talk) 02:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You removed large chunks of text taken from 3 different sources. The Guardian is a very reputable source, and Steele is an award winning journalist. Maclean's is not a pop-culture magazine, it extensively covers international affairs: [53] And there is no requirement in wiki rules that biography of every news reporter should be available on the Internet. Grandmaster 09:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the History section spans about 3000 years and descriptions of furniture and refrigerators are not relevant to the wider subject of the article. There could be thousands of eye witnesses, and we simply don't have to room to include all of their personal recollections, nor is that what Wikipedia is for. Maclean's has an enormous Controversy section and has literally been called sensationalist by Jean Charest. --Steverci (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster you restored your recent additions, but the questions raised by Stevereci previously remain valid: How are furniture and refrigerator descriptions valid to be included in a section that has over 3000 years old history? As pointed out above, there could be thousands of eyewitnesses, are we ought to include every personal recollections? How do these serve encyclopedic purposes? And again, Maclean has an enormous controversy section. I'm going to ask for a third opinion, judging from this conversation, it should've been done earlier. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is included in the section about first Karabakh war. What does it have to do with 3000 years of history, I don't understand. Eyewiteness testimonies from 3 different foreign journalists have a direct relation to the occupation of the town in 1992. And Macleans is a reliable source, even the closing admin at AE said that: [54] Every news source has a controversy section. I don't mind if this is taken to dispute resolution. Grandmaster 09:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because no one noticed in another article's section or opened a discussion about it, doesn't mean it's a valid inclusion or serves encyclopedic purposes here. Again fridges/refrigerator descriptions are unnecessary details in a history section, in a section with over 3000 years of history, how in the hell it adds importance or relevancy to the article? Closing admin's opinion isn't some final nail btw, Maclean still has a significant controversy section, and if needed I'll take it to RSN. If we ought to include every eyewitness personal account, how in any scenario it adds encyclopedic improvement or purpose to the article? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took this to WP:THIRD. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is OK, an outside opinion might be useful. And 3000 years of history is not a valid argument. Every period has its own section, and first war has nothing to do with the ancient history, which btw deserves a separate consideration, because there are quite a few questionable sources there. And

New York Times also has a big controversy section, it does not make it unreliable. In fact, every major news outlet has been involved in some controversy, that in itself is not a reason to dismiss them. Grandmaster 10:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

How is it looting if you own the goods? If you move your chicken from your house to another house in a safer country, is that looting? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you take someone else's chicken, it is looting. But most importantly, the sources call it looting. Many of the looters came from Armenia, and looted goods were shipped there. The titles of news reports speak for themselves: "Armenia's looters follow its troops into Azerbaijan", or "Armenian looters burn down village". Grandmaster 13:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, destruction of the entire town is one of the most significant events, if not the most significant event in the history of the town. It cannot be reduced to a short mention that it was looted in burned in 1992. We need to provide a detailed information on how exactly it happened. Grandmaster 15:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reporter asked the man with the chicken under his arm if he was the owner of that chicken? O r did the reporter assume that all stuff in a war zone is war / crime? If a man wants to burn his own house and it presents non danger to his neighbour's house, isn't he entitled to do it? Do reporters ask people setting fire to houses if they happen to own those houses? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Armenians came to Lachin with their own chicken? Lachin had no Armenian population before 1992. And we should not engage in original research. We can only write what the sources say. Grandmaster 16:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is bad. But blind belief in sources that fail to look into basic questions is also bad. Skepticism about sources is good, especially when it concerns sources with improbable conclusions about men with chickens under their arms. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Especially when we have multiple sources that say the same thing. Grandmaster 18:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is becoming fruitless; whether to include details on looting or not is a subject to consensus; regards AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The sources attributed to the following two statements below (as of [10:40, November 5, 2021] version) don't ​support them. I propose to either remove both or bring relevant sources. Your opinion on that? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the city's capture by Armenian forces, it was looted and burned down^[1] …

1. ^ Vendik, Yuri (17 November 2020). "Армяне оставляют Лачин, несмотря на конец войны в Карабахе и прибытие российских миротворцев". BBC Russian Service (in Russian). Retrieved 1 December 2020.

This one above refers to a Russian source; I'm native in Russian and it says that a whole Nagorno-Karabakh was looted, not just Lachin

Iit says that in a background context. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

… and all of its original 7,800 Azerbaijani and Kurdish populations became

internally displaced people as a result of forceful deportations.^[1]

…

1. ^ "Laçın – məğrur rayonun hekayəsi". BBC Azerbaijani Service (in Azerbaijani). 1 December 2020. Retrieved 1 December 2020.

This one talks about region, not a city; it also refers to some unnamed official, that hardly makes it a

WP:RS

(I don't dispute that the looting took place tho):

… 28 il əvvəl işğal zamanı 13745 yaşayış evi qarət edilərək yandırılıb, ümumilikdə, Laçın rayonuna 7.1 milyard ABŞ dollarından çox ziyan dəyib, Laçın rəsmiləri bildirib. …

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your comment, much appreciated. Regarding BBC Russian, it actually does say that Lachin was burned by Armenians: Азербайджанское население тогда, в 1992-м, бежало из Лачина, а армяне сожгли город. Back then, in 1992, the Azerbaijani population fled Lachin, and Armenians burned the town. And we have many more third party sources on looting and burning. Regarding BBC Azerbaijani, I agree, it does indeed discuss the population of the entire district that was expelled, but not the town in particular. Better source is needed, on the other hand it is quite obvious from other sources that the Azerbaijani-Kurdish population was expelled before looting and burning took place. BBC Russian further says: Затем они (армяне) частично отстроили и заселили (до первой войны в городке жили семь-восемь тысяч азербайджанцев, перед второй - около двух тысяч армян) и переименовали его в Бердзор. Then they (the Armenians) partially rebuilt and resettled it (before the first war, seven to eight thousand Azerbaijanis lived in the town, before the second - about two thousand Armenians) and renamed it to Berdzor. So this I believe actually supports the claim that about 7-8000 Azerbaijani population was expelled or fled, and was replaced by 2000 Armenians. Grandmaster 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say it was looted, just drop this. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with another source. I hope that solves it. Grandmaster 01:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose to summarize on looting in a few words, without going into much details... AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 01:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]