Talk:Lachin corridor

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

Lachin corridor within Azerbaijan prior to 1931

In

Kurdistan Okrug
, its name was changed from 'Abdallar'. The corridor constituted a part of the Kurdish autonomous unit of Azerbaijan, which is clearly seen on the following maps: http://www.kurdistanica.com/english/geography/maps/map-05.html (one of them is posted in the respective article). The corridor thus may have been claimed or controlled by Armenia within the short period of active territorial exchange in 1921-22 but never officially belonged to the Armenian SSR and subsequently could not have been "completely transferred to Azerbaijan in 1931." Parishan 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan, don't revert everything to a previous version. Instead, please make your edits on the current version so we don't lose subsequent formattings from that previous version. Cheers.Serouj 02:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the history section for now until we can come up with a definitive answer to Lachin's status prior to 1931. Many sources (Andersen, Svante Cornell, A.B. Kadishev, Artur Tsutsiev, Konstantin Bazilevich, and Audrey Altstadt) make the claim that it was under Armenian control (some citing a 1926 map as seen in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia where the Karabakh Oblast is seen geographically touching part of southeastern Armenia).
On the other hand there's the issue of "Red Kurdistan" which seems to contradict the above assertion as Lachin would have been under Kurdish administrative control at the time.
I say we do more research and when the full story surfaces, we can go back and change it. But for now, I purpose that we keep the history section off of the article. -- Clevelander 10:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wording of the article

The version by User:Vartanm is, despite being better than the previous versions, still a revert of what I consider a better wording. Let's compare:

Current, Vartanm version: "The Lachin corridor is a mountain pass within the borders of Azerbaijan, it connects

Lachin rayon of Azerbaijan
."

My version: The Lachin corridor is a mountain pass in the Lachin region of Azerbaijan, the shortest route which connects

Lachin rayon of Azerbaijan
.

To begin with, "within the borders of Azerbaijan" sounds weird -- is California "within the borders of USA", or is it part of USA? The latter wording is more precise and preferred. Secondly, the indication "shortest route" (at least land-wise) is important, because it emphasizes and explains the importance of the Lachin corridor -- as opposed to, for example, "Kalbajar corridor", or "Zangilan corridor". Thirdly, the article is primarily of geographic value, and thus, when describing that the route connects one country (Armenia) with another (Azerbaijan), it is grammatically and stylistically correct to add "Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan". Fourthly, the preferred wording of in the English-language media, as well as Wikipedia, is "ethnic Armenian forces" as opposed to "Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh", since everyone knows and understands that only an actual state, such as Armenia, with an actual budget, human and financial resources, army, can militarily occupy large swath of territory. All relevant organizations, from UN to PACE to US State Department and US President, have recognized that Azerbaijani territories (Karabakh plus 7 regions) are occupied by Armenia (all relevant quotes were presented at length in the main NK article's Talk page last year). Hence, this wording too should be adjusted accordingly to reflect the reality and facts, not POV.

To begin with California didn't claim independence from USA. Your wording sounds like the region is not disputed at all, and Azerbaijan government is still in charge of the region. Its precise but leaves an important information out. It's preferred? by whom? Shortest route? sure I'll add that. Geographically if a road connects one country (Armenia) to a self proclaimed independent republic (Nagorno-Karabakh) It should say that, since Lachin is under Nagorno Karabakh's control it connects Armenia to NK not Azerbaijan. "ethinic Armenian forces" NK has an up and running government with a democratically elected president. You say that "everyone knows and understands" thats why the article says that its officially part of Azerbaijan. The current version is the least POV version. Vartanm 06:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you write is POV: don't insult the intelligence of people by claiming that a military regime on the occupied territories (this is used by the international community, by the way) can be "democratically" elected, especially after ethnically cleansing 25% of native population. By the way, the international community condemns the "elections" on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. Secondly, this article is about Lachin, which is not part of former NKAO or self-proclaimed "NKR", and hence Azerbaijani sovereignty and jurisdiction is overriding all other claims, and must be sustained. Finally, UN resolutions and all other documents and Western media, refer to either ethnic Armenian forces or simply Armenia, but rarely "NKR". Hence, to make it as NPOV as possible, I've proposed the "military control of ethnic Armenian forces", but if you disagree, then it would be "military control of Armenia" -- gladly, there are plenty of solid authoritative and verifiable references for that. --AdilBaguirov 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this should be made part of the page, as it is specifically about the corridor and peace negotiations: "It is the issue of communication of the Armenians living in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan with Armenia and that of the Azerbaijanis living in the Nakhchivan region of Azerbaijan with the rest of the country. We suggest the using of the so-called Lachin corridor – which should be called "Road of Peace" - by both sides in both directions provided that security of this road willbe ensured by the multinational peacekeeping forces at the initial stage". [1] --AdilBaguirov 04:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky tricky tricky. I just read the entire statement which is a statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov. It demands that all of the occupied territory including Nagorno Karabakh should be returned to Azerbaijan. As far as I know Armenia never agreed or made statements about opening of the Lachin corridor for use of Nakhchivan. When it opens then we'll added.
It's an important peace initiative, and thus will be added now, as it received press coverage in Western media, such as RFERL, and is directly related to the Lachin corridor. --AdilBaguirov 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to it. Try to keep it NPOV. I don't feel like reverting. Vartanm 08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC
Good, see how you can improve the wording preceeding the quote. It would be good to also provide Armenia's response. --AdilBaguirov 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Armenian forces are not controlling NK nor any of the Azeri Rayons. de-facto Republic of Nagorno-Karabak does. Removed "The latest initiative of peace negotiations put forward by Azerbaijani Foreign Minister" because it wasn't latest. The statement was made in 2005. Vartanm 02:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm warning you the last time -- cease and desist from placing your POV into the article! The UN SC (along with everyone else -- see archives of Nagorno-Karabakh page, I've provided more than enough references there) resolutions are very clear that it's the "ethnic Armenian forces" and also mentions "Republic of Armenia". Armenia's authorities acknowledge it as well, both by conduction negotiations with Azerbaijan and sending troops to serve in the occupied territories. This issue has been presented and agreed upon long ago in all other NK conflict related pages, so refrain from your POV and Original Research, and don't be putting some "NKR" in the text. --AdilBaguirov 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning me? I tried to be reasonable with you. this is your version
"The Lachin corridor is a mountain pass in the Lachin region of Azerbaijan, the shortest route which connects Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. Following the 1994 cease-fire agreement in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, it came under the military control of ethnic Armenian forces, along with other regions of Azerbaijan, although officially it is part of the Lachin rayon of Azerbaijan."
NK is a de-facto independent republic which controls the region, you don't think we should mention that, or you just wanna write that Armenia is occupying Azerbaijan regions with its military? Who has a POV now? Vartanm 18:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether NK is de-facto independent or not is irrelevant to this article, and is a non-neutral POV unacceptable to one of the sides in the conflict. A more neutral fact is that the corridor is outside of NK and connects NK to Armenia via territory of Azerbaijan, currently under control of Armenian forces.

talk) 13:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

And the image of "Free Artsakh" has no relevance to Lachin corridor as it talks about Nagorno-Karabakh, where Lachin corridor does not belong.
talk) 13:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Seems like a case of WP:Don't like to me. Why are you removing an image that portrays a sign from the corridor? This article isn't about NKR's legality. Also please reach consensus before you drastically change and add POV to the lead. Thanks. VartanM (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NK Wikiproject does not exist any more, removed tag.
talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Hakari river

"Lachin is scenically built on the side of a mountain on the left bank of the Hakari River." This is wrong this river is in the south of the country. I remove this. --Io Herodotus (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mountain pass?

I do not see a mountain pass (a connection over a mountain ridge connecting two valleys). The road comes down from Armenia on the western side of the Aghavno river valley and climbs up on the eastern side of that valley.----Bancki (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't go through a mountain, so I don't think calling it "mountain pass" is correct. Should we delete it? —
(T·C) 13:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Edits here and there

I did some work on

2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh. I think the articles flow better now and the proper parent-child article structure is reflected better. There is some more ce and reference cleanup/fill in needed, but I wanted to post here (and on the other page) so see if there were any objections to the edits I have made before I continue. Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  22:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

and if someone wants to do a bold edit job, post and I will wait so there are no edit conflicts.  // Timothy :: talk  22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "claim" and line that there are no provisions in the ceasefire that the Lachin Corridor can be used for non-humanitarian purposes

@Helius Olympian took issue with the following bolded statements which have since been restored since this editor removed them:


On April 23, 2023, Azerbaijani officials set up a checkpoint in the corridor, claiming it was meant to prevent the "illegal transportation of manpower, weapons, mines"[1]; however, the republics of Armenia and Artsakh have denied these allegations and the ceasefire agreement does not explicitly limit the use of the Lachin corridor to humanitarian needs.[2]


MOS:CLAIM: Describing it as "claim" is accurate since the ICJ and third-party neutral reliable sources described Azerbaijan's claim that the Lachin road is being used illegally for illicit purposes as "claim" and/or "allegations"

See Eurasianet: "[the ICJ] also rejected Azerbaijan’s request that the court demand new measures related to allegations that Armenia has continued to plant land mines on Azerbaijani territory." [2]

See PACE: "Azerbaijan alleges systematic and large-scale misuse of the Lachin road for illicit purposes, contrary to the Trilateral Statement of 10 November 2020, which it claims constitute security threats. Without accessing the area, it is not possible to verify these claims. On the other hand, the suffering of the inhabitants in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the resulting serious humanitarian crisis, has already been well-documented." [3]

WP:PRIMARY. This is not primary. Multiple third-party sources (see above, e.g., eurasianet) have described these allegations. Also, in this context PACE is not primary because it is describing another distinct document; that is, the ceasefire agreement. Also, even if it were considered primary, WP:PRIMARY source states "a primary source may be used...only to make straight forward descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person access to the primary source"

talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello. I appreciate you pointing out that the sources utilize the phrases "claim" and "allege" in the sentences. The MOS:CLAIM recommendation to use "said" would have, in my opinion, been more neutral. However, I have no issues with the word "claimed". The phrase "the ceasefire agreement does not explicitly limit the use of the Lachin corridor to humanitarian needs" is what I was actually referring to when I cited WP:PRIMARY. The source by the European Parliament, which you added, is a primary source and which represents their viewpoint. I think it is important to attribute this sentence to this organization.

Apollo (Helius Olympian) 16:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Helius Olympian/Apollo,
The source in question -- a document from the Council of Europe/PACE -- is not a primary source. It is commenting/discussing the ceasefire agreement. This makes it, by definition, a secondary source in this context. PACE is an arm of the European Council, an international organization comprising dozens of countries. It is reputable
Do you have a source contesting or disputing the statement made by the Council of Europe/PACE? If not, attribution unnecessarily undermines the the facticity of the statement that "the ceasefire agreement does not explicitly limit the use of the Lachin corridor for humanitarian purposes."
PACE, in fact, is making quite a benign statement since they are affirming a negative rather than affirming a positive. Using the original ceasefire agreement would be considered primary (but that is not what source was used as the citation). If the original primary ceasefire agreement were used as a primary source (it was not) then this would also not be problematic since "a primary source may be used...only to make straight forward descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person access to the primary source."
talk) 19:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The ceasefire agreement doesn't allow the transport of military supplies through the Lachin corridor, according to this article on OpinioJuris. It would not be impartial to merely declare that they are wrong based only on PACE's reading of the ceasefire because one of the parties to the conflict also has this opinion. It would be more appropriate and neutral if add that PACE stated that "the ceasefire agreement does not explicitly limit the use of the Lachin corridor to humanitarian needs" in the body of the article instead of the lead. Apollo (Helius Olympian) 20:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I asked if you have a reliable source disputing the PACE statement, not a blog, please see
WP:NEWSORG
.
We cannot dispute a reputable EU statement based on this subpar source.
talk) 23:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Presse, AFP-Agence France. "Azerbaijan Says Set Up Checkpoint On Key Route To Armenia". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2023-04-23.
  2. ^ Council of Europe: Parliamentary Assembly. "Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee):The honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia: Information note following the visit in Armenia from 17 to 19 February 2023". The Trilateral Statement contains no provision limiting explicitly the use of this road to humanitarian needs.

Understanding of roads

Hello, am I correct if this was the old road and this is the new road (that is currently blocked by Azerbaidjan) ? Bouzinac (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still important?

Armenia absorbed Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023. Does the Lachin corridor still hold importance beyond its historical significance? Either way, this article needs some reframing LbPirate (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lachin_corridor&oldid=1212061344"