Jump to content

Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Don-kun (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 12 November 2020 (→Map). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Problems

This article seems like a needless separation of information that belongs on the 2020 Nagorno-Karabagh article -- This information hardly warrants an article of its own, at least not in the current form where the majority of text is simply just a point by point retelling of the points agreed upon. Eik Corell (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt is a very important and historical agreement (not like the previous flimsy cease-fires) so it should be kept.Polmas (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A ceasefire agreement that has ended a war (and may potentially induce to end a 30 year old conflict), that is going to change a lot the politics of Armenia and Azerbajan and the whole Caucasus in general and which may provoke the first major territorial change in many years looks pretty notable to me. Also, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article is already too long and crowded. Super Ψ Dro 12:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to comment that the naming of the article was what threw me off initially, i.e that these weren't really established in the same way as the Bishkek Protocol, but I just noticed the new name and it all seems a little better now. Eik Corell (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have established a consensus for notability, I am removing the notability tag. Polmas (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kelbajar rayon vs map

The article says that "The Republic of Armenia will return to Azerbaijan the Kelbajar rayon by November 15th 2020". However, the map in this article only includes the western part of the Kalbajar District in hatched colors (to be returned to Azerbaijan), while it depicts the eastern part (the part that was part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast) in light green (hosting Russian peacekeeping force). Which one is correct? --67.160.159.188 (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map

Cordyceps-Zombie Hi, I've removed the map as the details about control are not known yet. The only thing we know is withdrawal from 3 surrounding districts. The actual military control of Azerbaijan is also unknown, therefore we need to wait until the details are cleared and an official map is provided. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment of observation points at Karabakh

Russian Ministry of Defense published map of deployment of observation points at Karabakh. This map could be used in the article and for updating the war map. https://t.me/SputnikArmenia/10137

According to the armistice "the parties stop at the positions they occupy." And according to the map part of the Karabakh south to the Shushi is ceded to Azeris. This implies that Azerbaijan had control over those area. --Yakamoz51 (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sputnik is not a reliable source. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map

other map
Map showing rules, including dates, for individual territories.

I have created a map of the agreement, 2020 Artsakh ceasefire map.svg. As with all war-time maps it is based on the best available information, and will evolve with the situation. @CuriousGolden removed the map, stating that "[we must] wait until an official map is released". My opinion would be that it should go in the article, possibly with a disclaimer. Any other opinions? Mapeh (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, details of the peace deal are not known yet. Also, your map shows the Azerbaijani gains to Shusha as a one long road, while the official maps released by Russia show that all of the southern half is controlled by Azerbaijan. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I based it on the map in the main article on the war (QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg), but can obviously be updated just as that map was. Mapeh (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden: details of the peace deal are not known yet - they are right in the article, points 1 to 9. TerraCyprus (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too made a map ;-) Which more covers the hole area and I hope is more in line with the actual text of the ceasefire statement. I also included where the information is unclear. --Don-kun (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for official boundaries by either governments. As of now, many publications provide significantly different maps. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The maps are in the section for Terms of agreement, no need to wait. TerraCyprus (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there is another map: "Staged map of border changes in Karabakh as per 2020 Armenia- Azerbaijan Agreement.png", @Don-kun: in your map, the unblocked transport arrow should better go to the south, not? TerraCyprus (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third map has quite flawed borders, compare to the first two which use the same more detailed sources. No, the unblocked arrow should not (necessarily) go south. The agreement does not mention where the link(s) should be, neither that its only one. Even building new ones is part of the agreement, so it could literally be everywhere in Armenia (topography aside). That's why I choose to put the arrow in the middle. --Don-kun (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the maps here have a lot of mistakes in them. The control of Shusha isn't a long snake-like control (per Russia's official map), which makes the 2 maps here immediately wrong. The map with caption "other map" shows remaining parts of Zangilan and Qubadli Districts as Russian peacekeeper control, which again is also wrong. I have removed the maps from the article until a correct map is made. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the part of Zangilan and Qubadli is not wrong. Its exacly what the agreement is saying: contact line of november 9th is monitored by Russian peacekeepers and no further mentioning of both districts. One might disagree where the contact line exacly is, but its pretty clear that there is a contact line through both of these districts. --Don-kun (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement has not said anything about Qubadli and Zangilan having Russian peacekeepers. The peacekeepers are meant to be deployed in non-Azerbaijani controlled Nagorno-Karabakh. In fact in the Russian government map, most of it is shown under Azerbaijani control and rest is shown to be given away to Azerbaijan. Therefore, it's wrong. These things are exactly why I'm saying we need to wait for some time to know the details. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think we're getting to the point where this is just a bit disruptive. Look, Solavirum and CuriousGolden, I've worked with you both a fair bit on this topic now, and I know you're acting in good faith here, but the BBC has published an almost identical map to the ones we have here, and Golden's point above, peacekeepers are meant to be deployed in non-Azerbaijani controlled Nagorno-Karabakh is precisely why it is accurate to show the areas of the former NKAO remaining still under Armenian control, remaining under Armenian control. It seems that we're misguidedly holding off on including a map with the hope that there'll be a reinterpretation of what the parties stop at the current territorial positions they occupy means. I'm going to re-add the map by Mapeh, which looks excellent to me, as we should follow the RS (BBC) on this until we see other reliable sources saying otherwise. Jr8825 • Talk 10:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jr8825: My problem wasn't with who controls what. I had problems with the 3 specific maps here which I pointed out in my latest comments. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your problems are based on your interpretation of the treaty, so are ultimately WP:OR. We have an authoritative source to go from here, echoing the maps we have. Jr8825 • Talk 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need to base the maps based on the only official map source we have available right now. Which is the Russia government peacekeeper map. I didn't know making up a map completely based on the mapmaker's assumptions was allowed? The map should display the available information and not touch on subjects not known to the public yet. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this isn't how Wikipedia's policy works. We follow reliable secondary sources, of which the BBC is one, and we prioritise these over primary sources (see WP:RSPRIMARY) in order to avoid original research and interpretive issues, precisely as we are having here. Unless you can point to a policy objection that I'm not seeing, I'll go ahead and add the maps shortly. Jr8825 • Talk 11:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Ministry of Defense already published maps of deployment of observation points and borders at Karabakh. Those maps could be used in the article and for updating the war map. https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/en/2020/11-november-russian-ministry-of-defense-published-map-of --31.145.12.106 (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian map has an obvious contradiction to the text of the statement: Agdam in the map stays under Armenian control. But their map of the contact line is mostly similar to my map :) Also, CuriousGolden, I did not make *any* asumptions in my map. It is purely what the text of the agreement says. You are the one making asumptions. And many of the other maps too, ignoring the uncertainties. --Don-kun (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we're using any of the maps here, then Mapeh's map seems the most correct. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 11:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The same Russian MOD maps on different news websites also. please check them and I hope they help.
https://news.am/eng/news/612714.html https://caucasus.liveuamap.com/ https://niqnaq.wordpress.com/ https://www.ft.com/content/c9dab829-3b4a-4464-a0c3-4d5c51aa1b0e https://cybershafarat.com/2020/11/11/the-russian-view-peacekeepers-in-karabakh/ https://cybershafarat.com/2020/11/10/nagorno-karabakh-region-agreement-map/--31.145.12.106 (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don-kun's map marks the area of Kalbajar with the former NKAO as 'unclear', as it's not explicit (in the English translation at least) whether the treaty refers to entirety of Kalbajar District or just the area outside of the former NKAO (roughly Artsakh's Shahumyan Province). Given that a chunk of Artsakh's Martakert Province is not mentioned anywhere, this area is to remain under Armenian control, so the main interpretative element of Mapeh's map is the decision to mark the area of all of Martakert Province as remaining under Armenian control. However, this is corroborated by the BBC's map which is why it's acceptable and the most reliably sourced map we currently have. Jr8825 • Talk 11:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would also like to point out that if we're using Mapeh's map, then names should be changed to WP:COMMONNAME (e.g. Shushi to Shusha, Karvachar to Kalbajar, Kovsakan to Zangilan, Berdzor to Lachin, Akari to Hakari). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 12:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Ideally we should have both the Armenian and Azerbaijani transliterations for each of these places to please everyone. Is this possible @Mapeh:? Jr8825 • Talk 12:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jr8825 and CuriousGolden:, I have uploaded a new map. All place-names in disputed areas are now bilingual (monolingual elsewhere), and there is also the former border of the NKAO (including claimed Shahumyan) for context. Mapeh (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, great, but there are some mistakes. You've marked Shahumyan as part of NK, which it isn't. You haven't marked Madagiz as AZ-controlled and I'm not a very big fan of one language's names being bigger and more visible than the other. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting the former NKAO border and adding a label for Magadiz are good suggestions. As for the names, they are the same size and well, both languages can't be on top. I personally think the italics helps emphasise the Azeri equally. Jr8825 • Talk 14:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern wasn't the text's placement or it being italic. The Azeri names are visibly smaller than Armenian names (obvious example in Kalbajar name). Also, I suggest not putting same thing twice if the names are same in both languages (e.g. Hadrut). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the font looks exactly the same size to me. Can you confirm this Mapeh? I quite like the duplicate identical names as it adds consistency, but don't feel particularly strongly about this. Looking again at Magadiz, it's not that the label is missing but that the area controlled by Azerbaijani seems to be a little incorrect – can it be tweaked so that it matches File:QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg and encompasses Magadiz? I've checked and we do have a secondary source (TASS) confirming it came under Azeri control. Also, is it possible to slightly increase the size of all the labels, as they're a bit smaller than the original version? Jr8825 • Talk 15:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to point out the problems with the map of Mapeh as I view them: a) Zengilan and Qubadli are not mentioned and they are not part of Lachin. This is an interpretation or even an error. b) We dont know the extention of Kalbajar, thus chosing one of the possible district borders is a interpretation. c) (at least in the caption) No 'corridor' to Nakhchivan is mentioned in the statement nor where it would be. It mentions just transport in general and does not specify, thus a map should not show anything more specific or a interpretation of this clause. d) The Lachin-corridor should go up to Stepanakert, as it is mentioned in that way (in connection with the new road around Shush*) in the statement. e) At least in my opinion it is an interpretation to make any statements about the remaining, not mentioned areas. It may be the logical conclusion, but the agreement does not say the areas on both sides of the front stay under control of Azerbajan or Artsakh. When the aim of the map is to show the content of the agreement, it should not show anything not in the agreement. (at least if it can be understood as part of the agreement, not talking about general topography here)
About the NKAO+Shahumyan border: An alternative to switch to the NKAO border is to leave this in and change the caption to "border of declaration of independence in 1991" which would be correct. --Don-kun (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CuriousGolden, Jr8825, and Don-kun:. Here are my replies to your various comments:
  • The place names are the same size for both languages, 3,5px. In an effort to be fair, one goes first (Armenian), the other get extra emphasis (italics, Azerbaijani). I will make the labels bigger. I put both languages even when they are the same so to not have to chose between the Armenian and Azeri fonts.
  • Since 1992 the NKAO has claimed Shahumyan, hence it's inclusion in it's theoretical Artsakh-point-of-view boundaries. This was obviously never recognized by Azerbaijan, like many other elements on the map (Armenian place names as well are not official for example).
  • I will adjust the Azeri-conquered zone in both the North and the South according to errors spotted compared with QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg.
  • I will extend the Russian-guarded corridor to Stepanakert/Khankendi. The agreement doesn't specifically say to Stepanakert/Khankendi, but since it mentions Shushi, this can be inferred.
  • All sources do not include the NKAO part of Karvachar/Kalbajar district in the zone to be transfered by 15 November, so I think there isn't any issue with this.
  • The arrow of point 9 (Nakhchivan-Rest of Azeribajan transport links) could go anywhere in Armenia, including the Sout where it already is. It is a purpusfully vague arrow to show this as-yet undefined situation.
  • I don"t exactly understand point e @Don-kun:, could you explain it in a different way ?
It work on these changes now and upload a new map within an hour or two. Mapeh (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all the points are good except one. Shaumyan Province was never part of Nagorno-Karabakh. Not everything Artsakh claims is/will be part of Nagorno-Karabakh. Also, I didn't quite understand. Are you going to colour road to Stepanakert (even road which is part of NK) in same colour as Lachin? Because that can be quite confusing. NK should be one colour and Lachin different since it's not part of NK. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CuriousGolden: I can see the argument both ways for whether the former NKAO borders or borders claimed at independence should be shown, although I would personally prefer the former NKAO borders. @Don-kun: the BBC's map shows Zengilan and Qubadli as areas that Armenian troops are to withdraw from, in the same way that Mapeh's does.
I'm fine with Shaumyan being shown there as long as it's different colour/border style than former NK borders to make a distinction. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shahumyan was part of the declaration of indipendence and was under control of NK during the war in 1992. So if you phrase the caption a bit different I think this is ok.
  • I am not sure that you can trust the QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg either, I used different sources and many like the Russian map above point to that there is not that much left of NK south of the Lachin corridor.
  • More to CuriousGolden: The road up to Stepanakert is the same in Lachin and in the former NKAO, the agreement does not state otherwise.
  • The statement says Kalbajar, which could mean both possible extentions of the district. Everything else is a interpretation.
  • The arrows could be positioned better, but the main point here is the text in the caption.
  • Last point is difficult to explain. In the caption you write that some areas in the conflict zone "stay/remain under its control", be it AZ or AM. This is to be expected, but not in the agreement. This is why I used a gray hatching and a caption just saying there is no specification for this areas. --Don-kun (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

already broken/violated - new 'deal' from Trump admin.

This agreement is already a part of history. They have now signed a new agreement arranged by the Trump administration. However, some fighting is apparently still going on. But this article should be removed from ITN and 'retired.' 50.111.24.158 (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they refer to the ceasefire in late october, that was indeed broken. --Don-kun (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They said "this agreement" in a talk page about the 9 November deal. So I don't think they're talking about the late October deal. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_ceasefire_agreement&oldid=988359021"