Talk:National Assembly (Artsakh)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png

Image:Nagorno-Karabakh Coat of Arms.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC) <math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>

In exile?

The source quoted with regard to the National Assembly allegedly existing in exile talks about "factions of the National Assembly" making a collective statement; there is no indication of there being a functional body fulfilling the role of a government. The 28 September document mentions the dissolution of "all state institutions and organisations under their departmental authority" before 1 January, which includes the National Assembly. If there is indeed a government-in-exile, it is a whole different initiative. Then it becomes an advocacy group rather than a real legislative body (which by definition requires representation, deliberation, legislation, and the ability to authorise expenditure, form governments and provide oversight, and the NKR National Assembly does not currently fit this definition), which in turn warrants a separate article, provided there is enough evidence for its existence (beyond occasional statements made to the media; see, for example, East Turkistan Government in Exile). So far there is none. It even looks like the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister of Armenia denounced these claims by stating that "there is not and cannot be another government or another state in the Republic of Armenia". Parishan (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The assembly and its parliamentarians continue to carry out limited functions, in absentia, based in Yerevan. See [1], [2], [3], while this states "Since Azerbaijan's attack last year on Artsakh, which forced the entire Armenian population there to flee to Armenia, the Artsakh National Assembly has been working in exile in Armenia." And this [4] which states "Exiled leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh have pushed back against a senior Armenian official's claims that their government bodies have ceased to exist since Azerbaijan regained full control of the region last September." There is a plethora of WP:RS confirming the functionality of the assembly as a government-in-exile. Archives908 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, maybe you aren't aware, but the 28 September document has been officially nullified. See [5] and [6]. Archives908 (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Archives908 First of all, please note that this is unacceptable: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. I will have to ask you to revert yourself at this point; otherwise you will be reported for edit-warring. I am pinging you to avoid any potential miscommunication.

Carrying out "limited functions" does not mean forming a government-in-exile, especially when the supposed host country considers this activity illegal. Your arguments are unsatisfactory. OC Media, the only neutral source you have quoted, mentions "attempts to form a government-in-exile" but not its actual functionality, which is very much in line with other neutral sources:

• Eurasianet, 03.04.2024: "At a late March cabinet session, Pashinyan bluntly announced that Karabakhi leaders would not be permitted to establish a government in exile. A government statement said that “in Armenia, apart from the Government of the Republic of Armenia, no other government can exist.”"
• Centre for East European and International Studies, 04.09.2024: "The former de facto elites of Nagorno-Karabakh have attempted to create a government-in-exile. They have become a thorn in the side of the Pashinyan government and their ideas have been forcefully repudiated. The speaker of the Armenian Parliament, Alen Simonyan, stated that there can be no Karabakh state within Armenia and that Armenia will not provide money to maintain the political institutions of Karabakh."

All these sources are indicative of the fact that plans to form a government-in-exile have not come to fruition and are limited to mere claims by the interested party. I do not know what "plethora of sources" you are referring to but ironically, 90% of search results about a supposed NKR government-in-exile are news reports about the Armenian leadership slamming the idea of there existing such a government. We are talking about a legislative body, and as of now there are no serious grounds to suppose that this body carries out any legislative functions, or any functions for that matter, outside of occasional instances of local media outreach. In any case, wording it in this article as "The National Assembly of the Republic of Artsakh is the legislative branch of the government of the Republic of Artsakh" is misleading and anachronistic and does not reflect the immense changes that affected the region a year ago. That would be like saying: "The National Council of Iran the legislative branch of the government of the Imperial State of Iran". Parishan (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wrong again. The National Assembly, and its parliamentarians, have been actively operating in Armenia. From releasing official announcements and composing documents, assisting displaced persons, organizing rallies, press briefings and protests, and meeting with the leaders of the 2024 Armenian protests including several opposition party leaders, etc.. It's significantly more then just "local media outreach" as you erroneously claim.

The views of the Prime Minister and government of Armenia, do not change the fact that this body 1) still exists and 2) is functionally active. The 28 September document has been officially revoked and nullified by this very body when they proclaimed to remain active as a government-in-exile. It was signed into decree by president Samvel Shahramanyan. In many countries, dozens of governments-in-exile that are universally accepted under international law exist, whether they are supported by a centralized government or not.

Sure, this article needs more information on recent developments and also more information on how exactly this displaced legislative body operates, their organizational structure, and so on. Alternatively, a whole new article could be created centered around this government-in-exile in Yerevan, in order to differentiate the legislative body which had existed in Stepanakert. However, the topic of this discussion, based on your first comment implies that this body has dissolved and (concerningly) you relied on outdated information. Your WP:ES also suggested that this body is defunct- which is categorically untrue. Archives908 (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I tend to give priority to third-party sources over Armenian news outlets or diaspora periodicals. Furthermore, even if your sources were to be taken into account, the fact that some individuals who used to be affiliated with the National Assembly participate in rallies and show signs of political involvement does not suggest there is a parliament-in-exile. There are no grounds to believe there is a cohesive unit which functions as a legislative body and performs at least part of its regular duties. Even the website listed in the article is not functioning.

The views of the Prime Minister and government of Armenia, do not change the fact that... This goes both ways. The fact that some politically active individuals claim to run a legislative body does not mean they actually do run it. This is why we need third-party sources which not only mention that politicians from Nagorno-Karabakh are currently involved in advocacy and public outreach in Armenia but that there is a formally established political organisation which is headquartered in a given location and devotes conscious and coordinated efforts to represent its erstwhile electorate. I maintain my previous statement that the assembly is defunct and that whatever initiative that is currently in the making to replace it is a different venture.

A report from an independent German research institute from September 2024 is not outdated information and is in fact more reliable than news reports about NKR MPs participating in protests. The Asbarez article you are quoting is typically WP:NEWS because Vladimir Grigoryan, i.e. the same person who claimed that the NKR parliament had voted itself back into existence, retracted his statement just one day later, saying that he was merely expressing a personal opinion and was no longer in a position to make official statements on behalf of the NKR government. I had actually included this information in the article in my last edit; you would have perhaps noticed it if you had not chosen to go on a reverting rampage.

What is clear to me is that talks about there being a NKR government-in-exile are currently limited to claims and rumours and are not warranted to be included in this article until we decide on how to formulate them. In the meantime, since you elected to ignore my good-faith invitation to revert yourself until we reach consensus on this obviously controversial matter, you leave me no choice but to report you. You will receive the notice on your talkpage shortly. Parishan (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Archives908, I am still awaiting your response as well as your good faith revert of your edits on which there is no consensus. Parishan (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that your preferred version of the article, without much reference to the government-in-exile, may be misleading to readers. The activities of the National Assembly of Artsakh in absentia does not render the body completely defunct as you claim.

Here are some options towards reaching a WP:CON:

1) We can collaboratively draftify a new article about the Artsakh government-in-exile currently based in Yerevan and then transform this article into the previous National Assembly which existed in Stepanakert until the official dissolution date of Artsakh (1 January 2024). If you agree, I will gladly revert my edit.

2) We can update this article to differentiate the previous National Assembly in Stepanakert with the current government-in-exile. This could entail a subsection of the article being dedicated to information regarding the government-in-exile. The lead can be clarified to reflect that the physical National Assembly in Stepanakert no longer exists, while the the National Assembly has semi re-established itself in Yerevan and continues to carry out limited functions. If you agree, I will revert my edit and we can work on updating the article.

I have no preference for either of these options and I am happy to help either create a new article or revise/expand the current. However, I do wonder which option would make more sense so as not to confuse readers?

3 and 4) Other options would be to maintain the status quo until more information regarding the status of the National Assembly in Yerevan becomes clear (and we can place an update tag on the header) or if you oppose to all of these proposals, to launch an WP:RFC (which I am happy to initiate below).

I have provided four WP:GF options to resolve this and reach a consensus. If you agree to option 1 or 2, please advise how you wish to proceed (ie. draft text here for mutual review or on one of our sandboxes)? Also, if you have any recommendations beyond what I've suggested, I'm all ears. Let me know your thoughts and please make your position clear. Note I am WP:BUSY but will respond in due course. Archives908 (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and your suggestions. However, the main issue remains unresolved: your consensus proposals assume the existence of a legitimate government-in-exile as a confirmed fact, while there is no evidence to substantiate the existence of a Nagorno-Karabakh National Assembly in exile, based merely on news reports about occasional protests and press conferences. As I mentioned previously, the fact that some individuals formerly affiliated with the assembly make public statements and attend rallies does not provide sufficient grounds to claim the existence of a government-in-exile even in this very article, much less to support creating a separate article on the subject. If you recall, the idea of addressing a government-in-exile in a separate article was a suggestion of mine made in the very first message; however, I did stress that this would require serious evidence. Not every public engagement abroad means running a government.

I suggest drawing inspiration from the article Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate, which describes a church body officially dissolved by the Ukrainian government in 2018. The head of the church initially accepted the dissolution by signing the official act but later retracted his acceptance. Although the Ukrainian government upheld the original decision, the patriarch continues to assert that the church exists. Nevertheless, the article refers to this body in the past tense, indicating its disestablishment, and a separate paragraph in the body specifies that the former patriarch disagrees with the decision and continues to perform certain duties. I recommend a similar approach for the National Assembly (Artsakh) article, i.e. stating that it "was the legislative body of..." while highlighting in a separate paragraph that some members of the seventh assembly based in Armenia continue to advocate for the NKR's independence (and citing your sources), without resorting to WP:OR about a government-in-exile. Please let me know if this is an acceptable solution.

I understand that your time is limited, as it is for many of us, and I do respect that. However, since you seem to contribute actively to other articles in the meantime and were clearly available to make quite insistant edits to this one (in contrast to the views of at least three other contributors), I would like to point out that I would highly appreciate your good-faith cooperation and involvement in this discussion. Parishan (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor with some knowledge of the subject matter and having read the above discussion, in case it helps, I think Parishan is correct. It is not a government in exile in the traditional sense as things stand currently. That said, I think it would be fine to have a section in the article titled something along the lines of "Post-dissolution developments" or something similar. It is reasonable to think readers would go to this article for information on the post-2023 activities of former Artsakhi politicians. Just make sure to clearly differentiate/separate that newer content from information about the government prior to its dissolution. Hope this helps, Dan the Animator 03:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)